Lavandowska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > --- Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I finally had some time to look at your patch, Lance. The build.xml >> file didn't have the JSDK JAR in the classpath at compile time, >> ExtendedBrowserDetector includes all of the content of >> BrowserDetector (which it sub-classes) and didn't compile. > > I'm still largely mystified by the build.xml stuff, and probably have > the JSDK in my system classpath because some other project wouldn't > compile without it there (masking this issue). I'm curious as to any > other reason it wouldn't compile. It sounded like there was a time > issue before, so I hadn't taken the time to truly subclass > BrowserDetector. When I get a chance I'll rectify that.
I've done so in the EBD code (along with fixing the compile errors and correcting the build.xml file) -- I can my modified version over, if you like. >> It might make more sense >> to have a single "flags" int member in ExtendedBrowserDetector and do >> bitwise ORs instead of having so many boolean flags. > > I was just following the "design philosophy" of the original > BrowserDetector. I think the idea was that the end user of the > BrowserDetector bean could just fetch the relevant boolean. Having > fewer members would be good, however. Since there are accessor methods, using a "flags" member might be the way to go, then. >> I didn't look at >> RequestUtils because I tired of fixing problems. > > This is the one I'm really interested in contributing. If there are > problems with it (I'm guessing the JSDK issue), please just let me know > directly (off-line) rather than wearing yourself out fixing them - I > need to get more familiar with the issues of Apache contribution (yes, > I've read all the docs & examined code from various projects). I'll look over the versino you sent me (hopefully over this weekend), and get back to you. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
