[aerogear-dev] [Unified Push] Java Sender API
Matthias Wessendorf
matzew at apache.org
Tue Jun 11 04:24:14 EDT 2013
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I start looking at the repo. I have some general questions and then
>>>>> more (not that much implementation detailed ;) ) specific proposals
>>>>>
>>>>> * Is our final goal to propose an implementation that we really want
>>>>> the developers to use or is it more providing a reference implementation of
>>>>> the sender API and developer will most of the time implement their own ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The goal is, to give them a Java Utility to use to for sending. If they
>>>> want, they can still do the HTTP by hand. Ideally we have this "client" for
>>>> other platforms as well:
>>>> * Node.js, Ruby, PHP etc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * How are we going to secure the API ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once the endpoints are secured, we will leverage that on the client
>>>> side (e.g. function to specifiy the "credentials")
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * The API looks like now "fire & forget", do we plan to change that ?
>>>>>
>>>> It is fire and forget.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I can imagine that people using the sender need to have some
>>>>> "feedback/return value/response" to manage their flows ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, we do not really have much control there. Apple, for instance,
>>>> does also not really tell you: "I could not deliver the push message to Mr.
>>>> XYZ". Similar is google.
>>>> They all have "feedback" service, that's more "here is a list of
>>>> invalid device tokens". This info should NEVER be returned, from our
>>>> Sender-Endpoint.
>>>>
>>>> Other cloud providers do similar: HTTP 200 + "Thanks we got your job,
>>>> it is now being processed by our system"
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree that we don't have control between "our" systems and
>>> Google's/Apple's networks. But, between our push server and our backend
>>> server, the chance is bigger that the dev has more control.
>>>
>>
>> Not nessacarially, the PushEE could be run by the "ops department", and
>> different groups, within one company just use it to send messages.
>>
>>
>>> The thing is that the sender api now "swallow" the http status, just
>>> making the http status available for the backend app using the sender API
>>> will be a nice benefit (there could be no connection between our pushee and
>>> our backend app for instance) ...
>>>
>>
>> If PushEE is not reachable, the client would fail, and will(should:))
>> report that back. This like that (low level http), we should report back.
>> but nothing about the actual send (the communication from PushEE ->
>> PushNetworks)
>>
>
> Okay :) "and will(should:)) report that back" was just what I wanted to
> point out !
>
Ah, - OK.
>
>> -M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * You say one will go away, why is that ? Do we want to lean toward a
>>>>> single implementation ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For Java, I do not see a reason in supporting two "client". I did start
>>>> with AsyncHttpClient and RestEasy client. I was hoping to see odds/benefits
>>>> in one....
>>>> Looking at the code, I think I do prefer using the RestEasy inside of
>>>> our Java-Sender....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We could propose different ones (and in different language, like a
>>>>> vertx mod client)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> of course, but that's that's outside of the "java lib" we are talking
>>>> about here. Surely, we can have a vertx-sender, node-sender etc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, now a bit more specific :
>>>>> I've been forking your repo :
>>>>> https://github.com/sebastienblanc/ag-java-sender/tree/refactoring
>>>>>
>>>>> To factor more code and make the sender API really unit testable
>>>>> (running without any server) I've moved a bit things and introduced a sort
>>>>> of Client interface that will implement really the http client we will use,
>>>>> this client is then injected in the sender interface.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that is nice. The project is simple now, and was written while I was
>>>> hacking the sender endpoints - that way I could avoid sending lot's of
>>>> CURLs ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> With Arquillian should be easy to add real integration tests.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sounds good
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's discuss !
>>>>> Sebi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <
>>>>> matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a FIRST version of the Java Sender API is ready:
>>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two implementations, based on different Java HTTP clients:
>>>>>> * RestEasy:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/blob/master/src/main/java/org/aerogear/unifiedpush/resteasy/RestEasyJavaSender.java
>>>>>> * AsyncHttpClient:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/blob/master/src/main/java/org/aerogear/unifiedpush/async/AsyncJavaSender.java
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One will go away, time will tell... not important now...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tests:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/tree/master/src/test/java/org/aerogear/unifiedpush
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More functionality (e.g. selective send for deviceType,
>>>>>> MobileVariant) will follow, hand in hand with the matching endpoints
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130611/5972eeb2/attachment.html
More information about the aerogear-dev
mailing list