[aerogear-dev] GCM 3.0 and Instance ID

[Summers Pittman]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> if #3 is possible (check&ignore the ack backed into the library) I would
> go for this option as well.
>
The ACK is mostly ignored now.  There is a log message saying that the GCM
handler couldn't process it but otherwise the application is unaffected.

>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sooooo we have a 2.2.0 staged.  Google has a ton of new functionality
>>> rolling out for GCM.
>>>
>>> We think that 2.2.0 works with it mostly correctly but we are finding
>>> some "gotchas".  Notably it looks like Google is sending some ACK messages
>>> after we register that the library is ignoring.
>>>
>>> We will need to support InstanceID (tl;dr; Google is enhancing
>>> registraiton_id).  Passos and I are still digesting the volumes of stuff
>>> being rolled out from IO so we can't really give too many details right now
>>> because we simply don't know them (And Google is still updating their docs,
>>> fixing links, etc).
>>>
>>> So the question to the list is :
>>>  Do we delay 2.2.0 and include support for InstanceID and any other best
>>> practices Google has introduced or do we release 2.2.0, document / work
>>> around any gotchas and then prioritize GCM 3.0 support for 2.3.0?
>>>
>>
>> (assuming this is related to the NPE I am seeing in [1])
>>
>> I think the ultimate goal for 2.2.0 should be to to not crash like in
>> [1].
>>
>> I see three options:
>> 1) document the work-around ([2]) and release the _existing_ 2.2.0, as is
>> -> The fact that the work-around needs to be added to (almost) all apps,
>> makes it an odd work-around (not saying it's a no-go)
>> 2) delay the 2.2.0 and get full GCM 3.0 support in there
>> -> IMO it's unknown how long that takes, and ideally our 2.2.0
>> AGDroid-Push should be out once we have the UPS released (early July); This
>> also could mean a delay on our Cordova lib.
>> 3) Update 2.2.0 to ignore the ACK sent from GCM 3.0, and get a 2.2.x (or
>> 2.3.0) a bit later for full support on GCM 3.0
>> -> IMO this allows us to release UPS 1.1.0 (and AGDroid-Push) in a
>> reasonable timeframe and moves the work-around into our library, and not
>> onto all the app developers.
>>
>>
>> My vote would be going w/ option #3, given the above reasoning and the
>> fact that we don't use any GCM 3.0 feature atm, it sounds fairly safe (at
>> least to me) doing the working inside of our library
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGDROID-425
>> [2]
>> https://github.com/jboss-mobile/unified-push-helloworld/commit/077bfdce8980f86fde1662b490139573792c82fc
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20150617/ef62ca24/attachment.html