thanks shaz
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
