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
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
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 requir
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?
On Feb 18, 10:03 am, Diann
OK, thanks Dianne. I really am looking forward to working with the
new SDK and can't wait to get started. Especially to get past the one
issue I'm having with a gallery fragment I created. Oh well, I guess
I'll have to be patient!
-Gregg
On Feb 18, 1:03 pm, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
> On Fri, Feb
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
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 | h
I know, but it's the timing I'm worried about. The Xoom could be
released long before the SDK is refreshed.
On Feb 18, 8:45 am, Streets Of Boston wrote:
> Don't get hung up on the *preview* SDK.
> The api-level value 'honeycomb' will not be the real value. It will be a
> number, like 11 or 12.
Don't get hung up on the *preview* SDK.
The api-level value 'honeycomb' will not be the real value. It will be a
number, like 11 or 12.
--
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
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
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 sa
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
ab
Dianne said that Android 3.*0* will not be loaded onto any phone. Phones
will just skip 3.0 and start with 3.1 (or anything after 3.0). This way you
don't need two disjoint branches.
There would only be trouble if the api-level of 2.3.3=10, the API level of
Android 3.0=11 and a new in-between
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
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 handse
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 h
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
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
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 supp
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 al
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 Deve
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 h
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 mult
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
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
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
Wouldn't the first order of business be Dalvik's GC multicore
improvements backpoting to 2.x?
I am still waiting for Honeycomb SDK final release and hope that they
skip 2.4 on phones and jup directly to 3.1(or 3.0 for phones).
Yet I am so much frustrated that Android's openness stops at ODM or
carr
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:
> Ther
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
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 h
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
Ah yes, of course, for now (in my case) with the preview SDK and
soon with the final SDK . Thank you, Dianne.
On Feb 7, 7:06 pm, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
> You are using this wrong. Both attributes need to be in a single
> tag.
>
> The rule is simple: if the targetSdkVersion is Honeycomb, then y
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
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 cours
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 ge
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
To anyone who wants to test his/her app on the Honeycomb SDK, in the
app's manifest, edit your to specify Honeycomb as the
target, like this:
You will then get the Honeycomb Holograph them and your app will have
an updated look and feel.
S
--
You received this message because you are sub
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
> > probl
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 fo
It would be really great if some of the UI designers would blog/write
article about the intended design philosophy of applications for
Honeycomb.
We should not be dependent on the beta SDK API , but at least most of
us can start thinking on how the applications should interact with the
users and wh
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 min
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 appli
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 be
>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 instal
It seems your question is answered.
I've just downloaded the Honeycomb SDK.
As with other emulator images, it seems to need restarting a few times
before you get the "3G" network connectivity.
On Jan 17, 5:40 pm, Spiral123 wrote:
> Hi there...
>
> a quick request/plea to any Google employees tha
prayers: answered.
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2011/01/android-30-platform-preview-and-updated.html
--
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 unsu
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
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
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
49 matches
Mail list logo
