But it would be odd to announce the top 50 with 10 various XFinders..
Imagine..
1. FriendFinder
2. DateFinder
3. TaxiFinder
4. CatFinder
LOL.. It all depends on the judges and what they are smokin that day ;)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Muthu Ramadoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, LBS is almost like a core service that your applications can
> leverage. Agree there are tons of apps that are already doing this.
>
> The apps must be distinguished by the functionality they offer:
>
> FriendFinder and TaxiFinder are two different kinds of applications which
> happen to use LBS to carry out the functionalities they offer.
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > >>For a mobile app, LBS becomes such an important factor:
> >
> >
> > >>* Find the nearest stuff.
> >
> >
> > >>Dating - find the nearest date
> > >>Gaming - find the nearest store
> > >>Cooking - find the nearest market
> > >>Cab - find the nearest cab
> > >>Tourist - find the nearest interest
> > >>Students - find the nearest library
> >
> > Agree, but how many LBS applications can you have? There is no way
> > that 50 LBS applications will win. Most of the LBS applications
> > submitted are probably just repeats of the same type of application.
> > i.e. I'm sure that several people wrote LBS dating apps or LBS
> > chatting apps, or LBS find your friend apps, etc, etc
> >
> > On Apr 29, 12:59 am, "Muthu Ramadoss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > For a mobile app, LBS becomes such an important factor:
> > >
> > > * Find the nearest stuff.
> > >
> > > Dating - find the nearest date
> > > Gaming - find the nearest store
> > > Cooking - find the nearest market
> > > Cab - find the nearest cab
> > > Tourist - find the nearest interest
> > > Students - find the nearest library
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Kevin Galligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > You'll get a lot more mileage if you intelligently use a little bit
> > of
> > > > the phone features in the context of a really great app than using
> > > > stuff for the sake of using it.
> > >
> > > > I'd imagine, anyway.
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 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
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > > >
> >
>
>
> --
> take care,
> Muthu Ramadoss.
>
> http://mobeegal.in
> find stuff closer.
--
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
