aaron.aallen
1/30/2007 8:20:00 PM
On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Aaron" <aaron.aal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:35 pm, "Peter van Rees" <petervanr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Aaron, sorry for my impatience, but did you get round to looking up
> > your notes already? I am very curious what is in them....
>
> > On 28 jan, 22:03, "Aaron" <aaron.aal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My notes are in the office, so I will look into this on Monday. I'm
> > > already using Wurfl for things like logging and device recognition,
> > > despite the need for the full user agent string it is pretty good.
> > > It's been in production for a few months now and I'm satisfied with
> > > that aspect of it. They release versions every 6 months or so, and
> > > it's easy to drop the new file in.
>
> > > I would be very satisfied if I could have the wurfl level of detection
> > > integrated with the .Net controls. It would be head and shoulders
> > > above what it is now. The .browser files are SOOOO far behind.... I
> > > had to write my own generic blackberry file just to get it recognized
> > > at all...
>
> > > On Jan 28, 1:00 pm, "Peter van Rees" <petervanr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I would be interested in your notes, that might save me a lot of
> > > > trouble. I do hope I can live with your reason to discard the product,
> > > > because I do not think there are too many alternatives.....
>
> > > > the short coming might lie in the fact it uses a huge xml file which I
> > > > think is cached memory? I can really notice the slower response of the
> > > > first page being viewed after restarting the application.
>
> > > > Further more: as far as I can tell wurlf does not work with regular
> > > > expressions in the useragent recognition, so literally every firmware
> > > > version of a phone has to have it's own entry.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
>
> What I have found are notes to the effect that it doesn't actually
> override the default behavior of .Net controls. In other words the
> existing Command Link will still decide based on the .Net
> implementation on whether to emit a link with javascript or a regular
> command button based on it's own detection of javascript capabilities.
>
> I distinctly remember posting a question about this on a forum they
> used to have, however I can no longer find that forum. I also
> distinctly remember after checking back for an answer after a week,
> posting a not so happy remark about they need to engage the developer
> community if they want this to go anywhere. From what I recall none
> of the posts were actually answered on that forum, which is probably
> why they removed it.
>
> This coupled with the fact that it only shows that it has been
> downloaded a total of ~60 times doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
> The application that I'm looking to solve this for is a fortune 50
> client. I don't have a whole lot of confidence in this organization
> at this point.
>
> I'm willing to write my own over-ride based on the wurfl file (because
> it is that good), but I'm not aware of any way to do this...
>
> How has your experience been with it? Have you tested it out
> significantly? If all your looking for is detection for your own
> custom decision points I highly recommend it. If you find that it
> does integrate seamlessly please let me know. I'll be playing with it
> again this afternoon to re-familiarize myself with it.
>
> If it does integrate the way I need, I'm sure we can speed up the slow
> down you said you noticed.
I'm reading the source now, it seems it does override the default
capabilities. Maybe I was doing something wrong back when I was
checking it out?
If nothing else this gives me the jump-start I need to writing my
own. I wonder what Microsoft's plan is for this? Have they just
abandoned it? If so are they just abandoning the entire mobile
development framework?