Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
On 18 February 2011 21:41, Indicator Veritatis wrote: > But this leaves us all wondering: how is Motorola doing 3.0 for the > Xoom, if the SDK has not been 'refreshed'? No, it's not "us all". It's just you. We manage to understand that Motorola may get more frequent updates that we, plus as kind partner, have direct "link" to devs in case of problems/bugs. That's how you usually do such things. > Do they get that much of an > advantage out of some kine of "early access program"? How could it be > in Google's interest to deny this advantage to the rest of us? Because it costs and SDK is not ready for public release. That's why. -- Regards, Marcin -- 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Indicator Veritatis wrote: > But this leaves us all wondering: how is Motorola doing 3.0 for the > Xoom, if the SDK has not been 'refreshed'? Do they get that much of an > advantage out of some kine of "early access program"? How could it be > in Google's interest to deny this advantage to the rest of us? > The Xoom is the target/lead device for Honeycomb development. (Like Nexus S for 2.3, Nexus One for 2.1, Droid for 2.0, myTouch for 1.5, G1 for 1.0.) -- 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Gregg Reno wrote: > Related to this, I'm wondering if we will be in a situation where we > won't be able to test our honeycomb apps on real devices. For > example, I'm planning on picking up a xoom - hopefully in the next > couple of days. If we are still required to use "Honeycomb" as the > minSdkVersion. Will those apps run on a xoom if the minSdkVersion > isn't a number? > > Nope. Short version: minSdkVersion uses a string (e.g. "PeanutButter") instead of a number (e.g. "23") specifically for "preview SDK platform images". The Xoom will come with an official (i.e. non-preview) platform image, which will only accept applications that target number-based minSdkVersion. By that time, you should have an official "3.0 platform images" to download though. Note that we did exactly the same in the past for Eclair, iirc. PS: PeanutButter and 23 are really randomly selected name and number, don't go crazy about them :-) > -Gregg > > On Feb 17, 5:01 pm, Ed Burnette wrote: > > Dianne said Android 3.0 would be level "11 in the final API" (http:// > > groups.google.com/group/android-developers/msg/dbe54b1e41663284) but I > > was reading too much into that. It seems clear now it might be 11, or > > 12, or some other integer in that ballpark. We'll see when it comes > > out. > > > > Dianne also said "Trust me, you probably don't want to try to follow > > the changing world that exists before real announcements are made," > > but that's exactly what I want. I've got plenty of aspirin handy > > should the need arise. > > > > On Feb 12, 10:21 am, Streets Of Boston > > wrote: > > > > > But who says that the API level of Android 3.0=11. Who says that the > next > > > Android version (Ice Cream (Sandwich)) is 2.4? All rumours. > > > > > > -- > 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Gregg Reno wrote: > I know, but it's the timing I'm worried about. The Xoom could be > released long before the SDK is refreshed. > Generally the SDK for a new version of Android is available by the time it is shipping to users on a new device. I mean, yes, we are well aware that we have not done a very good job at getting new SDKs into developers hands as early as we'd all like, but we aren't *that* bad. :) -- 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Gregg Reno wrote: > I know, but it's the timing I'm worried about. The Xoom could be > released long before the SDK is refreshed. Pray to the deity of your choice. Beyond that, there's little to be done. -- 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
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 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 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 > 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 >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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
Good points. I think what I read indicated that the UI is that good that a custom UI would no longer be needed.. or probably more likely that hopefully a custom UI won't be built and that all android 3+ devices would share the same UI. I doubt that will be the case, as you said it's open and handset makers are always going to want to find a way to entice people to buy their phone instead of a competitors. When you have similar specs for a phone, often the UI is what sets it apart. That and stability of the device. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Dianne Hackborn wrote: > Well 3.0 == HC, which is very different from "3.x", which is fairly broad > in the possible versions it includes. Also any statements about HC removing > the "need" for Sense UI etc is just more rumors -- there have been no such > official statements, I don't even know what "remove the need" means. I have > also seen rumors around about how HC (or GB often) would not allow > customized UIs, which of course is fairly ridiculous since Android is open > source. > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Kevin Duffey wrote: > >> Ok.. my bad Dianne.. I thought I've read somewhere that 3.0 is only for >> tablets.. I probably read that wrong. So from what you have said, it sounds >> like that a 3.1 could be tailored for both phones and tablets. I was under >> the impression from most likely "rumor" posts that the new UI in 3 was only >> going to be for tablets and that phones wouldn't ever see it. I really hope >> a 3.x comes out where the phones and tablets share a similar UI. I remember >> reading a while ago that 3.0 would remove the need for sense UI, motoblur, >> etc. From the looks of it, the 3.0 UI is nicer than all of them, including >> the iPhone. I would love to see that same UI on phones, although I can >> certainly see the issues with portions of the UI and small screens. >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Dianne Hackborn 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 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 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. > >
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
Well 3.0 == HC, which is very different from "3.x", which is fairly broad in the possible versions it includes. Also any statements about HC removing the "need" for Sense UI etc is just more rumors -- there have been no such official statements, I don't even know what "remove the need" means. I have also seen rumors around about how HC (or GB often) would not allow customized UIs, which of course is fairly ridiculous since Android is open source. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Kevin Duffey wrote: > Ok.. my bad Dianne.. I thought I've read somewhere that 3.0 is only for > tablets.. I probably read that wrong. So from what you have said, it sounds > like that a 3.1 could be tailored for both phones and tablets. I was under > the impression from most likely "rumor" posts that the new UI in 3 was only > going to be for tablets and that phones wouldn't ever see it. I really hope > a 3.x comes out where the phones and tablets share a similar UI. I remember > reading a while ago that 3.0 would remove the need for sense UI, motoblur, > etc. From the looks of it, the 3.0 UI is nicer than all of them, including > the iPhone. I would love to see that same UI on phones, although I can > certainly see the issues with portions of the UI and small screens. > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Dianne Hackborn 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 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 >>> 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 remai
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
Ok.. my bad Dianne.. I thought I've read somewhere that 3.0 is only for tablets.. I probably read that wrong. So from what you have said, it sounds like that a 3.1 could be tailored for both phones and tablets. I was under the impression from most likely "rumor" posts that the new UI in 3 was only going to be for tablets and that phones wouldn't ever see it. I really hope a 3.x comes out where the phones and tablets share a similar UI. I remember reading a while ago that 3.0 would remove the need for sense UI, motoblur, etc. From the looks of it, the 3.0 UI is nicer than all of them, including the iPhone. I would love to see that same UI on phones, although I can certainly see the issues with portions of the UI and small screens. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Dianne Hackborn 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 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 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
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 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 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 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 >>> relia
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
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 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 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 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 >> 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. Wit
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
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 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 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 > 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 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 > 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 Burn
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
On 10 February 2011 19:37, Ed Burnette wrote: > Ok, so if 2.3.3 is API level 10, and 3.0 is API level 11, where would Unless 3.0 is officially out it can be any api number. Who said 3.0 is going to be 11? -- 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
Even before the 2.3.3 SDK update, the Build.VERSION.SDK_INT on the 3.0 emulator said 10. So I assumed that SDK 10 was honeycomb preview and that the final release of honeycomb would be SDK 11. But after updating, the SDK now says 2.3.3 is SDK 10, emulator (3.0) also says 10. I don't think Google has entirely sorted this out yet. Shane On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Ed Burnette 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 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 > 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 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 > 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 > > > >> >> 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 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-devel
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
When there is actual good hard info to provide, it is. Many of these rumors get started by companies saying things based on incomplete knowledge or understanding before any firm decisions have been made. Trust me, you probably don't want to try to follow the changing world that exists before real announcements are made; that would give you more of a headache, not less. On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Ed Burnette 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 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 > 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 >wrote: > > > > >> My initial reaction was that it was an homage to Spinal Tap. > > > > >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Ed Burnette > > >> 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 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 > -- Dianne Hackborn Androi
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
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 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 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 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 wrote: >> >> >> My initial reaction was that it was an homage to Spinal Tap. >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Ed Burnette >> >> 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 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...@googl
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
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 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 wrote: > >> My initial reaction was that it was an homage to Spinal Tap. >> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Ed Burnette >> 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 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
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 wrote: > My initial reaction was that it was an homage to Spinal Tap. > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Ed Burnette 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 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
My initial reaction was that it was an homage to Spinal Tap. On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Ed Burnette 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 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
You are using this wrong. Both attributes need to be in a single tag. The rule is simple: if the targetSdkVersion is Honeycomb, then you get the new Honeycomb behavior. (Note this is the exact same way this has worked forever, as documented by android.os.Build.VERSION_CODES about the changes in behavior you get as you target later platform versions.) This SDK is a preview, without final APIs, so its SDK version is a codename since code you write with it is by definition not tested on final builds. Once the final SDK is available, that will have an actual API version number for Honeycomb. On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:11 AM, blindfold wrote: > Yes I hope they will fix that for the final Honeycomb SDK, because > currently I need to recompile for either > > > > > giving me the conventional (Android 2.3-) phone appearance in the > Honeycomb emulator, or > > > > > for the holographic appearance in the Honeycomb emulator. What I want > of course is to have one APK that is backward compatible to (in my > case) minSdkVersion="4" and that shows the holographic UI on tablets > or phones that run Honeycomb. I do not need to change anything in my > code but these manifest changes to get there, so it is very > inconvenient to forbid android:targetSdkVersion="Honeycomb"/> when aiming to get the > holographic appearance on Honeycomb devices and the conventional > Android 2.3- UI on non-Honeycomb devices. > > On Feb 7, 8:54 am, Marcin Orlowski wrote: > > On 7 February 2011 00:57, midtoad wrote: > > > > > You will then get the Honeycomb Holograph them and your app will have > > > an updated look and feel. > > > > http://developer.android.com/sdk/preview/index.html > > > > "Android 3.0 offers an updated set of UI widgets that are redesigned > > for use on larger screens such as tablets and incorporate the new > > holographic theme. Your existing application can inherit the new > > design simply by setting the element's > > android:targetSdkVersion attribute to "Honeycomb". > > > > If you do not update the android:targetSdkVersion attribute and the > > android:minSdkVersion is set to "9" or lower, then your application > > uses the widget designs from Android 2.3 and does not inherit the > > holographic theme." > > -- > 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
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.) On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Marcin Orlowski wrote: > On 7 February 2011 00:57, midtoad wrote: > > You will then get the Honeycomb Holograph them and your app will have > > an updated look and feel. > > http://developer.android.com/sdk/preview/index.html > > "Android 3.0 offers an updated set of UI widgets that are redesigned > for use on larger screens such as tablets and incorporate the new > holographic theme. Your existing application can inherit the new > design simply by setting the element's > android:targetSdkVersion attribute to "Honeycomb". > > If you do not update the android:targetSdkVersion attribute and the > android:minSdkVersion is set to "9" or lower, then your application > uses the widget designs from Android 2.3 and does not inherit the > holographic theme." > > -- > 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
On 7 February 2011 00:57, midtoad wrote: > You will then get the Honeycomb Holograph them and your app will have > an updated look and feel. http://developer.android.com/sdk/preview/index.html "Android 3.0 offers an updated set of UI widgets that are redesigned for use on larger screens such as tablets and incorporate the new holographic theme. Your existing application can inherit the new design simply by setting the element's android:targetSdkVersion attribute to "Honeycomb". If you do not update the android:targetSdkVersion attribute and the android:minSdkVersion is set to "9" or lower, then your application uses the widget designs from Android 2.3 and does not inherit the holographic theme." -- 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK - TabHost issue
Okay should be fixed. Thanks for the report! On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:28 PM, roundhill wrote: > Yes, that's the app! Let me know if I can help with anything. > > On Jan 28, 9:58 pm, Dianne Hackborn wrote: > > Hi, this is the WordPress app by Automatic, Inc? I think I can repro the > > problem; we'll look at it. > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:38 AM, roundhill > wrote: > > > Tried our app (WordPress for Android) on the Honeycomb preview, when > > > it gets to the point where it uses a TabHost the app crashes on > > > ViewRoot.draw() Anyone else having problems with a tab layout in > > > Honeycomb? > > > > > -- > > > 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 cr...@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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
It works the following way: - you can keep building your project against a previous version and install it on the Honeycomb emulator. - if you compile against the Honeycomb APIs then it can only be installed on the Honeycomb preview emulator (because to build you have to put "Honeycomb" in the minSdkVersion of your manifest instead of an integer). This is because the current platform is tagged as being a preview. Those APIs are likely to change so we don't want you to publish something that will crash on the final version of Honeycomb. On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:53 AM, String wrote: > From the release notes: > > You cannot publish an application that's built against the preview SDK—you > can only run an application built against the Preview SDK on the Android > emulator. > > I take this to mean that, if I install the preview SDK, I can't publish ANY > apps from that installation - even if the android:targetSdkVersion <= 9. > Which means that, without a spare high-end machine to throw at it, the > preview SDK is useless to me (and I'm sure, many others). > Or am I reading this wrong? Is the publishability actually controlled by > the android:targetSdkVersion value? Xavier? > String > > -- > 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
You shouldn't be building production apps against an in-development version of the platform. If you build against one of the other production versions of the platform, that is fine. On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:53 AM, String wrote: > From the release notes: > > >- You *cannot* publish an application that's built against the preview >SDK—you can only run an application built against the Preview SDK on the >Android emulator. > > I take this to mean that, if I install the preview SDK, I can't publish ANY > apps from that installation - even if the android:targetSdkVersion <= 9. > Which means that, without a spare high-end machine to throw at it, the > preview SDK is useless to me (and I'm sure, many others). > > Or am I reading this wrong? Is the publishability actually controlled by > the android:targetSdkVersion value? Xavier? > > String > > -- > 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
On 27 January 2011 09:53, String wrote: > I take this to mean that, if I install the preview SDK, I can't publish ANY You can't publish anything with targetSDK=9. When you set target to lower value other SDK is used so this limitation does not affect your app. -- 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
>From the release notes: - You *cannot* publish an application that's built against the preview SDK—you can only run an application built against the Preview SDK on the Android emulator. I take this to mean that, if I install the preview SDK, I can't publish ANY apps from that installation - even if the android:targetSdkVersion <= 9. Which means that, without a spare high-end machine to throw at it, the preview SDK is useless to me (and I'm sure, many others). Or am I reading this wrong? Is the publishability actually controlled by the android:targetSdkVersion value? Xavier? String -- 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
Re: [android-developers] Re: Honeycomb SDK
hmm the SDK was released this morning. On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:00 PM, netlander wrote: > Good point spiral123, it would be in line with android openness to > make this sort of information available to developers as early as > possible, something that would greatly benefit the platform, no doubt. > > However this wasn't the case (and still isn't) with Google TV. Let's > hope that with the change of CEO comes a return to traditions for > Google. > > > > On Jan 17, 6:08 pm, Kumar Bibek wrote: >> I guess, there might be more than just documentation that would be >> required, since the changes seem to be substantial. A beta SDK would >> be definitely better, but I don't think we will have that. So, keep >> waiting. >> >> On Jan 17, 10:40 pm, Spiral123 wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi there... >> >> > a quick request/plea to any Google employees that happen to be lurking >> > around the group at the moment. >> >> > Many of us here will have seen the CES preview video of Honeycomb and >> > probably like myself are super excited about the possibilities for a >> > future Android tablet version of our own apps. Judging by the apps >> > already delivered in Honeycomb versions (at least GMail and Books by >> > my reckoning) the SDK is probably reasonably stable. >> >> > Is there any chance that a Beta version of the SDK could be released >> > so that we have the chance to play with it? If not a Beta SDK, how >> > about access to the Beta Documentation? It would be incredibly >> > helpful to us ordinary developers to have at least some idea about the >> > design opportunities that are ahead of us. I'm sure Google want to >> > encourage us all to enhance our apps to take advantage of all the cool >> > new stuff that is coming in Honeycomb rather than just do the minimum >> > required to port to the new version. >> >> > So, how about it? Any chance of some advocacy with the Higher Ups on >> > behalf of us little guys? >> >> > Thanks. >> >> > Nick > > -- > 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
