That's nice. I will try the version tomorrow.
By the way, are you aware that the next version of proguard will have it's
own preverifier. Maybe that will effect eclipseme?
On 5/27/07, Craig Setera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It should... I'm going to put out another test version later
today/tonight and I've actually tested mpowermplayer with that version
as well as adding support for me4se and microemulator.
Ed Welch wrote:
> Does it now work with Mpowerplayer?
>
> On 5/26/07, *Craig Setera* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> Everyone,
>
> I've just placed a new test version of EclipseME (1.6.8.a) at
> http://eclipseme.org/testversions . I would appreciate any feedback
> people could give me on this new functionality as I continue
> development
> on the next release. This build should fix the build.xml export
> functionality and now Motorola SDK 6.4 support should now be
working.
> (Note: I couldn't get Moto SDK 6.4 to run on Windows Vista, but it
was
> working in a WinXP Virtual PC image)
>
> The biggest change in this new version is in the automatic builder
> functionality. As of this version, the standard builder will always
> keep the JAR and JAD file up to date. In addition, all launching
> is now
> done using the automatically deployed JAR/JAD files. This should
> better
> match reality for deployment and provide a better test that the
> packaged
> functionality will work correctly.
>
> I need lots of feedback on whether this new functionality is working
> correctly... picking up all changes, launching correctly, etc. I
> would
> also like to get people's thoughts on a few related issues:
>
> 1) Should the automated build increment the version number
> automatically? Right now it will only bump the version number
> when the
> package is explicitly built using the menu item. I think this is
> correct, as I don't expect the version number should increment every
> time a file is saved.
>
> 2) Should the ability to implicitly obfuscate be supported on
> save? It
> currently does not do this, and my gut tells me that that is the
> correct
> answer. For one thing, obfuscation is expensive and it doesn't seem
> that it should be done on every file save.
>
> 3) What other things are missing with this functionality?
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
> _______________________________________________
> Eclipseme-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclipseme-users
> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclipseme-users>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Eclipseme-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclipseme-users
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Eclipseme-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclipseme-users
