I mean, it's not advisable, as it'd create fragmentation, and therefore confusion and compatibility issues, but it's not forbidden.
JBQ On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]> wrote: > As long as "developers" follow the license terms for the various > aspects, nothing stops anyone from doing so. > > JBQ > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: >> If the plan is to let the vendors just take a random piece of code and call >> it "1.5" and release it (say, maybe next month?) what is to stop developers >> from doing the same thing with the SDK? >> >> (Other than the fact that the vendors - unlike the community/developers - >> have actual info about upcoming releases, deadlines and so forth..) >> >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Understood. >>> >>> Like I said, cupcake is not ready yet (and in fact I'm pretty sure >>> that there are still changes to be made specifically in the area of >>> the virtual keyboard). >>> >>> JBQ >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > JBQ, >>> > >>> > We've already had someone highlight potential issues with Uis and the >>> > Cupcake virtual keyboard. >>> > >>> > It's not necessarily writing apps *for* Cupcake that's the problem, it's >>> > changes in cupcake which raise user interface issues in UIs which work >>> > well >>> > under 1.0 & 1.1. >>> > >>> > Al. >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: [email protected] >>> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jean-Baptiste >>> > Queru >>> > Sent: 25 March 2009 16:10 >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Subject: [android-discuss] Re: Freedom cuts both ways (Re: >>> > [android-developers] Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is the SDK?) >>> > >>> > >>> > Nobody is asking you to write for cupcake. >>> > >>> > If your app doesn't need features from cupcake, write it for 1.0 (or >>> > 1.1 in the very unlikely even that you need an API from 1.1). >>> > >>> > If your app needs features from cupcake, it's not ready to turn into a >>> > release. >>> > >>> > JBQ >>> > >>> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Sundog <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I agree... not much interested in the details and excuses; you want me >>> >> to write for Cupcake, gimme an SDK. Until then, I'm spending my >>> >> resources SOMEWHERE where there's not this constant Amateur Hour feel >>> >> to everything. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mar 24, 12:37 pm, "Al Sutton" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The a/b choice isn't HTCs, it's Googles. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm not after an SDK for a specific piece of hardware such as the >>> >>> Magic or Dream. What I'm after is an SDK for what's labelled in the >>> >>> Google controlled repository as CupCake. >>> >>> >>> >>> If Google think code is good enough to pass on to an OEM then it >>> >>> should include an SDK which is good enough for developers to test >>> >>> their code against and highlight potential compatibility issues, and >>> >>> at the moment that doesn't seem to be the case which is why we could >>> >>> be looking at users holding an HTC-Magic running cupcake before >>> >>> developers can even compile their code in a cupcake SDK. >>> >>> >>> >>> Al. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Murphy >>> >>> Sent: 24 March 2009 17:35 >>> >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> Subject: [android-discuss] Freedom cuts both ways (Re: >>> >>> [android-developers] >>> >>> Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is the SDK?) >>> >>> >>> >>> Moving this branch of the thread to [android-discuss]... >>> >>> >>> >>> Al Sutton wrote: >>> >>> > This is a no-brainer and in order to not appear like a piece of >>> >>> > half-thought out technology the answer has to be a. >>> >>> >>> >>> And since the choice between a) and b) is HTC's, why are you ranting >>> > here? >>> >>> >>> >>> If HTC (or any manufacturer) wishes to release an updated device out >>> >>> to market before the ecosystem has had an opportunity to adjust their >>> >>> apps to match the firmware, that is HTC's decision to make. This is >>> >>> particularly true since even with an SDK, there is no clear timetable >>> >>> in which apps will have been updated to make use of it. >>> >>> >>> >>> The reason this isn't a problem for Apple and RIM (and Palm, who you >>> >>> didn't >>> >>> mention) is because they make their own devices. The reason this >>> >>> isn't a problem for Microsoft is the fact that AFAIK they haven't >>> >>> done OTA updates, so the problem is more manageable. And this could >>> >>> easily become a problem for Symbian when they go open source. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you want people to have the freedom to use the Android bits as >>> >>> they see fit, you have to give people the freedom to screw up. If HTC >>> >>> or other manufacturers put a too-tight deadline between firmware >>> >>> release and its distribution (on devices or OTA), to the detriment of >>> >>> app developers, that's their mistake to make. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com >>> >>> Warescription: Three Android Books, Plus Updates, $35/Year- Hide >>> >>> quoted text - >>> >>> >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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 Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
