Just to add to this thread:
this type of thing also works if you need the name of the application
injected (which seems quite helpful for injecting into customised
javascript):
<script>
// the name of my app is:${application}
</script>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:02 PM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> ua-parser-js seems very complete. I'll have into account for my own
> projects :).
> Thanks for sharing.
>
> El mié., 28 ago. 2019 a las 5:59, Chris Velevitch (<
> [email protected]>) escribió:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 16:34, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > maybe the actual way compiler deal with this is a bit restricted, and
> we
> > > can update that part including the <script> tags in the html template
> and
> > > making ${body} only outputs "new App.start();", so people could switch
> to
> > > its own "htmlTemplate"
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a good long term solution. Josh's suggestion also good as
> long
> > as you remember or know the main class name of the app in order to start
> it
> > in the customised HTML template.
> >
> > As for compatibility testing, writing that test in Royale didn't make
> sense
> > to me if the browser you are trying to run that code in is incompatible.
> My
> > idea was to use https://github.com/faisalman/ua-parser-js as a basis for
> > testing compatibility.
> >
> > Chris
> > --
> > Chris Velevitch
> > m: 0415 469 095
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
