Hey Luke, ad) Variants it would be ideal if we could just use the same variant!

ad) Compatibility I would say we should preserve the compatibility with 1.x as long as it does not make much efforts to keep both supported. If it would be too much hassle, let's remove it in 1.1. Chrome is updated pro-actively anyway, so no one will hear about the old API in few months.

Cheers, ~ Lukas On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hello, now that the 1.0.0-final is pretty much out for the UnifiedPush Server, i’m starting to look at the new API that Chrome apps use for sending push notifications. the TL;DR of it is, it’s basically the same as Android now.( no more refresh tokens and access tokens and such ) So the question is, do we need to have a deprecation period on what is currently there? The v1 of the chrome pushMessaging api has become legacy and it is recommended to use the new stuff. https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1 While i have looked to deeply, it’s possible we can use the same “Variant” structure for Chrome Apps, Since they will be using the same Network wdyt? -Luke _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hello, now that the 1.0.0-final is pretty much out for the UnifiedPush Server, i’m starting to look at the new API that Chrome apps use for sending push notifications. the TL;DR of it is, it’s basically the same as Android now.( no more refresh tokens and access tokens and such ) Maybe stupid and totally undoable but could we not use the current Android infra in UPS also for Chrome Apps, is there any difference ? In this case we could have a variant type "GCM" (just renaming the android type) , a Chrome App Variant will then just be a of the type GCM like an Android variant.

So the question is, do we need to have a deprecation period on what is currently there? The v1 of the chrome pushMessaging api has become legacy and it is recommended to use the new stuff. https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1 While i have looked to deeply, it’s possible we can use the same “Variant” structure for Chrome Apps, Since they will be using the same Network wdyt? -Luke _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 27 août 2014 à 20:52, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; a écrit : > > On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> Hello, >> >> now that the 1.0.0-final is pretty much out for the UnifiedPush Server, i’m starting to look at the new API that Chrome apps use for sending push notifications. >> >> the TL;DR of it is, it’s basically the same as Android now.( no more refresh tokens and access tokens and such ) >> >> Maybe stupid and totally undoable but could we not use the current Android infra in UPS also for Chrome Apps, is there any difference ? In this case we could have a variant type "GCM" (just renaming the android type) , a Chrome App Variant will then just be a of the type GCM like an Android variant. > > I just ran a quick test using an android variant as a "chrome app”, and all worked perfectly. was able to register with AeroGear.js to the UPS and get sent a push notification to my chrome app. > > no code changes needed on the UPS side of things!! > > > We might want to rename the Android Variant to GCM or something similar similar since the network is now used for both types of applications. > > This will probably also be the same thing when adding Safari Push notifications since it also uses APN’s, although there are some slight differences > > > So, really, some one can use the new Chrome API stuff today with the UPS, they just need to create an Android Variant Awesome ! Now we are even more unified and this for free :) > >> >> >> So the question is, do we need to have a deprecation period on what is currently there? >> >> The v1 of the chrome pushMessaging api has become legacy and it is recommended to use the new stuff. https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1 >> >> While i have looked to deeply, it’s possible we can use the same “Variant” structure for Chrome Apps, Since they will be using the same Network >> >> wdyt? >> >> -Luke >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

From the UI perspective, Android/Chrome merge has few options:

So to follow up on this, Chrome Packaged Applications, no recommend to use the same GCM network for Android when sending push notifications. Currently in the UnifiedPush Server, a user can use the Android variant to use this new API now. I think we should rename the AndroidVariant.class and related stuff to GCMVariant . I created this Task to track the changes, https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928 since we need to deprecate the current Chrome implementation and update the UI’s for the new way. i’m wondering for the “Create Variant” dialog, for Android, we would need to change the name to GCM, but for the icon’s i wonder how it would look to put both Android and Chrome icons, side by side On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hey Luke, ad) Variants it would be ideal if we could just use the same variant! yea, it’s looking like it will be the same thing, we might just have to make a note of it on the UI ad) Compatibility I would say we should preserve the compatibility with 1.x as long as it does not make much efforts to keep both supported. If it would be too much hassle, let's remove it in 1.1. Chrome is updated pro-actively anyway, so no one will hear about the old API in few months. exactly, so maybe a warning or something Cheers, ~ Lukas On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hello, > > now that the 1.0.0-final is pretty much out for the UnifiedPush Server, > i’m starting to look at the new API that Chrome apps use for sending push > notifications. > > the TL;DR of it is, it’s basically the same as Android now.( no more > refresh tokens and access tokens and such ) > > So the question is, do we need to have a deprecation period on what is > currently there? > > The v1 of the chrome pushMessaging api has become legacy and it is > recommended to use the new stuff. > https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1 > > While i have looked to deeply, it’s possible we can use the same > “Variant” structure for Chrome Apps, Since they will be using the same > Network > > wdyt? > > -Luke > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

Looks like there is a gcm logo but it is not really nice and I can not find it with a decent resolution [image: logo.png] Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 3 sept. 2014 à 21:32, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit : From the UI perspective, Android/Chrome merge has few options: 1. merged half-Android / half-Chrome logo (+ "Android / Chrome" as a description) 2. use one radio button, but two rows with two logos (Android, Chrome) 3. use Google logo ("G"? [1]) (and "Google Cloud Messaging" description) Anyway, in any case it won't be as nice and polished as it is now. :-) [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=g+google&source=lnms&tbm=isch&... On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > So to follow up on this, > > > Chrome Packaged Applications, no recommend to use the same GCM network > for Android when sending push notifications. > > Currently in the UnifiedPush Server, a user can use the Android variant > to use this new API now. > > I think we should rename the AndroidVariant.class and related stuff to > GCMVariant . > > I created this Task to track the changes, > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928 since we need to deprecate > the current Chrome implementation and update the UI’s for the new way. > > i’m wondering for the “Create Variant” dialog, for Android, we would > need to change the name to GCM, but for the icon’s i wonder how it would > look to put both Android and Chrome icons, side by side > > > On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > Hey Luke, > > ad) Variants > > it would be ideal if we could just use the same variant! > > > yea, it’s looking like it will be the same thing, we might just have to > make a note of it on the UI > > > > ad) Compatibility > > I would say we should preserve the compatibility with 1.x as long as it > does not make much efforts to keep both supported. > > > If it would be too much hassle, let's remove it in 1.1. > Chrome is updated pro-actively anyway, so no one will hear about the old > API in few months. > > > exactly, so maybe a warning or something > > > > Cheers, > > ~ Lukas > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> now that the 1.0.0-final is pretty much out for the UnifiedPush Server, >> i’m starting to look at the new API that Chrome apps use for sending push >> notifications. >> >> the TL;DR of it is, it’s basically the same as Android now.( no more >> refresh tokens and access tokens and such ) >> >> So the question is, do we need to have a deprecation period on what is >> currently there? >> >> The v1 of the chrome pushMessaging api has become legacy and it is >> recommended to use the new stuff. >> https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1 >> >> While i have looked to deeply, it’s possible we can use the same >> “Variant” structure for Chrome Apps, Since they will be using the same >> Network >> >> wdyt? >> >> -Luke >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

On Feb 2, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hi, Just bumping up this thread since https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/483 <https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/483> has been merged . Do we still plan to change also the wording/flow for the now called variant "Android" ? To something like GCM ? (Check this thread) Is this the related jira https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928 <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928> ?

Sebi On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Daniel Passos <daniel(a)passos.me <mailto:daniel@passos.me>> wrote: +1 to GCM logo On Sep 3, 2014 5:28 PM, "Sébastien Blanc" <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com <mailto:scm.blanc@gmail.com>> wrote: Looks like there is a gcm logo but it is not really nice and I can not find it with a decent resolution <logo.png> Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 3 sept. 2014 à 21:32, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com <mailto:lukas.fryc@gmail.com>> a écrit : > From the UI perspective, Android/Chrome merge has few options: > > 1. merged half-Android / half-Chrome logo (+ "Android / Chrome" as a description) > > 2. use one radio button, but two rows with two logos (Android, Chrome) > > 3. use Google logo ("G"? [1]) (and "Google Cloud Messaging" description) > > > Anyway, in any case it won't be as nice and polished as it is now. :-) > > > [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=g+google&source=lnms&tbm=isch&... <https://www.google.com/search?q=g+google&source=lnms&tbm=isch&... > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: > So to follow up on this, > > > Chrome Packaged Applications, no recommend to use the same GCM network for Android when sending push notifications. > > Currently in the UnifiedPush Server, a user can use the Android variant to use this new API now. > > I think we should rename the AndroidVariant.class and related stuff to GCMVariant . > > I created this Task to track the changes, https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928 <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928> since we need to deprecate the current Chrome implementation and update the UI’s for the new way. > > i’m wondering for the “Create Variant” dialog, for Android, we would need to change the name to GCM, but for the icon’s i wonder how it would look to put both Android and Chrome icons, side by side > > > On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com <mailto:lukas.fryc@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> Hey Luke, >>> >>> ad) Variants >>> >>> it would be ideal if we could just use the same variant! >> >> yea, it’s looking like it will be the same thing, we might just have to make a note of it on the UI >>> >>> >>> ad) Compatibility >>> >>> I would say we should preserve the compatibility with 1.x as long as it does not make much efforts to keep both supported. >>> >>> If it would be too much hassle, let's remove it in 1.1. >>> Chrome is updated pro-actively anyway, so no one will hear about the old API in few months. >> >> exactly, so maybe a warning or something >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> ~ Lukas >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> now that the 1.0.0-final is pretty much out for the UnifiedPush Server, i’m starting to look at the new API that Chrome apps use for sending push notifications. >>> >>> the TL;DR of it is, it’s basically the same as Android now.( no more refresh tokens and access tokens and such ) >>> >>> So the question is, do we need to have a deprecation period on what is currently there? >>> >>> The v1 of the chrome pushMessaging api has become legacy and it is recommended to use the new stuff. https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1 <https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1> >>> >>> While i have looked to deeply, it’s possible we can use the same “Variant” structure for Chrome Apps, Since they will be using the same Network >>> >>> wdyt? >>> >>> -Luke >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

On Feb 2, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Sébastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2 févr. 2015 à 16:28, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> a écrit : > >> On Feb 2, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com <mailto:scm.blanc@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Just bumping up this thread since https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/483 <https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/483> has been merged . >> Do we still plan to change also the wording/flow for the now called variant "Android" ? To something like GCM ? (Check this thread) >> Is this the related jira https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928 <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928> ? > > Me and matzew discussed this a bit and i think it no longer makes sense to change it. I think the effort to change this and migrate is not worth it. Make sense. Same for APNs with Safari/macOS I presume ?

> > > > > >> >> Sebi >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Daniel Passos <daniel(a)passos.me <mailto:daniel@passos.me>> wrote: >> +1 to GCM logo >> >> On Sep 3, 2014 5:28 PM, "Sébastien Blanc" <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com <mailto:scm.blanc@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Looks like there is a gcm logo but it is not really nice and I can not find it with a decent resolution >> <logo.png> >> >> Envoyé de mon iPhone >> >> Le 3 sept. 2014 à 21:32, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com <mailto:lukas.fryc@gmail.com>> a écrit : >> >>> From the UI perspective, Android/Chrome merge has few options: >>> >>> 1. merged half-Android / half-Chrome logo (+ "Android / Chrome" as a description) >>> >>> 2. use one radio button, but two rows with two logos (Android, Chrome) >>> >>> 3. use Google logo ("G"? [1]) (and "Google Cloud Messaging" description) >>> >>> >>> Anyway, in any case it won't be as nice and polished as it is now. :-) >>> >>> >>> [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=g+google&source=lnms&tbm=isch&... <https://www.google.com/search?q=g+google&source=lnms&tbm=isch&... >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> So to follow up on this, >>> >>> >>> Chrome Packaged Applications, no recommend to use the same GCM network for Android when sending push notifications. >>> >>> Currently in the UnifiedPush Server, a user can use the Android variant to use this new API now. >>> >>> I think we should rename the AndroidVariant.class and related stuff to GCMVariant . >>> >>> I created this Task to track the changes, https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928 <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928> since we need to deprecate the current Chrome implementation and update the UI’s for the new way. >>> >>> i’m wondering for the “Create Variant” dialog, for Android, we would need to change the name to GCM, but for the icon’s i wonder how it would look to put both Android and Chrome icons, side by side >>> >>> >>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com <mailto:lukas.fryc@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey Luke, >>>>> >>>>> ad) Variants >>>>> >>>>> it would be ideal if we could just use the same variant! >>>> >>>> yea, it’s looking like it will be the same thing, we might just have to make a note of it on the UI >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ad) Compatibility >>>>> >>>>> I would say we should preserve the compatibility with 1.x as long as it does not make much efforts to keep both supported. >>>>> >>>>> If it would be too much hassle, let's remove it in 1.1. >>>>> Chrome is updated pro-actively anyway, so no one will hear about the old API in few months. >>>> >>>> exactly, so maybe a warning or something >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> ~ Lukas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> now that the 1.0.0-final is pretty much out for the UnifiedPush Server, i’m starting to look at the new API that Chrome apps use for sending push notifications. >>>>> >>>>> the TL;DR of it is, it’s basically the same as Android now.( no more refresh tokens and access tokens and such ) >>>>> >>>>> So the question is, do we need to have a deprecation period on what is currently there? >>>>> >>>>> The v1 of the chrome pushMessaging api has become legacy and it is recommended to use the new stuff. https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1 <https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1> >>>>> >>>>> While i have looked to deeply, it’s possible we can use the same “Variant” structure for Chrome Apps, Since they will be using the same Network >>>>> >>>>> wdyt? >>>>> >>>>> -Luke >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev> > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>________________... aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>