@Chris - yes I realise it *might* be a hack but it isn't *really*,
e.g.
The opera object (in window)
Pros:
has been around since Opera 5 - it's used mostly by User
JavaScript files (http://www.opera.com/browser/tutorials/userjs/specs/
index.dml)
is unique to Opera
Cons:
not part
Hi Dave,
I believe, that basically we share some of our attitudes about making
detection stable (I totally agree on the sickness of UA strings).
But
WRT content negociation yeh, I understand why/when you need this - but
to turn this on it's head why would I want a user to be able to view
Hi Dave,
I agree that it will depend on the requirements for your site. Still,
I would see GWT as absolutely appropriate for building public facing
websites/applications, because it provides a lot of advantages
compared to other web frameworks. And I would hope that it will
continue to work
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree!!!
One of the first GWT apps/websites I saw was https://studyblue.com/
now I have to be honest loading 1.5Mb in 60 odd http requests didn't/
doesn't exactly make me think Wow!! That GWT thing must be amazing!
- granted it *might* not all be GWT's
My $0.02: Identifying browser by checking for specific quirks is horrid.
It would be an entirely different matter if we were checking for the
behavior we want to use, and building deferred bindings for every
different quirk of behavior. This is unrealistic. It would generate
a combinatorial
Let me doubly-reinforce this point. DaveC, you posted this link:
http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/objectdetection.html
This does NOT suggest using object detection to identify the browser.
This suggests using object detection to determine right then and there
if you should use an
Well... I don't know if this will really be more reliable - to be
honest, it looks a little bit like a very, very dirty hack ;-) At
least, I can't look at it and without knowing a lot of details about
all existing browser versions ever, understand what this does. If
there was something like
thanks dave for sharing :)
i think i will start using your code for browser identification
Michael
On Feb 25, 10:44 am, DaveC david.andrew.chap...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Thanks for all the replies.
Thomas, I get your point - but I don't agree ;o), I think there are
more reliable ways for
On Feb 23, 1:41 pm, DaveC david.andrew.chap...@googlemail.com wrote:
So perhaps your question ought to be why GWT uses the user agent to put
the browser into its 6 categories rather than using browser capability
detection to put them into the same 6 categories.
E... isn't that what I
DaveC wrote:
Gal, I'm not sure what you mean by this:
You can write your own properties detection to do it.
But can't you see the what you are telling means compile 100+ different
versions of the page if you evaluate individual properties?
The way gwt do it give you 6 versions only, one
So perhaps your question ought to be why GWT uses the user agent to put
the browser into its 6 categories rather than using browser capability
detection to put them into the same 6 categories.
E... isn't that what I asked?
So my question is NOT- why do we have deferred binding or why does
On Feb 23, 1:41 pm, DaveC david.andrew.chap...@googlemail.com wrote:
So perhaps your question ought to be why GWT uses the user agent to put
the browser into its 6 categories rather than using browser capability
detection to put them into the same 6 categories.
E... isn't that what I
If you're not comfortable using UserAgent sniffing, you can pretty
easily override the default GWT user.agent property provider in your
module's xml file and return the same version strings however way you
want to determine them.
You'd do something like this:
property-provider
كنت اود ان تكون الرسالة الي ولاكن لم تكن ذالك
مارتن انت لم تبعث الرسالة الي
انني اريد منك توجية؟ Thanks for the reply Martin,
OK, I think you maybe misunderstood my question though.
I understand what Deferred Binding is and why it's a good thing - what
I wanted to know was why does GWT sniff use
Why does gwt parse the useragent string rather than using object/
feature detection - due to the fragility of sniffing the ua string?
It makes it easier to NOT support certain browsers. =)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
Hi Dave,
I agree partially. However, I think it also has advantages to use the
user agent string: Changing the user agent string in the browser can
be regarded as a clear statement by the user, that they want to
pretend they're surfing with a different browser. This way, a user can
tell the
Dave: Pauls last post is the correct answer for your question
On 23 Feb., 13:41, DaveC david.andrew.chap...@googlemail.com wrote:
So perhaps your question ought to be why GWT uses the user agent to put
the browser into its 6 categories rather than using browser capability
detection to put
It's *generally* considered by the web development community that
useragent sniffing is bad and object/feature detection is good... why
then does GWT sniff the useragent?
Can anyone explain why - is there a benefit??
Cheers,
Dave
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
because it's much better:
http://code.google.com/intl/de-DE/webtoolkit/doc/latest/DevGuideCodingBasicsDeferred.html#benefits
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post to this group, send email to
Thanks for the reply Martin,
OK, I think you maybe misunderstood my question though.
I understand what Deferred Binding is and why it's a good thing - what
I wanted to know was why does GWT sniff use the navigator.useragent
string e.g.
var ua = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase();
if
On Feb 22, 11:45 am, DaveC david.andrew.chap...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Thanks for the reply Martin,
OK, I think you maybe misunderstood my question though.
I understand what Deferred Binding is and why it's a good thing - what
I wanted to know was why does GWT sniff use the
You can write your own properties detection to do it.
But can't you see the what you are telling means compile 100+ different
versions of the page if you evaluate individual properties?
The way gwt do it give you 6 versions only, one for each browser...
Also, why should you care about browser
22 matches
Mail list logo
