Ho, but you are not implementing the ones below:
>take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
>AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific components, which
>are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to mention those
>android-specific api "constraints".
CowBay says that if you are not implementing those than you've failed
criteria 2. Based on your list above seems to me like you've
failed. :)
I'm just messing with you. I was being sarcastic with CowBay.
I also implemented all the features you listed above except
Orientation . It just doesn't make sense that every single application
has to have LBS, or use content provider or Services. Some
applications simply do not require this features. So no, I don't think
that just because you did not implement these three things that it
necessarily means that you failed criteria two.
On Apr 28, 11:59 pm, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you think of a submission that uses more Android features than
> mine?
>
> On Apr 28, 10:58 pm, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I probably have the most performant and processing intensive use of
> > the Android Platform showing the most effective use of the platforms
> > 2D graphics capabilities. I also use compelling features including the
> > following:
>
> > * Vibration
> > * Orientation
> > * Animations
> > * Touch Screen
> > * Progress Bars/Dialogs
> > * Lifecycle Implementation
> > * And other Android specific features
>
> > Accelerometer is the only major feature I am missing.
>
> > On Apr 28, 7:24 pm, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I think my chances are slim, but not because I'm not making effective
> > > use of Android. From Judges perspective they will not know the
> > > difference. I'm using touch functionality, a lot of the GUI
> > > components, pop ups, etc, etc. Based on your logic even tberthel has
> > > a worse chance of winning than me. All he is doing is using the
> > > drawing utilities from what I've seen from his demos. In fact, a lot
> > > of the applications I've seen all they do is use the 3d or 2d drawing
> > > utilities and that is it. This is true specially for a lot of the
> > > games.
>
> > > On Apr 28, 9:11 pm, "Cow Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > i feel kinda sorry for your possibility to lose ADC, for it sounds like
> > > > you
> > > > fail ADC Judging Criteria 2, " Effective Use of the Android Platform"
> > > > >:{)
>
> > > > still wishing you good lucks....
>
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Incognito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: "Android Challenge" <[email protected]>
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:05 PM
> > > > Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Android/Applets/J2ME
>
> > > > >sounds like your apps were originally designed and implemented
> > > > >platform-agnostic. that is, they were not originally for android
> > > > >because,
> > > > if
> > > > >they had been, imho, it would not seem so easy as you describe.
>
> > > > True, that was my goal. I wrote my code so that it would initially
> > > > work on J2SE, J2ME, and Android. This forced me to write the business
> > > > layer platform-agnostic and just write interfaces that were platform
> > > > specific.
>
> > > > >take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > > >AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific components,
> > > > which
> > > > >are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to mention those
> > > > >android-specific api "constraints".
> > > > >>how did you convert those?
>
> > > > I'm not using LBS so no problem there. However, if I were I would just
> > > > put that behind a generic interface.
> > > > Services - My application does not require to be running on the
> > > > background so I didn't need to convert this.
> > > > Android Intent, content provider - I didn't have to use this feature
> > > > so I did not have to create an interface for it. IPhone does has
> > > > something very similar to this though.
> > > > They pass URL's between applications.
>
> > > > What I did have to create interfaces for are the drawing utilities,
> > > > Threads, GUI objects, like buttons, text fields, text buttons, touch
> > > > and key event handling, etc.
>
> > > > On Apr 28, 8:32 pm, "Cow Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > sounds like your apps were originally designed and implemented
> > > > > platform-agnostic. that is, they were not originally for android
> > > > > because,
> > > > if
> > > > > they had been, imho, it would not seem so easy as you describe.
>
> > > > > take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > > > AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific components,
> > > > which
> > > > > are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to mention those
> > > > > android-specific api "constraints".
>
> > > > > how did you convert those?
>
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Incognito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: "Android Challenge" <[email protected]>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:02 PM
> > > > > Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Android/Applets/J2ME
>
> > > > > >>So, I'd guess if you want an iphone app in its native platform,
> > > > > >>you're
> > > > > >>going to have a much easier time just manually building it after
> > > > > >>your
> > > > > >>java version is done, then update it based on diffs.
>
> > > > > At first glance that sounds like a really good idea. It would probably
> > > > > be true for small apps. i.e. A couple of thousand lines.
> > > > > I have tens of thousands of line of code written (distributted among
> > > > > several applications), easily close to 100,000 lines, and more than
> > > > > 1000 automated unit test cases.
> > > > > Trying to manually convert all this code to objective C would be
> > > > > extremely tedious. I would never have the patience to rewrite code
> > > > > that I already wrote once in a language and that has been tested and
> > > > > debugged thoroughly. Automating this is the best route for me. Then
> > > > > when I want to make changes to my code I make the changes only in Java
> > > > > and then I run the utility to convert the code to Objective-C, thus
> > > > > porting the changes over to Objective-C.
>
> > > > > >>Even if objective-C has every language feature of Java, and
> > > > > >>is syntactially very similar (or easily transformable), you have all
> > > > > >>the dependent libraries to worry about.
>
> > > > > Is not as bad as you think. For the IPhone specific functionality,
> > > > > i.e. drawing, touch events, key events, I'm using interfaces that
> > > > > abstract or hide the actual API. So my applications speak to my
> > > > > interfaces and then my interfaces speak to the actual platform APIs.
> > > > > Very similiar to what Java Standard Edition does.
> > > > > So all I have to do is connect my interfaces with the actual hardware
> > > > > or platform specific API's and I'm all set to go.
>
> > > > > On Apr 28, 4:18 pm, "Kevin Galligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I don't know your software background, and I don't know what
> > > > > > objective-C is like, but I'd highly suggest not doing that. I
> > > > > > imagine
> > > > > > the commercial thing sucks. Rolling your own would be incredibly
> > > > > > painful. Even if objective-C has every language feature of Java, and
> > > > > > is syntactially very similar (or easily transformable), you have all
> > > > > > the dependent libraries to worry about. I'm sure the commercial
> > > > > > thing
> > > > > > does a partial conversion, which would then require you to massage
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > into a working application. When you want to update your original
> > > > > > app, you'd then wind up manually updating both anyway.
>
> > > > > > So, I'd guess if you want an iphone app in its native platform,
> > > > > > you're
> > > > > > going to have a much easier time just manually building it after
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > java version is done, then update it based on diffs.
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >>IPhone has Java? I thought it was objective-C, or are you doing
> > > > > > > >>multiple implementations?
> > > > > > > I'm writing a utility that will transform java code to objective-C
> > > > > > > code. There is one company that already does this but they want
> > > > > > > you to
> > > > > > > pay money and they never answered me when I asked them about the
> > > > > > > price
> > > > > > > so I'm going this route.
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 28, 3:44 pm, "Kevin Galligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > IPhone has Java? I thought it was objective-C, or are you doing
> > > > > > > > multiple implementations?
>
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > My applications can run in J2ME and Java (or Applet) and soon
> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > will be able to run in the IPHONE. I'm hoping to release them
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > sale
> > > > > > > > > in J2ME and IPhone soon.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 3:30 pm, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > My updated games are now updated in Applet/J2ME form along
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > Android.
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://allbinary.axspace.com/
>
> > > > > > > > > > I ask does anyone else have an application that can run on
> > > > > > > > > > over
> > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > > billion devices with minor configuration?- Hide quoted text
> > > > > > > > > > -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Android Challenge" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-challenge?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
