Comments on: Flash Lite, packaging and OVI Store http://www.biskero.org/flash-lite-packaging-and-ovi-store-3754?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=flash-lite-packaging-and-ovi-store personal blog about mobile technologies, mobile phones, mobile development and Flash Lite Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:58:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: biskero http://www.biskero.org/flash-lite-packaging-and-ovi-store-3754/comment-page-1#comment-219227 biskero Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:28:45 +0000 http://www.biskero.org/?p=3754#comment-219227 Ciao Tofeeq, I see, you should report this issue to the Forum Nokia discussion board so they can fix it. Alessandro Ciao Tofeeq,

I see, you should report this issue to the Forum Nokia discussion board so they can fix it.
Alessandro

]]> By: Tofeeq http://www.biskero.org/flash-lite-packaging-and-ovi-store-3754/comment-page-1#comment-219224 Tofeeq Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:12:57 +0000 http://www.biskero.org/?p=3754#comment-219224 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 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

]]> By: biskero http://www.biskero.org/flash-lite-packaging-and-ovi-store-3754/comment-page-1#comment-177360 biskero Mon, 11 May 2009 20:28:45 +0000 http://www.biskero.org/?p=3754#comment-177360 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 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

]]> By: Emanuele Cipolloni http://www.biskero.org/flash-lite-packaging-and-ovi-store-3754/comment-page-1#comment-177301 Emanuele Cipolloni Mon, 11 May 2009 18:27:54 +0000 http://www.biskero.org/?p=3754#comment-177301 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. 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.

]]> By: biskero http://www.biskero.org/flash-lite-packaging-and-ovi-store-3754/comment-page-1#comment-177083 biskero Sun, 10 May 2009 17:53:42 +0000 http://www.biskero.org/?p=3754#comment-177083 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 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

]]> By: Mark Doherty http://www.biskero.org/flash-lite-packaging-and-ovi-store-3754/comment-page-1#comment-177077 Mark Doherty Sun, 10 May 2009 17:23:54 +0000 http://www.biskero.org/?p=3754#comment-177077 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 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

]]> By: biskero http://www.biskero.org/flash-lite-packaging-and-ovi-store-3754/comment-page-1#comment-176803 biskero Sat, 09 May 2009 16:39:42 +0000 http://www.biskero.org/?p=3754#comment-176803 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 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

]]> By: Emanuele Cipolloni http://www.biskero.org/flash-lite-packaging-and-ovi-store-3754/comment-page-1#comment-176801 Emanuele Cipolloni Sat, 09 May 2009 16:31:32 +0000 http://www.biskero.org/?p=3754#comment-176801 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. 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.

]]>