Hi all,
I have wrote a design doc for Launch Screen implementation on Android.
https://docs.google.com/a/intel.com/document/d/1YLajlZC7CkBOtEvzD6p6yeBr0HrPsaIGX8Eqhr3oTF4/edit?usp=sharing
Please help to review, and fell free to add comments there.
Br.
Guangzhen
-Original Message-
Thanks for the comments. I summarized some key points below.
- Currently, Tizen doesn't support Activity-Task like page ownership. As I
tested on Tizen2.1, pages are binding with their original app.
One issue of this model is: when user resume an app which was calling another
app's
Sounds good and scales better that existing model.
BR; Sakari
From: Oliveira, Caio caio.olive...@intel.commailto:caio.olive...@intel.com
Date: Thursday, January 2, 2014 at 21:59
To:
crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.orgmailto:crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org
Thanks for the good proposal, I support.
-Original Message-
From: Crosswalk-dev [mailto:crosswalk-dev-bounces@lists.crosswalk-
project.org] On Behalf Of Poussa, Sakari
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 1:11 PM
To: Oliveira, Caio; crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org
Subject: Re:
Test Objective
---
Objective in crosswalk nightly automation testing is to provide a quick quality
status for Crosswalk supporting W3C Web APIs, Device APIs and Runtime features
on Multiple OS and platforms, such as Tizen 2.1, Android.
Image Location
---
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 10:02 -0800, Ketrenos, James P wrote:
For the TL;DR: I am for having a single team/owner responsible for
Chromium/Blink in Crosswalk. I'm not sold on the notion of having the
original owner of a feature have to continually re-visit completed
work in order to keep that
Hi,
This proposal tries to do too much at once: support Tizen, introduce new
concepts and so on. Please consider simplifying it to do what is required first
and then plan to introduce new concepts.
The Picker example, for instance, doesn't work like in that document with
Tizen. In Tizen the
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Oliveira, Caio caio.olive...@intel.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 10:02 -0800, Ketrenos, James P wrote:
...
A proposal to move forward: could we take this as a starting point and
let the person/people responsible for the tree refine the rules of who
should
Hello,
I agree with Gustavo. In this case we shouldn't add new modes of
operation for application execution until the ones that we are required
to support are in place. The insight we gain implementing the required
bits help us creating new things later.
Cheers,
Caio
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at
Well, to have dedicated owner(owners) to take care of blink/chromium tree for
rebase makes sense, but it seems now the actual rebased activities are
scattered to individuals, I am not sure whether it will be efficient,
especially when the patch number is growing and there are some
10 matches
Mail list logo
