Firefox's Web Push Notification System Announced

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox's Web Push Notification System Announced

Posted by Soulskill on Friday February 3, 2012 @08:07AM from the convergent-alert-evolution dept.

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."

29 of 132 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

WebSlices by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 08:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:WebSlices by Anaerin · 2012-02-03 08:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
2. Re:WebSlices by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 08:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You seem to have an off by one error in your IE versions.
Interesting Concept by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's like we're fighting with ourselves though. "I really love these web apps, but I really wish they weren't web apps"
Im not opposed by james_van · 2012-02-03 08:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Im not opposed by arose · 2012-02-03 08:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
2. Re:Im not opposed by hairyfeet · 2012-02-03 15:10 · Score: 2
  
  If its anything like HTML V5 the "standard" will be fucking useless. Instead of having a brain and setting a free codec as a bare minimum, such as Vorbis or WebM, to where anybody could degrade to that and be assured that the content would play, instead they just left it a generic "video" tag and ended up with Apple being able to slam through H.264 which while it is very obviously the most technologically superior codec, its holding group might a well have as a motto "Pay your $699 license fee, you cocksmoking teabaggers!" so you can give up anybody other than the big three (Apple,Google,MSFT) using it.
  Basically it looks like we are headed right back to the bad old days of "you must use X browser" only it'll be the software patent trolls and lack of any real standards instead of the OS companies shoving it this time. Either way its gonna suck and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if everyone not falling all over the iShiny simply stayed with flash. At least Adobe doesn't sue your ass if you include flash support in your OS or device whereas MPEG-LA made it clear if Moz or anybody wants to support H.264 they better pay their license fee. How long until MPG 2 and 3 are out of patents? Maybe we should just say fuck it and bypass the whole mess.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
What a great idea: Syndication! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 08:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Now if there were only a way to make this syndication Really Simple.
1. Re:What a great idea: Syndication! by icebraining · 2012-02-03 08:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That's pull, no push. Pushing is much more efficient.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
2. Re:What a great idea: Syndication! by sexconker · 2012-02-03 08:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
3. Re:What a great idea: Syndication! by JustSomeProgrammer · 2012-02-03 08:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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?"
4. Re:What a great idea: Syndication! by nschubach · 2012-02-03 09:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Kind of... if you had twitter notify you every time you got a tweet instead of checking your twitter feed.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
more spam please! by HarrySquatter · 2012-02-03 08:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yay! A new spam vector!
1. Re:more spam please! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 08:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Requires your permission first. Get spammed? Revoke permission.
2. Re:more spam please! by HarrySquatter · 2012-02-03 08:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Riiight. Because no one will ever find a way to abuse it. No, that never happens.
3. Re:more spam please! by gorzek · 2012-02-03 08:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
4. Re:more spam please! by HarrySquatter · 2012-02-03 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  Because you think people can't be easily tricked into giving permission for this and then it used for spam?
5. Re:more spam please! by sexconker · 2012-02-03 08:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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 .
6. Re:more spam please! by houghi · 2012-02-03 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
7. Re:more spam please! by 21mhz · 2012-02-03 23:38 · Score: 2
  
  Because you think somebody can be tricked into getting spam through this, and is dumb enough to not be able to cut the spammer off, means that the technology is useless for any legitimate purpose?
  
  --
  My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
Data caps? by mr_lizard13 · 2012-02-03 08:14 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
All the best to Mozilla by Xolve · 2012-02-03 08:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 08:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:RSS by icebraining · 2012-02-03 08:24 · Score: 2

It's polling, which is extremely inefficient.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
SIP SUBSCRIBE??? by janeuner · 2012-02-03 08:29 · Score: 2

But I guess somebody's paycheck depends on reinventing the wheel?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3265
Re:RSS by msheekhah · 2012-02-03 08:48 · Score: 2

I'm a futurist. Where's my Web 7.0?

--
Mark Anthony Collins
Will it even work? by Todd+Knarr · 2012-02-03 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
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:Thius Delay is Intorable! by LocalH · 2012-02-03 09:21 · Score: 2

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.

--
FC Closer
Re:Internet vs. Web by idontgno · 2012-02-03 10:00 · Score: 2

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.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.