You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cordova.apache.org by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> on 2012/09/19 19:13:31 UTC
[Android] window.history vs navigator.app.history
Hey
There seems to be a lot of confusion as to how web history should
work, how it works now and what people should be doing with web
history. Currently, we have two web history APIs. One of which is
the shim that was put in to get around the old URI error, and the
other is the web browser history. For some reason, we're still using
the shim instead of the web browser history by default because it
works better with the apps that have already been deployed. However,
I would like to see web history adopted because of the following
reasons:
1. Consistency across browser
2. Fixes issues with iFrames on Android
3. Work-around no longer fixes the issue for 3.x and 4.0.x, since a
fix for the hash and param problem was merged back in 1.9.0
That being said, it's entirely possible that we're doing something
wrong with web history as it is, and based on the recent feedback from
people who don't understand how open source works (public mail good,
private mail bad), I think we should bring this up again.
Thoughts?
Joe
Re: [Android] window.history vs navigator.app.history
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
OK, there was a bug in the history. I fixed it, and we should be able
to properly use the back button with the browser history. I'm going
to do some more testing, and then I'll recommend deprecating it,
because this is really quirky code.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I think we should make sure that window.history.go(-1) actually
> works. I'm finding that it has weird results on mobile-spec, and I'm
> investigating it now.
>
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Yep sounds like a great deprecation candidate.
>>
>> On 9/19/12 11:50 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Why don't we switch back to using web history as the default for 2.2
>>>but leave the old code in for now. We can deprecate it for removal in
>>>5-6 months. That way people who are using the old way can still enable
>>>it in their apps and they have time to make the switch.
>>>
>>>Simon Mac Donald
>>>http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be a lot of confusion as to how web history should
>>>> work, how it works now and what people should be doing with web
>>>> history. Currently, we have two web history APIs. One of which is
>>>> the shim that was put in to get around the old URI error, and the
>>>> other is the web browser history. For some reason, we're still using
>>>> the shim instead of the web browser history by default because it
>>>> works better with the apps that have already been deployed. However,
>>>> I would like to see web history adopted because of the following
>>>> reasons:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Consistency across browser
>>>> 2. Fixes issues with iFrames on Android
>>>> 3. Work-around no longer fixes the issue for 3.x and 4.0.x, since a
>>>> fix for the hash and param problem was merged back in 1.9.0
>>>>
>>>> That being said, it's entirely possible that we're doing something
>>>> wrong with web history as it is, and based on the recent feedback from
>>>> people who don't understand how open source works (public mail good,
>>>> private mail bad), I think we should bring this up again.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>
Re: [Android] window.history vs navigator.app.history
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
OK, I think we should make sure that window.history.go(-1) actually
works. I'm finding that it has weird results on mobile-spec, and I'm
investigating it now.
Joe
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Yep sounds like a great deprecation candidate.
>
> On 9/19/12 11:50 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Why don't we switch back to using web history as the default for 2.2
>>but leave the old code in for now. We can deprecate it for removal in
>>5-6 months. That way people who are using the old way can still enable
>>it in their apps and they have time to make the switch.
>>
>>Simon Mac Donald
>>http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hey
>>>
>>> There seems to be a lot of confusion as to how web history should
>>> work, how it works now and what people should be doing with web
>>> history. Currently, we have two web history APIs. One of which is
>>> the shim that was put in to get around the old URI error, and the
>>> other is the web browser history. For some reason, we're still using
>>> the shim instead of the web browser history by default because it
>>> works better with the apps that have already been deployed. However,
>>> I would like to see web history adopted because of the following
>>> reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. Consistency across browser
>>> 2. Fixes issues with iFrames on Android
>>> 3. Work-around no longer fixes the issue for 3.x and 4.0.x, since a
>>> fix for the hash and param problem was merged back in 1.9.0
>>>
>>> That being said, it's entirely possible that we're doing something
>>> wrong with web history as it is, and based on the recent feedback from
>>> people who don't understand how open source works (public mail good,
>>> private mail bad), I think we should bring this up again.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Joe
>
Re: [Android] window.history vs navigator.app.history
Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.
Yep sounds like a great deprecation candidate.
On 9/19/12 11:50 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why don't we switch back to using web history as the default for 2.2
>but leave the old code in for now. We can deprecate it for removal in
>5-6 months. That way people who are using the old way can still enable
>it in their apps and they have time to make the switch.
>
>Simon Mac Donald
>http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>
>
>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey
>>
>> There seems to be a lot of confusion as to how web history should
>> work, how it works now and what people should be doing with web
>> history. Currently, we have two web history APIs. One of which is
>> the shim that was put in to get around the old URI error, and the
>> other is the web browser history. For some reason, we're still using
>> the shim instead of the web browser history by default because it
>> works better with the apps that have already been deployed. However,
>> I would like to see web history adopted because of the following
>> reasons:
>>
>> 1. Consistency across browser
>> 2. Fixes issues with iFrames on Android
>> 3. Work-around no longer fixes the issue for 3.x and 4.0.x, since a
>> fix for the hash and param problem was merged back in 1.9.0
>>
>> That being said, it's entirely possible that we're doing something
>> wrong with web history as it is, and based on the recent feedback from
>> people who don't understand how open source works (public mail good,
>> private mail bad), I think we should bring this up again.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Joe
Re: [Android] window.history vs navigator.app.history
Posted by Simon MacDonald <si...@gmail.com>.
Why don't we switch back to using web history as the default for 2.2
but leave the old code in for now. We can deprecate it for removal in
5-6 months. That way people who are using the old way can still enable
it in their apps and they have time to make the switch.
Simon Mac Donald
http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey
>
> There seems to be a lot of confusion as to how web history should
> work, how it works now and what people should be doing with web
> history. Currently, we have two web history APIs. One of which is
> the shim that was put in to get around the old URI error, and the
> other is the web browser history. For some reason, we're still using
> the shim instead of the web browser history by default because it
> works better with the apps that have already been deployed. However,
> I would like to see web history adopted because of the following
> reasons:
>
> 1. Consistency across browser
> 2. Fixes issues with iFrames on Android
> 3. Work-around no longer fixes the issue for 3.x and 4.0.x, since a
> fix for the hash and param problem was merged back in 1.9.0
>
> That being said, it's entirely possible that we're doing something
> wrong with web history as it is, and based on the recent feedback from
> people who don't understand how open source works (public mail good,
> private mail bad), I think we should bring this up again.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Joe
Re: [Android] window.history vs navigator.app.history
Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.
+1 removing our buggy code
On 9/19/12 10:13 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hey
>
>There seems to be a lot of confusion as to how web history should
>work, how it works now and what people should be doing with web
>history. Currently, we have two web history APIs. One of which is
>the shim that was put in to get around the old URI error, and the
>other is the web browser history. For some reason, we're still using
>the shim instead of the web browser history by default because it
>works better with the apps that have already been deployed. However,
>I would like to see web history adopted because of the following
>reasons:
>
>1. Consistency across browser
>2. Fixes issues with iFrames on Android
>3. Work-around no longer fixes the issue for 3.x and 4.0.x, since a
>fix for the hash and param problem was merged back in 1.9.0
>
>That being said, it's entirely possible that we're doing something
>wrong with web history as it is, and based on the recent feedback from
>people who don't understand how open source works (public mail good,
>private mail bad), I think we should bring this up again.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Joe