Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Martijn Dashorst]

+1 remove it

Martijn

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 3:07 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=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

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Tobias Soloschenko]

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=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*

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Martin Grigorov]

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=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 

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Sven Meier]

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=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 

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[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=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
> 

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[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=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 

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Tobias Soloschenko]

:-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 
 :
> It seems the discussion is spread between this thread and the JIRA
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6544?focusedCommentId=16423835=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 
> 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 

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[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 :

It seems the discussion is spread between this thread and the JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6544?focusedCommentId=16423835=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 
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

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[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 
>> :
>>> It seems the discussion is spread between this thread and the JIRA
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6544?focusedCommentId=16423835=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 
>>> 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



-- 
WBR
Maxim aka solomax

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Tobias Soloschenko]

-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 
> :
>> It seems the discussion is spread between this thread and the JIRA
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6544?focusedCommentId=16423835=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 
>> 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

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[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 :
>It seems the discussion is spread between this thread and the JIRA
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6544?focusedCommentId=16423835=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 
>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

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Martin Grigorov]

+1 for 2) from me

Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
Looking for a remote position with Wicket ? Contact me!
https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov


On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Maxim Solodovnik 
wrote:

> It seems the discussion is spread between this thread and the JIRA
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6544?
> focusedCommentId=16423835=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 
> 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
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Maxim Solodovnik]

It seems the discussion is spread between this thread and the JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6544?focusedCommentId=16423835=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 
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

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Martin Grigorov]

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!

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Maxim Solodovnik]

Just have checked
All previous tests works as before

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Maxim Solodovnik  wrote:
> I'll better double-check
> Tests were slightly changed.
>
> WBR, Maxim
> (from mobile, sorry for the typos)
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 20:59 Maxim Solodovnik  wrote:
>>
>> All tests are passed
>> So I believe so
>>
>> WBR, Maxim
>> (from mobile, sorry for the typos)
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 20:55 Sven Meier  wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's keep this topics separate.
>>>
>>> Any improvements to browser detection would be backwards compatible,
>>> right?
>>>
>>> Sven
>>>
>>> Am 29. März 2018 11:10:55 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik
>>> :
>>> >Should I close my PR and start new discussion? :))
>>> >
>>> >On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Sven Meier  wrote:
>>> >> BTW I'd rather keep the current solution as it is and discuss
>>> >releasing Wicket 8 :)
>>> >>
>>> >> Sven
>>> >>
>>> >> Am 29. März 2018 07:49:02 MESZ schrieb Sven Meier :
>>> >>>It's perfectly fine to use whatever tool gets the job done. People
>>> >say
>>> >>>how to do it instead, but no one has to follow the advice.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>IMHO it's something different for a framework to offer an API on top
>>> >of
>>> >>>a something that doesn't even work reliably:
>>> >>>Wicket's browser detection is using regex-matching on identifiers
>>> >>>generated by browsers to make it difficult to be detected :P.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Regarding integrating of mentioned libraries:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   LibraryXY.browser(clientInfo.getUserAgent()).supportsZ()
>>> >>>
>>> >>>I don't see a benefit of having that in Wicket or wicketstuff.
>>> >>>Integrating modernizr might be more interesting, but I doubt many
>>> >>>people need browser detection on the server.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Have fun
>>> >>>Sven
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Am 29. März 2018 04:34:00 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik
>>> >>>:
>>> "you would use feature detection" - unfortunately it doesn't work
>>> Good real-life example is WebRtc: you can check it is supported,
>>> then you need to know which browser your client is using  (Plan
>>> >A,
>>> Plan B, Universal, "Safari way")
>>> 
>>> Another example wmode for , FF acts differently,
>>> 
>>> so I really miss "which-browser" feature detection 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl
>>>  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
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> 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!
>>> 
>>> 

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Maxim Solodovnik]

I'll better double-check
Tests were slightly changed.

WBR, Maxim
(from mobile, sorry for the typos)

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 20:59 Maxim Solodovnik  wrote:

> All tests are passed
> So I believe so
>
> WBR, Maxim
> (from mobile, sorry for the typos)
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 20:55 Sven Meier  wrote:
>
>> Let's keep this topics separate.
>>
>> Any improvements to browser detection would be backwards compatible,
>> right?
>>
>> Sven
>>
>> Am 29. März 2018 11:10:55 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik <
>> solomax...@gmail.com>:
>> >Should I close my PR and start new discussion? :))
>> >
>> >On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Sven Meier  wrote:
>> >> BTW I'd rather keep the current solution as it is and discuss
>> >releasing Wicket 8 :)
>> >>
>> >> Sven
>> >>
>> >> Am 29. März 2018 07:49:02 MESZ schrieb Sven Meier :
>> >>>It's perfectly fine to use whatever tool gets the job done. People
>> >say
>> >>>how to do it instead, but no one has to follow the advice.
>> >>>
>> >>>IMHO it's something different for a framework to offer an API on top
>> >of
>> >>>a something that doesn't even work reliably:
>> >>>Wicket's browser detection is using regex-matching on identifiers
>> >>>generated by browsers to make it difficult to be detected :P.
>> >>>
>> >>>Regarding integrating of mentioned libraries:
>> >>>
>> >>>   LibraryXY.browser(clientInfo.getUserAgent()).supportsZ()
>> >>>
>> >>>I don't see a benefit of having that in Wicket or wicketstuff.
>> >>>Integrating modernizr might be more interesting, but I doubt many
>> >>>people need browser detection on the server.
>> >>>
>> >>>Have fun
>> >>>Sven
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Am 29. März 2018 04:34:00 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik
>> >>>:
>> "you would use feature detection" - unfortunately it doesn't work
>> Good real-life example is WebRtc: you can check it is supported,
>> then you need to know which browser your client is using  (Plan
>> >A,
>> Plan B, Universal, "Safari way")
>> 
>> Another example wmode for , FF acts differently,
>> 
>> so I really miss "which-browser" feature detection 
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl
>>  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
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> 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!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> WBR
>> Maxim aka solomax
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >WBR
>> >Maxim aka solomax
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Maxim Solodovnik]

All tests are passed
So I believe so

WBR, Maxim
(from mobile, sorry for the typos)

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 20:55 Sven Meier  wrote:

> Let's keep this topics separate.
>
> Any improvements to browser detection would be backwards compatible, right?
>
> Sven
>
> Am 29. März 2018 11:10:55 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik <
> solomax...@gmail.com>:
> >Should I close my PR and start new discussion? :))
> >
> >On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Sven Meier  wrote:
> >> BTW I'd rather keep the current solution as it is and discuss
> >releasing Wicket 8 :)
> >>
> >> Sven
> >>
> >> Am 29. März 2018 07:49:02 MESZ schrieb Sven Meier :
> >>>It's perfectly fine to use whatever tool gets the job done. People
> >say
> >>>how to do it instead, but no one has to follow the advice.
> >>>
> >>>IMHO it's something different for a framework to offer an API on top
> >of
> >>>a something that doesn't even work reliably:
> >>>Wicket's browser detection is using regex-matching on identifiers
> >>>generated by browsers to make it difficult to be detected :P.
> >>>
> >>>Regarding integrating of mentioned libraries:
> >>>
> >>>   LibraryXY.browser(clientInfo.getUserAgent()).supportsZ()
> >>>
> >>>I don't see a benefit of having that in Wicket or wicketstuff.
> >>>Integrating modernizr might be more interesting, but I doubt many
> >>>people need browser detection on the server.
> >>>
> >>>Have fun
> >>>Sven
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Am 29. März 2018 04:34:00 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik
> >>>:
> "you would use feature detection" - unfortunately it doesn't work
> Good real-life example is WebRtc: you can check it is supported,
> then you need to know which browser your client is using  (Plan
> >A,
> Plan B, Universal, "Safari way")
> 
> Another example wmode for , FF acts differently,
> 
> so I really miss "which-browser" feature detection 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl
>  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
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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!
> 
> 
> 
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >WBR
> >Maxim aka solomax
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Sven Meier]

Let's keep this topics separate.

Any improvements to browser detection would be backwards compatible, right?

Sven

Am 29. März 2018 11:10:55 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik :
>Should I close my PR and start new discussion? :))
>
>On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Sven Meier  wrote:
>> BTW I'd rather keep the current solution as it is and discuss
>releasing Wicket 8 :)
>>
>> Sven
>>
>> Am 29. März 2018 07:49:02 MESZ schrieb Sven Meier :
>>>It's perfectly fine to use whatever tool gets the job done. People
>say
>>>how to do it instead, but no one has to follow the advice.
>>>
>>>IMHO it's something different for a framework to offer an API on top
>of
>>>a something that doesn't even work reliably:
>>>Wicket's browser detection is using regex-matching on identifiers
>>>generated by browsers to make it difficult to be detected :P.
>>>
>>>Regarding integrating of mentioned libraries:
>>>
>>>   LibraryXY.browser(clientInfo.getUserAgent()).supportsZ()
>>>
>>>I don't see a benefit of having that in Wicket or wicketstuff.
>>>Integrating modernizr might be more interesting, but I doubt many
>>>people need browser detection on the server.
>>>
>>>Have fun
>>>Sven
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Am 29. März 2018 04:34:00 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik
>>>:
"you would use feature detection" - unfortunately it doesn't work
Good real-life example is WebRtc: you can check it is supported,
then you need to know which browser your client is using  (Plan
>A,
Plan B, Universal, "Safari way")

Another example wmode for , FF acts differently,

so I really miss "which-browser" feature detection 

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl
 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
>
>>
>>
>>> 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!



--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
>
>
>
>-- 
>WBR
>Maxim aka solomax

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Maxim Solodovnik]

Should I close my PR and start new discussion? :))

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Sven Meier  wrote:
> BTW I'd rather keep the current solution as it is and discuss releasing 
> Wicket 8 :)
>
> Sven
>
> Am 29. März 2018 07:49:02 MESZ schrieb Sven Meier :
>>It's perfectly fine to use whatever tool gets the job done. People say
>>how to do it instead, but no one has to follow the advice.
>>
>>IMHO it's something different for a framework to offer an API on top of
>>a something that doesn't even work reliably:
>>Wicket's browser detection is using regex-matching on identifiers
>>generated by browsers to make it difficult to be detected :P.
>>
>>Regarding integrating of mentioned libraries:
>>
>>   LibraryXY.browser(clientInfo.getUserAgent()).supportsZ()
>>
>>I don't see a benefit of having that in Wicket or wicketstuff.
>>Integrating modernizr might be more interesting, but I doubt many
>>people need browser detection on the server.
>>
>>Have fun
>>Sven
>>
>>
>>
>>Am 29. März 2018 04:34:00 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik
>>:
>>>"you would use feature detection" - unfortunately it doesn't work
>>>Good real-life example is WebRtc: you can check it is supported,
>>>then you need to know which browser your client is using  (Plan A,
>>>Plan B, Universal, "Safari way")
>>>
>>>Another example wmode for , FF acts differently,
>>>
>>>so I really miss "which-browser" feature detection 
>>>
>>>On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl
>>> 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

>
>
>> 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!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>WBR
>>>Maxim aka solomax



-- 
WBR
Maxim aka solomax

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Sven Meier]

BTW I'd rather keep the current solution as it is and discuss releasing Wicket 
8 :)

Sven

Am 29. März 2018 07:49:02 MESZ schrieb Sven Meier :
>It's perfectly fine to use whatever tool gets the job done. People say
>how to do it instead, but no one has to follow the advice.
>
>IMHO it's something different for a framework to offer an API on top of
>a something that doesn't even work reliably:
>Wicket's browser detection is using regex-matching on identifiers
>generated by browsers to make it difficult to be detected :P.
>
>Regarding integrating of mentioned libraries:
>
>   LibraryXY.browser(clientInfo.getUserAgent()).supportsZ()
>
>I don't see a benefit of having that in Wicket or wicketstuff.
>Integrating modernizr might be more interesting, but I doubt many
>people need browser detection on the server.
>
>Have fun
>Sven
>
>
>
>Am 29. März 2018 04:34:00 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik
>:
>>"you would use feature detection" - unfortunately it doesn't work
>>Good real-life example is WebRtc: you can check it is supported,
>>then you need to know which browser your client is using  (Plan A,
>>Plan B, Universal, "Safari way")
>>
>>Another example wmode for , FF acts differently,
>>
>>so I really miss "which-browser" feature detection 
>>
>>On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl
>> 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
>>>


> 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!
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>WBR
>>Maxim aka solomax

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Sven Meier]

It's perfectly fine to use whatever tool gets the job done. People say how to 
do it instead, but no one has to follow the advice.

IMHO it's something different for a framework to offer an API on top of a 
something that doesn't even work reliably:
Wicket's browser detection is using regex-matching on identifiers generated by 
browsers to make it difficult to be detected :P.

Regarding integrating of mentioned libraries:

   LibraryXY.browser(clientInfo.getUserAgent()).supportsZ()

I don't see a benefit of having that in Wicket or wicketstuff.
Integrating modernizr might be more interesting, but I doubt many people need 
browser detection on the server.

Have fun
Sven



Am 29. März 2018 04:34:00 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik :
>"you would use feature detection" - unfortunately it doesn't work
>Good real-life example is WebRtc: you can check it is supported,
>then you need to know which browser your client is using  (Plan A,
>Plan B, Universal, "Safari way")
>
>Another example wmode for , FF acts differently,
>
>so I really miss "which-browser" feature detection 
>
>On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl
> 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
>>
>>>
>>>
 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!
>
>
>
>-- 
>WBR
>Maxim aka solomax

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Maxim Solodovnik]

"you would use feature detection" - unfortunately it doesn't work
Good real-life example is WebRtc: you can check it is supported,
then you need to know which browser your client is using  (Plan A,
Plan B, Universal, "Safari way")

Another example wmode for , FF acts differently,

so I really miss "which-browser" feature detection 

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl
 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
>
>>
>>
>>> 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!



-- 
WBR
Maxim aka solomax

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Korbinian Bachl]

- 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

> 
> 
>> 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!

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Martin Grigorov]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Korbinian Bachl <
korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:

> IMHO: its 2018 and any browser sniffing has to be dropped at all, as it
> has no use anyway and its not working reliable... what for do we need this
> at all?
>
> 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.


> 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


>
> - Ursprüngliche Mail -
> > Von: "Maxim Solodovnik" <solomax...@gmail.com>
> > An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. März 2018 18:04:03
> > Betreff: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> > While reviewing WICKET-6544 Martin propose to use JS library for this
> task
> > Here are some examples:
> > https://github.com/pieroxy/java-user-agent-detection or
> > https://github.com/HaraldWalker/user-agent-utils
> >
> > WDYT
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Maxim Solodovnik]

It is always good to know you are working with IE  :)))

I would review detected browser list (for ex. to match this list:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/AudioNode#Browser_compatibility)

It always can be implemented as tiny module at wicketstuff

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote:
> I agree with Korbinian: IMHO we should drop that feature.
>
> Sven
>
>
>
> Am 28.03.2018 um 18:35 schrieb Maxim Solodovnik:
>>
>> I also noticed all libraries are old :(
>>
>> Not sure "Drop this feature" is great idea
>> Some users (including me) might find it useful :))
>>
>> BTW why do we have both?
>> isBrowserMozilla())
>> isBrowserMozillaFirefox()
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Korbinian Bachl
>> <korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO: its 2018 and any browser sniffing has to be dropped at all, as it
>>> has no use anyway and its not working reliable... what for do we need this
>>> at all?
>>>
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>> 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...
>>>
>>>
>>> - Ursprüngliche Mail -
>>>>
>>>> Von: "Maxim Solodovnik" <solomax...@gmail.com>
>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. März 2018 18:04:03
>>>> Betreff: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection
>>>> Hello All,
>>>>
>>>> While reviewing WICKET-6544 Martin propose to use JS library for this
>>>> task
>>>> Here are some examples:
>>>> https://github.com/pieroxy/java-user-agent-detection or
>>>> https://github.com/HaraldWalker/user-agent-utils
>>>>
>>>> WDYT
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> WBR
>>>> Maxim aka solomax
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
WBR
Maxim aka solomax

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Sven Meier]

I agree with Korbinian: IMHO we should drop that feature.

Sven


Am 28.03.2018 um 18:35 schrieb Maxim Solodovnik:

I also noticed all libraries are old :(

Not sure "Drop this feature" is great idea
Some users (including me) might find it useful :))

BTW why do we have both?
isBrowserMozilla())
isBrowserMozillaFirefox()

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Korbinian Bachl
<korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:

IMHO: its 2018 and any browser sniffing has to be dropped at all, as it has no 
use anyway and its not working reliable... what for do we need this at all?

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/


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...


- Ursprüngliche Mail -

Von: "Maxim Solodovnik" <solomax...@gmail.com>
An: dev@wicket.apache.org
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. März 2018 18:04:03
Betreff: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection
Hello All,

While reviewing WICKET-6544 Martin propose to use JS library for this task
Here are some examples:
https://github.com/pieroxy/java-user-agent-detection or
https://github.com/HaraldWalker/user-agent-utils

WDYT

--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax

Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection

[Maxim Solodovnik]

I also noticed all libraries are old :(

Not sure "Drop this feature" is great idea
Some users (including me) might find it useful :))

BTW why do we have both?
isBrowserMozilla())
isBrowserMozillaFirefox()

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Korbinian Bachl
<korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:
> IMHO: its 2018 and any browser sniffing has to be dropped at all, as it has 
> no use anyway and its not working reliable... what for do we need this at all?
>
> 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/
>
>
> 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...
>
>
> - Ursprüngliche Mail -
>> Von: "Maxim Solodovnik" <solomax...@gmail.com>
>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. März 2018 18:04:03
>> Betreff: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> While reviewing WICKET-6544 Martin propose to use JS library for this task
>> Here are some examples:
>> https://github.com/pieroxy/java-user-agent-detection or
>> https://github.com/HaraldWalker/user-agent-utils
>>
>> WDYT
>>
>> --
>> WBR
>> Maxim aka solomax



-- 
WBR
Maxim aka solomax