You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cordova.apache.org by Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com> on 2016/06/17 08:51:10 UTC
[Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
I wonder why such an important piece of information is not provided anymore
in the device plugin?
What was the reason to remove the property?
The name of the device, especially when users can authorise/revoke API
access to apps on different devices, is an important variable to know.
There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for Android, iOS and
for Windows it would be a one-liner only too.
https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>.
Didn't know about the need for BT permission, in that case I would not be
for it. Needing this permission is confusing for developers and their end
users.
I think this should start as an external plugin, and if anything changes
with regards to our concerns, we can re-visit making it part of core.
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 3:01 AM, julio cesar sanchez <jcesarmobile@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Yeah, Kerri is right, it needs Bluetooth permission, I change my vote to
> -1.
> Ask the author o the plugin you linked to support Windows too and use that
> El 18 jun. 2016 4:35 a. m., "Carlos Santana" <cs...@gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> > I think this belongs in user community plugin
> >
> > maybe a cordova-plugin-device-nickname
> >
> > - Carlos Santana
> > @csantanapr
> >
> > > On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Kerri Shotts <ke...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > -1 to using Bluetooth to get the device name. That would add an
> > additional permission (AFAICT) that is hard to justify to an end user,
> and
> > which would be added to a good number of Cordova apps intending only to
> use
> > the device plugin to implement platform-specific features or workarounds.
> > > I agree with Joe -- this is best in a separate plugin. That give the
> dev
> > a choice if they can justify the extra permission, and the potential
> > headache that comes with arbitrary device names (or lack thereof).
> > > My two cents, anyway. :)
> > > ~Kerri
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by julio cesar sanchez <jc...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, Kerri is right, it needs Bluetooth permission, I change my vote to -1.
Ask the author o the plugin you linked to support Windows too and use that
El 18 jun. 2016 4:35 a. m., "Carlos Santana" <cs...@gmail.com>
escribió:
> I think this belongs in user community plugin
>
> maybe a cordova-plugin-device-nickname
>
> - Carlos Santana
> @csantanapr
>
> > On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Kerri Shotts <ke...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > -1 to using Bluetooth to get the device name. That would add an
> additional permission (AFAICT) that is hard to justify to an end user, and
> which would be added to a good number of Cordova apps intending only to use
> the device plugin to implement platform-specific features or workarounds.
> > I agree with Joe -- this is best in a separate plugin. That give the dev
> a choice if they can justify the extra permission, and the potential
> headache that comes with arbitrary device names (or lack thereof).
> > My two cents, anyway. :)
> > ~Kerri
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>.
I think this belongs in user community plugin
maybe a cordova-plugin-device-nickname
- Carlos Santana
@csantanapr
> On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Kerri Shotts <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -1 to using Bluetooth to get the device name. That would add an additional permission (AFAICT) that is hard to justify to an end user, and which would be added to a good number of Cordova apps intending only to use the device plugin to implement platform-specific features or workarounds.
> I agree with Joe -- this is best in a separate plugin. That give the dev a choice if they can justify the extra permission, and the potential headache that comes with arbitrary device names (or lack thereof).
> My two cents, anyway. :)
> ~Kerri
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Kerri Shotts <ke...@gmail.com>.
-1 to using Bluetooth to get the device name. That would add an additional permission (AFAICT) that is hard to justify to an end user, and which would be added to a good number of Cordova apps intending only to use the device plugin to implement platform-specific features or workarounds.
I agree with Joe -- this is best in a separate plugin. That give the dev a choice if they can justify the extra permission, and the potential headache that comes with arbitrary device names (or lack thereof).
My two cents, anyway. :)
~Kerri
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
The Bluetooth plugin, or a third party plugin. It does not belong in
Device.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 5:23 PM Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > that might bring some trouble if the device doesn't have
> bluetooth. We should decide what to return in that case, nothing? and
> document it
>
> We return manufactur + model in that case.
>
> @Joe: the devices I checked had pretty useful BT sharing names. And it is
> functionality belonging to the device. Where else would it belong to?
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > This is a new feature and something we never supported.
> >
> > The model feature was the user-readable type of phone on Android (i.e.
> > Nexus 5X) where the name was the in-house codename for it, in this case
> > bullhead. When we switched to device.model, we removed device.name.
> > Getting the Bluetooth sharing name could literally be anything like
> > "MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels" or "ThisRentalCarSucks".
> >
> > This is entirely new functionality, and I think that it should exist in a
> > separate plugin.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:25 PM, julio cesar sanchez <
> > jcesarmobile@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > The only thing I see is the plugin he points get the android name from
> > the
> > > bluetooth adapter, that might bring some trouble if the device doesn't
> > have
> > > bluetooth. We should decide what to return in that case, nothing? and
> > > document it
> > >
> > > 2016-06-18 0:15 GMT+02:00 Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > I have no objection if the API property is unambiguous, unlike what
> it
> > > was
> > > > before (over 4 years ago!), and is supported by all the major
> platforms
> > > > (looks like it is, from what you mentioned). Also -- Ubuntu/Linux
> looks
> > > > like its just /etc/hostname. We'll just have to bump a minor version.
> > > >
> > > > What do the others think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Philipp Kursawe <
> > phil.kursawe@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > To further emphasize one point. I fully agree with moving from
> > > > device.name
> > > > > to device.model + device.manufacturer + device.platform.
> > > > > But I still ask all of you do consider bringing back a proper
> > > > device.name.
> > > > > As I wrote, on Windows its pretty easy to get the real name of the
> > > > > PC/Phone. On iOS and Android the work is already done.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Philipp Kursawe <
> > > > phil.kursawe@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for pointing this out. However the name is not used to
> > > reference
> > > > > > the device to the API. Thats what the device.uuid is being used
> > for.
> > > > The
> > > > > > device name is used in the UI where the user can see its API
> > enabled
> > > > > > devices. You don't want to show the user the device id there
> (cause
> > > she
> > > > > has
> > > > > > no point of reference to which physical device it belongs) but
> the
> > > name
> > > > > she
> > > > > > gave her phone and knows her phone when she connects it to
> itunes,
> > > > iphoto
> > > > > > etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the reason to introduce the name property back is exactly the
> > one
> > > > you
> > > > > > mentioned: The user can always change the name of her phone and
> > there
> > > > > knows
> > > > > > its name and will recognize it in a list of devices.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi Philipp,
> > > > > >> This was the rationale:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e3b0e5f87ba3929d5578308b25ee9a6af5b91177b94015878970fa8e@1352248856@%3Cdev.cordova.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On iOS, [UIDevice name] returns the name the user sets in
> iTunes
> > > for
> > > > > >> their
> > > > > >> device i.e. "Shazron's iPhone 4", and can change anytime so
> > relying
> > > on
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> for API access would be problematic.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Philipp Kursawe <
> > > > > phil.kursawe@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I wonder why such an important piece of information is not
> > > provided
> > > > > >> anymore
> > > > > >> > in the device plugin?
> > > > > >> > What was the reason to remove the property?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The name of the device, especially when users can
> > authorise/revoke
> > > > API
> > > > > >> > access to apps on different devices, is an important variable
> to
> > > > know.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for
> > Android,
> > > > iOS
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > for Windows it would be a one-liner only too.
> > > > > >> > https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>.
> that might bring some trouble if the device doesn't have
bluetooth. We should decide what to return in that case, nothing? and
document it
We return manufactur + model in that case.
@Joe: the devices I checked had pretty useful BT sharing names. And it is
functionality belonging to the device. Where else would it belong to?
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1
>
> This is a new feature and something we never supported.
>
> The model feature was the user-readable type of phone on Android (i.e.
> Nexus 5X) where the name was the in-house codename for it, in this case
> bullhead. When we switched to device.model, we removed device.name.
> Getting the Bluetooth sharing name could literally be anything like
> "MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels" or "ThisRentalCarSucks".
>
> This is entirely new functionality, and I think that it should exist in a
> separate plugin.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:25 PM, julio cesar sanchez <
> jcesarmobile@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > The only thing I see is the plugin he points get the android name from
> the
> > bluetooth adapter, that might bring some trouble if the device doesn't
> have
> > bluetooth. We should decide what to return in that case, nothing? and
> > document it
> >
> > 2016-06-18 0:15 GMT+02:00 Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > I have no objection if the API property is unambiguous, unlike what it
> > was
> > > before (over 4 years ago!), and is supported by all the major platforms
> > > (looks like it is, from what you mentioned). Also -- Ubuntu/Linux looks
> > > like its just /etc/hostname. We'll just have to bump a minor version.
> > >
> > > What do the others think?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Philipp Kursawe <
> phil.kursawe@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > To further emphasize one point. I fully agree with moving from
> > > device.name
> > > > to device.model + device.manufacturer + device.platform.
> > > > But I still ask all of you do consider bringing back a proper
> > > device.name.
> > > > As I wrote, on Windows its pretty easy to get the real name of the
> > > > PC/Phone. On iOS and Android the work is already done.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Philipp Kursawe <
> > > phil.kursawe@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for pointing this out. However the name is not used to
> > reference
> > > > > the device to the API. Thats what the device.uuid is being used
> for.
> > > The
> > > > > device name is used in the UI where the user can see its API
> enabled
> > > > > devices. You don't want to show the user the device id there (cause
> > she
> > > > has
> > > > > no point of reference to which physical device it belongs) but the
> > name
> > > > she
> > > > > gave her phone and knows her phone when she connects it to itunes,
> > > iphoto
> > > > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the reason to introduce the name property back is exactly the
> one
> > > you
> > > > > mentioned: The user can always change the name of her phone and
> there
> > > > knows
> > > > > its name and will recognize it in a list of devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Philipp,
> > > > >> This was the rationale:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e3b0e5f87ba3929d5578308b25ee9a6af5b91177b94015878970fa8e@1352248856@%3Cdev.cordova.apache.org%3E
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On iOS, [UIDevice name] returns the name the user sets in iTunes
> > for
> > > > >> their
> > > > >> device i.e. "Shazron's iPhone 4", and can change anytime so
> relying
> > on
> > > > it
> > > > >> for API access would be problematic.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Philipp Kursawe <
> > > > phil.kursawe@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I wonder why such an important piece of information is not
> > provided
> > > > >> anymore
> > > > >> > in the device plugin?
> > > > >> > What was the reason to remove the property?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The name of the device, especially when users can
> authorise/revoke
> > > API
> > > > >> > access to apps on different devices, is an important variable to
> > > know.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for
> Android,
> > > iOS
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > for Windows it would be a one-liner only too.
> > > > >> > https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
-1
This is a new feature and something we never supported.
The model feature was the user-readable type of phone on Android (i.e.
Nexus 5X) where the name was the in-house codename for it, in this case
bullhead. When we switched to device.model, we removed device.name.
Getting the Bluetooth sharing name could literally be anything like
"MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels" or "ThisRentalCarSucks".
This is entirely new functionality, and I think that it should exist in a
separate plugin.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:25 PM, julio cesar sanchez <jcesarmobile@gmail.com
> wrote:
> +1
>
> The only thing I see is the plugin he points get the android name from the
> bluetooth adapter, that might bring some trouble if the device doesn't have
> bluetooth. We should decide what to return in that case, nothing? and
> document it
>
> 2016-06-18 0:15 GMT+02:00 Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>:
>
> > I have no objection if the API property is unambiguous, unlike what it
> was
> > before (over 4 years ago!), and is supported by all the major platforms
> > (looks like it is, from what you mentioned). Also -- Ubuntu/Linux looks
> > like its just /etc/hostname. We'll just have to bump a minor version.
> >
> > What do the others think?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Philipp Kursawe <phil.kursawe@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > To further emphasize one point. I fully agree with moving from
> > device.name
> > > to device.model + device.manufacturer + device.platform.
> > > But I still ask all of you do consider bringing back a proper
> > device.name.
> > > As I wrote, on Windows its pretty easy to get the real name of the
> > > PC/Phone. On iOS and Android the work is already done.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Philipp Kursawe <
> > phil.kursawe@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for pointing this out. However the name is not used to
> reference
> > > > the device to the API. Thats what the device.uuid is being used for.
> > The
> > > > device name is used in the UI where the user can see its API enabled
> > > > devices. You don't want to show the user the device id there (cause
> she
> > > has
> > > > no point of reference to which physical device it belongs) but the
> name
> > > she
> > > > gave her phone and knows her phone when she connects it to itunes,
> > iphoto
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > So the reason to introduce the name property back is exactly the one
> > you
> > > > mentioned: The user can always change the name of her phone and there
> > > knows
> > > > its name and will recognize it in a list of devices.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Philipp,
> > > >> This was the rationale:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e3b0e5f87ba3929d5578308b25ee9a6af5b91177b94015878970fa8e@1352248856@%3Cdev.cordova.apache.org%3E
> > > >>
> > > >> On iOS, [UIDevice name] returns the name the user sets in iTunes
> for
> > > >> their
> > > >> device i.e. "Shazron's iPhone 4", and can change anytime so relying
> on
> > > it
> > > >> for API access would be problematic.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Philipp Kursawe <
> > > phil.kursawe@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I wonder why such an important piece of information is not
> provided
> > > >> anymore
> > > >> > in the device plugin?
> > > >> > What was the reason to remove the property?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The name of the device, especially when users can authorise/revoke
> > API
> > > >> > access to apps on different devices, is an important variable to
> > know.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for Android,
> > iOS
> > > >> and
> > > >> > for Windows it would be a one-liner only too.
> > > >> > https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by julio cesar sanchez <jc...@gmail.com>.
+1
The only thing I see is the plugin he points get the android name from the
bluetooth adapter, that might bring some trouble if the device doesn't have
bluetooth. We should decide what to return in that case, nothing? and
document it
2016-06-18 0:15 GMT+02:00 Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>:
> I have no objection if the API property is unambiguous, unlike what it was
> before (over 4 years ago!), and is supported by all the major platforms
> (looks like it is, from what you mentioned). Also -- Ubuntu/Linux looks
> like its just /etc/hostname. We'll just have to bump a minor version.
>
> What do the others think?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > To further emphasize one point. I fully agree with moving from
> device.name
> > to device.model + device.manufacturer + device.platform.
> > But I still ask all of you do consider bringing back a proper
> device.name.
> > As I wrote, on Windows its pretty easy to get the real name of the
> > PC/Phone. On iOS and Android the work is already done.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Philipp Kursawe <
> phil.kursawe@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for pointing this out. However the name is not used to reference
> > > the device to the API. Thats what the device.uuid is being used for.
> The
> > > device name is used in the UI where the user can see its API enabled
> > > devices. You don't want to show the user the device id there (cause she
> > has
> > > no point of reference to which physical device it belongs) but the name
> > she
> > > gave her phone and knows her phone when she connects it to itunes,
> iphoto
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > So the reason to introduce the name property back is exactly the one
> you
> > > mentioned: The user can always change the name of her phone and there
> > knows
> > > its name and will recognize it in a list of devices.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Philipp,
> > >> This was the rationale:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e3b0e5f87ba3929d5578308b25ee9a6af5b91177b94015878970fa8e@1352248856@%3Cdev.cordova.apache.org%3E
> > >>
> > >> On iOS, [UIDevice name] returns the name the user sets in iTunes for
> > >> their
> > >> device i.e. "Shazron's iPhone 4", and can change anytime so relying on
> > it
> > >> for API access would be problematic.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Philipp Kursawe <
> > phil.kursawe@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I wonder why such an important piece of information is not provided
> > >> anymore
> > >> > in the device plugin?
> > >> > What was the reason to remove the property?
> > >> >
> > >> > The name of the device, especially when users can authorise/revoke
> API
> > >> > access to apps on different devices, is an important variable to
> know.
> > >> >
> > >> > There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for Android,
> iOS
> > >> and
> > >> > for Windows it would be a one-liner only too.
> > >> > https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Jesse <pu...@gmail.com>.
It makes sense as long as it is considered user meta, and nothing else.
> On Jun 17, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have no objection if the API property is unambiguous, unlike what it was
> before (over 4 years ago!), and is supported by all the major platforms
> (looks like it is, from what you mentioned). Also -- Ubuntu/Linux looks
> like its just /etc/hostname. We'll just have to bump a minor version.
>
> What do the others think?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> To further emphasize one point. I fully agree with moving from device.name
>> to device.model + device.manufacturer + device.platform.
>> But I still ask all of you do consider bringing back a proper device.name.
>> As I wrote, on Windows its pretty easy to get the real name of the
>> PC/Phone. On iOS and Android the work is already done.
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for pointing this out. However the name is not used to reference
>>> the device to the API. Thats what the device.uuid is being used for. The
>>> device name is used in the UI where the user can see its API enabled
>>> devices. You don't want to show the user the device id there (cause she
>> has
>>> no point of reference to which physical device it belongs) but the name
>> she
>>> gave her phone and knows her phone when she connects it to itunes, iphoto
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> So the reason to introduce the name property back is exactly the one you
>>> mentioned: The user can always change the name of her phone and there
>> knows
>>> its name and will recognize it in a list of devices.
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Philipp,
>>>> This was the rationale:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e3b0e5f87ba3929d5578308b25ee9a6af5b91177b94015878970fa8e@1352248856@%3Cdev.cordova.apache.org%3E
>>>>
>>>> On iOS, [UIDevice name] returns the name the user sets in iTunes for
>>>> their
>>>> device i.e. "Shazron's iPhone 4", and can change anytime so relying on
>> it
>>>> for API access would be problematic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Philipp Kursawe <
>> phil.kursawe@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why such an important piece of information is not provided
>>>> anymore
>>>>> in the device plugin?
>>>>> What was the reason to remove the property?
>>>>>
>>>>> The name of the device, especially when users can authorise/revoke API
>>>>> access to apps on different devices, is an important variable to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for Android, iOS
>>>> and
>>>>> for Windows it would be a one-liner only too.
>>>>> https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>.
I have no objection if the API property is unambiguous, unlike what it was
before (over 4 years ago!), and is supported by all the major platforms
(looks like it is, from what you mentioned). Also -- Ubuntu/Linux looks
like its just /etc/hostname. We'll just have to bump a minor version.
What do the others think?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> To further emphasize one point. I fully agree with moving from device.name
> to device.model + device.manufacturer + device.platform.
> But I still ask all of you do consider bringing back a proper device.name.
> As I wrote, on Windows its pretty easy to get the real name of the
> PC/Phone. On iOS and Android the work is already done.
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for pointing this out. However the name is not used to reference
> > the device to the API. Thats what the device.uuid is being used for. The
> > device name is used in the UI where the user can see its API enabled
> > devices. You don't want to show the user the device id there (cause she
> has
> > no point of reference to which physical device it belongs) but the name
> she
> > gave her phone and knows her phone when she connects it to itunes, iphoto
> > etc.
> >
> > So the reason to introduce the name property back is exactly the one you
> > mentioned: The user can always change the name of her phone and there
> knows
> > its name and will recognize it in a list of devices.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Philipp,
> >> This was the rationale:
> >>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e3b0e5f87ba3929d5578308b25ee9a6af5b91177b94015878970fa8e@1352248856@%3Cdev.cordova.apache.org%3E
> >>
> >> On iOS, [UIDevice name] returns the name the user sets in iTunes for
> >> their
> >> device i.e. "Shazron's iPhone 4", and can change anytime so relying on
> it
> >> for API access would be problematic.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Philipp Kursawe <
> phil.kursawe@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I wonder why such an important piece of information is not provided
> >> anymore
> >> > in the device plugin?
> >> > What was the reason to remove the property?
> >> >
> >> > The name of the device, especially when users can authorise/revoke API
> >> > access to apps on different devices, is an important variable to know.
> >> >
> >> > There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for Android, iOS
> >> and
> >> > for Windows it would be a one-liner only too.
> >> > https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>.
To further emphasize one point. I fully agree with moving from device.name
to device.model + device.manufacturer + device.platform.
But I still ask all of you do consider bringing back a proper device.name.
As I wrote, on Windows its pretty easy to get the real name of the
PC/Phone. On iOS and Android the work is already done.
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out. However the name is not used to reference
> the device to the API. Thats what the device.uuid is being used for. The
> device name is used in the UI where the user can see its API enabled
> devices. You don't want to show the user the device id there (cause she has
> no point of reference to which physical device it belongs) but the name she
> gave her phone and knows her phone when she connects it to itunes, iphoto
> etc.
>
> So the reason to introduce the name property back is exactly the one you
> mentioned: The user can always change the name of her phone and there knows
> its name and will recognize it in a list of devices.
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Philipp,
>> This was the rationale:
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e3b0e5f87ba3929d5578308b25ee9a6af5b91177b94015878970fa8e@1352248856@%3Cdev.cordova.apache.org%3E
>>
>> On iOS, [UIDevice name] returns the name the user sets in iTunes for
>> their
>> device i.e. "Shazron's iPhone 4", and can change anytime so relying on it
>> for API access would be problematic.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I wonder why such an important piece of information is not provided
>> anymore
>> > in the device plugin?
>> > What was the reason to remove the property?
>> >
>> > The name of the device, especially when users can authorise/revoke API
>> > access to apps on different devices, is an important variable to know.
>> >
>> > There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for Android, iOS
>> and
>> > for Windows it would be a one-liner only too.
>> > https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for pointing this out. However the name is not used to reference the
device to the API. Thats what the device.uuid is being used for. The device
name is used in the UI where the user can see its API enabled devices. You
don't want to show the user the device id there (cause she has no point of
reference to which physical device it belongs) but the name she gave her
phone and knows her phone when she connects it to itunes, iphoto etc.
So the reason to introduce the name property back is exactly the one you
mentioned: The user can always change the name of her phone and there knows
its name and will recognize it in a list of devices.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
> This was the rationale:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e3b0e5f87ba3929d5578308b25ee9a6af5b91177b94015878970fa8e@1352248856@%3Cdev.cordova.apache.org%3E
>
> On iOS, [UIDevice name] returns the name the user sets in iTunes for their
> device i.e. "Shazron's iPhone 4", and can change anytime so relying on it
> for API access would be problematic.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I wonder why such an important piece of information is not provided
> anymore
> > in the device plugin?
> > What was the reason to remove the property?
> >
> > The name of the device, especially when users can authorise/revoke API
> > access to apps on different devices, is an important variable to know.
> >
> > There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for Android, iOS
> and
> > for Windows it would be a one-liner only too.
> > https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] Why was device.name removed from the device-plugin?
Posted by Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Philipp,
This was the rationale:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e3b0e5f87ba3929d5578308b25ee9a6af5b91177b94015878970fa8e@1352248856@%3Cdev.cordova.apache.org%3E
On iOS, [UIDevice name] returns the name the user sets in iTunes for their
device i.e. "Shazron's iPhone 4", and can change anytime so relying on it
for API access would be problematic.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Philipp Kursawe <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I wonder why such an important piece of information is not provided anymore
> in the device plugin?
> What was the reason to remove the property?
>
> The name of the device, especially when users can authorise/revoke API
> access to apps on different devices, is an important variable to know.
>
> There is a plugin that brings back this functionality for Android, iOS and
> for Windows it would be a one-liner only too.
> https://github.com/becvert/cordova-plugin-device-name
>