Change way to handle .isSupported #18

New Issue

2014-10-06T04:02:38-05:00

MoOx commented

2014-10-06 04:02:38 -05:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Currently the way things are (shitty) done, the trick to "mock" api for unsupported browser is awful cause you can for eg use Pjax.switches.blah.
After refactor on testling branch, I need to do something else.
Like just add a .isSupported method & document the fact that every call & ref usages should be prefixed by this test ?

Currently the way things are (shitty) done, the trick to "mock" api for unsupported browser is awful cause you can for eg use Pjax.switches.blah. After refactor on testling branch, I need to do something else. Like just add a .isSupported method & document the fact that every call & ref usages should be prefixed by this test ?

BehindTheMath commented

2018-01-21 23:12:27 -05:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@MoOx Do we still need to support browsers that don't support the History API? According to caniuse, nearly 95% of browsers in use support it.

In my opinion, we should just have 1 check for isSupported() in the constructor before doing anything, and then make the user responsible for implementing a fallback.

@MoOx Do we still need to support browsers that don't support the History API? According to [caniuse](https://www.caniuse.com/#search=history), nearly 95% of browsers in use support it. In my opinion, we should just have 1 check for `isSupported()` in the constructor before doing anything, and then make the user responsible for implementing a fallback.

MoOx commented

2018-01-22 08:11:38 -05:00

(Migrated from github.com)

2014, I guess we can just forget this.

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: iLoveElysia/pjax#18