On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: > Hi, > I was looking at our current Push Message Format[1] and I was wonderimg > if you should not add some more structure to it, decoupling config, > criterias and the message itself : > > > { > "config" : { > > "ttl" : 3600, > "content-available" : true, > > "simple-push": "version=123" > > }, > "criteria" : { > > "alias" : [&quot;user(a)account.com&quot;, &quot;someone(a)aerogear.org&quot;, ....], > > "categories" : ["someCategory", "otherCategory"], > > "deviceType" : ["iPad", "AndroidTablet"], > > "variants" : ["c3f0a94f-48de-4b77-a08e-68114460857e", "444939cd-ae63-4ce1-96a4-de74b77e3737"] > > } > , > "message": { > "alert":"HELLO!", > "sound":"default", > "badge":7, > > "someKey":"some value", > > "anotherCustomKey":"some other value" > > }, > } > > wdyt ? > > interesting idea - it looks better structured. Regarding "simple-push": "version=123", I'd vote this not to be part of the 'configuration' section, it's the actual message/payload for SP

-M > Sebi > > > [1]http://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-push-messages/ > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

here is the current format for comparison https://gist.github.com/lholmquist/8915817 +1 to being more structured. one thing though, in the current format, simplePush is not part of the message, but it's own thing

On Feb 9, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt;wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: > >> Hi, >> I was looking at our current Push Message Format[1] and I was wonderimg >> if you should not add some more structure to it, decoupling config, >> criterias and the message itself : >> >> >> { >> "config" : { >> >> "ttl" : 3600, >> "content-available" : true, >> >> >> "simple-push": "version=123" >> >> }, >> "criteria" : { >> >> "alias" : [&quot;user(a)account.com&quot;, &quot;someone(a)aerogear.org&quot;, ....], >> >> >> "categories" : ["someCategory", "otherCategory"], >> >> >> "deviceType" : ["iPad", "AndroidTablet"], >> >> >> "variants" : ["c3f0a94f-48de-4b77-a08e-68114460857e", "444939cd-ae63-4ce1-96a4-de74b77e3737"] >> >> >> } >> , >> "message": { >> "alert":"HELLO!", >> "sound":"default", >> "badge":7, >> >> "someKey":"some value", >> >> "anotherCustomKey":"some other value" >> >> }, >> } >> >> wdyt ? >> >> > interesting idea - it looks better structured. > > Regarding "simple-push": "version=123", I'd vote this not to be part of > the 'configuration' section, it's the actual message/payload for SP > Right ! here the updated gist https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/8897596 > > > -M > > >> Sebi >> >> >> >> [1]http://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-push-messages/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Monday, February 10, 2014, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >> here is the current format for comparison >> >> https://gist.github.com/lholmquist/8915817 >> >> +1 to being more structured. >> >> one thing though, in the current format, simplePush is not part of the >> message, but it's own thing >> > Yeah, that's why I put it in the config section in my first version but > Matzew suggested it was more part of the message payload > Nope to config; should stay its own, does not (IMO) make sense to include in tve message for richer platforms like Android/iOS > > On Feb 9, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > Hi, > I was looking at our current Push Message Format[1] and I was wonderimg > if you should not add some more structure to it, decoupling config, > criterias and the message itself : > > > { > "config" : { > > "ttl" : 3600, > "content-available" : true, > > > > > "simple-push": "version=123" > > }, > "criteria" : { > > "alias" : [&quot;user(a)account.com&quot;, &quot;someone(a)aerogear.org&quot;, ....], > > > > > "categories" : ["someCategory", "otherCategory"], > > > > > "deviceType" : ["iPad", "AndroidTablet"], > > > > > "variants" : ["c3f0a94f-48de-4b77-a08e-68114460857e", "444939cd-ae63-4ce1-96a4-de74b77e3737"] > > > > > } > , > "message": { > "alert":"HELLO!", > "sound":"default", > "badge":7, > > "someKey":"some value", > > "anotherCustomKey":"some other value" > > }, > } > > wdyt ? > > > interesting idea - it looks better structured. > > Re > > > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

Here a first question : Do we want to change also how the Java Sender construct its message ?

Now we have a "plain" builder pattern, do we want now message.criteria.alias("fdfd") ? I'm not sure Sebi On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hi, Since the API Version PR [1] has been merged we can start the work on AGPUSH-534 to change the format of the Push message. There has been some discussions on this thread and this gist https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/8897596 Just want to be sure everyone is okay or have remarks before starting implementing this. Questions ? Sebi [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/394 [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-534 On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: On Monday, February 10, 2014, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: here is the current format for comparison https://gist.github.com/lholmquist/8915817 +1 to being more structured. one thing though, in the current format, simplePush is not part of the message, but it's own thing Yeah, that's why I put it in the config section in my first version but Matzew suggested it was more part of the message payload Nope to config; should stay its own, does not (IMO) make sense to include in tve message for richer platforms like Android/iOS On Feb 9, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, > I was looking at our current Push Message Format[1] and I was wonderimg if you should not add some more structure to it, decoupling config, criterias and the message itself : > > > > { > "config" : { > > > "ttl" : 3600, > "content-available" : true, > > > > > > > "simple-push": "version=123" > > > }, > "criteria" : { > > > "alias" : [&quot;user(a)account.com&quot;, &quot;someone(a)aerogear.org&quot;, ....], > > > > > > > "categories" : ["someCategory", "otherCategory"], > > > > > > > "deviceType" : ["iPad", "AndroidTablet"], > > > > > > > "variants" : ["c3f0a94f-48de-4b77-a08e-68114460857e", "444939cd-ae63-4ce1-96a4-de74b77e3737"] > > > > > > > } > , > "message": { > > "alert":"HELLO!", > > "sound":"default", > > "badge":7, > > > "someKey":"some value", > > > "anotherCustomKey":"some other value" > > > }, > > } > > > wdyt ? > > interesting idea - it looks better structured. > > Re -- Sent from Gmail Mobile _______________________________________________ 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

Hi ! Since the UPS has its PR now [1], any comment on my question here below ? TLDR : Do we want to keep the same builder API (and just change the json send to UPS) ?

Sebi [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/411 On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Here a first question : > Do we want to change also how the Java Sender construct its message ? > Now we have a "plain" builder pattern, do we want now > message.criteria.alias("fdfd") ? > I'm not sure > Sebi > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Since the API Version PR [1] has been merged we can start the work on >> AGPUSH-534 to change the format of the Push message. There has been some >> discussions on this thread and this gist >> https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/8897596 >> Just want to be sure everyone is okay or have remarks before starting >> implementing this. >> >> Questions ? >> >> Sebi >> >> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/394 >> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-534 >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, February 10, 2014, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> here is the current format for comparison >>>>> >>>>> https://gist.github.com/lholmquist/8915817 >>>>> >>>>> +1 to being more structured. >>>>> >>>>> one thing though, in the current format, simplePush is not part of >>>>> the message, but it's own thing >>>>> >>>> Yeah, that's why I put it in the config section in my first version >>>> but Matzew suggested it was more part of the message payload >>>> >>> >>> >>> Nope to config; should stay its own, does not (IMO) make sense to >>> include in tve message for richer platforms like Android/iOS >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I was looking at our current Push Message Format[1] and I was >>>> wonderimg if you should not add some more structure to it, decoupling >>>> config, criterias and the message itself : >>>> >>>> >>>> { >>>> "config" : { >>>> >>>> "ttl" : 3600, >>>> "content-available" : true, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "simple-push": "version=123" >>>> >>>> }, >>>> "criteria" : { >>>> >>>> "alias" : [&quot;user(a)account.com&quot;, &quot;someone(a)aerogear.org&quot;, ....], >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "categories" : ["someCategory", "otherCategory"], >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "deviceType" : ["iPad", "AndroidTablet"], >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "variants" : ["c3f0a94f-48de-4b77-a08e-68114460857e", "444939cd-ae63-4ce1-96a4-de74b77e3737"] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> } >>>> , >>>> "message": { >>>> "alert":"HELLO!", >>>> "sound":"default", >>>> "badge":7, >>>> >>>> "someKey":"some value", >>>> >>>> "anotherCustomKey":"some other value" >>>> >>>> }, >>>> } >>>> >>>> wdyt ? >>>> >>>> >>>> interesting idea - it looks better structured. >>>> >>>> Re >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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

Ok, so we should expose a more "rich" builder API ?

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> Hi ! >> Since the UPS has its PR now [1], any comment on my question here below >> ? TLDR : Do we want to keep the same builder API (and just change the json >> send to UPS) ? >> > > oh, you mean the JAva-Sender API? Hrm.... I think, we can (or should?) > update it. makes sense to have a sender 1.1.x, on master :) while keeping > the "old" on 1.0.x branch > > >> >> Sebi >> >> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/411 >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Here a first question : >>> Do we want to change also how the Java Sender construct its message ? >>> Now we have a "plain" builder pattern, do we want now >>> message.criteria.alias("fdfd") ? >>> I'm not sure >>> Sebi >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Since the API Version PR [1] has been merged we can start the work on >>>> AGPUSH-534 to change the format of the Push message. There has been some >>>> discussions on this thread and this gist >>>> https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/8897596 >>>> Just want to be sure everyone is okay or have remarks before starting >>>> implementing this. >>>> >>>> Questions ? >>>> >>>> Sebi >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/394 >>>> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-534 >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>> matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, February 10, 2014, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lucas Holmquist < >>>>>> lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> here is the current format for comparison >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/lholmquist/8915817 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 to being more structured. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one thing though, in the current format, simplePush is not part of >>>>>>> the message, but it's own thing >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, that's why I put it in the config section in my first version >>>>>> but Matzew suggested it was more part of the message payload >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope to config; should stay its own, does not (IMO) make sense to >>>>> include in tve message for richer platforms like Android/iOS >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>>>> matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc < >>>>>> scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> I was looking at our current Push Message Format[1] and I was >>>>>> wonderimg if you should not add some more structure to it, decoupling >>>>>> config, criterias and the message itself : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> { >>>>>> "config" : { >>>>>> >>>>>> "ttl" : 3600, >>>>>> "content-available" : true, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "simple-push": "version=123" >>>>>> >>>>>> }, >>>>>> "criteria" : { >>>>>> >>>>>> "alias" : [&quot;user(a)account.com&quot;, &quot;someone(a)aerogear.org&quot;, ....], >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "categories" : ["someCategory", "otherCategory"], >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "deviceType" : ["iPad", "AndroidTablet"], >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "variants" : ["c3f0a94f-48de-4b77-a08e-68114460857e", "444939cd-ae63-4ce1-96a4-de74b77e3737"] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> } >>>>>> , >>>>>> "message": { >>>>>> "alert":"HELLO!", >>>>>> "sound":"default", >>>>>> "badge":7, >>>>>> >>>>>> "someKey":"some value", >>>>>> >>>>>> "anotherCustomKey":"some other value" >>>>>> >>>>>> }, >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> wdyt ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> interesting idea - it looks better structured. >>>>>> >>>>>> Re >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > _______________________________________________ > 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 looking at the original proposal in this thread:

Ok let me propose an approach on a PR and then we can discuss that. On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> Ok, so we should expose a more "rich" builder API ? >> > > yeah, perhaps - I have no concrete feeling on the API at the moment. > I think it would be nice to revisit the Java-Sender for the 1.1.x UPS > version. > > If something better comes out -> nice(); > > > >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi ! >>>> Since the UPS has its PR now [1], any comment on my question here >>>> below ? TLDR : Do we want to keep the same builder API (and just change the >>>> json send to UPS) ? >>>> >>> >>> oh, you mean the JAva-Sender API? Hrm.... I think, we can (or should?) >>> update it. makes sense to have a sender 1.1.x, on master :) while keeping >>> the "old" on 1.0.x branch >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Sebi >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/411 >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Here a first question : >>>>> Do we want to change also how the Java Sender construct its message ? >>>>> Now we have a "plain" builder pattern, do we want now >>>>> message.criteria.alias("fdfd") ? >>>>> I'm not sure >>>>> Sebi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Since the API Version PR [1] has been merged we can start the work >>>>>> on AGPUSH-534 to change the format of the Push message. There has been some >>>>>> discussions on this thread and this gist >>>>>> https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/8897596 >>>>>> Just want to be sure everyone is okay or have remarks before >>>>>> starting implementing this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Questions ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebi >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/394 >>>>>> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-534 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>>>> matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, February 10, 2014, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lucas Holmquist < >>>>>>>> lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> here is the current format for comparison >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/lholmquist/8915817 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 to being more structured. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> one thing though, in the current format, simplePush is not part >>>>>>>>> of the message, but it's own thing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, that's why I put it in the config section in my first >>>>>>>> version but Matzew suggested it was more part of the message payload >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope to config; should stay its own, does not (IMO) make sense to >>>>>>> include in tve message for richer platforms like Android/iOS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>>>>>> matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc < >>>>>>>> scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> I was looking at our current Push Message Format[1] and I was >>>>>>>> wonderimg if you should not add some more structure to it, decoupling >>>>>>>> config, criterias and the message itself : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> "config" : { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "ttl" : 3600, >>>>>>>> "content-available" : true, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "simple-push": "version=123" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> }, >>>>>>>> "criteria" : { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "alias" : [&quot;user(a)account.com&quot;, &quot;someone(a)aerogear.org&quot;, ....], >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "categories" : ["someCategory", "otherCategory"], >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "deviceType" : ["iPad", "AndroidTablet"], >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "variants" : ["c3f0a94f-48de-4b77-a08e-68114460857e", "444939cd-ae63-4ce1-96a4-de74b77e3737"] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>> "message": { >>>>>>>> "alert":"HELLO!", >>>>>>>> "sound":"default", >>>>>>>> "badge":7, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "someKey":"some value", >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "anotherCustomKey":"some other value" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> }, >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wdyt ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> interesting idea - it looks better structured. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Re >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matthias Wessendorf >>> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > _______________________________________________ > 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