[aerogear-dev] Differences between Firefox OS "native" Push lib and AeroGear's Push adapter
Matthias Wessendorf
matzew at apache.org
Wed Feb 12 10:56:33 EST 2014
What about using the encodeURIComponent() function ?
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
>
> 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-34324732I 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
>
--
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/20140212/33679064/attachment-0001.html
More information about the aerogear-dev
mailing list