bike shed :P

Sven


Am 09.04.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Maxim Solodovnik:
This topic is more active than the release one :)

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
<tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com> wrote:
-1 for dropping agent detection
+1 for adding a dependency to an external library (because of the big pool of 
browsers - which might increase in future)

kind regards

Tobias

Am 05.04.2018 um 13:44 schrieb Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net>:

+0 for dropping agent detection (3)
-1 for adding a dependency to an external library

Sven

Am 3. April 2018 16:34:15 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com>:
It seems the discussion is spread between this thread and the JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6544?focusedCommentId=16423835&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16423835

As far as I can see we don't have consensus if this feature should
1) remain as is (drop PR)
2) be improved (merge PR and/or enhance detection)
3) browser detection should be dropped?

I would vote for option 2+ :)

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org>
wrote:

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl <
korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:


----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
even in 2009 it was considered bad:
https://www.sitepoint.com/why-
browser-sniffing-stinks/
and in case that is not enough, read what the guy that invented
modernizr
has to say:
http://farukat.es/journal/2011/02/499-lest-we-forget-or-
how-i-learned-whats-so-bad-about-browser-sniffing/


I do not trust anyone who says "don't do it this way" but doesn't
say
how
to do it!

There are several of "if (isBrowserX()) {...} else {...}" in
Wicket JS
code
and they served well for the last decade.
Since there are several other *Java* libraries for user agent
detection
this means that someone still finds them useful despite what
other
people
claim.
unreliable things wont get reliably by pointing into the past and
then
telling that your fater did it the same way....

nowadays you would use feature detection, see:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/Tools_and_
testing/Cross_browser_testing/Feature_detection

Korbinian,

The PR by Maxim is about the User-Agent detection at the *server*
side,
i.e. in the *Java* code. It reads the request header and tells you
what the
browser is.
The JS feature detection is only client side. You will need Ajax
behaviors
to send the ourcome to the server to be able to use it there. Wicket
does
this with (Web)ClientInfo related classes.

I'll be VERY glad to see your PR that uses modern ways to redo the
current
checks in wicket-ajax.js or in the server code, e.g. Wicket Bootstrap
uses
this information to decide whether to render respond.js!
Until then please do not make such bold statements. It is easy to
read an
article and say "this is the [new] silver bullet". Until you get your
hands
dirty you never know what kind of problems you will face!




btw:
https://github.com/HaraldWalker/user-agent-utils -> this is EOL,
guess
why...
https://github.com/pieroxy/java-user-agent-detection/releases ->
last
release from september 2017...


Sep 2017 is like yesterday
(all only MAJOR releases!)

28. September 2017 - Firefox 56
14. November 2017 - Firefox 57 Quantum
23. Januar 2018 - Firefox 58
13. März 2018 - Firefox 59

2017-09-05 - Chrome 61.0.3163
2017-10-17 - Chrome 62.0.3202
2017-12-05 - Chrome 63.0.3239
2018-01-23 - Chrome 64.0.3282
2018-03-06 - Chrome 65.0.3325

and this is just 2 desktop ones! I dont want to talk about the
loads of
updates my android device got in that time (firefox mobile, chrome
and
samsung internet!) - oh, and btw: they still lie about the user
agent all
time.... dont get me wrong, but sep 17 is freaking old in case you
need
to
reliably detect the browser!

Yes, and all of them are properly parsed by the same code that has
been
used in the last decade!
The browser vendors have no reason to change their syntax of user
agent.
Believe me they do know that this piece of information *is being*
used in
the wild!



--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax



Reply via email to