[aerogear-dev] Refactoring push-network-proxies

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[aerogear-dev] Refactoring push-network-proxies

Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo
Hi all,

I recently create a Docker image of our push FCM proxy, made with Wiremock. Since we are no longer using the FCM proxy in https://github.com/aerogear/push-network-proxies (even the Dockerfile there only consider APNs) I think we could remove it from there and refactor the repository like this:

push-network-proxies/
   fcm/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   apns/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

So that we have everything in the same place. I also made a template for Openshift so that we can setup a testing environment for UPS quickly. I think that's the ultimate point of having the mocks together.

WDYT?

--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aerogear-dev] Refactoring push-network-proxies

Matthias Wessendorf


On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I recently create a Docker image of our push FCM proxy, made with Wiremock. Since we are no longer using the FCM proxy in https://github.com/aerogear/push-network-proxies (even the Dockerfile there only consider APNs) I think we could remove it from there and refactor the repository like this:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

But if Wiremock offers what we need -> fine, better to use things that are supported through a larger community ;-)
 

push-network-proxies/
   fcm/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   apns/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

So that we have everything in the same place. I also made a template for Openshift so that we can setup a testing environment for UPS quickly. I think that's the ultimate point of having the mocks together.

I like that, having this structure, where FCM is based on Wiremock, right? 
 

WDYT?

--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aerogear-dev] Refactoring push-network-proxies

Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

Actually, we could keep the old gcm-proxy as well. The repo is "push-network-proxies" which means many proxies. We could store the new one under "fcm-wiremock" and the old one under "gcm-java" but for this, I think, we ought to extract GCM logic from the current project, leaving only APNS stuff.

push-network-proxies/
   fcm-wiremock/
      ...
   apns-java/
      ...
   gcm-java/
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

In the future we might want to add new different implementations (or new proxies) so it makes sense to me to have push-network-proxies as an extensible repository, not as a only-2-proxies one.

On 24 June 2017 at 15:33, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I recently create a Docker image of our push FCM proxy, made with Wiremock. Since we are no longer using the FCM proxy in https://github.com/aerogear/push-network-proxies (even the Dockerfile there only consider APNs) I think we could remove it from there and refactor the repository like this:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

But if Wiremock offers what we need -> fine, better to use things that are supported through a larger community ;-)
 

push-network-proxies/
   fcm/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   apns/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

So that we have everything in the same place. I also made a template for Openshift so that we can setup a testing environment for UPS quickly. I think that's the ultimate point of having the mocks together.

I like that, having this structure, where FCM is based on Wiremock, right? 
 

WDYT?

--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aerogear-dev] Refactoring push-network-proxies

Matthias Wessendorf


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

Actually, we could keep the old gcm-proxy as well. The repo is "push-network-proxies" which means many proxies. We could store the new one under "fcm-wiremock" and the old one under "gcm-java"

+1
 
but for this, I think, we ought to extract GCM logic from the current project, leaving only APNS stuff.

no, not just APNs, IMO 

push-network-proxies/
   fcm-wiremock/
      ...
   apns-java/
      ...
   gcm-java/
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

I think this is a good structure
 

In the future we might want to add new different implementations (or new proxies) so it makes sense to me to have push-network-proxies as an extensible repository, not as a only-2-proxies one.

On 24 June 2017 at 15:33, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I recently create a Docker image of our push FCM proxy, made with Wiremock. Since we are no longer using the FCM proxy in https://github.com/aerogear/push-network-proxies (even the Dockerfile there only consider APNs) I think we could remove it from there and refactor the repository like this:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

But if Wiremock offers what we need -> fine, better to use things that are supported through a larger community ;-)
 

push-network-proxies/
   fcm/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   apns/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

So that we have everything in the same place. I also made a template for Openshift so that we can setup a testing environment for UPS quickly. I think that's the ultimate point of having the mocks together.

I like that, having this structure, where FCM is based on Wiremock, right? 
 

WDYT?

--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aerogear-dev] Refactoring push-network-proxies

Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo
On 26 June 2017 at 10:19, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

Actually, we could keep the old gcm-proxy as well. The repo is "push-network-proxies" which means many proxies. We could store the new one under "fcm-wiremock" and the old one under "gcm-java"

+1
 
but for this, I think, we ought to extract GCM logic from the current project, leaving only APNS stuff.

no, not just APNs, IMO 

I think I didn't explain it clear enough, let me start again: The current repository is a java project that implements both GCM and APNS proxies. What I mean with "extract GCM logic from the project" is exactly what you see in the structure: "apns-java" would have the original "push-network-proxies" java project but only with the APNS implementation and "gcm-java" would have the original "push-network-proxies" java project but only with GCM implementation. Maybe "decouple" would be a better term.

Does it make more sense now or didn't I understand you point maybe?

--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


On 26 June 2017 at 10:19, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

Actually, we could keep the old gcm-proxy as well. The repo is "push-network-proxies" which means many proxies. We could store the new one under "fcm-wiremock" and the old one under "gcm-java"

+1
 
but for this, I think, we ought to extract GCM logic from the current project, leaving only APNS stuff.

no, not just APNs, IMO 

push-network-proxies/
   fcm-wiremock/
      ...
   apns-java/
      ...
   gcm-java/
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

I think this is a good structure
 

In the future we might want to add new different implementations (or new proxies) so it makes sense to me to have push-network-proxies as an extensible repository, not as a only-2-proxies one.

On 24 June 2017 at 15:33, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I recently create a Docker image of our push FCM proxy, made with Wiremock. Since we are no longer using the FCM proxy in https://github.com/aerogear/push-network-proxies (even the Dockerfile there only consider APNs) I think we could remove it from there and refactor the repository like this:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

But if Wiremock offers what we need -> fine, better to use things that are supported through a larger community ;-)
 

push-network-proxies/
   fcm/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   apns/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

So that we have everything in the same place. I also made a template for Openshift so that we can setup a testing environment for UPS quickly. I think that's the ultimate point of having the mocks together.

I like that, having this structure, where FCM is based on Wiremock, right? 
 

WDYT?

--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aerogear-dev] Refactoring push-network-proxies

Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo
Matthias is already unreachable but I think he agreed on this idea so I will proceed to send a PR with this changes. 
Maybe @Leigh or @Summers want to add some comments on this?

I've created this ticket so far and will work on the PR now.

On 26 June 2017 at 11:02, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 26 June 2017 at 10:19, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

Actually, we could keep the old gcm-proxy as well. The repo is "push-network-proxies" which means many proxies. We could store the new one under "fcm-wiremock" and the old one under "gcm-java"

+1
 
but for this, I think, we ought to extract GCM logic from the current project, leaving only APNS stuff.

no, not just APNs, IMO 

I think I didn't explain it clear enough, let me start again: The current repository is a java project that implements both GCM and APNS proxies. What I mean with "extract GCM logic from the project" is exactly what you see in the structure: "apns-java" would have the original "push-network-proxies" java project but only with the APNS implementation and "gcm-java" would have the original "push-network-proxies" java project but only with GCM implementation. Maybe "decouple" would be a better term.

Does it make more sense now or didn't I understand you point maybe?

--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


On 26 June 2017 at 10:19, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

Actually, we could keep the old gcm-proxy as well. The repo is "push-network-proxies" which means many proxies. We could store the new one under "fcm-wiremock" and the old one under "gcm-java"

+1
 
but for this, I think, we ought to extract GCM logic from the current project, leaving only APNS stuff.

no, not just APNs, IMO 

push-network-proxies/
   fcm-wiremock/
      ...
   apns-java/
      ...
   gcm-java/
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

I think this is a good structure
 

In the future we might want to add new different implementations (or new proxies) so it makes sense to me to have push-network-proxies as an extensible repository, not as a only-2-proxies one.

On 24 June 2017 at 15:33, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I recently create a Docker image of our push FCM proxy, made with Wiremock. Since we are no longer using the FCM proxy in https://github.com/aerogear/push-network-proxies (even the Dockerfile there only consider APNs) I think we could remove it from there and refactor the repository like this:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

But if Wiremock offers what we need -> fine, better to use things that are supported through a larger community ;-)
 

push-network-proxies/
   fcm/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   apns/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

So that we have everything in the same place. I also made a template for Openshift so that we can setup a testing environment for UPS quickly. I think that's the ultimate point of having the mocks together.

I like that, having this structure, where FCM is based on Wiremock, right? 
 

WDYT?

--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    




--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aerogear-dev] Refactoring push-network-proxies

Matthias Wessendorf

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 at 12:08, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Matthias is already unreachable but I think he agreed on this idea so I will proceed to send a PR with this changes. 

+1 



Maybe @Leigh or @Summers want to add some comments on this?

I've created this ticket so far and will work on the PR now.

On 26 June 2017 at 11:02, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 26 June 2017 at 10:19, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

Actually, we could keep the old gcm-proxy as well. The repo is "push-network-proxies" which means many proxies. We could store the new one under "fcm-wiremock" and the old one under "gcm-java"

+1
 
but for this, I think, we ought to extract GCM logic from the current project, leaving only APNS stuff.

no, not just APNs, IMO 

I think I didn't explain it clear enough, let me start again: The current repository is a java project that implements both GCM and APNS proxies. What I mean with "extract GCM logic from the project" is exactly what you see in the structure: "apns-java" would have the original "push-network-proxies" java project but only with the APNS implementation and "gcm-java" would have the original "push-network-proxies" java project but only with GCM implementation. Maybe "decouple" would be a better term.

Does it make more sense now or didn't I understand you point maybe?

--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


On 26 June 2017 at 10:19, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

Actually, we could keep the old gcm-proxy as well. The repo is "push-network-proxies" which means many proxies. We could store the new one under "fcm-wiremock" and the old one under "gcm-java"

+1
 
but for this, I think, we ought to extract GCM logic from the current project, leaving only APNS stuff.

no, not just APNs, IMO 

push-network-proxies/
   fcm-wiremock/
      ...
   apns-java/
      ...
   gcm-java/
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

I think this is a good structure
 

In the future we might want to add new different implementations (or new proxies) so it makes sense to me to have push-network-proxies as an extensible repository, not as a only-2-proxies one.

On 24 June 2017 at 15:33, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Jose Miguel Gallas Olmedo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I recently create a Docker image of our push FCM proxy, made with Wiremock. Since we are no longer using the FCM proxy in https://github.com/aerogear/push-network-proxies (even the Dockerfile there only consider APNs) I think we could remove it from there and refactor the repository like this:

not sure if we should delete it yet - I think it was written by QE to test GCMv2 - but push server is now GCMv3/FCM compliant. I think there is some features missing there. Perhaps it's still good - not really sure.

But if Wiremock offers what we need -> fine, better to use things that are supported through a larger community ;-)
 

push-network-proxies/
   fcm/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   apns/
      Dockerfile
      ...
   push-network-proxies-template.yml

So that we have everything in the same place. I also made a template for Openshift so that we can setup a testing environment for UPS quickly. I think that's the ultimate point of having the mocks together.

I like that, having this structure, where FCM is based on Wiremock, right? 
 

WDYT?

--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    




--

JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO

ASSOCIATE QE, mobile

Red Hat 

<span href="tel:+34618488633">M: +34618488633    

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Loading...