Add PUT method to the server specifications

[p1gp1g]

Adding support for the PUT method will make UnifiedPush compatible with the legacy simple push protocol (from firefox os). The most known project supporting it is Telegram: https://core.telegram.org/api/push-updates (it has been tagged as UP compatible by mistake ATM).

WebPush (rfc8030) doesn't specify any PUT method, so this doesn't conflict with its support.

This is a backward compatible change.

Example of issues where users talked about it:

• https://codeberg.org/NextPush/uppush/issues/5#issuecomment-1559568
• Telegram FOSS wishlist#18

@drizzt has done a PUT to POST gateway for Mercurygram for this:

• https://github.com/drizzt/Mercurygram/tree/Mercurygram?tab=readme-ov-file#unifiedpush-put-to-post-gateway

Ping for the owners of a distributor project:
@binwiederhier (you won't have to do anything, ntfy supports PUT for UnifiedPush endpoints already :) ) @iNPUTmice

[p1gp1g]

If merged: https://codeberg.org/NextPush/uppush/commit/287400eff9989f65ec894baadc863038d9790102

[iNPUTmice]

Hi,

sorry for being negative here.

My personal vision for UnifiedPush is that in a not too distant future we reduce the entire server side specification to:

The URL returned by the Distributor is a RFC8030 endpoint.

In that world UnifiedPush is basically just the Android (or DBUS) API¹ and everything else is delegated to appropriate RFCs.

I understand the desire of wanting to be compatible with everything (See the weird workaround for Matrix that quasi part of UnifiedPush) and that’s OK for UnifiedPush "1.0" because UnifedPush needed to be compatible with something to get of the ground and find some adoption. But with more maturity I think "UnifiedPush 2.0" is better of restricting itself to one, well defined standard.

And Matrix and Telegram just need to implement proper WebPush support. (They need this anyway if they want to work with Browsers; And everyone wants to work with Browsers)

IDK, merge this if you want. In a UnifiedPush 1.0 world it doesn’t hurt but IMHO this is not something that should be brought over to UnifiedPush 2.0.

¹: And a library for said API

[p1gp1g]

@iNPUTmice Thanks for your review. Since we plan to extend WebPush support in a near future, that may not be a good idea to introduce this kind of change at this moment, to avoid introducing backward incompatible change.

I keep that PR open for the moment