NewLC - Symbian development - An alternative to embedding applications - Comments

Re: Symbian development - An alternative to embedding applicatio

tote — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:40:16 +0200

Well,

Every system has advantages as well as disadvantages. It's not surprising to me to see features supported in one platform and unsupported in another. Windows has its own design flaws that have been addressed in EPOC/Symbian from the very beginning. And vice versa.

Tote

Re: Symbian development - An alternative to embedding applicatio

maxxxpayne — Fri, 23 May 2008 18:53:06 +0200

This is sad. Seriously sad...

I think even Windows 3.0 had the capability for embedding applications and OLE made its way as far as NT 3.5. The fact that Symbian developers debating and writing articles on problems that have been solved in my dad's time is even painful to watch

Re: Symbian development - An alternative to embedding applicatio

tote — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:14:16 +0200

Thanks for your reply, Alh! You're right that it would introduce another burden of having to maintain binary compatibility. The question is how much Nokia is willing to serve their community. I mean, I can see that it'd be another duty for Nokia, but I believe they could cope with it.

And I really see your point in having a COM-like approach as that would be very flexible and yet easy to maintain. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, I wish they read this conversation.

Tote

Re: Symbian development - An alternative to embedding applicatio

alh — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:51:39 +0200

Well, they still need to maintain BC on the M-class I guess, but I still like that approach.
Less messy then if you have to combine the standard API with your application specific extensions

Re: Symbian development - An alternative to embedding applicatio

alh — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:43:33 +0200

The main problem with a CCoeControl based API, is probably that it introduces a new API that need to be binary compatibility checked for each release, and a lot more effort needs to be put in designing it well from the start.

The embedded api is the same for any app, and is much easier to maintain.

What I think they really need is a new API that is derived from CCoeControl, but gives a more stream lined API, that is well thought through, and easily usable for this kind of view plugin functionality.

Should just have the basic functions to plug it into your control hierarchy, and then one (1) function to query for APIs.

Then the apps don't have to maintain BC, but could just provide an M-class + a UID in a header file.

Re: Symbian development - An alternative to embedding applicatio

tote — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:49:29 +0200

Well, the issue has been risen: I've published this very post on Forum Nokia Blog as well, hope it'll get some sort of publicity. But Paul, I don't think they'll ever discuss about any APIs with 3rd party developers. I'm not sure even if I'd do. It would be entirely different, though, if the platform was open source.

Re: Symbian development - An alternative to embedding applicatio

paul — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:05:23 +0200

I was also disappointed by the API.

Whilst its nice, it is very limited with what you can do.

But this is what happens when software is designed by a committe without talking to actual 3rd party developers about they need.

Re: Symbian development - An alternative to embedding applicatio

eric — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:29:30 +0200

Hi Gabor

I 200% agree with you. The "CCoeControl" based approach may be more complex to use but gives a lot more flexibility!

Cheers,
Eric

Symbian development - An alternative to embedding applications

tote — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:25:07 +0200

How to use other applications' services in Symbian OS? Embedding has been the answer so far, but is that enough? I don't think so.