Atleast the business logic must be abstracted, so can be reused across
multiple clients.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Games that truly highlight the platform are ones like WiFi Army (if
> >>they can actually build it) and Parallel Kingdom, which would be
> >>impossible to create on an existing framework. From my understanding
> >>of the competition, this is the type of creativity the judges are
> >>looking for.
>
> Hmmm, no offense but based on my experience applications that cannot
> be easily ported to a new platform is usually because the developer
> has not done a good job of isolating their code and making it modular.
> Any application that follows the Model-View-Controller pattern will be
> relatively easy to port to a new platform, regardless of the platform
> as opposed to an application that did not follow it. Saying that your
> application uses the platform better just because it cannot be ported
> to another platform easily is a bad argument and it only shows that
> you've been writing bad code.
>
>
>
> On Apr 29, 12:24 am, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you are bringing it up for debate, perhaps you are using many
> > features of the Android platform, but I don't think you are truly
> > showing off the Android platform itself. Your list of features are
> > relatively generic and not particularly next-gen -I think your own
> > statement that this was a quick port to J2ME is more telling than
> > anything else. If your application can be ported so quickly to an
> > existing phone, I don't see how you are highlighting the platform
> > regardless of how many bullet points you hit.
> >
> > Games that truly highlight the platform are ones like WiFi Army (if
> > they can actually build it) and Parallel Kingdom, which would be
> > impossible to create on an existing framework. From my understanding
> > of the competition, this is the type of creativity the judges are
> > looking for.
> >
> > Since you are competing against more non-platform specific games, you
> > are up against entries like the ones from OmniGSoft and a myriad of 2D
> > competitors, which to be frank, look more polished than yours
> > regardless of whose is more powerful from a technical standpoint. I
> > think it is a brutal reality that given the category you entered in,
> > you will be judged on how much fun the judges have playing your
> > application more than anything else.
> >
> > I hope I'm not coming across as overly critical, but since you've
> > challenged the group to analyze the virtues of your entry, these are
> > my two cents.
> >
> > On Apr 28, 8:59 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.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>
--
take care,
Muthu Ramadoss.
http://mobeegal.in
find stuff closer.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
