Before we dive into this, you need to explain this statement in more detail:
"as they have to match concrete Builder implementations in the implementation of W3C DDR API" Are you talking about the legacy ODDR client here? ________________________________ From: Werner Keil <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 2:13 PM Subject: Where do we need genericWebBot? Reza/all, I've been going through 1.0.1 data and tested it via the DDR API. Two major problems so far, "inventing" new device builders on the fly must not be done, as they have to match concrete Builder implementations in the implementation of W3C DDR API. As for "DesktopOSDeviceBuilder" that is somewhat similar to e.g. "IOSDeviceBuilder", so it seems sound. However there is also a need for a "BotBuilder". First and foremost it should be "BotDeviceBuilder" as there are also other Builders, e.g. various OSBuilders, that deal with the OS aspect, not the device. I see there are a couple of bot examples like Google, etc. but where do they manifest a User Agent string or something "device like" to justify calling them "device"? I noticed, there's a new DesktopDevice section, but the same id "desktopDevice" also occurs for SimpleDevice: <device id="desktopDevice"> <list> <value>Mozilla/4.0</value> <value>Mozilla/5.0 .compatible</value> <value>Mozilla/5.0 .Windows</value> <value>Mozilla/5.0 .Macintosh</value> <value>Mozilla/5.0 .X11</value> <value>Mozilla/5.0 .Ubuntu</value> <value>Opera</value> <!--<value>Safari</value>--> <value>Chrome</value> <value>Konqueror</value> </list> </device> So if this works across multiple builders, the question why the "bot" even required its own class should be discussed. If you just need to declare a "genericWebBot" section, it could technically work fine under SimpleDeviceBuilder. Unless you forsee a specific analysis of things like UA details, etc. that's what the particular builder classes do, it should not be put under a non-existing class. Thanks, Werner
