Hi there.
On 04/10/2012 11:13, ptheriault wrote:
Just to revisit the original topic of this thread- am I right in
assuming that there is no permission associated with this API planned
for basecamp? or is that still an open decision?
According to
https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/apps/src/PermissionsInstaller.jsm#158
there's a permission and is set to ALLOW to certified and DENY for all
the rest, which isn't consequent with what the wiki said.
Independently on what's approved finally for the API, I think the
original (what the wiki said, ALLOW for all) makes more sense. Maybe
making it PROMPT for privileged and installed if finally receiving a
notification automatically launches the app.
Best regards,
Antonio
On Sep 27, 2012, at 7:26 PM, Guillermo López wrote:
2012/9/27 Guillermo López <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
2012/9/27 Justin Lebar <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Yeah, that was my understanding too, but then I was told that
> notifications actually launched the app if it wasn't running
in the
> first place.
I would be curious to learn when this switch was made. The
protocol
implemented by Telefonica in the bug forces us to wake up the
app on
every notification, but everyone I've spoken with has said
that they
thought we were doing this differently. So I wonder at what
point a
decision was made to switch, and why.
Hi,
see: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763198#c17 and
comment 19
I talked with Jonas on IRC about the different options, and we
agree that the solution in the comment 19 is the best one given
our use case.
Apart from what we agree:
1) This copies the behavior of Android: push notifications that can
wake up the app if it's closed to do whatever the app wants: show a
notification, update the data on background, or request a full sync.
2) This is more flexible to the developer, since if you show a visual
notification that the user need to agree to get some action taken by
the app, this can lead in a lost of information in the moment.
3) This will wake up the app, but it should be enough to *parse* the
message and do whatever it wants. (Even to kill itself? I don't know).
Cheers,
Guillermo
Personally, I don't think that waking up the app is so bad; it
allows
us to make the API simpler in many respects. But that's a
separate
question from wanting to know why we changed.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Antonio Manuel Amaya Calvo
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On 26/09/2012 23:09, ptheriault wrote:
>>
>> Antonio,
>>
>> I was surprised to see that too - my guess is that it was a
guess from
>> long ago before push API was defined. On monday I created
a version 1.0 of
>> the matrix with many updates and corrections (including
this) and sent it to
>> the b2g list. Below are links to the new matrix, and the
change log/question
>> list:
>>
>> Permissions Matrix 1.0:
>>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Akyz_Bqjgf5pdHNlbDBDUGMzUzJSdFYyNEZjcngtUWc
>> 1.0 version changes:
https://etherpad.mozilla.org/permissionmatrixupdates
>
>
> Thanks for the new version, somehow I missed that update.
>
>
>>
>> (for reference, the change I made was to update permissions
to match the
>> wiki. Also I wasnt sure if there is a Mgmt API which allows
the system to
>> know what push notifications are registered?)
>>
>> Now to your concern about apps launching - is your fear
that apps can keep
>> themselves running by sending push notifications?
>> My understanding of the way Push Notifications were handled
was that there
>> was user interaction in the process - i.e. they show up in
the notifications
>> tray, and then, only after the user has tapped on the
notification the app
>> is relaunched.
>
>
> Yeah, that was my understanding too, but then I was told that
> notifications actually launched the app if it wasn't running
in the
> first place. Which if finally is what sees the light, makes
it an
> explicit permission (at least) in my book :)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Antonio
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Antonio Manuel Amaya Calvo wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Paul.
>>>
>>> I've seen that on the permission matrix at
>>>
>>>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Akyz_Bqjgf5pdENVekxYRjBTX0dCXzItMnRyUU1RQ0E&pli=1#gid=0
>>> the PushAPI is reserved to certified apps only, when it
used to be a
>>> Public API (according to
>>>
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/Security/pushNotificationsAPI
at least).
>>>
>>> Do you know why and when was that changed?
>>>
>>> I was in fact going to suggest either changing the way the
system treats
>>> notification currently (from what I've been told, the
system *launches*
>>> the app if it isn't running, which isn't good) or at least
making it an
>>> explicit permission for anything less than privileged, but
just removing
>>> the permission completely for anything less than certified
seems a
>>> little bit extreme.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Antonio Manuel Amaya Calvo_/ / _ /Security&Trust on N&S
>>> email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> / _ _/ ( /
Telefonica I+D
>>> Tlf.: +34-91.312.98.95 <tel:%2B34-91.312.98.95> _/ _/
\__/ D. Ramón de la Cruz 82
>>> Fax : 28006 Madrid, SPAIN
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario.
Puede consultar
>>> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo
electrónico en el enlace
>>> situado más abajo.
>>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We
only send and
>>> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
>>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>>
>> testResults['bluetooth']
>>
>
> --
> Antonio Manuel Amaya Calvo_/ / _ /Security&Trust on N&S
> email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> / _ _/ ( /
Telefonica I+D
> Tlf.: +34-91.312.98.95 <tel:%2B34-91.312.98.95> _/ _/
\__/ D. Ramón de la Cruz 82
> Fax : 28006 Madrid, SPAIN
>
> ________________________________
>
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario.
Puede consultar
> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico
en el enlace
> situado más abajo.
> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We
only send and
> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
> _______________________________________________
> dev-b2g mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
_______________________________________________
dev-b2g mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
--
Guillermo López [willyaranda]. Mozilla Reps Mentor.
http://mozilla-hispano.org <http://mozilla-hispano.org/>
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano
Certified Mozillian: https://mozillians.org/willyaranda
--
Guillermo López [willyaranda]. Mozilla Reps Mentor.
http://mozilla-hispano.org <http://mozilla-hispano.org/>
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano
Certified Mozillian: https://mozillians.org/willyaranda
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
dev-b2g mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
