 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / ASP.NET / Mobile / January 2007MobileCapabilities is wrong "most" of the time
Howdy, For the past two weeks, I've been playing around and implementing a mobile web site using the ASP.NET 2 Mobile UI Controls (in System.Web.UI.WebControls namespace). When trying to read browser capabilities by casting Request.Browser to MobileCapabilities, common attributes like IsColor, ScreenPixelWidth, ScreenPixelHeight are often wrong. I've tried on a variety of color mobile devices and IsColor always returns false... Something is strange here, and I'm not sure what MS is doing to determine the MobileCaps. Has this been a problem for anyone else? I've built WAP pages before in JSP that read the UA-Profile from the HTTP Request header, fetch the XML URI therein and parse it for the true and accurate MobileCapabilities. Have MS completely forgotten about UA-Prof on mobiles? -Vijay After more googling, I discovered that the MobileCapabilities are determined from the %WINDOWS%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\%FRAMEWORK_VERSION%\CONFIG\Machine.config. Here are some good links that discuss the issue: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/MakingDasBlogWorkOnMobileDevices.aspx http://www.codeproject.com/aspnet/browsercaps.asp http://www.slingfive.com/pages/code/browserCaps/ (IE ONLY) For the schema of the BrowserCaps section, see http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cpgenref/html/g ngrfbrowsercapssection.asp There's a browsers folder inside CONFIG that contains .browser files that try to cover the entire gamut of browsers. However, the config files are missing most unique device models (but seem to include most manufacturers), defaulting to some primitive capabilities. For example, my K750i returns false IsColor, and under-valued screen res. I couldn't find the schema of the .browser files, nor find an obvious link between machine.config/web.config and the browser files. These browser config files need updating for new devices. Does anyone know where I could buy ASP.NET browser config files for our projects? Or, must we generate them ourselves from device trial/error. The only real solution I can think of is to parse the RDF in the X_WAP_PROFILE request header field and generate per USER_AGENT browser configurations. There still needs to manual tweaking and merging for capabilities that aren't explicitly specified in the profile RDF. This should be part of ASP.NET...or a documented missing feature.. IMHO, this limitation constraints the usefulness of ASP.NET Mobile. Next time, I may even try and avoid ASP.NET mobile entirely for mass market sites. PS: I hope someone from MS reads this, because this is pretty important to get ASP.NET working ubiquitously on mobile browsers. -Vijay > Howdy, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > -Vijay I completely agree. I am suffering from the same thing. If you find a way to supplement the .browser files please let me know. I will do the same. --Aaron > After more googling, I discovered that the MobileCapabilities are > determined from the [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > > > -Vijay I couldn't have said it better. I am trying to get a mobile website running, but there isn't a single modern device properly recognized besides windows ce pda's.... I was thinking on making a uaprof file parser myself. Did you start working on this already? I would be interested to share some thoughts on it. Peter Guys, someone has been faster than we are check http://mobilelabs.redcircle.com/ Paulo Gomes has written a tool to inject wurfl data directly into the asp.net browser capabilities infrastructure, bypassing the browser definition files! I did some testing already, and it all seems to work like a charm. > I couldn't have said it better. I am trying to get a mobile website > running, but there isn't a single modern device properly recognized [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Peter Interesting, I know I came across this a few months back. I remember finding a short coming. I'll need to check my notes. I thought I remembered a community forum over there, and posted some questions. But I can't find it again.... Definitely, let's keep this conversation going, and come to a solution together. > Guys, someone has been faster than we are > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > Peter 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. 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... > 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, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > expressions in the useragent recognition, so literally every firmware > version of a phone has to have it's own entry. Aaron, sorry for my impatience, but did you get round to looking up your notes already? I am very curious what is in them.... > 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, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > Aaron, sorry for my impatience, but did you get round to looking up > your notes already? I am very curious what is in them.... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > - 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. > > Aaron, sorry for my impatience, but did you get round to looking up > > your notes already? I am very curious what is in them.... [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > 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? It does override the default capabilities object, and that works well for the rendering of the mobile controls. But you will have to add the <browsercaps> section to the web.config for that. I overlooked that bit at first, and then you still end up with MS browsercapabilities object. About asp.net mobile: I recall having read stuff about merging mobile and 'normal' web controls into one set of controls back when .net 2 wasn't out yet. Mobile web forms/controls would have been rendered obsolete in that case. Obviously this did not make it into the final release. I have no idea whether it is still on their wish list. btw: thanks for sharing your notes. I guess you had a version earlier than this one, or forgot to put in the <browsercaps> section in the config file? About the slow start of the app: it does not bother me, it is only when the application starts, so this will not happen too often (I hope...). And no, I did not do a lot of testing yet, I have it running on an internal test server in a very alpha stage application I am developping, so I cannot comment on the robustness of it all. The good thing is it comes with the source though, so problems can be addressed without waiting for someone else to respond. It will certainly make a good start for your own system! For now I am sticking with it, there are very few alternatives. Even browserhawk doesn;t do a decent job with mobile devices. I will do my best to keep you informed > > > Aaron, sorry for my impatience, but did you get round to looking up > > > your notes already? I am very curious what is in them.... [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.