[aerogear-dev] Modularization and Push

[Miguel Lemos]

That's not the experience we have... There are hundreds (thousands?) of
posts about this matter. There are several strategies to keep the processor
alive to do its work and Android (using GCM) minimizes the overload, it's
more or less a consensual idea. You'll find in the Internet several
articles about this too.



On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com> wrote:

>  On 04/01/2014 09:22 AM, Miguel Lemos wrote:
>
> ?! I can do it worse: uninstall the app because it drains the battery.
>
> Push messages don't drain the battery that much.  They all come in over
> the GCM socket which is refresh every 15 minutes or so.
>
> Keeping an open socket doesn't drain the battery that badly.  IN a
> (contrived) experiment I had a socket which sent a packet every 5 minutes
> to the device.  Over the course of 5 hours the app didn't even register on
> things which had drained the battery.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com>wrote:
>
>> On 03/31/2014 02:03 PM, Miiguel Lemos wrote:
>> > Using the GCM for push notifications has a very important advantage: it
>> minimizes the battery consumption, since it reduces the processor overload,
>> it's not needed to open a socket to check the server on a regular basis,
>> etc. In my opinion this a critical matter, minimizing the probability of
>> the user turning the notifications off.
>>  On Android you can't turn notifications off in the same way as iOS.
>>  >
>> >
>> > Enviado do meu iPad
>> >
>> > No dia 31/03/2014, às 18:51, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org>
>> escreveu:
>> >
>> >> I would vote for A
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> abstractj
>> >>
>> >> On March 31, 2014 at 10:59:01 AM, Summers Pittman (supittma at redhat.com)
>> wrote:
>> >>>> Y'all,
>> >>> So there has been some concerns with the complexity of the build
>> >>> especially where including the Google GCM (push) libraries
>> >>> are
>> >>> concerned. Additionally there have been some requests for a
>> >>> separate
>> >>> "push" module which won't need the full aerogear android library.
>> >>>
>> >>> The full modularization of the library along with several other
>> >>> improvements is scheduled for the "2.0" epic.
>> >>>
>> >>> So my question is a) Should we make a 2.0 which is only the
>> >>> modularization sooner and iterate on that a few times before
>> >>> we include
>> >>> our improvements in a 3.0 or b) Should we create a "fork" project
>> >>> which
>> >>> is only a push module? This new project will get merged back into
>> >>> the
>> >>> main project when we have our complete modularizations.
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Summers Pittman
>> >>Phone:404 941 4698
>> >>Java is my crack.
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing listaerogear-dev at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Summers Pittman
> >>Phone:404 941 4698
> >>Java is my crack.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140401/fef00f96/attachment.html