×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox's Web Push Notification System Announced

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the convergent-alert-evolution dept.

Firefox 132

eldavojohn writes "Describing Notifications as 'somewhere between email and IM,' Mozilla has announced this push technology as a way to receive notifications from websites without having to keep them open in your browser — as well as receiving them on your mobile device. A JavaScript API reveals early interface ideas by the team. This core concept is not new — both Google and Apple have their own push notification systems for Android and iOS respectively. However, 'It's important to note that this push notification system is distinct from the existing desktop notification mechanisms that are already defined in pending standards. The desktop notifications that websites like GMail and Seesmic Web display to Chrome users, for example, will only work when the website is left open in a tab. Mozilla's push notification system moves beyond that limitation.' Mozilla is attempting to take push notifications to the entire web for any website to use."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

132 comments

Who needs push? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919855)

FIRST

Thius Delay is Intorable! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919865)

Not a single anti-push apk or add-on out there yet. I'm appalled!

Re:Thius Delay is Intorable! (2)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920717)

So just don't use it. It's not like this is a requirement.

It amazes me the number of so-called "technologically-savvy" people who are closet Luddites.

Re:Thius Delay is Intorable! (1)

cas2000 (148703) | more than 2 years ago | (#38921971)

yeah, it's almost as amazing as the number of fire-savvy people who are against people sticking their hands into a furnace.

or the privacy-savvy people who try to warn others about the dangers of facebook and other web spyware.

WebSlices (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919867)

Microsoft did this with WebSlices in Internet Explorer 8.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/cc956158%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

As you can tell from how prominent they are, this idea really took off among web users.

Re:WebSlices (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920071)

Who uses IE 8? People who have no choice, that's who.

IE 5 was probably the last version of IE that was used by people who actually cared about the features their browser touts. And it was hemorrhaging those users at an alarming rate, which is why they ramped up and came out with version 6, which finally included tabs (something all of the other major browsers had, and probably a significant factor in drawing a lot of users away from IE).

If Microsoft had introduced something like that in IE 6, when IE actually had a significant marketshare among people who care about features in their browser, they might have had a chance to catch on. Although someone would have just created a Firefox add-on that enabled them in that browser, and even if it did catch on it probably wouldn't have been as much a selling point for IE as Microsoft would have liked.

Re:WebSlices (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920237)

You seem to have an off by one error in your IE versions.

Re:WebSlices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38921195)

You're right. That's what I get for trusting my memory and the first result from Google. Made me think that IE 6 was released with tabs.

http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-offers-tabbed-browsing--in-IE-6/2100-1032_3-5738037.html [cnet.com]

It didn't have tabs, but MS brought tabs into it by creating a toolbar that few people probably used. IE 7 was the one that they revved up and kicked out the door flush with fancy features like tabs, to compete with upstart browsers like Firefox and Opera.

Re:WebSlices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920297)

Do you have any more stories about history you can share with us? Perhaps one involving the Kaiser and an onion being attached to your belt, which may or may not have been the style at the time.

Re:WebSlices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38922647)

I chased that rascal for dickety six miles.

Re:WebSlices (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920805)

IE did not support tabs until IE7.

Re:WebSlices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38921029)

False.

Re:WebSlices (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38923569)

[citation needed]

A stock installation of IE6 (any revision) does not support tabs. You have to install a third-party addon in order to get tabs in IE6.

Re:WebSlices (5, Informative)

Anaerin (905998) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920109)

IE may have introduced it in IE8, but Netscape (Remember them?) introduced it in 1995 in NS1.1, and it's supported in every browser except IE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_technology#HTTP_server_push [wikipedia.org]

Re:WebSlices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920495)

A better equivalent would probably be the Java-based "NetCaster" thing which shipped with Netscape 4.0. (and was removed after a few months because it took about 5 minutes to start up)

Interesting Concept (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919869)

It's like we're fighting with ourselves though. "I really love these web apps, but I really wish they weren't web apps"

Re:Interesting Concept (0)

james_van (2241758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919891)

if i had seen you comment before i posted, i would have modded you up - you pretty much nailed it there

Re:Interesting Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920083)

You mean live silverlight?

Re:Interesting Concept (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920261)

the reason people love web apps is because they don't fuck up your computer. visit 100 web apps use them all free, close your browser. Next time you open it, good as new.

Good luck installing 100 real applications on Windows or Mac and getting anything like usability out of it.

Re:Interesting Concept (1)

aix tom (902140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920547)

On the other hand, the more web apps you get at the more different browsers diversify into different features, the more you get the "This web app only works on $browser from $version to $version, and that on only from $browser from $version to $version."

We already have some of those problems with about 10 web Apps in out INTRAnet, where we have perfect control over both the server AND the web browser the users use.

The more web Apps start to interact with each other, and the more they interact with the local data, the more that problem will happen. If any desktop app would 100% stick to the standard it would be no problem to install thousands of them. It's just the "tweaks" that cause problems. The same thing is already happening with web apps.

Re:Interesting Concept (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38922559)

you've already got this problem with desktop apps, though not as bad as it is with current browsers (and definitely not as bad as with past browsers)

At the moment, install a .NET app on a 100 desktops and you'll see 1 or 2 fail with errors, possibly due to a different number of updates installed, sometimes due to GAC or registry issues with other modules being/not being installed.

My current issue is with a .NET app that doesn't run on my box (at all) because I'm on Win 7 sp1 and that has an ADO interface change, and the fixed version doesn't work on my colleagues box because he's installed the patch from MS.

I once had Microsoft small business suite fail to install because WMI database was corrupt, yet that install was on a freshly installed copy of Vista. (the point being even when you install on a 'clean' system it can still fail).

at least webapps are a little less dependant on a load of crap, you tell the user to tell you which browser and its version they're running and that's all they need to tell you. If it still doesn't work, you can tell them to install another browser and try it on that.
I don't think we'll have issues with web apps conflicting with other web apps, because they'll be sandboxes for security purposes, but that should also help with conflicting.

Re:Interesting Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38922915)

My current issue is with a .NET app that doesn't run on my box (at all) because I'm on Win 7 sp1 and that has an ADO interface change, and the fixed version doesn't work on my colleagues box because he's installed the patch from MS

Yes, they fucked it up but (for the developer of the application) it should not be hard to implement the "fix". Then the application will work on all platforms. I've done it myself.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2517589

Re:Interesting Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920925)

Tried Pokki?

Im not opposed (5, Interesting)

james_van (2241758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919871)

but i feel like we're back in the late 90's/early 2000's with all the different web technologies from different companies, almost to the point of having to add the old "best viewed in derp derp browser" messages to websites. i know this sort of thing is necessary to move things along, but i kinda hate this limbo phase where we have all kinds of new/interesting/exciting/annoying technologies, and no standards yet to bring them together. that's my rant, ill be quiet now.

Re:Im not opposed (4, Interesting)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920143)

You're looking too far ahead. The bleeding edge basically has to be this way to hammer out the problems before proposing the standard. On the other hand quite a few new/interesting/exciting/annoying technologies have been drafted together and implemented across the board. Or are things moving so fast that stuff like canvas, that is barely starting to see production adoption, doesn't qualify anymore?

TL;DR It only seems like The Browser Wars because it's easy to pick out the incompatibilities.

Re:Im not opposed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38921283)

Every weird feature in Internet Explorer 5.x was a "proposed standard". About 25% of was adopted into real cross-browser standards, while the rest still lives on as proprietary extensions.

Point being, once added, this stuff never gets removed, standard or not.

Re:Im not opposed (1)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38922151)

Very much doubt most of it was supposed to be standardized, but if you have some proof I look forwards to being wrong on that (even better if that 25% wasn't just made up!). Proprietary extensions however aren't a problem as long is it's understood that that's what they are and web developers are aware enough not to rely on them. Currently some things are supported across all new browsers (e.g. canvas, fonts) and a bunch more can made to work in one way on half of them and in another on the other half (e.g. video and audio). It's work, it might break in the future, but it's worlds ahead of single browser solutions we used to see.

Re:Im not opposed (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920223)

but i feel like we're back in the late 90's/early 2000's with all the different web technologies from different companies, almost to the point of having to add the old "best viewed in derp derp browser" messages to websites. i know this sort of thing is necessary to move things along, but i kinda hate this limbo phase where we have all kinds of new/interesting/exciting/annoying technologies, and no standards yet to bring them together. that's my rant, ill be quiet now.

You have got a point.

But, if we look at this from the perspective of freedom-power-to-the-underdog and assume Mozilla is all for that, then there was much rejoicing. I am under the impression that Mozilla is in it for the benefit of all us little common people. Therefore, this, whatever it is, and even if MS allready did it, is presumably a good thing. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong (is Mozilla not the knight with shiny armpits I assume?).

Re:Im not opposed (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920243)

Well in fairness, sometimes this sort of thing just needs to happen. It's frustrating when there's a clear technological winner that isn't being implemented because of some political reason, but often enough there are legitimate reasons why the different browsers aren't happy with a given standard. Over time, improvements get made, problems get settled, new standards come out. Eventually, hopefully, there's a good standard that people can agree with. It takes time, but it's just what needs to happen.

What's really a problem is when good standards get roadblocked because they threaten someone's revenue stream because it breaks vendor lock-in.

So, who's to blame... (1)

xded (1046894) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920321)

The companies that are trying to innovate, the companies that don't want to see *other* companies innovate, or the standardization system that moves at the speed of my grandpa, rocking in his chair while keeping an eye on all these children running around?

Re:Im not opposed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38921573)

Would you rather go back to the IE 6 only days where you were stuck with a crappy crusty 6 year old browser? Where there was no innovation for 10 years because webmasters had to support the last 10% of users?

Finally things are unfrozen again and we have innovation

Re:Im not opposed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38923207)

At least this time around, you can follow web standards and safely put "Best viewed in any browser except versions of IE before 9". Then just let the IE9 users assume the website looks funny, and not their browser being stupid. Just like old times... :P

I welcome our new pushers (0)

dlinear (1053422) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919887)

Let's hope they push relevant information and not drugs and booze.

Re:I welcome our new pushers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38921113)

What is this? Government approved rock'n'roll? You have been made, narc.

What a great idea: Syndication! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919899)

Now if there were only a way to make this syndication Really Simple. [wikipedia.org]

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (2, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919969)

That's pull, no push. Pushing is much more efficient.

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920057)

Yep, it would be like /. telling you when there's a new story instead of hitting their servers every 2 minutes trying to find out if there are any.

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920559)

So, kinda like subscribing to the slashdot twitter feed? What a novel concept!

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (2, Informative)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38921169)

Kind of... if you had twitter notify you every time you got a tweet instead of checking your twitter feed.

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (4, Interesting)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920155)

That's pull, no push. Pushing is much more efficient.

A "pull" notification requires the client to poke a server and check for content. This is typically done on a set interval.

A "push" notification requires an open connection to push content through. The client acts as a server.

Pushing is only more efficient if you're the server or you have a device with such a shitty battery.
Desktop and laptop users don't give a flying fuck about the battery use required to poke at a server. The only ones who care are people on phones / tablets / nettops / other fad devices. And they all have "apps".

The bottom line is that the client should NOT have to maintain a connection the server can inject into.
It's backwards and retarded behavior for a web browser to maintain open connections to remote servers after a page is closed.
You might as well just elav the tab open.

There's a reason why no one uses IE's web slices.

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (4, Informative)

JustSomeProgrammer (1881750) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920397)

A pull notification system is more efficient only if there are updates more frequently than polls. If the updates are very infrequent it gets to be more efficient for pushing. And pushing shouldn't require you to keep a connection open to each site, it should just require you to keep one port open where all push notifications would go. The server would open a connection to that port in order to send the push. Unless pushes are frequent then you might maintain an open connection blah blah blah. At least every push system that I've ever worked with works in this way. Usually results in less traffic since there's never a poll that goes "hey ya got anything yet?"

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920623)

Who would control the master push server for the web?

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (1, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920703)

A pull notification system is more efficient only if there are updates more frequently than polls. If the updates are very infrequent it gets to be more efficient for pushing. And pushing shouldn't require you to keep a connection open to each site, it should just require you to keep one port open where all push notifications would go. The server would open a connection to that port in order to send the push. Unless pushes are frequent then you might maintain an open connection blah blah blah. At least every push system that I've ever worked with works in this way. Usually results in less traffic since there's never a poll that goes "hey ya got anything yet?"

First, you'd have to define efficiency.

As a non-mobile user, I don't give a flying fuck about how much power or system resources my polls cost me, and I don't give a fuck about the server end (because I'm selfish, because it should be able to handle it, etc.). Efficiency is nothing more than the delay between something existing and me getting it. Polling once a minute is more than fine for everything except emergency notifications, and those all (should) have a dedicated, separate communication channel.

I'd much rather poke a server on demand, or have an explicit polling interval set, than have a pipe into my ass that lets the server poke me even after I've closed the page. Whether or not the connection is left open or not is irelevant - the security, privacy, and don't fucking bother me implications are the same as long as they can reestablish the connection.

I already have to allow cookies and javascript from shady fucking servers and browse around 10 different sites for airfare before the site I actually want to use shows me their real rate. I don't want to have to allow a "Rate Advisor" to push notifications to me minutes/hours/days after leaving their site just so I can get the true price ("Wait! Come back and book now to save $$$ on your trip to Shitland!!).

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38923047)

YMBGFAP.

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38923169)

That is an excellent point. I hope it will be easy to turn this off when it comes out in Firefox 13.

Re:What a great idea: Syndication! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920969)

And there already is pushing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubSubHubbub

more spam please! (4, Insightful)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919907)

Yay! A new spam vector!

Re:more spam please! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919985)

Requires your permission first. Get spammed? Revoke permission.

Re:more spam please! (3, Insightful)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920073)

Riiight. Because no one will ever find a way to abuse it. No, that never happens.

Re:more spam please! (3, Informative)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920141)

Riiiight. Because it couldn't at all be possible to have a settings page like this:

From which sites do you wish to permit push notifications?
slashdot.org
news.google.com
cnn.com

No, your browser would have to accept (and display!) every single notification ever sent to you. Makes perfect sense.

And for each little notification bubble, why couldn't there be a little button? "Don't allow any more notifications from this service." Done.

It's like saying you just have to deal with spam emails. No, you don't. That's what spam filters, whitelists, etc. are for. This sort of service sounds like it would be whitelist-based to begin with, so anyone who abuses the service can easily be blocked.

Re:more spam please! (5, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920221)

Riiiight. Because it couldn't at all be possible to have a settings page like this:

From which sites do you wish to permit push notifications?
slashdot.org
news.google.com
cnn.com

No, your browser would have to accept (and display!) every single notification ever sent to you. Makes perfect sense.

And for each little notification bubble, why couldn't there be a little button? "Don't allow any more notifications from this service." Done.

It's like saying you just have to deal with spam emails. No, you don't. That's what spam filters, whitelists, etc. are for. This sort of service sounds like it would be whitelist-based to begin with, so anyone who abuses the service can easily be blocked.

Sorry, this post cannot be displayed.
Please make sure you enable cookies, javascript, popups, and ads from yet.another.spamming.and.tracking.domain.from.google.com .

Re:more spam please! (1)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 2 years ago | (#38921097)

Sorry, this post cannot be displayed.
Please make sure you enable cookies, javascript, popups, and ads from yet.another.spamming.and.tracking.domain.from.google.com .

I use Firebug quite a lot to get around this because I run NoScript. Hello noscript tag or large obnoxious div blocking me from your mostly usable web site. Your visibility is now set to false.

Re:more spam please! (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920541)

Yes, because that is what I like. Click on accept and/or decline for each website I ever visit and then not know if it actually comes from that site or from a subdomain or from some iframe or ...

You want to know the updates of a site? Use RSS. Opt-in, not opt-out please.

Re:more spam please! (1)

firewrought (36952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38921591)

It's like saying you just have to deal with spam emails. No, you don't. That's what spam filters, whitelists, etc. are for.

Umm... email spam is only kinda half-solved, and that's after throwing millions of dollars at it.

Re:more spam please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38921911)

I was wondering why I didn't see anyone else concerned about the obvious? security problems this enables.

Data caps? (4, Funny)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919911)

I fear if they use this to push notifications for each new Firefox release then I'll exceed my data cap.

RSS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919923)

Uh, what's wrong with RSS?

Advantage over RSS? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919949)

What advantage does this have over RSS? For the user that is, I can see the advantage for the advertiser market.

All the best to Mozilla (3, Interesting)

Xolve (2527602) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919965)

Apart from making browser and email client, Mozilla is contributing a lot to bring more functionality to web. The good thing is that they do it in a very open way. But they lack popular web services to push the features. e.g. Google brought these APIs to Chrome and Gmail implemented them. While how many websites actually honor do not track option is still not known. Mozilla should also try to find collaborations with major web services providers to make the features happen.

Nostalgia Goggles: PointCast (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919977)

How is this different from PointCast?

I never really saw the advantage of push technology over lightweight "pull" technology like RSS feeds. And who really wants desktop notifications when they're not using a program meant to read that kind of info? It's not like memory's so starved we have to close all our apps when they're not in use. We do that only when we don't want them bothering us.

suing (1)

bigbangnet (1108411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920263)

So who's gonna patent this technology first so they can sue the fuck out of everyone this time ? ps: does it show I got no more faith for this suing business thing anymore ?

Re:suing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38921535)

What it shows is that you have a dramatic lack of understanding of how things work in the real world... which honestly is no surprise.

Dynamic IP? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920317)

How will this work with dynamic IPs?
What privacy implications are there if a message intended for me got sent to someone else who now has my IP?

There'd need to be some sort of system for people to regularly refresh their IP. Opera Unite sort of done this by having their own service which connected to their servers.
So, basically have the system designed in a way that it automatically refreshes IP to the server for whatever website you are subbed to when the IP is detected as different. (sort of like how the clients work for DynDNS or various other sites)
Essentially it would be instant, always-on E-mail, and your IP would be the session. (well, obviously an account too initially!)

I still don't think it would be used by most people though.
Look at Chrome Notifications. Gmail is the only site I know that uses it. (seriously surprised Facebook doesn't use it, in fact)
WebSlices as mentioned above isn't entirely related. It lets you subscribe to a slice of a webpage. It is basically a web scraper. BUT, some of the ideas there are certainly heading in the right direction.
Hope Microsoft actually offer some feedback on this one and try to come to some sort of standard. This COULD be incredibly useful. But only if it gets standardized and done right. If it ends up being more obtuse than clicking a link, adding a user account, password (or done automatically if logged in), then some more advanced options if people wish to edit them (such as period to update IP, whether instant, every X hours, days, whatever), it is just going to be left unused by a large amount of people again.

Re:Dynamic IP? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920789)

How will this work with dynamic IPs? What privacy implications are there if a message intended for me got sent to someone else who now has my IP?

What's even more important is how does this deal with people who are behind NAT or a firewall? I mean, my "browser" can become a "server" by opening a port on my desktop all it wants, nobody from outside is going to be able to connect to it.

Now, I can open that path through my router if I want to, but what about people who work behind firewalls that can't change anything?

Re:Dynamic IP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38921721)

The article says that you don't have to have the web page open, you'll still have to have firefox open. You'll probably have to login to a mozilla account to use this option (like chrome as sync, etc). At this time, firefox can continue to match your account to your IP allowing their notifications system to send it to your browser.

Riiiiiiight (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920433)

a way to receive notifications from websites without having to keep them open in your browser

Why not... oh, I don't know... fix the god damned browser's shitty memory handling so I can leave the fucking web page open for more than an hour!

Re:Riiiiiiight (1)

LaRainette (1739938) | more than 2 years ago | (#38922113)

FF 10 : 25 tabs opened for 24 hours. Including tons with flash. 800MB memmory used.
Chrome : Same 25 Tabs opened for 24 hours : Usage 770MB.
ZOMG Firefox USES SO MUCH MEMORY !!!
PS : 2008 called they want their bitching comment back.

Will it even work? (4, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920593)

Will it work:

  • When the browser isn't running?
  • When the machine's behind a NATing router that isn't configured for port forwarding or a DMZ?
  • When the machine's behind a firewall that blocks all incoming connections that aren't associated with an outbound connection?

If it can't, then we're going to be able to use it how again?

Re:Will it even work? (1)

firewrought (36952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38921725)

  • When the browser isn't running?
  • When the machine's behind a NATing router that isn't configured for port forwarding or a DMZ?
  • When the machine's behind a firewall that blocks all incoming connections that aren't associated with an outbound connection?

It's a problem on the host side too... the origin IP will be hidden by the firewall and/or load balancer. There are some workarounds, but will your infrastructure department support them? And can you get the workaround to play nice with your developer tools / website SDK's / vendor products / etc. that have come to depend on this push feature?

Re:Will it even work? (1)

firewrought (36952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38922849)

Replying to myself now that I've read the protocol. Their design isn't an issue for the host, because it is the client that determines the callback URL.

To make the spec viable*, it seems like you would need a third party service (possibly run by Mozilla or Verizon, Sprint, etc.) that your browser would talk with to get internet-visible callback URL's for. The service would aggregate your notifications, and you'd either poll for them periodically or maintain an always-on TCP/IP connection. It requires much more browser support than they're actually talking about, and it seems to be a pretty dumb arrangement for receiving notifications from a handful of sites, but perhaps the designers of this spec see a world where you have hundreds or thousands of websites sending you notifications.

*E.g., to deal with NAT and firewalls, to enable encryption of notifications (HTTPS callback URL's), to centrally manage spam/malware filtering, and to receive notifications uninterrupted as you join/disconnect from different networks and as you open/close your browser.

Re:Will it even work? (1)

emj (15659) | more than 2 years ago | (#38922375)

Yes it will, basically

1. the website ask for permision
2. the webbrowser asks the user
3. the user says Sure post you notifications to my notification URL http://example.com/my-notes [example.com]
4. user checks http://example.com/my-notes [example.com] for notifications
5. the website pushes notifications to the notification URL
6. user checks http://example.com/my-notes [example.com] for notifications
7. user checks http://example.com/my-notes [example.com] for notifications
8. user checks http://example.com/my-notes [example.com] for notifications
9. user checks http://example.com/my-notes [example.com] for notifications

Re:Will it even work? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38922527)

3. the user says Sure post you notifications to my notification URL http://example.com/my-notes [example.com]

So just where is this user's 24/7 webservice going to be running, that can accept this "push" content? You haven't solved the problem, you've just hidden it behind a URL.

6. user checks http://example.com/my-notes [example.com] for notifications

So it really is pull, just written with the letters 'p', 'u', 's' and 'h'?

If I want to check a URL for content, why not just check the URL directly?

Re:Will it even work? (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38923063)

If they're doing that, why don't I just query the website directly using, oh, I don't know, their RSS feed?

XMPP PubSup (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920629)

Is there a reason why they don't use an already available and open standard like XMPP (wich BTW could also replace RSS)?
http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/technology-overview/pubsub/

Re:XMPP PubSup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920831)

The subject was obviously "PubSub"...

push is a failure (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920677)

People have been trying to get this right since at least 1998. The problem is, there is no right. As soon as you have a push channel, websites begin abusing it, and that channel gets shut down. It just can't be done.

Internet vs. Web (1)

ArtemaOne (1300025) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920761)

What, are we finally going to use something besides port 80? Haven't they all been blocked by our ISPs already?

Re:Internet vs. Web (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38921187)

No, actually, that's the point. That's the technology trend of the 21st Century.

Every transport, protocol, or presentation which used to be carried over TCP or UDP will now be re-encapsulated and shipped down TCP/80 or TCP/443 with a hip new name.

Why? Because doing everything in a browser is COOL.

Been done? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38920765)

A bit of generalizing in the post there. I have a couple of desktop notification apps that don't require websites or my browser to be open.

What It Will Be Used For (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920803)

What it will be used for:

Search Kayak.com for tickets to Hawaii in a month.
Click on a link for the flight you want.
Get a popup about allowing their "rate advisor".
Allow it.
Go back to the Kayak results.
Click another result from a competitor airline and allow their "rate advisor".
Get a notification from the first airline that you can save $$ on that flight if you book now.
Go back to the first airline's website.
Get a notification from the second airline that you can save $$ on that flight if you book now.
Compare the two actual prices and decide which flight you want.
Remove permissions for trip advisors.
Reblock notification permissions, ads, javascript, and third party / promiscuous cookies related to their sites.

Saves on app tabs (1)

normaldotcom (1521757) | more than 2 years ago | (#38921043)

This is actually a useful idea--I keep at least 6 "app tabs" open in firefox at all times just to see when I get notifications from Gmail, Facebook, Twitter, Google Calendar, Google Voice, etc. A push notification system could give nice in-browser notifications without keeping entire pages loaded into memory.

Netscape Netcaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38922575)

So it's Netscape Netcaster all over again. The future is always so original. It's gonna be about as big a hit as it was then.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...