Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection
okay no problem - lets set it to deprecated.
+1
kind regards
Tobias
> Am 23.06.2018 um 18:11 schrieb Maxim Solodovnik :
>
> +1 for deprecating
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 8:07 PM Martin Grigorov
> wrote:
>
>> Then maybe we should deprecate the user agent related code in Wicket 8/9
>> and drop it later ?
>> ... and show the users how they can use 3rd party libs like this one for
>> such needs.
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 3:57 PM Sven Meier wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> my stance hasn't changed:
>>>
>>> I'm not in favor to add a dependency to a library which
>>>
>>> - updates frequently to adjust to browser developments
>>> - introduces a singleton bottleneck
>>> - can't be excluded from dependencies
>>> - is hidden behind an age-old API Wicket API (UserAgent) ...
>>> - ... which won't be sufficient to many people anyways
>>>
>>> .. just to save someone a single line of code passing the user agent
>>> string to the library himself.
>>>
>>> Have fun
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>
Am 22.06.2018 um 14:37 schrieb Tobias Soloschenko:
I think we should turn off the gatherExtendedBrowserInformation by
>>> default and give a hint that there is a synchronisation point of 0,011 ms
>>> when turned on, but the detection is much more reliable with the new
>>> implementation.
kind regards
Tobias
> Am 22.06.2018 um 11:49 schrieb Maxim Solodovnik >> :
>
> Is it time to resume this discussion?
> We still have PR unmerged, and don't have agreement what to do next :(
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:08 AM Tobias Soloschenko <
> tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> :-D
>>
>> kind regards
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>> Am 09.04.2018 um 19:14 schrieb Sven Meier :
>>>
>>> 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
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 :
>>
>> +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
>> *ser
Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection
+1 for deprecating
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 8:07 PM Martin Grigorov
wrote:
> Then maybe we should deprecate the user agent related code in Wicket 8/9
> and drop it later ?
> ... and show the users how they can use 3rd party libs like this one for
> such needs.
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 3:57 PM Sven Meier wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > my stance hasn't changed:
> >
> > I'm not in favor to add a dependency to a library which
> >
> > - updates frequently to adjust to browser developments
> > - introduces a singleton bottleneck
> > - can't be excluded from dependencies
> > - is hidden behind an age-old API Wicket API (UserAgent) ...
> > - ... which won't be sufficient to many people anyways
> >
> > .. just to save someone a single line of code passing the user agent
> > string to the library himself.
> >
> > Have fun
> > Sven
> >
> >
> > Am 22.06.2018 um 14:37 schrieb Tobias Soloschenko:
> > > I think we should turn off the gatherExtendedBrowserInformation by
> > default and give a hint that there is a synchronisation point of 0,011 ms
> > when turned on, but the detection is much more reliable with the new
> > implementation.
> > >
> > > kind regards
> > >
> > > Tobias
> > >
> > >> Am 22.06.2018 um 11:49 schrieb Maxim Solodovnik >:
> > >>
> > >> Is it time to resume this discussion?
> > >> We still have PR unmerged, and don't have agreement what to do next :(
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:08 AM Tobias Soloschenko <
> > >> tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> :-D
> > >>>
> > >>> kind regards
> > >>>
> > >>> Tobias
> > >>>
> > Am 09.04.2018 um 19:14 schrieb Sven Meier :
> >
> > 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
> > > 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 :
> > >>>
> > >>> +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
Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection
Then maybe we should deprecate the user agent related code in Wicket 8/9
and drop it later ?
... and show the users how they can use 3rd party libs like this one for
such needs.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 3:57 PM Sven Meier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my stance hasn't changed:
>
> I'm not in favor to add a dependency to a library which
>
> - updates frequently to adjust to browser developments
> - introduces a singleton bottleneck
> - can't be excluded from dependencies
> - is hidden behind an age-old API Wicket API (UserAgent) ...
> - ... which won't be sufficient to many people anyways
>
> .. just to save someone a single line of code passing the user agent
> string to the library himself.
>
> Have fun
> Sven
>
>
> Am 22.06.2018 um 14:37 schrieb Tobias Soloschenko:
> > I think we should turn off the gatherExtendedBrowserInformation by
> default and give a hint that there is a synchronisation point of 0,011 ms
> when turned on, but the detection is much more reliable with the new
> implementation.
> >
> > kind regards
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> >> Am 22.06.2018 um 11:49 schrieb Maxim Solodovnik :
> >>
> >> Is it time to resume this discussion?
> >> We still have PR unmerged, and don't have agreement what to do next :(
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:08 AM Tobias Soloschenko <
> >> tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> :-D
> >>>
> >>> kind regards
> >>>
> >>> Tobias
> >>>
> Am 09.04.2018 um 19:14 schrieb Sven Meier :
>
> 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
> > 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 :
> >>>
> >>> +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 yo
Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection
Hi,
my stance hasn't changed:
I'm not in favor to add a dependency to a library which
- updates frequently to adjust to browser developments
- introduces a singleton bottleneck
- can't be excluded from dependencies
- is hidden behind an age-old API Wicket API (UserAgent) ...
- ... which won't be sufficient to many people anyways
.. just to save someone a single line of code passing the user agent
string to the library himself.
Have fun
Sven
Am 22.06.2018 um 14:37 schrieb Tobias Soloschenko:
I think we should turn off the gatherExtendedBrowserInformation by default and
give a hint that there is a synchronisation point of 0,011 ms when turned on,
but the detection is much more reliable with the new implementation.
kind regards
Tobias
Am 22.06.2018 um 11:49 schrieb Maxim Solodovnik :
Is it time to resume this discussion?
We still have PR unmerged, and don't have agreement what to do next :(
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:08 AM Tobias Soloschenko <
tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com> wrote:
:-D
kind regards
Tobias
Am 09.04.2018 um 19:14 schrieb Sven Meier :
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
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 :
+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
