[GitHub] wicket pull request #274: [WICKET-6546] HTML comments are removed from inlin...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/274 ---
Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection
-1 for dropping agent detection
+1 for adding a dependency to an external library (because of the big pool of
browsers - which might increase in future)
kind regards
Tobias
> Am 05.04.2018 um 13:44 schrieb Sven Meier :
>
> +0 for dropping agent detection (3)
> -1 for adding a dependency to an external library
>
> Sven
>
> Am 3. April 2018 16:34:15 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik
> :
>> It seems the discussion is spread between this thread and the JIRA
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6544?focusedCommentId=16423835&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16423835
>>
>> As far as I can see we don't have consensus if this feature should
>> 1) remain as is (drop PR)
>> 2) be improved (merge PR and/or enhance detection)
>> 3) browser detection should be dropped?
>>
>> I would vote for option 2+ :)
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Martin Grigorov
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl <
>>> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:
>>>
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
>> even in 2009 it was considered bad:
>> https://www.sitepoint.com/why-
>> browser-sniffing-stinks/
>> and in case that is not enough, read what the guy that invented
modernizr
>> has to say:
>> http://farukat.es/journal/2011/02/499-lest-we-forget-or-
>> how-i-learned-whats-so-bad-about-browser-sniffing/
>>
>>
> I do not trust anyone who says "don't do it this way" but doesn't
>> say
>>> how
> to do it!
>
> There are several of "if (isBrowserX()) {...} else {...}" in
>> Wicket JS
code
> and they served well for the last decade.
> Since there are several other *Java* libraries for user agent
>> detection
> this means that someone still finds them useful despite what
>> other
>>> people
> claim.
unreliable things wont get reliably by pointing into the past and
>> then
telling that your fater did it the same way
nowadays you would use feature detection, see:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/Tools_and_
testing/Cross_browser_testing/Feature_detection
>>>
>>>
>>> Korbinian,
>>>
>>> The PR by Maxim is about the User-Agent detection at the *server*
>> side,
>>> i.e. in the *Java* code. It reads the request header and tells you
>> what the
>>> browser is.
>>> The JS feature detection is only client side. You will need Ajax
>> behaviors
>>> to send the ourcome to the server to be able to use it there. Wicket
>> does
>>> this with (Web)ClientInfo related classes.
>>>
>>> I'll be VERY glad to see your PR that uses modern ways to redo the
>> current
>>> checks in wicket-ajax.js or in the server code, e.g. Wicket Bootstrap
>> uses
>>> this information to decide whether to render respond.js!
>>> Until then please do not make such bold statements. It is easy to
>> read an
>>> article and say "this is the [new] silver bullet". Until you get your
>> hands
>>> dirty you never know what kind of problems you will face!
>>>
>>>
>
>
>> btw:
>> https://github.com/HaraldWalker/user-agent-utils -> this is EOL,
>>> guess
>> why...
>> https://github.com/pieroxy/java-user-agent-detection/releases ->
>> last
>> release from september 2017...
>>
>>
> Sep 2017 is like yesterday
(all only MAJOR releases!)
28. September 2017 - Firefox 56
14. November 2017 - Firefox 57 Quantum
23. Januar 2018 - Firefox 58
13. März 2018 - Firefox 59
2017-09-05 - Chrome 61.0.3163
2017-10-17 - Chrome 62.0.3202
2017-12-05 - Chrome 63.0.3239
2018-01-23 - Chrome 64.0.3282
2018-03-06 - Chrome 65.0.3325
and this is just 2 desktop ones! I dont want to talk about the
>> loads of
updates my android device got in that time (firefox mobile, chrome
>> and
samsung internet!) - oh, and btw: they still lie about the user
>> agent all
time dont get me wrong, but sep 17 is freaking old in case you
>> need
>>> to
reliably detect the browser!
>>>
>>> Yes, and all of them are properly parsed by the same code that has
>> been
>>> used in the last decade!
>>> The browser vendors have no reason to change their syntax of user
>> agent.
>>> Believe me they do know that this piece of information *is being*
>> used in
>>> the wild!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> WBR
>> Maxim aka solomax
[GitHub] wicket issue #269: [WICKET-6544] mobile browser detection is improved
Github user klopfdreh commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/269 In my opinion and because of such a big pool of browsers I would say yes. ---
Re: [DISCUSSION] WICKET-6544 mobile browser detection
+0 for dropping agent detection (3)
-1 for adding a dependency to an external library
Sven
Am 3. April 2018 16:34:15 MESZ schrieb Maxim Solodovnik :
>It seems the discussion is spread between this thread and the JIRA
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6544?focusedCommentId=16423835&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16423835
>
>As far as I can see we don't have consensus if this feature should
>1) remain as is (drop PR)
>2) be improved (merge PR and/or enhance detection)
>3) browser detection should be dropped?
>
>I would vote for option 2+ :)
>
>On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Martin Grigorov
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Korbinian Bachl <
>> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > - Ursprüngliche Mail -
>> > >> even in 2009 it was considered bad:
>https://www.sitepoint.com/why-
>> > >> browser-sniffing-stinks/
>> > >> and in case that is not enough, read what the guy that invented
>> > modernizr
>> > >> has to say:
>> > >> http://farukat.es/journal/2011/02/499-lest-we-forget-or-
>> > >> how-i-learned-whats-so-bad-about-browser-sniffing/
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > > I do not trust anyone who says "don't do it this way" but doesn't
>say
>> how
>> > > to do it!
>> > >
>> > > There are several of "if (isBrowserX()) {...} else {...}" in
>Wicket JS
>> > code
>> > > and they served well for the last decade.
>> > > Since there are several other *Java* libraries for user agent
>detection
>> > > this means that someone still finds them useful despite what
>other
>> people
>> > > claim.
>> >
>> > unreliable things wont get reliably by pointing into the past and
>then
>> > telling that your fater did it the same way
>> >
>> > nowadays you would use feature detection, see:
>> >
>> > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/Tools_and_
>> > testing/Cross_browser_testing/Feature_detection
>>
>>
>> Korbinian,
>>
>> The PR by Maxim is about the User-Agent detection at the *server*
>side,
>> i.e. in the *Java* code. It reads the request header and tells you
>what the
>> browser is.
>> The JS feature detection is only client side. You will need Ajax
>behaviors
>> to send the ourcome to the server to be able to use it there. Wicket
>does
>> this with (Web)ClientInfo related classes.
>>
>> I'll be VERY glad to see your PR that uses modern ways to redo the
>current
>> checks in wicket-ajax.js or in the server code, e.g. Wicket Bootstrap
>uses
>> this information to decide whether to render respond.js!
>> Until then please do not make such bold statements. It is easy to
>read an
>> article and say "this is the [new] silver bullet". Until you get your
>hands
>> dirty you never know what kind of problems you will face!
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> btw:
>> > >> https://github.com/HaraldWalker/user-agent-utils -> this is EOL,
>> guess
>> > >> why...
>> > >> https://github.com/pieroxy/java-user-agent-detection/releases ->
>last
>> > >> release from september 2017...
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > > Sep 2017 is like yesterday
>> >
>> > (all only MAJOR releases!)
>> >
>> > 28. September 2017 - Firefox 56
>> > 14. November 2017 - Firefox 57 Quantum
>> > 23. Januar 2018 - Firefox 58
>> > 13. März 2018 - Firefox 59
>> >
>> > 2017-09-05 - Chrome 61.0.3163
>> > 2017-10-17 - Chrome 62.0.3202
>> > 2017-12-05 - Chrome 63.0.3239
>> > 2018-01-23 - Chrome 64.0.3282
>> > 2018-03-06 - Chrome 65.0.3325
>> >
>> > and this is just 2 desktop ones! I dont want to talk about the
>loads of
>> > updates my android device got in that time (firefox mobile, chrome
>and
>> > samsung internet!) - oh, and btw: they still lie about the user
>agent all
>> > time dont get me wrong, but sep 17 is freaking old in case you
>need
>> to
>> > reliably detect the browser!
>> >
>>
>> Yes, and all of them are properly parsed by the same code that has
>been
>> used in the last decade!
>> The browser vendors have no reason to change their syntax of user
>agent.
>> Believe me they do know that this piece of information *is being*
>used in
>> the wild!
>>
>
>
>
>--
>WBR
>Maxim aka solomax
[GitHub] wicket issue #269: [WICKET-6544] mobile browser detection is improved
Github user svenmeier commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/269 Guys I get it, there are many good solutions to choose from, but why should we make Wicket dependent on anyone of them? https://github.com/nielsbasjes/yauaa looks good, but do users really need assistance for this? `UserAgent userAgent = analyzer.parse(new WebClientInfo(requestCycle).getUserAgent());` ---
[GitHub] wicket issue #269: [WICKET-6544] mobile browser detection is improved
Github user klopfdreh commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/269 I just tested a bit around and I would suggest the following changes: * Drop the support for minor version in exchange for a full version String (11.0, 3.5.8, 4.0b4a) * Change the implementation to yauaa - I also played around a bit and found some not correctly resolved version numbers (the browsers are all detected correctly) https://github.com/nielsbasjes/yauaa/issues/75 * Change the UserAgent enum to not handle excludes, but only browser names If the issue is fixed I can provide a PR. ---
