I'll just go ahead and create the tasks for device.model (and device.namedeprecation) - if there's a reason not to, please chime in.
http://issues.cordova.io/1850 On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like device.model. Should we adopt it for all the platforms? +1 for me > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> 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" <shaz...@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 <f...@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 <shaz...@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 <shaz...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Adding jira tasks as per Brian's last comment. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> +1 sounds like a plan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Filip Maj <f...@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 <f...@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" <agri...@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 <shaz...@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 >> >><shaz...@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 >> >><f...@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 >> >><f...@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. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
