[aerogear-dev] [UPS] Proposal to change the Push Message Format

[Sebastien Blanc]

Hi !
Since the UPS has its PR now [1], any comment on my question here below ?
TLDR : Do we want to keep the same builder API (and just change the json
send to UPS) ?

Sebi

[1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/411

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Here a first question :
> Do we want to change also how the Java Sender construct its message ?
> Now we have a "plain" builder pattern, do we want now
> message.criteria.alias("fdfd") ?
> I'm not sure
> Sebi
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since the API Version PR  [1] has been merged we can start the work on
>> AGPUSH-534 to change the format of the Push message. There has been some
>> discussions on this thread and this gist
>> https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/8897596
>> Just want to be sure everyone is okay or have remarks before starting
>> implementing this.
>>
>> Questions ?
>>
>> Sebi
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/394
>> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-534
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 10, 2014, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> here is the current format for comparison
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gist.github.com/lholmquist/8915817
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to being more structured.
>>>>>
>>>>> one thing though,  in the current format, simplePush is not part of
>>>>> the message, but it's own thing
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's why I put it in the config section in my first version but
>>>> Matzew suggested it was more part of the message payload
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope to config; should stay its own, does not (IMO) make sense to
>>> include in tve message for richer platforms like Android/iOS
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I was looking at our current Push Message Format[1] and I was wonderimg
>>>> if you should not add some more structure to it, decoupling config,
>>>> criterias and the message itself :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>>   "config" : {
>>>>
>>>>      "ttl" : 3600,
>>>>      "content-available" : true,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      "simple-push": "version=123"
>>>>
>>>>   },
>>>>   "criteria" : {
>>>>
>>>>       "alias" : ["user at account.com", "someone at aerogear.org", ....],
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       "categories" : ["someCategory", "otherCategory"],
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       "deviceType" : ["iPad", "AndroidTablet"],
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       "variants" : ["c3f0a94f-48de-4b77-a08e-68114460857e", "444939cd-ae63-4ce1-96a4-de74b77e3737"]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   }
>>>>   ,
>>>>   "message": {
>>>>     "alert":"HELLO!",
>>>>     "sound":"default",
>>>>     "badge":7,
>>>>
>>>>     "someKey":"some value",
>>>>
>>>>     "anotherCustomKey":"some other value"
>>>>
>>>>   },
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>> wdyt ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> interesting idea - it looks better structured.
>>>>
>>>> Re
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20141022/cae6340c/attachment-0001.html