[aerogear-dev] GCM 3.0 and Instance ID

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

perfect, so #3 it is? :)

So a bit of delay on 2.2.0, a little release note of no support of GCM 3
and afterwards do that in 2.2.1 (or 2.3.0) ?





>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150617/d6083ae7/attachment.html