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