[aerogear-dev] Differences between Firefox OS "native" Push lib and AeroGear's Push adapter
Lucas Holmquist
lholmqui at redhat.com
Mon Apr 7 11:47:20 EDT 2014
so i went back to look at what i had,
i don't think we need to get to complicated here,
reading the spec stuff, and this example
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/SimplePush#Client_.28WebApp.29_code
they show sending the pushEndpoint to the "App server", so i think we could just use and keep it simple
it is also recommended that the channelID is never exposed to the application.
On Apr 1, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com> wrote:
> i had something, now i forgot what it was, need to go back and check
> On Apr 1, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com> wrote:
>> still exploring
>>
>> :-) any recent thoughts on 'encodeURIComponent()' ?
>>
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> i might have a couple thoughts, but i need to try some things out first
>>>
>>> Any update on that or does the solution proposed by Matzew (using encodeURIComponent() ) could be enough ?
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:53 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Ok,
>>>> I've been doing some tests by using the PushEndpoint as device token. For registration it works but I just faced an issue by trying to unregister because the URL for the DELETE looks like :
>>>>
>>>> https://judconpush-sblanc.rhcloud.com/rest/registry/device/https://updates.push.services.mozilla.com/update/my_personnal_psuhendpoint_id [
>>>>
>>>> And the REST endpoint get a bit crazy by the extra "/" present in the endpoint URL. Therefore, I think we must just use the last URL fragment as deviceToken.
>>>>
>>>> Ok answering to myself ;) That won't work neither since if we do that UPS won't have the compllete push endpoint URL.
>>>> So how do we deal with that ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> While playing today with my Firefox Device and its native Simple Push support I noticed some differences between our implementation and the native Push regarding the success callback after a register :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> //Native FFOS Push
>>>> broadcastRequest = navigator.push.register();
>>>> broadcastRequest.onsuccess = function (event) {
>>>> broadcastEndpoint = broadcastRequest.result; // only contains the pushURL
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> //Aerogear Push Adapter
>>>> broadcastRequest = navigator.push.register();
>>>> broadcastRequest.onsuccess = function (event) {
>>>> broadcastEndpoint = broadcastRequest.result.pushEndpoint;
>>>> channelID = broadcastRequest.result.channelID;
>>>> version = broadcastRequest.result.version;
>>>> status = broadcastRequest.result.status
>>>> }
>>>> So, the AeroGear Push exposes much more in the callback that it should suppose to do : just exposing the pushEndpoint.
>>>>
>>>> The reason we do that I suppose, but Luke or Kris could confirm that, is that we thought respecting the SPS protocol, which indeed returns a whole object containing all the info. It is just that the Native Push Client API filter that out in the callback response.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did they change that recently? Or was theirs always like it is now ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After discussing that on the #push channel with the Mozilla people they confirmed me that we should only expoe the pushEndpoint.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yep, I agree on changing our JS polyfil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we keep it as is, this can be problematic when we want to use the same code both for native and with the adapter when, for instance, registering to the UPS :
>>>>
>>>> broadcastRequest = navigator.push.register();
>>>> broadcastRequest.onsuccess = function (event) {
>>>> broadcastEndpoint = event.target.result;
>>>> var broadCastSettings = {
>>>> metadata: {
>>>> deviceToken: broadcastEndpoint.channelID,
>>>> simplePushEndpoint: broadcastEndpoint.pushEndpoint
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> UPClient.registerWithPushServer(broadCastSettings);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This won't work with the native push since "broadcastEndpoint.channelID" will be undefined.
>>>>
>>>> sweet :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I propose that we change the behaviour, to return only the pushEndpoint in the callback, even if that means a bit of String manipulation when we want to perform the registration to the UPS :
>>>>
>>>> var broadCastSettings = {
>>>> metadata: {
>>>> deviceToken: broadcastEndpoint.substr(broadcastEndpoint.lastIndexOf('/') + 1),
>>>> simplePushEndpoint: broadcastEndpoint
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> well, that's not really good for security reasons, since their looooong 'substring' was done for that. Also that's just redundant.
>>>>
>>>> The I guess, the deviceToken (channelID registration) might be a bit bogus, for SimplePush. Let me think about it....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right now we use the channelID as the deviceToken, but we should not really 'leak' the channelID (see [1]), so I guess the here proposed change makes sense. Don't recall exactly why we did it in the past, but yeah - let's change it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thinking about the consequence: I think we should use store the value of the returned 'pushEndpoint' string as our device-token. At the end the device-token is really the thing that identifies a device w/in the target network. Apple/Google uses a unique string, and if Mozilla uses a URL, that's totally fine.
>>>>
>>>> Reading the protocol definitions (see [1]) for the 'endpoint' I think it is fair to use that (unique) URL string as the device-token; And we could use this token value as well for the unregister calls, instead of the channelIDs.
>>>>
>>>> After reading your comment on the PR https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/pull/105#issuecomment-34324732 I understand that you just want to use the deviceToken and not pass the simplePushEndpoint to UPS anymore, is that right ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yep
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Matthias
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/SimplePush/Protocol#Definitions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That said, we still have no clue how to proper clean-up 'out dated' channels, since the SimplePush Server/Protocol is silent on that (unlike APNs / GCM). but that's really a different thread (yep, we have a future JIRA for that)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> wdyt ?
>>>>
>>>> Seb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ps : our SPS Server implementation stays correct and returns what should be returned, it's really just the client part and how we expose the result
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140407/2e576197/attachment-0001.html
More information about the aerogear-dev
mailing list