We're really not so far apart, though we don't completely agree, either. On Aug 2, 9:57 am, Mark Murphy <mmur...@commonsware.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Bob Kerns <r...@acm.org> wrote: > If they violate the CDD, I agree. IMHO, there is a gray area between > honoring the CDD and supporting the direct use of unpublished, > undocumented, unsupported Intents.
Unpublished, undocumented, unsupported intents are part of the sin. > > This, more than developers calling undocumented intents, is what > > destabilizes the platform. If you're going to replace an app, then > > REPLACE it with a DIFFERENT one, not one that pretends to be the same > > app. > > Actually, by my interpretation of the CDD, that's not allowed, unless > they are going to have both apps (the original and their replacement). Yes, that's exactly what they should be doing. > > I think it rather unfair to blame developers for wanting to use these > > intents. These ARE how the platform is designed to integrate. > > Only for published, documented, supported Intents. I agree that there > should be more published, documented, supported Intents for core > applications. > > > In other words, I don't think the harm to the platform really stems > > from the tactical error of developers making use of undocumented > > intents, but rather from fundamental platform strategic errors. > > Except that my ability -- and the ability of those like me -- to > convince hardware manufacturers to play by the rules is undermined by > third-party developers who refuse to do the same. If developers piss > in the pool, why should a hardware manufacturer feel compelled to hold > back? Third-party developers need to live by the rules they expect > hardware manufacturers to follow, which means sticking to the SDK. The problem is -- I don't believe third-party developers SHOULD be expected to follow the same rules. They're not in the same position vis-a-vis the users. The platform providers have a platform responsibility -- that is, a responsibility to developers AND users, and the general health of the platform. I do not believe the developers have the same responsibility to the platform -- but they DO have a responsibility to the users. In cases like this, responsibility to the users may involve violating platform standard to address user needs that have been trammeled by the platform providers. It's risky territory, but developers should only be flogged for it if they do it badly. Because ultimately, it's the user satisfaction that drives the platform success. And actually, the fact that third-party developers do what third-party developers do should actually be a STRONG INCENTIVE for platform vendors to actually act like the vendors of a common platform. Because every time a third-party developer tries to deliver some needed functionality, and it fails on a vendor's rendering of the platform -- it looks bad for that vendor. And rightly so. But the problem here isn't that third-party developers have pissed in the pool -- it's that other platform vendors have already pissed in it, so they can look around and say, "who me?". So I don't buy your "pissing-in-the-pool" analogy -- and I think you should be able to turn this to your advantage in your efforts to convince hardware manufacturers to behave more sanely. And kudos for trying! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
