The Bluetooth plugin, or a third party plugin. It does not belong in Device.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 5:23 PM Philipp Kursawe <phil.kurs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > that might bring some trouble if the device doesn't have > bluetooth. We should decide what to return in that case, nothing? and > document it > > We return manufactur + model in that case. > > @Joe: the devices I checked had pretty useful BT sharing names. And it is > functionality belonging to the device. Where else would it belong to? > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > -1 > > > > This is a new feature and something we never supported. > > > > The model feature was the user-readable type of phone on Android (i.e. > > Nexus 5X) where the name was the in-house codename for it, in this case > > bullhead. When we switched to device.model, we removed device.name. > > Getting the Bluetooth sharing name could literally be anything like > > "MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels" or "ThisRentalCarSucks". > > > > This is entirely new functionality, and I think that it should exist in a > > separate plugin. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:25 PM, julio cesar sanchez < > > jcesarmob...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > The only thing I see is the plugin he points get the android name from > > the > > > bluetooth adapter, that might bring some trouble if the device doesn't > > have > > > bluetooth. We should decide what to return in that case, nothing? and > > > document it > > > > > > 2016-06-18 0:15 GMT+02:00 Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > I have no objection if the API property is unambiguous, unlike what > it > > > was > > > > before (over 4 years ago!), and is supported by all the major > platforms > > > > (looks like it is, from what you mentioned). Also -- Ubuntu/Linux > looks > > > > like its just /etc/hostname. We'll just have to bump a minor version. > > > > > > > > What do the others think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Philipp Kursawe < > > phil.kurs...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > To further emphasize one point. I fully agree with moving from > > > > device.name > > > > > to device.model + device.manufacturer + device.platform. > > > > > But I still ask all of you do consider bringing back a proper > > > > device.name. > > > > > As I wrote, on Windows its pretty easy to get the real name of the > > > > > PC/Phone. On iOS and Android the work is already done. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Philipp Kursawe < > > > > phil.kurs...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for pointing this out. However the name is not used to > > > reference > > > > > > the device to the API. Thats what the device.uuid is being used > > for. > > > > The > > > > > > device name is used in the UI where the user can see its API > > enabled > > > > > > devices. You don't want to show the user the device id there > (cause > > > she > > > > > has > > > > > > no point of reference to which physical device it belongs) but > the > > > name > > > > > she > > > > > > gave her phone and knows her phone when she connects it to > itunes, > > > > iphoto > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > So the reason to introduce the name property back is exactly the > > one > > > > you > > > > > > mentioned: The user can always change the name of her phone and > > there > > > > > knows > > > > > > its name and will recognize it in a list of devices. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Philipp, > > > > > >> This was the rationale: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e3b0e5f87ba3929d5578308b25ee9a6af5b91177b94015878970fa8e@1352248856@%3Cdev.cordova.apache.org%3E > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On iOS, [UIDevice name] returns the name the user sets in > iTunes > > > for > > > > > >> their > > > > > >> device i.e. "Shazron's iPhone 4", and can change anytime so > > relying > > > on > > > > > it > > > > > >> for API access would be problematic. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Philipp Kursawe < > > > > > phil.kurs...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I wonder why such an important piece of information is not > > > provided > > > > > >> anymore > > > > > >> > in the device plugin? > > > > > >> > What was the reason to remove the property? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > The name of the device, especially when users can > > authorise/revoke > > > > API > > > > > >> > access to apps on different devices, is an important variable > to > > > > know. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for > > Android, > > > > iOS > > > > > >> and > > > > > >> > for Windows it would be a one-liner only too. > > > > > >> > https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
