If you are a Flash Lite developer and planning to publish your content with the OVI Store, here a suggestion.
To publish Flash Lite content on OVI Store, packaging is a requirement.
For Nokia S60 3rd Edition you must create sis installers, while for S40 you must use nfl installers (supported only from S40 5th edition feature pack 1). You can use the Forum Nokia Flash Lite packager to do the job.
Here is how Flash Lite versions versus Nokia S60 and S40 platforms is divided:
- S60 supports content for Flash Lite 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0
- S40 supports content for Flash Lite 1.1, 2.0, 2.1 and 3.0
But for S40 you can address only mobile phones that support nfl packaging, so S40 5th Ed FP1 (and later) which have Flash Lite 2.1 (and 3.0).
Let say you want to address the highest number of handsets. My suggestion is to create a Flash Lite 1.1 version which will address all the Flash Lite 1.1-3.0 devices. A second choice would be Flash Lite 2.0. The differences will be in the packaging/installer.
Keep in mind that screen resolution will need to be addressed, as some S60 3rd Ed have 176×208 resolution. It seems a complicated and confusing matrix to come up with, but the solution is pretty easy and a matter of seconds.
Use Device Central, search on the Nokia devices list with a filter based on Flash Lite version, screen resolution and platform. This way you can create sets of addressable Nokia devices based on the above information. Pretty easy!
Alessandro
Don’t forget that the same device may have two resolutions if you include screen rotation and with signing it is necessary to take into account that when screen is rotated any text/image representing the actions associated to the two softkeys should be repositioned as well, otherwise signing criteria are not met.
Also, the fact that now Nokia basically allow to sign the applications (or packaged SWF files) on or own, without using a test house, should not be taken lightly, as they will sample the applications which have been submitted and if they verify that the signing criteria have not been followed, not only the application will be removed from OVi but also the developer will loose its certificate and ability to submit other apps.
Ciao Emanuele,
I understand that, but that’s part of development. The developer choose to adjust the content for screen orientation. I do not think is valid for Flash Lite content the “signing criteria” that you are referring to since signing is specific to the Symbian C++ launcher not the Flash Lite content. There is no such criteria for Flash Lite content.
For sis you must do Express/Certified Signed otherwise you cannot submit your content. But it applies to the launcher not the FL content.
So my guess is that Nokia QA is more important for FL content. The criteria there are not that clear. Your example of screen orientation would fit in their test case? It’s an open question.
Alessandro
Hi Alessandro,
The are other issues to consider concerning multiple firmware versions on eight S60 devices that had FL3.0 upgrades. If you target FL2.0 for S60 and your application is installed on two N95 devices, one with FL2 and another with FL3, then you may see issues with the security model.
Emanuele is correct in assuming that screen orientation is a key unit test for Symbian Signing. It is not simply the c++ stub application and it’s UIDs, but the SWF that is tested. Random sampling happens all the time and there are numerous cases of developers having their certificates pulled.
Do not let it happen to you.
Mark
Ciao Mark,
I understand the difference in the firmwares and a developer should take into account that too.
About the Symbian Signed, from my talks to Symbian people in various occasions, they do not test the FL content and they told me that the testing criteria applies only to Symbian applications.
If that is not the case, do you know where are those criteria explained for Flash Lite content?
Alessandro
Alex they don’t test each submitted content, they randomly pick and see if the criteria have been respected, with a packaged SWF you’re also delivering a C++ based stub which has to behave like any other C++ application, the fact that is used only to launch the SWF doesn’t mean much.
Ciao,
yeap, agree. The launcher does pass the Symbian Signed criteria so I am not concerned about it. It’s just a that we are getting very different answers from Symbian on this.
Anyway, if you design FL apps from scratch is better to take into account your point of scalable UI.
Alessandro
Swfpack (nokia packager) has a big problem:
when the user install the app to a drive higher than E the app displays a system error and doesn’t load
Ciao Tofeeq,
I see, you should report this issue to the Forum Nokia discussion board so they can fix it.
Alessandro