Hi Arnaud,
On 29 abr 2014 at 14:03:46, arnaud.br...@orange.com wrote:
EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA wrote on App Server - Push Server protocol: Mozilla
and Google to kick-off a:
be available ?
- Change references to webapp = service worker where it might be
unclear that only Service Workers
Jonas wrote:
One thing that I think would help the API would be to unify the
initial registration flow and the you need to reregister since the
push server has lost track of your registration flow. I.e. having a
single API which lets the page check do I need to register now.
Actually, the
Regarding promise idiomaticness, the two proposals I've seen that look most
reasonable would be:
- isRegistered() + register(). But, this doesn't allow notification that you
need to re-register, from what I can tell.
- A variant on registrationNeeded, where---since it can return a different
Domenic wrote:
this doesn't allow notification that you need to re-register
I was trying to make the point that events letting the webapp know it needs
to re-register should go to the Service Worker, so the webapp can
re-register whether or not it happens to be currently open. Since the app
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:11 AM, John Mellor joh...@google.com wrote:
I was trying to make the point that events letting the webapp know it needs
to re-register should go to the Service Worker, so the webapp can
re-register whether or not it happens to be currently open
Ah, this is a very good
On Thu, 1 May 2014, at 21:38, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 4/30/14 1:19 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2014, at 1:50, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA wrote:
On 30 abr 2014 at 16:52:49, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 4/30/14 10:44 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
I'll work with Mike/Robin to create a new
I'll give it a shot to define an outline here.
The problem that we're trying to solve is to let a webpage know when
it needs to register for push notifications. This happens either when
the page never has registered, or if the push server lost track of the
registration that was previously done.
On 1 May 2014 16:55, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
function registrationHandler() {
navigator.push.register().then((endpoint) = {
sendBackToAppServer(endpoint);
navigator.push.registrationNeeded.then(registrationHandler);
}
}
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Martin Thomson martin.thom...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 May 2014 16:55, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
function registrationHandler() {
navigator.push.register().then((endpoint) = {
sendBackToAppServer(endpoint);
On 1 May 2014 17:31, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
If it's going to happen over and over, why not an event?
function register() {
navigator.push.register().then(endpoint = sendToAppServer(endpoint));
}
navigator.push.onderegister = e = register;
For two reasons:
* If the page
On 30 abr 2014 at 00:13:14, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:00 AM, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA e...@tid.es
wrote:
Hi all,
Last week the Push API editors (ATT, Telefónica) and other interested
parties (Mozilla, Google) met to progress this specification. It was a very
productive
On 4/30/14 3:25 AM, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA wrote:
We developing the new version at [1], though not yet updated with the changes
in my previous email.
But if may be a good idea to migrate is to the W3C GitHub official repo.
Hi Eduardo,
WebApps already has a few specs using github.org/W3C so
On 4/30/14 10:44 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
I'll work with Mike/Robin to create a new push-api project, unless
you request otherwise. OK?
Eduardo - Mike created this project https://github.com/w3c/push-api.
On 30 abr 2014 at 16:52:49, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 4/30/14 10:44 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
I'll work with Mike/Robin to create a new push-api project, unless
you request otherwise. OK?
Eduardo - Mike created this project https://github.com/w3c/push-api.
Thanks! Once we deal with open pull
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:00 AM, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA e...@tid.es wrote:
Promise unregister (); as a result of single registration allowed
Why does this have a return value?
Promiseenumeration hasPermission ();enumeration: Granted, Denied, Default
(or NeedToAsk)
I think this can be
-Message d'origine-
De : EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA [mailto:e...@tid.es]
- App Server - Push Server protocol: Mozilla and Google to kick-off a
new draft at the IETF to standardize it.
Great, do we know where they plan to do this work ? and when a first draft will
be available ?
-
Thank you for these notes, Eduardo!
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:00 AM, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA e...@tid.es
wrote:
Promise unregister (); as a result of single registration allowed
Why does this have a return value?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Peter Beverloo bever...@google.com wrote:
Dropping a push registration has two aspects to it: (1) removing the mapping
between registration Id and the Service Worker to deliver it to on the
browser side, and (2) removing the registration on the push service.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Peter Beverloo bever...@google.com
wrote:
Dropping a push registration has two aspects to it: (1) removing the
mapping
between registration Id and the Service Worker to deliver it to
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Peter Beverloo bever...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
Well yes, the question is why the application cares about garbage on
the push server. How would it handle the return value of unregister()
other
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Peter Beverloo bever...@google.com wrote:
It would still require another synchronous operation, which is unwanted for
browsers using multiple processes. Chrome uses a synchronous IPC
Hi Eduardo, all,
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:00:15 +0200, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA e...@tid.es
wrote:
Hi all,
Last week the Push API editors (ATT, Telefónica) and other interested
parties (Mozilla, Google) met to progress this specification.
Just a gentle reminder that if you are having a
Hi Chaals, all,
It was not intended to be an official W3C meeting, but just an informal
discussion to feed the official standardization track, which AFAIK this mailing
list is part of. As you may note my previous email was not imposing any
agreement to the group but just proposing a set of
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:02:43 +0200, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA e...@tid.es
wrote:
Hi Chaals, all,
Hi,
It was not intended to be an official W3C meeting, but just an informal
discussion to feed the official standardization track, which AFAIK this
mailing list is part of.
Right. But the
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:00 AM, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA e...@tid.es wrote:
Hi all,
Last week the Push API editors (ATT, Telefónica) and other interested
parties (Mozilla, Google) met to progress this specification. It was a very
productive meeting in which great support was shown to this
25 matches
Mail list logo
