> 0 (CONTENT_URI) in Landroid/provider/ContactsContract$CommonDataKinds$Phone;
ContactsContract is an Android 2.0 class. It won't work on earlier
versions. I have an app that uses the contacts API also and solve the
problem with something like this:
public abstract class ContactManager {
public
Probably true on Android, not universally true. Would fail on
standard Java, like I said, if -Xfuture were specified.
On Oct 21, 5:27 pm, fadden wrote:
> On Oct 20, 11:10 am, DanH wrote:
>
> > The wrapper class example is defective if the verifier is
> > "conventional" -- doesn't have the swiz
On Oct 20, 11:10 am, DanH wrote:
> The wrapper class example is defective if the verifier is
> "conventional" -- doesn't have the swizzle you describe since 1.6.
It works because the code does something like:
if (version is 2.0 or later)
use wrapped stuff
else
feature not available,
(Though only, I suppose, if -Xfuture is specified/defaulted.)
On Oct 20, 1:10 pm, DanH wrote:
> The wrapper class example is defective if the verifier is
> "conventional" -- doesn't have the swizzle you describe since 1.6.
>
> On Oct 20, 12:53 pm, fadden wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 6:47 pm, DanH w
The wrapper class example is defective if the verifier is
"conventional" -- doesn't have the swizzle you describe since 1.6.
On Oct 20, 12:53 pm, fadden wrote:
> On Oct 19, 6:47 pm, DanH wrote:
>
> > Even if you never actually execute the code that's causing the
> > problem, the verifier will r
On Oct 19, 6:47 pm, DanH wrote:
> Even if you never actually execute the code that's causing the
> problem, the verifier will reject it, since it's doing a static check
> and can't tell what code is or isn't executed.
That's a pretty concise explanation of the difference between 1.6 and
2.0.
In
Like I said ...
Even if you never actually execute the code that's causing the
problem, the verifier will reject it, since it's doing a static check
and can't tell what code is or isn't executed.
If you want to include some code in your application that is
optionally loaded (because it's not comp
Thank you! Now I know where I can get those messages.
10-20 09:18:14.973: WARN/dalvikvm(210): VFY: unable to resolve static field
0 (CONTENT_URI) in Landroid/provider/ContactsContract$CommonDataKinds$Phone;
10-20 09:18:14.982: WARN/dalvikvm(210): VFY: rejecting opcode 0x62 at
0x0012
10-20 09:18:
Right ***above*** the exception trace should
be some arcane-looking messages with "VFY" in them.
On Oct 19, 6:36 pm, Alex Xin wrote:
> Hi, thanks for helping me, here's the logcat, you could see it crashes prior
> to call my onCreate() method.
>
> 10-20 07:32:27.490: ERROR/AndroidRuntime(204): ja
Hi, thanks for helping me, here's the logcat, you could see it crashes prior
to call my onCreate() method.
10-20 07:32:27.490: ERROR/AndroidRuntime(204): java.lang.VerifyError:
xcxin.mysecret.mainSecretActivity
10-20 07:32:27.490: ERROR/AndroidRuntime(204): at
java.lang.Class.newInstanceImpl(N
On Oct 19, 2:25 am, Alex Xin wrote:
> I have an app that runs perfect on 2.2 and 2.2 but always getting
> VerifyError on 1.6 while startup, I don't think that my app cannot run under
> 1.6 because I don't call any APIs that don't support 1.6.
Post the output from logcat. Right above the exceptio
Keep in mind that there are also Java version dependencies and library
dependencies. I don't know what Java versions may correspond to what
Android versions, but you can't eg, compile with a Java 6 targeted
javac and expect to run on a Java 5 JDK. And in some cases you can
run into trouble if you
Yes. Temporarily changing the "Project Build Target" in the project's
android properties (assuming you're using eclipse) should highlight any
unexpected Java source incompatibilities.
Tom.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To
Unfortunately, setting minsdk version in the manifest doesn't cause
any sort of validation against that platform version.
So the OP's problem could easily be caused by him using an API that
doesn't exist prior to 2.x
-- Kostya
19.10.2010 16:29, Tom Gibara пишет:
Actually, you should build a
Actually, you should build against a version of the platform that has all of
the features that your application can use. This is often not the same as
the earliest version on which it will run.
Tom.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers"
What did you compile against? You should always compile/build against
the earliest version you hope to run on.
On Oct 19, 4:25 am, Alex Xin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an app that runs perfect on 2.2 and 2.2 but always getting
> VerifyError on 1.6 while startup, I don't think that my app cannot run
16 matches
Mail list logo
