Let me play devil's advocate, at least against the idea of returning the string directly. I fear that making this value easily accessible will encourage people to write conditional tests all over the place, which is brittle (i.e. because we're very subtly locked into particular user.agent values) and less optimal (because it isn't clear that the resulting patterns will optimize well). I guarantee you people will create maps of (user agent string key) => (functor), which will thoroughly default compiler optimizations. Can you talk a bit more about the motivation, so we could consider alternatives?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: > I say where's the unit test? > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:14 AM, <j...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> On 2009/08/07 13:56:08, jlabanca wrote: >> >> >> So there's one problem here: The GWT class is in the Core module, which >> doesn't (and shouldn't) depend upon the UserAgent module. I think that >> to get this right, we'll need to do one of the following things: >> - Add this code to some class in User. Not my favorite option. >> - Add a new UserAgent module that lives in its own package, so that we >> can add UserAgent-related stuff to a class there. Perhaps >> com.google.gwt.ua.UserAgent? >> - I kind of like this option, because (a) it gets UserAgent out of the >> user packgage, where it never should have been in the first place, and >> (b) it gives me a place to put other UserAgent-related methods I need to >> add. >> >> What say you? >> >> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/57804 >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
