The api has changed a bit, so please check out the example to see the
changes.
Also note that node version 4 or greater is required here
I will probably think about doing a 1.0.0 release soon once people have had
a chance to check out the changes
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Luke Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com> wrote:
for those following along at home:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-1621
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Luke Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be good for the community to move forward and use
>> latest technology. Node 0.12 is already very old, given the current version
>> is 6.
>>
>> How about getting promisses in, and afterwards release this as a 1.0.0
>> release ?
>>
>
> i think this sounds like a plan,
>
> /me goes and creates a JIRA
>
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Luke Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello people,
>>>
>>> I think i would like to move the unifiedpush-node-sender,
>>>
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-nodejs-client , to
>>> be Promise based.
>>>
>>> Currently it uses callback pattern that many node.js packages use as
>>> well as emitting events.
>>>
>>> When i first created this 3 years ago, that was sort of the standard
>>> way of doing things, but Promises have become very popular(i know i love
>>> them :)) and have been a native feature since node 0.12.x
>>>
>>> considering we have not yet hit a 1.0.0, we can pretty much just make
>>> this change and we will be ok.
>>>
>>> If this is to big of a change all at once, we could always do both
>>> callbacks and Promises. I think we did this for Datamanager in the past.
>>>
>>> Perhaps once we fully move to promises, then we can hit a 1.0.0
>>>
>>> My only concern is other projects that might be using the sender that
>>> are not yet on node 0.12 or above, since this is when promises became
>>> native. I would really like to not have to include the polyfill.
>>>
>>> i suppose those users would need to stick to the previous versions then.
>>>
>>> anyway, would like to hear some thoughts.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Luke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Aerogear-users mailing list
>>> Aerogear-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog:
http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions:
http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter:
http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aerogear-users mailing list
>> Aerogear-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-users
>>
>>
>