portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Woonsan Ko <woon_...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Supporting Pocket PC
Date Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:37:40 GMT
Hi David,

Thank you so much. Your comments gave me a clue.

> I am not too enthusiastic about that solution as it requires  
> additional model changes to support the optional preferredMediaType  
> but Im really not coming up with a better solution
> Propose that we review this implementation and consider reworking it  
> for the 2.2 release as its not even clear to me why we have to go  
> from client -> mimetype -> mediatype
> That was leftover from J1 and I just modeled it the same way
> For the 2.1.3 release, I don't want to make any schema changes

Yeah, I agree with you. It's not a good idea to change the data model for the 2.1.3 release.
It
would be better to review more and consider reworking it for the 2.2 release.

> Do you need this for the 2.1.3 release? If yes, I propose finding a  
> way to represent this relationship in the existing model

Yes, I need this for the 2.1.3 release to present some wireless-support features to my customers.
So, I'm considering to do the following things:
 - I'll create a valve named 'capabilityCustomizerValve', which would change the preferred
mediaType of the capabilityMap and the requestContext just after the capabilityValve finished.
 - This valve will decide the mediaType based on the given client-to-mediaType mappings as
a
constructor argument. For example, "ie4ppc (client name) to html-basic (media type name)".
 - I'll add some seed data for Pocket IE. (mediaType and client)

Without data model changes, some configurations need to be added (e.g. client-to-mediaType
mappings), I think.
If my patch gets to be feasible, I'll let you know.

Thank you again!

Regards,

Woonsan

--- David Sean Taylor <david@bluesunrise.com> wrote:

> On Aug 29, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to provide separate pages and themes to Pocket PC clients.
> > I remember that there have been some useful emails about supporting  
> > WAP clients, but I think my
> > problem is somewhat different from those.
> >
> > Pocket PCs usually have Windows CE and IE4, with very small screen  
> > size (240*320).
> > Also, this kind of devices are different from the *xhtml-basic*  
> > clients or from the *wml-generic*
> > clients because they support only HTML. And so their preferred mime  
> > type is 'text/html', just like
> > desktop browsers.
> >
> > My problem is like the following:
> > - I'd like to make another media type, such as *html-basic* for  
> > Pocket PC clients.
> >   I'd like to provide separate pages. For example,
> > /WEB-INF/pages/_user/guest/_mediatype/html-basic.
> > - However, I cannot find a solution to do that.
> >   o.a.j.capabilities.impl.JetspeedCapabilities sets the preferred  
> > media type of the capability map
> > for a client to one, associating with the mime type.
> >   That is, because there's existing mime type, *text/html* and its  
> > associated media type, *html*,
> > I cannot set another media type for Pocket PC clients.
> >
> > So, I got a doubt about the current media type selection for a client.
> > The current selection is based on preferred mime type of a client.
> > However, if two clients have a same preferred mime type (e.g. *text/ 
> > html*), but if the two (Pocket
> > PC and Desktop) should be treated differently in page or theme  
> > selection, what can we do?
> >
> I think we are going to have to enhance the Capability component to  
> consider other factors in determining the media type besides mime type
> Perhaps if we went straight from agent -> media type in the media  
> type calculation with an optional attribute?
> 
> 		<Client name="pocketpc" evalOrder="111" preferredMimeTypeID="text/ 
> html" preferredMediaType='html-basic'>
> ...
> 
> I am not too enthusiastic about that solution as it requires  
> additional model changes to support the optional preferredMediaType  
> but Im really not coming up with a better solution
> Propose that we review this implementation and consider reworking it  
> for the 2.2 release as its not even clear to me why we have to go  
> from client -> mimetype -> mediatype
> That was leftover from J1 and I just modeled it the same way
> For the 2.1.3 release, I don't want to make any schema changes
> Do you need this for the 2.1.3 release? If yes, I propose finding a  
> way to represent this relationship in the existing model
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on
us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org


Mime
View raw message