Sorry I thought I was being pretty clear. Do you consider Apple's 3.2 version of iOS to be a fork of their platform in the way you are describing? I mean, you can define fork in various ways, and you could justifiably say such a thing is a fork (though transient). But you seem to be concerned about major work being done on two diverging branches of the platform which, you know, would be kind-of annoying for all concerned.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Indicator Veritatis <mej1...@yahoo.com>wrote: > Unfortunately, Diane, you have not answered the question. Worse yet, > you are contributing to the confusion. > > How so? Because you say on the one hand, "Honeycomb/3.0 is > specifically for tablets", but you then appear to contradict yourself > pretty abruptly by immediately adding, "Why would anyone want to fork > the code base into two completely disjoint branches?" > > But how do you think people will interpret your first assertion, > UNLESS as "two completely disjoint branches"? What did you think > 'specifically' means? > > On Feb 10, 2:46 pm, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com> wrote: > > Nobody said "Android 3.x line is only for tablets." Honeycomb/3.0 is > > specifically for tablets. > > > > Why would anyone want to fork the code base into two completely disjoint > > branches for tablets vs. phones? That would be somewhat insane. Did you > > notice all of the new stuff in HC to help applications scale between > tablets > > and phones? That would be kind-of odd to do if the newer versions are > not > > going to appear on phones. > > > > Do you remember when Apple introduced the iPad, and they had a new > version > > 3.2 of iOS just for that? It never appeared on phones. This is similar. > > The only difference is that we did a lot more work on our core platform > to > > take advantage of larger screens and help applications scale up to them, > so > > our new version was a big enough change that we bumped it up a major > version > > number. > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kevin Duffey <andjar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Dianne, > > > > > If the Android 3.x line is for tablets, and let's assume we don't know > the > > > actualy api level for 3.0 yet.. but we know 2.3.3 is now 10.. that > would > > > tell us that if 3.0 becomes 11, then 2.3.3 is end of line for 2.x > unless > > > there is going to be either some sort of change in api levels to > support > > > tablets from phones? If 3.0 does become 11, then what we have now on > our > > > phones is it. No more upgrades. You stated before that 3.0 is only for > > > tablets. That means, at least as it stands now, if 3.0 becomes 11, > there are > > > no more updates for phones other than minor 2.3.4, 2.3.5 etc that > retain the > > > same API level.. aka bug fixes only. I really hope this isn't the case > OR > > > that 3.x WILL come to phones. Perhaps, a 3.1 (api lvl 12) will be a > merge of > > > tablets and phones into one OS and that 2.3 devices like the > Bionic/Atrix > > > and many other makers, will be able to upgrade to a > 3.0 api. > > > > > It's all very confusing at this point. I can see the apple fanboys > loving > > > this right now ;) I am sure a lot more posts about fragmentation and > > > confusion will show up until it's all sorted out. It would be great if > > > sooner than later, at least for us developers, that this info was > sorted out > > > and provided to us so we know what to expect in the near future. > > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com > >wrote: > > > > >> Well by definition there would be no API changes between API level 10 > and > > >> 11. The whole point API levels is to provide a consistent, strict > > >> super-setting of platform progression. That is, you can say "is the > > >> platform API level >= X" and always know that if this is true it will > > >> contain at least all features of API level X as they are specified to > work. > > > > >> This is the way API levels have been defined from the start, this is > one > > >> of the big reasons we made them (to separate platform progression from > > >> marketing things like platform versions), and there are no plans to > change > > >> this. > > > > >> So again, let me please request: don't pay attention to rumors. They > are > > >> rumors. Trying to predict what is going to happen based on rumors is > just > > >> going to make your life a lot more difficult. Things should be very > clear > > >> here: you take the API level of Honeycomb (which I can say I expect to > be > > >> 11) as the point at which the Honeycomb features are available, and if > you > > >> need to check for this you say "android.os.Build.VERSION.SDK_INT >= > > >> android.os.Build.VERSION_CODES.HONEYCOMB". > > > > >> Also for the other comment about the HC preview SDK version being > "10", > > >> actually it didn't yet have its own SDK version. During development, > the > > >> SDK version remains the same as the previous platform (the dev branch > is > > >> strictly a superset of the platform it is based on), and it is marked > with a > > >> codename that is used for android:minSdkVersion and > android:targetSdkVersion > > >> for apps that are building with its new functionality (which does not > yet > > >> have an official API version number since those APIs are still in > > >> development and changing). > > > > >> There is some special casing for resources, because we don't have a > way to > > >> use version codes in the resource directories, when running as a dev > branch > > >> the resource system uses "current API version + 1" as the version code > for > > >> resource matching. > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Ed Burnette <ed.burne...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > >>> Ok, so if 2.3.3 is API level 10, and 3.0 is API level 11, where would > > >>> any future 2.x releases fit in? Will they be called API level 10, or > > >>> 12, or will you start using fractional numbers somehow (currently the > > >>> level has to be an int)? The answer affects how we should write apps > > >>> that work across multiple versions. > > > > >>> For example, suppose I want to use a method introduced in 3.0 and I > > >>> check for Build.VERSION.SDK_INT >= Build.VERSION_CODES.HONEYCOMB. Is > > >>> that always going to work? Or is it possible that the method will > > >>> exist at SDK_INT == 11 but not at SDK_INT == 12? The alternatives > > >>> would mean we'd have to start checking Build.CODENAME, INCREMENTAL, > > >>> and RELEASE as well (yuck), or that reflection would be the only > > >>> reliable way to check if a method or class exists. > > > > >>> An easy fix, if there are going to be more 2.x releases, would be for > > >>> you to use an API level number bigger than 11 for Android 3.0 to > > >>> provide some room to grow. If there are not going to be any more 2.x > > >>> releases then it won't matter. > > > > >>> On Feb 9, 1:25 pm, Xavier Ducrohet <x...@android.com> wrote: > > >>> > I'm not commenting on rumors, but Android 2.3.3 (API *10*) is out > as an > > >>> SDK. > > > > >>> > Xav > > > > >>> > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Ed Burnette <ed.burne...@gmail.com > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > Hard info to replace the rumors would be most welcome. :) > > > > >>> > > According to Viewsonic, there will be a release in between 2.3 > and > > >>> 3.0 > > >>> > > ( > http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/38311/android-2-4-april-release- > > >>> > > date). That means it must be under development somewhere now, > which > > >>> > > means some folks (the involved devs and project leads at least) > have > > >>> > > an idea what will go in it. Without roadmaps or public source > trees > > >>> or > > >>> > > development work-blogs, the rest of us are left to guess and > > >>> > > speculate. I'd much rather we didn't have to. > > > > >>> > > On Feb 8, 1:14 am, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com> wrote: > > >>> > >> The Honeycomb framework APIs are introduced in 3.0. Any > platform > > >>> that has > > >>> > >> them would be 3.0 or later. (And more important, any platform > that > > >>> has them > > >>> > >> would have an API level that is at least that of Honeycomb.) > > > > >>> > >> Rumors, so much fun. :p > > > > >>> > >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Kevin Duffey < > andjar...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > >> > There is a 2.4 in the works if the rumor mill is correct, from > my > > >>> > >> > understanding of potentially bad sources, 2.4 will be a sort > of > > >>> reduced > > >>> > >> > honeycomb for phones, hopefully giving it the same UI but > perhaps > > >>> a few > > >>> > >> > different things? I am really curious how this is going to > play > > >>> out. > > >>> > >> > Naturally the apple fanboys are shouting fragmentation again, > but > > >>> I am > > >>> > >> > really interested in the UI differences between 3.0 and any > new > > >>> version for > > >>> > >> > phones that come out. Will phones go the way of tablets, no > > >>> buttons, same > > >>> > >> > UI, etc? I personally hope so, the 3.0 UI looks fantastic. > > > > >>> > >> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Mark Murphy < > > >>> mmur...@commonsware.com>wrote: > > > > >>> > >> >> My initial reaction was that it was an homage to Spinal Tap. > > > > >>> > >> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Ed Burnette < > > >>> ed.burne...@gmail.com> > > >>> > >> >> wrote: > > >>> > >> >> > 11? Does that mean the next 2.x release will be API level > 10 > > >>> and that > > >>> > >> >> > there will only be one more 2.x release with API changes? > Or am > > >>> I > > >>> > >> >> > reading too much into it? I was wondering how that > numbering > > >>> hiccup > > >>> > >> >> > was going to be handled. > > > > >>> > >> >> > On Feb 7, 3:01 am, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > >> >> >> I don't know why it says that about minSdkVersion. The > value > > >>> of > > >>> > >> >> >> minSdkVersion doesn't matter; all that matters is that > > >>> > >> >> >> targetSdkVersion="Honeycomb". (Or 11 in the final API.) > > > > >>> > >> >> > -- > > >>> > >> >> > 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 > > > > >>> > >> >> -- > > >>> > >> >> Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) > > >>> > >> >>http://commonsware.com|http://github.com/commonsguy > > >>> > >> >>http://commonsware.com/blog|http://twitter.com/commonsguy > > > > >>> > >> >> Android 2.3 Programming Books:http://commonsware.com/books > > > > >>> > >> >> -- > > >>> > >> >> 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 > > > > >>> > >> > -- > > >>> > >> > 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 > > > > >>> > >> -- > > >>> > >> Dianne Hackborn > > >>> > >> Android framework engineer > > >>> > >> hack...@android.com > > > > >>> > >> Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have > > >>> time to > > >>> > >> provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. > All > > >>> such > > >>> > >> questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others > can > > >>> see and > > >>> > >> answer them. > > > > >>> > > -- > > >>> > > 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 > > > > >>> > -- > > >>> > Xavier Ducrohet > > >>> > Android SDK Tech Lead > > >>> > Google Inc.http://developer.android.com|http://tools.android.com > > > > >>> > Please do not send me questions directly. Thanks! > > > > >>> -- > > >>> 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 > > > > >> -- > > >> Dianne Hackborn > > >> Android framework engineer > > >> hack...@android.com > > > > >> Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time > to > > >> provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such > > >> questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can > see and > > >> answer them. > > > > >> -- > > >> 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 > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > -- > > Dianne Hackborn > > Android framework engineer > > hack...@android.com > > > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to > > provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such > > questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see > and > > answer them. > > -- > 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 > -- Dianne Hackborn Android framework engineer hack...@android.com Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and answer them. -- 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
