Yeah. Device.name is an ambiguous-sounding API. Thus my original recommendation to deprecate device.name and add device.model or device.hardware.
Basically, this API should return a string that makes it clear what hardware or model of device it is. On 11/14/12 11:28 AM, "Shazron" <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: >I have somewhat similar concern for iOS: >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-1837 > >Wonder whether we should output the model number instead eg iPad2,5 >This might solve the comical procedure to detect an iPad Mini (at least >for >Cordova): >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13248493/detect-ipad-mini-in-html5 > > >On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Resurrecting this one. >> >> BlackBerry has the same issue sorta. >> >> I have two play books. One is running 2.0.1.xxx, another 2.1.0.xxx. >>When I >> ask for "device.version", I get "BlackBerry Playbook OS" for both. >> >> Device.name also returns weird stuff for the play books, seem like >> arbitrary numbers: 100669958. >> >> Also, device.platform returns "playbook". Shouldn't this be >>"BlackBerry" ? >> >> /cc anyone from RIM >> >> On 11/12/12 7:27 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>
