Added: http://issues.cordova.io/1836 http://issues.cordova.io/1837 http://issues.cordova.io/1838 http://issues.cordova.io/1839 http://issues.cordova.io/1840
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Adding jira tasks as per Brian's last comment. > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 sounds like a plan >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On 11/8/12 4:01 AM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote: >>> >>> >I think would it make sense to: >>> > >>> >1. align apis as orig msg from fil suggests >>> >2. drop in deprecation notice for sync usage and add to deprec page >>> >3. add async equiv and get it out of startup path as andrew suggests >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Although I think we're close to being able to author cross-platform >>> apps >>> >> sans UA detection , I think people still have valid use cases to use >>> it. >>> >> >>> >> On 11/7/12 6:18 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >I like the idea of at least removing this from the start-up path. If >>> >>users >>> >> >want to know about the device, they could always call exec() >>> >>themselves. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> Also, if we remove the device API like Brian suggested, it would be >>> >> >>good in >>> >> >> the sense that we won't have to call the CDVDevice plugin to >>> populate >>> >> >>some >>> >> >> js variables before deviceready can fire -- eliminating a >>> dependency. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Agree with Fil to make it consistent - in essence this is an iOS >>> >>bug >>> >> >>:) >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Brian, there is one case I can think of -- detecting the iPad >>> >>mini's >>> >> >> > features using js - Max Firt investigated trying to do it >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://www.mobilexweb.com/blog/ipad-mini-detection-for-html5-user-agentbu >>> >> >>tthe only kludgy way right now using PG would be device.platform to >>> >> >> > detect iPad2,5 and iPad2,6. I suppose ppl would need to detect >>> >>this to >>> >> >> > enlarge certain UI elements for the mini (since the physical area >>> >> >>will be >>> >> >> > smaller than a reg sized iPad) >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> CI implementation is what I am gunning for here (and can >>> actually >>> >>use >>> >> >> it). >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> I don't like it either but reality is for people building >>> >> >>cross-platform >>> >> >> >> apps at some point you have to do: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> if (device.platform == 'android') // do some stuff >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> For example, knowing when to attach to a back button vs >>> rendering >>> >> >>some >>> >> >> ui >>> >> >> >> to handle that. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> IMO we should set up deprecation for "name" and move to "model" >>> as >>> >> >>it's >>> >> >> >> clearer (and probably was the reason why iOS went for device's >>> >>custom >>> >> >> name >>> >> >> >> in the first place - semantic confusion :P ) >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On 11/7/12 7:35 AM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >This may get some rotton tomatoes thrown at me but I would be >>> in >>> >> >>favor >>> >> >> of >>> >> >> >> >axing these apis altogether. I think they are more dangerous >>> than >>> >> >> useful >>> >> >> >> / >>> >> >> >> >developers should favor browser feature detection for their UI >>> >>work. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >There is no programmatic reason to want these properties >>> >>otherwise >>> >> >> that I >>> >> >> >> >can think of? >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >(But agree at least should be consistent as Fil suggests.) >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> Currently if you ask for device.platform you will get several >>> >> >> different >>> >> >> >> >> responses on iOS. You'll get iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, etc. >>> >>This >>> >> >> seems >>> >> >> >> >> backwards. IMO all of these should return 'iOS'. >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Related, device.name returns the custom device name as the >>> user >>> >> >> >> defines >>> >> >> >> >>it >>> >> >> >> >> in iTunes. IMO it should return the model name, I.e. What >>> >> >> >> >>device.platform >>> >> >> >> >> returns now. >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> This would line it up with our docs + other platforms. >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >
