[aerogear-dev] WebSocket and AeroGear ?

[Jay Balunas]

This is similar to what I was thinking as well.  

There are two main types of push; native & non-native, but I don't like those designations.  It is really more like "live" & "background" push, referring to the state of the client.

Live push == Application is open, and active on the client.  Push msgs are routed to the application via more traditional long/short polling, websockets, etc...

Background push == Application is closed, and not active on the client.  Regular live push messages are not possible.  The only way to communicate is via APN, GC native messaging (sorry web apps - no love).

In an ideal world there would be no difference to the application developer using AeroGear API's (client or server).  The server-side would know what clients are available, and the clients would be listening automatically.  Sending a message would be agnostic for the server-side.

Unfortunately this can not "fully" be the case as background/native messages have limitations on the content, client support, and delivery mechanisms.  So I think the best we can do is setup a "smart" message system that gets you pretty close with good fallback api's and checks for what sort of messages are possible, or configured.  

Make sense, or is this just a big ramble? :-)

-Jay

On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:

> well,
> 
> the idea is to have a wrapper/hook for "push notification" (e.g. APN)
> in the notifier as well:
> * receiving 'native push' events, when the app is offline (inactive,
> not watching the tab/window)
> 
> If an app is offline, you simple can't receive a websocket frame/msg.
> So push is needed to tell AG that is needs to fetch data for sync etc.
> 
> -Matthias
> 
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Burr Sutter <bsutter at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I am concerned about the words "push" and "notifier" as those can become confused with real "push notifications" which we will have to have a client API for in the future.
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 3, 2012, at 2:46 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>> 
>>> any further comments?
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> yesterday some folks of the team meet, to talk about WebSocket - more
>>>> generally (HTML5) connectivity.
>>>> 
>>>> Here is a write-up from the meeting:
>>>> https://gist.github.com/dd6e3c2da08830776996
>>>> 
>>>> Feedback and comments are welcome - Please use the comment function on
>>>> that gist!
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Matthias
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>> 
>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>> 
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at 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