cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Maj <...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: iOS' device API
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:46:31 GMT
Yeah. Device.name is an ambiguous-sounding API. Thus my original
recommendation to deprecate device.name and add device.model or
device.hardware.

Basically, this API should return a string that makes it clear what
hardware or model of device it is.

On 11/14/12 11:28 AM, "Shazron" <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have somewhat similar concern for iOS:
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-1837
>
>Wonder whether we should output the model number instead eg iPad2,5
>This might solve the comical procedure to detect an iPad Mini (at least
>for
>Cordova):
>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13248493/detect-ipad-mini-in-html5
>
>
>On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Resurrecting this one.
>>
>> BlackBerry has the same issue sorta.
>>
>> I have two play books. One is running 2.0.1.xxx, another 2.1.0.xxx.
>>When I
>> ask for "device.version", I get "BlackBerry Playbook OS" for both.
>>
>> Device.name also returns weird stuff for the play books, seem like
>> arbitrary numbers: 100669958.
>>
>> Also, device.platform returns "playbook". Shouldn't this be
>>"BlackBerry" ?
>>
>> /cc anyone from RIM
>>
>> On 11/12/12 7:27 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b@brian.io> wrote:
>>
>> >thanks shaz
>> >
>> >
>> >On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Added:
>> >>
>> >> http://issues.cordova.io/1836
>> >> http://issues.cordova.io/1837
>> >> http://issues.cordova.io/1838
>> >> http://issues.cordova.io/1839
>> >> http://issues.cordova.io/1840
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Adding jira tasks as per Brian's last comment.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> +1 sounds like a plan
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> +1
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 11/8/12 4:01 AM, "Brian LeRoux" <b@brian.io> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >I think would it make sense to:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >1. align apis as orig msg from fil suggests
>> >> >>> >2. drop in deprecation notice for sync usage and add to
deprec
>>page
>> >> >>> >3. add async equiv and get it out of startup path as andrew
>> >>suggests
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> Although I think we're close to being able to author
>> >>cross-platform
>> >> >>> apps
>> >> >>> >> sans UA detection , I think people still have valid
use cases
>>to
>> >>use
>> >> >>> it.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> On 11/7/12 6:18 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <agrieve@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> >I like the idea of at least removing this from
the start-up
>> >>path.
>> >> If
>> >> >>> >>users
>> >> >>> >> >want to know about the device, they could always
call exec()
>> >> >>> >>themselves.
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> Also, if we remove the device API like Brian
suggested, it
>> >>would
>> >> be
>> >> >>> >> >>good in
>> >> >>> >> >> the sense that we won't have to call the
CDVDevice plugin
>>to
>> >> >>> populate
>> >> >>> >> >>some
>> >> >>> >> >> js variables before deviceready can fire
-- eliminating a
>> >> >>> dependency.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Shazron
>><shazron@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> > Agree with Fil to make it consistent
- in essence this
>>is an
>> >> iOS
>> >> >>> >>bug
>> >> >>> >> >>:)
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> > Brian, there is one case I can think
of -- detecting the
>> >>iPad
>> >> >>> >>mini's
>> >> >>> >> >> > features using js - Max Firt investigated
trying to do it
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>>http://www.mobilexweb.com/blog/ipad-mini-detection-for-html5-user-agentbu
>> >> >>> >> >>tthe only kludgy way right now using PG would
be
>> >>device.platform
>> >> to
>> >> >>> >> >> > detect iPad2,5 and iPad2,6. I suppose
ppl would need to
>> >>detect
>> >> >>> >>this to
>> >> >>> >> >> > enlarge certain UI elements for the
mini (since the
>>physical
>> >> area
>> >> >>> >> >>will be
>> >> >>> >> >> > smaller than a reg sized iPad)
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Filip
Maj
>><fil@adobe.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> >> CI implementation is what I am gunning
for here (and can
>> >> >>> actually
>> >> >>> >>use
>> >> >>> >> >> it).
>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >> I don't like it either but reality
is for people
>>building
>> >> >>> >> >>cross-platform
>> >> >>> >> >> >> apps at some point you have to do:
>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >> if (device.platform == 'android')
// do some stuff
>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >> For example, knowing when to attach
to a back button vs
>> >> >>> rendering
>> >> >>> >> >>some
>> >> >>> >> >> ui
>> >> >>> >> >> >> to handle that.
>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >> IMO we should set up deprecation
for "name" and move to
>> >> "model"
>> >> >>> as
>> >> >>> >> >>it's
>> >> >>> >> >> >> clearer (and probably was the reason
why iOS went for
>> >>device's
>> >> >>> >>custom
>> >> >>> >> >> name
>> >> >>> >> >> >> in the first place - semantic confusion
:P )
>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >> On 11/7/12 7:35 AM, "Brian LeRoux"
<b@brian.io> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >This may get some rotton tomatoes
thrown at me but I
>> >>would be
>> >> >>> in
>> >> >>> >> >>favor
>> >> >>> >> >> of
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >axing these apis altogether.
I think they are more
>> >>dangerous
>> >> >>> than
>> >> >>> >> >> useful
>> >> >>> >> >> >> /
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >developers should favor browser
feature detection for
>> >>their
>> >> UI
>> >> >>> >>work.
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >There is no programmatic reason
to want these
>>properties
>> >> >>> >>otherwise
>> >> >>> >> >> that I
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >can think of?
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >(But agree at least should be
consistent as Fil
>>suggests.)
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:40
PM, Filip Maj
>><fil@adobe.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Currently if you ask for
device.platform you will get
>> >> several
>> >> >>> >> >> different
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> responses on iOS. You'll
get iPhone, iPad, iPod
>>Touch,
>> >>etc.
>> >> >>> >>This
>> >> >>> >> >> seems
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> backwards. IMO all of these
should return 'iOS'.
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Related, device.name returns
the custom device name
>>as
>> >>the
>> >> >>> user
>> >> >>> >> >> >> defines
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>it
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> in iTunes. IMO it should
return the model name, I.e.
>> >>What
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>device.platform
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> returns now.
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> This would line it up with
our docs + other
>>platforms.
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message