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

[Sebastien Blanc]

Ok, so we should expose a more "rich" builder API ?


On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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) ?
>>
>
> oh, you mean the JAva-Sender API? Hrm.... I think, we can (or should?)
> update it. makes sense to have a sender 1.1.x, on master :) while keeping
> the "old" on 1.0.x branch
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20141022/430ea0b0/attachment.html