OK, please make the license changes needed as mentioned in the other
email though. If your change is such that a tablet gets treated as a
mobile, then we're fine, as Roller won't blow up OOTB if it evaluates a
device to be a tablet.
Afterwards, if you wish to expand StylesheetEdit and TemplateEdit, as
well as the parser for theme.xml to support tablets separately, that's
your choice--I don't have that itch to scratch myself though as it seems
a bit overkill right now.
Thanks for this change -- as you note, it's easy for us to update and
gives us the opportunity to support tablets separately in the future
should we go that route.
Glen
On 09/04/2014 02:24 AM, Greg Huber wrote:
We will need to check with the original committer where the code came
from. I could not find anything similar so rather than not be "supported"
I switched locally to a spring based solution. It also is far superior
code than was previously supplied.
The tablet renders currently as a mobile, which we can change if needed to
render normal.
Cheers Greg
On 3 September 2014 14:41, Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not comfortable with this change at the present, I think it is too
soon for us to move to three device support (now including tablets) and not
a good allocation of resources, at a time that multiple device checking is
nicely going out the window due to responsive themes and usage of media
queries. What we presently have, i.e., check for "Mobile" in the UA
string, then check a device listing, and then fallback to standard theme if
mobile unavailable will work for the vast majority of blogs today. And
such simplicity saves us time, allowing us to add more important features
that grab more bloggers than we'd lose by not separately supporting
tablets. Three-device support is going to require code changes throughout
the system to support, it's not just bringing in these few classes.
I was hoping we could just update our list of devices we presently have
and just go with that--update one file alone. (Where did that original
source come from?) There are many sources for this information, even
JQuery will probably work because it's MIT-licensed. Let's consider
whether we need three-device support later, once we get user demand for it
(and your solution looks fine for it), but I'd rather we not be maintaining
something that our present user base isn't asking for.
Glen
On 09/03/2014 03:14 AM, Greg Huber wrote:
Checking the spring-mobile license it uses
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
So it looks ok to use, I will add a version which uses
DeviceResolverRequestFilter and LiteDeviceResolver to determine the
browser
type (also its easily maintained by spring! ;) ) and which we can easily
switch to.
I have added the code Committed revision 1622172. If it is OK I will
update roller accordingly.
Cheers Greg
On 2 September 2014 10:57, Glen Mazza<glen.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, we still support multiple renditions (i.e., basic-mobile) to be
defined if that's what the blogger wants, for single-rendition the
blogger
can use either a responsive theme or even a non-responsive one (my
smartphone just shrinks the image if it's non responsive, I can enlarge
it
and view chunks of the blog page.)
The older code, if there was just the standard rendition defined, would
make a copy of it and make the copy the mobile rendition, requiring the
theme user to have to maintain two sets of templates even if they were
desired to stay identical (e.g., a responsive theme). When I took that
out
-- no copies unless two renditions are defined in the theme.xml -- I
apparently didn't get the code right for the standard theme to be the
default one. I'll get it fixed.
As for the "browser user agent", I'm not sure if that "deviceType"
parameter is something that a Roller page creates once in a browser or
something all browsers supply regardless of the website that they are on,
Googling isn't bringing up much on that parameter so I'm assuming the
former. I'm pretty much new to this particular topic.
Glen
On 09/02/2014 02:45 AM, Greg Huber wrote:
If there is no "mobile" on the theme.xml for the theme it used to show
the
default, so maybe something has changed.
The browser user agent is used to determine if its a mobile device.
What
I
do is to use the jquery mobile logic i.e. LiteDeviceResolver, I can
update
roller but am not sure on the licensing etc on copying jquery code. As
you
mentioned previously the preferred method now would be to use a
responsive
design, rather than a separate theme, so this is kind of parked?
Cheers Greg
On 2 September 2014 01:49, Glen Mazza<glen.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Team, I noticed today with Roller 5.1 the blogs are not rendering
on
smartphones (at least mine, I have a Windows 8 smartphone that uses IE
as
its browser) except for the combo basic-mobile theme, the only one that
provides explicit "mobile" rendition types. For the others, Roller
just
returns a blank screen or a 404 or similar error page. To test, for my
website I created 5 empty blogs, one for each theme we offer:
https://web-gmazza.rhcloud.com/frontpage/
https://web-gmazza.rhcloud.com/gaurav/
https://web-gmazza.rhcloud.com/testdual/ (basic-mobile).
https://web-gmazza.rhcloud.com/frontpage/
https://web-gmazza.rhcloud.com/fauxcoly/
What I would like to have Roller do -- and I had incorrectly assumed
was
already being done -- was for Roller to fall back to the "standard"
rendition type when the "mobile" rendition was not available, correct
anyway if you're using a responsive theme. Searching through the code I
think the only change I need to do is in class RollerVelocity[1], for
those
getTemplate() methods that take a deviceType parameter, to attempt to
get
the standard rendition type as a fallback if the mobile deviceType was
requested and is not available. I'll test it. Until a Roller 5.1.1 is
out, users should be able to duplicate renditions in their theme.xml,
defining the standard one as also the mobile one.
Couple of other concerns, in our MobileDeviceRepository class, our
device
listing[2] used as a backup to determine if mobile is necessary may be
out-of-date, I think I can Google something more recent. Also, just to
confirm, line #88 of that same file, checks the user agent "deviceType"
parameter for "standard" or "mobile" to determine the type, but that
parameter is not normally sent by a browser, correct?
Regards,
Glen
[1]http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/roller/trunk/app/src/main/
java/org/apache/roller/weblogger/ui/rendering/
velocity/RollerVelocity.java?revision=1583506&view=markup#l96
[2]http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/roller/trunk/app/src/main/
java/org/apache/roller/weblogger/ui/rendering/mobile/
MobileDeviceRepository.java?revision=1611764&view=markup#l34
