If the G2 is suppose to have an on-screen keyboard why developers still don't have access to those features in the SDK/emulator. I found some really annoying *usability* issues on my application when I tested on an unofficial 1.5 image on the emulator because of the on screen keyboard so I'm modifying the layout.
Ivan Soto Fernandez Web Developer http://ivansotof.com On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Pierre Bonnefoy <pierre.bonne...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Romain, Jean-Baptiste, > > Just to clarify, the G2 is announced for April in some countries. > The G2 is using virtual keyboard. > Will the G2 be at first available with an update of 1.1 or will it be > a derivative of cupcake ? > > Thanks > > 2009/3/24 Jean-Baptiste Queru <j...@android.com>: > > > > I'll very gladly try to answer those questions on the android-platform > > list, which I believe is the most appropriate group for them, so that > > this group can remain focused on the concerns of developers writing > > apps with the official SDK (or, in this case, expressing concerns > > about a new official SDK). > > > > Thanks, > > JBQ > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Simon Depiets <sdepi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I think this is true, > >> can you tell us more than git commit messages tell us ? > >> do you intend to freeze android at some point, afterwards there will > >> only be bug fixes ? > >> do you WANT/do you NEED contributions, or is android open source but > >> with a proprietary-like development model ? > >> > >> I have the impression that the community is very active around > >> android-oriented APPS, but not about android itself, maybe there's > >> also a problem with this mailing list being filled by requests on the > >> use of the SDK but not the development of the SDK, maybe there should > >> be a newsgroup dedicated to the android-dev, while this one seems more > >> like android-apps-dev. > >> > >> These are just ideas and questions, not a troll at all. > >> > >> 2009/3/24 Disconnect <dc.disconn...@gmail.com>: > >>> Thats the sort of thing you do with alpha/beta/rc tags. And community > >>> participation. > >>> > >>> At some point, someone at google says "This is, barring problems, what > we > >>> want to be 1.5. Now lets get it fixed." That can continue to happen > >>> privately between google and the carriers, and you keep periodically > >>> throwing releases to the community. This is how proprietary projects > run. > >>> (Such as Symbian.) > >>> > >>> Or, Google can step up and actually release an open, community > framework. > >>> Tags for alpha, beta, rc releases. Limited platform/configuration > support in > >>> early stages. Community feedback, patches and bug reports throughout. > >>> > >>> Its cheaper, its faster, and you get fewer debacles like the g1 release > >>> patchfest. Even if the problems are deep inside the guru code, and > there's > >>> no chance anyone else can fix it, you STILL gain by offloading the rest > of > >>> the work. (Go read LKML for a while if you want -lots- of examples of > that. > >>> Its not common for someone new to the project to make deep, guru-level > fixes > >>> and patches. But it -is- common for newcomers to take care of their own > >>> bugs, make incremental improvements, help others and generally take > load off > >>> the older members of the community.) > >>> > >>> And to skip ahead in the thread: > >>> {Quote Romainguy} > >>> > >>> So far, only the 1.1 SDK was released after the firmware (and not long > >>> after at that.) I don't understand the point of this discussion. We > >>> know that the SDK should be released before the bits are placed on > >>> actual devices and you know that as well. Since there's been no > >>> announcement of Cupcake availability on actual handsets, why all this > >>> fuss? > >>> > >>> Because in a -community- project, things such as timelines, release > >>> deadlines, requirements and so forth are public. In a proprietary > project, > >>> they are generally private. (Although in the software/mobile space, > >>> generally much less private than Android.) Google bills this as a > community > >>> project but treats it as a proprietary one. So "all the fuss" is > because > >>> people went "Ooh! A community project! I'll help!" and got told to > shove off > >>> until it gets released. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:01 PM, David Turner <di...@android.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hmm.. Despite the fact that this is what we want, we cannot make a > >>>> guarantee that the Cupcake SDK will be officially released strictly > before > >>>> the platform is available on retail phones. > >>>> > >>>> Properly testing and packaging a SDK takes a lot of time, we may > encounter > >>>> blocker bugs that have nothing to do with the software on the phone > (e.g. > >>>> emulator crashes on platform X, ADB doesn't see emulator/devices on > platform > >>>> Y, etc..). While we test the SDK frequently during development, doing > the > >>>> necessary job to ensure that it's not going to break on the machines > of all > >>>> people who download it from the official repository takes some time. > And > >>>> then, the web site needs to be updated, especially the documentation > needs > >>>> to reflect the new features / fixes / etc... > >>>> > >>>> But apart from that, I don't see a reason why this SDK would lag > behind, > >>>> and as I said, we want it to be released ASAP. > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> JBQ, > >>>>> > >>>>> Can you pass up the chain that the 'phrase > >>>>> > >>>>> "...you can be sure that you'll have an official SDK for a > >>>>> cupcake-originated release as soon as possible." > >>>>> > >>>>> should be planned to be a point in time (hopefully a couple of weeks) > >>>>> before > >>>>> a carrier releases a device with it on. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm sure you're aware there's no bigger recipe for pain than when the > >>>>> first > >>>>> people to test applications on a new release of a platform are users > who > >>>>> are > >>>>> trying out a new 'phone in a shop. > >>>>> > >>>>> Al. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: android-developers@googlegroups.com > >>>>> [mailto:android-develop...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > Jean-Baptiste > >>>>> Queru > >>>>> Sent: 24 March 2009 15:39 > >>>>> To: android-developers@googlegroups.com > >>>>> Subject: [android-developers] Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is > the > >>>>> SDK? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 1.1 was essentially a update of a few Google-proprietary bits on top > of > >>>>> the > >>>>> same platform as 1.0. > >>>>> From the point of view of the Android platform (and therefore of the > SDK > >>>>> as > >>>>> well), the differences between 1.0 and 1.1 are extremely minor. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cupcake is a branch name, it's not a released version. A future > numbered > >>>>> release will be cut from the cupcake branch, but that product isn't > ready > >>>>> yet, and therefore there can be no SDK yet. > >>>>> > >>>>> As cupcake contains significant platform changes compared to 1.0/1.1, > you > >>>>> can be sure that you'll have an official SDK for a cupcake-originated > >>>>> release as soon as possible. > >>>>> > >>>>> JBQ > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:16 AM, tauntz <tau...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I just hope that this time the release date for the official SDK > will > >>>>> > be BEFORE the update hits the masses. Not like it was with the > 1.1SDK > >>>>> > - it was released way after 1.1 was released to end-users (the > >>>>> > argument from Google was something in the lines of "Hey, this is a > >>>>> > small release with no mayor changes so don't whine that you get it > so > >>>>> > late"). Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that this is ridiculous.. > >>>>> > One of the reasons why we don't have the official 1.5 (or cupcake > or > >>>>> > however it will be officially called) SDK is that "It's not stable > >>>>> > enough" - fair enough but I really hope that you guys @ Google will > >>>>> > release it as soon as the code is stable enough (eg the code is > tested > >>>>> > and ready to be released to the operators). That would give us a > week > >>>>> > (maybe more) before the operators push it to the end-users. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > And don't come with the "you can build your own SDK from the > >>>>> > opensource tree if you want" - the last releases didn't come from > the > >>>>> > opensource tree so even if I wanted, i couldn't build the SDK based > on > >>>>> > the code that's shipped to the end-users. And even if this release > >>>>> > will actually come from the public tree, you can't expect all app > >>>>> > developers to build their own SDK, can you? We need an official SDK > - > >>>>> > and we need it as soon as the tree is stable enough (and way before > >>>>> > it's pushed to the carriers/end-users) > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Tauno > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:38 AM, AndroidApp <zl25dre...@gmail.com> > >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Not if you stay anonymous (hint, hint) ;-) > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> On Mar 23, 7:58 pm, Anonymous Anonymous > >>>>> >> <firewallbr...@googlemail.com> > >>>>> >> wrote: > >>>>> >>> " Someone from Google? " makes it official i guess :D > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM, AndroidApp < > zl25dre...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > Can someone capable just compile the SDK and post it online for > >>>>> >>> > everyone? Someone from Google? I dont really care if it's not > >>>>> >>> > official, i just dont want to download the source tree just to > >>>>> >>> > build the SDK, plus i need to do the tricks you mentioned to > make > >>>>> >>> > it work on windows. > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > On Mar 23, 1:11 pm, Marco Nelissen <marc...@android.com> > wrote: > >>>>> >>> > > I certainly hope there aren't "a lot" of applications that > use > >>>>> >>> > > reflection and private APIs. > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:59 AM, zl25drexel > >>>>> >>> > > <zl25dre...@gmail.com> > >>>>> >>> > wrote: > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > > > Cupcake is coming, and as you know it will break a lot of > apps > >>>>> >>> > > > in the market, those that use reflection & private api. So > >>>>> >>> > > > where is the Cupcake SDK/emulator for us to try our apps? > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > > > I know we can download the source codes and build it, and I > >>>>> >>> > > > know apps wont break if they dont use undocumented api, > blah > >>>>> >>> > > > blah blah, but we should get an official SDK/emulator for > >>>>> >>> > > > cupcake, dont you think, google? > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru > >>>>> Android Engineer, Google. > >>>>> > >>>>> Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private > will > >>>>> likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further > >>>>> warning. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Lliane aka Simon Depiets > >> Epita Promo 2011,42 > >> http://www.lliane.com > >> A man is smoking with his girlfriend. She angers herself : "don't you > >> see the warning on the box ?!" > >> To which the man replies, "I am a programmer. I don't worry about > >> warnings. I only worry about errors." > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru > > Android Engineer, Google. > > > > Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private > > will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further > > warning. > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
