[aerogear-dev] Android keys (Re: AeroGear Push Message Format)
Summers Pittman
supittma at redhat.com
Tue Jun 18 11:25:44 EDT 2013
On 06/18/2013 10:55 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com
> <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 06/18/2013 10:46 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Daniel Passos <daniel at passos.me
>> <mailto:daniel at passos.me>> wrote:
>>
>> We don't have special words on Android, but we can use the
>> same of iOS and shoot the same behaviors. wdyt?
>>
>>
>> Like you did on the PR, for "alert", right ?
>>
>> I personally do like that very much
>>
> So Android doesn't define any specific "keys".
>
>
> awesome, even better.
>
> Forget what I was asking :)
>
>
> Are you asking for some generic "keys" which pushee and ag-android
> will "natively" support?
>
>
>
> I like what you guys did for "alert", on Android :) That would be
> cool, I think :)
>
> https://github.com/danielpassos/aerogear-android/blob/push/src/org/jboss/aerogear/android/unifiedpush/AGPushMessageReceiver.java#L46
>
Ahhh. We moved that out to an interface the user can implement :)
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
>> <matzew at apache.org <mailto:matzew at apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Summers, Passos,
>>
>>
>> wondering if we should/could honor "android" specific
>> keys as well (similar to the iOS keys that we "honor")
>>
>> See:
>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/master/docs/specs/aerogear-push-messages/index.markdown#ios-special-keys
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Matthias Wessendorf
>> <matzew at apache.org <mailto:matzew at apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> reminder, that ID is just the primary key :-)
>>
>> meaningful are "pushApplicationID" and "variantID"
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthias Wessendorf
>> <matzew at apache.org <mailto:matzew at apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Luke
>>
>> once this landed, it will be "pushApplicationID"
>> and "variantID" - the ID is than meaningless (at
>> least for PushEE server).
>>
>> -M
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Lucas Holmquist
>> <lholmqui at redhat.com
>> <mailto:lholmqui at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> plus plus
>>
>> On May 31, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Matthias
>> Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org
>> <mailto:matzew at apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-86
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Luke
>>> Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com
>>> <mailto:lholmqui at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On May 31, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Matthias
>>> Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org
>>> <mailto:matzew at apache.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> somehow the device needs to say: "I
>>>> belong to android variant"
>>>>
>>>> besides the @Id /PK, we can have a
>>>> second field / column that represents:
>>>> * PushAppID
>>>> * VariantID
>>>>
>>> Yup. Having these would solve that
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was that your question?
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013, Lucas
>>>> Holmquist wrote:
>>>>
>>>> something that i was thinking about
>>>> after doing some examples is that
>>>> i'm not sure how i feel about using
>>>> the PK's of each table as the
>>>> identifier to register/broadcast
>>>> clients.
>>>>
>>>> We are sort of giving meaning to
>>>> data that really shouldn't have
>>>> meaning. it should really only be
>>>> used to identify the row. It might
>>>> be better to have another key on
>>>> each table/object that is the
>>>> identifier.
>>>>
>>>> So in one of the examples i did,
>>>> the app on the device will
>>>> register the device with the push
>>>> server, but i needed to also
>>>> include the id of the variant instance
>>>>
>>>> i guess i'm thinking if someone
>>>> migrates their database, these
>>>> keys could get messed up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> wdyt?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2013, at 2:53 AM,
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>> <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM,
>>>>> Corinne Krych
>>>>> <corinnekrych at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> in selective push is:
>>>>> ==> variant: iOS + alias:
>>>>> mwessendorf
>>>>> a valid criteria too?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yes. let me update the related doc(s)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28 May 2013 08:51, Corinne
>>>>> Krych <corinnekrych at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28 May 2013 08:48,
>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>> <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> TYPO:
>>>>> ==> variant: iOS
>>>>> (since a PushAPP
>>>>> _might_ have only one
>>>>> iOS variant) +
>>>>> deviceType:iPadMini +
>>>>> alias: mwessendorf
>>>>> or
>>>>> ==> variant: iOS
>>>>> (since a PushAPP
>>>>> _might_ have only one
>>>>> iOS variant) +
>>>>> deviceType:iPhone +
>>>>> alias: mwessendorf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013
>>>>> at 8:43 AM, Matthias
>>>>> Wessendorf
>>>>> <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 28,
>>>>> 2013 at 12:00 AM,
>>>>> Corinne Krych
>>>>> <corinnekrych at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When doing
>>>>> selective push
>>>>> query, is
>>>>> there any
>>>>> overlap
>>>>> between mobile
>>>>> variant (which
>>>>> I understand
>>>>> like mobile
>>>>> type which
>>>>> contains
>>>>> certificates)
>>>>> and device type?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> MobileVariant (or
>>>>> call it type) is
>>>>> something like
>>>>> "Android", or "iOS".
>>>>> deviceTypes would
>>>>> be iPad, iPod,
>>>>> iPhone, iWatch :)
>>>>> - or "Android
>>>>> Table", "Andrpid
>>>>> phone", android
>>>>> what not
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.... ideally
>>>>> there are several
>>>>> variants:
>>>>> - iOS iPhone
>>>>> 5 optimised app in
>>>>> the app store
>>>>> - iOS iPhone 4s
>>>>> optimised app in
>>>>> the app store
>>>>> - iOS iPhone 3
>>>>> optimised app in
>>>>> the app store
>>>>> - iOS iPad mini
>>>>> optimised app in
>>>>> the app store
>>>>> etc :)
>>>>>
>>>>> But, if there is
>>>>> only one variant,
>>>>> it's totally valid
>>>>> to install an iOS
>>>>> application (from
>>>>> the appstore), on
>>>>> an iPad and an iPhone;
>>>>>
>>>>> Both aimed at
>>>>> defining
>>>>> categories.
>>>>> Are those
>>>>> categories
>>>>> defined and
>>>>> fixed in the
>>>>> spec or can
>>>>> they be extended?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand
>>>>> categories, here
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we do a
>>>>> selective push
>>>>> based on
>>>>> mobileType=mobile
>>>>> variant and
>>>>> alias=john at gmail?
>>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130618/65bb1ec8/attachment-0001.html
More information about the aerogear-dev
mailing list