Hey guys, This is my fault. I mis-interpreted the code change. As the change to "fix" this issue was basically a "revert" of the original commit that was supposed to add ChromeFrame support, I incorrectly assumed that reverting the code would prevent special behavior for ChromeFrame (which I figured we needed in order to make it work). Had I read issue #6665 more carefully, I would have realized that this fix was to improve support for ChromeFrame, not remove it entirely.
I'll be sure to fix this statement in the release notes. However, what *is* our level of support for ChromeFrame? My thought is that we should guarantee support for it, just as we guarantee support for Chrome itself...that's probably a question for the steering committee, though.. Rajeev On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Manuel Carrasco Moñino <[email protected]>wrote: > As you say chromeframe works ok with 2.5.0, so I agree that the release > note is incorrect and may confuse people. > > The way to check that chromeframe is active is just to check whether the > useragent contains the word 'safari' like we do with any other browser, and > this only happens when the plugin is activated [1]. > > I've checked 2.5.0-rc1 and it works as expected. I have used most recent > and an old version (May-2011) of chromeframe with working applications and > I've not seen any problem. > > So in my opinion that release note should be removed or modified to say > that 2.5 regression issues introduced in 2.4 > > - Manolo > > [1] > http://www.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/chrome-frame-getting-started/understanding-chrome-frame-user-agent > > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]>wrote: > >> This is from the release notes: “GWT no longer supports ChromeFrame. The >> implementation caused more bugs than it solved.” >> >> I suppose it's related to >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=6665 but >> then it's rather than GWT 2.5 now *finally* correctly supports >> ChromeFrame (even when disabled). Anyone has insights as to what this is >> really meaning? Is it more about “it might work, but we no longer guarantee >> it”? (but had it ever been the case?) >> >> FYI, people took notice and some of them are already interpreting it >> wrong: >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11467822/does-chrome-browser-support-gwt-2-5 >> >> -- >> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
