10-22-10 09:18 AM
29 12
tools
  1. taylortbb's Avatar
    Agreed. I will have a JVM to run the utilities/apps but that does not make it compatible. Java runs on Windows, Linus and OS X, and you can build a JVM for those OS's as well to run BB apps if you wanted to (who would?). It hardly makes them "compatible" with OS6.

    Guess it's a matter of semantics and what your definition of "compatible" implies.
    There's a lot more to Java apps than just the JVM, there's the entire standard classpath. If you try to run a BB app on a desktop JVM it will fail, none of the libraries it depends on will be present. These libraries however will be present on the PlayBook. In fact, I expect they will be re-written to map at least some calls to the underlying QNX OS. Things like the ability to query WiFi status will need to be re-written so that they present the same interface to apps, but behind the scenes use the PlayBook APIs for WiFi.

    I'd define compatible as anything that makes the apps work as expected. Currently that only exists in the form of BlackBerry devices and the desktop simulators. I expect the PlayBook's backwards compatibility will be at least partially be based off the simulator technology.
    10-15-10 03:47 PM
  2. dkingsf's Avatar
    There's a lot more to Java apps than just the JVM, there's the entire standard classpath. If you try to run a BB app on a desktop JVM it will fail, none of the libraries it depends on will be present. These libraries however will be present on the PlayBook. In fact, I expect they will be re-written to map at least some calls to the underlying QNX OS. Things like the ability to query WiFi status will need to be re-written so that they present the same interface to apps, but behind the scenes use the PlayBook APIs for WiFi.

    I'd define compatible as anything that makes the apps work as expected. Currently that only exists in the form of BlackBerry devices and the desktop simulators. I expect the PlayBook's backwards compatibility will be at least partially be based off the simulator technology.
    Why would anyone who knows anything about development put together a JVM on a windows machine for the BB apps without updating/including the libraries? Why would a builder hammer together a house without starting with a foundation, or finishing with a roof?

    All those libraries would of course need to be updated to the current hardware, or at least to pass off things to the OS to do for it.

    All programs written in Java can be made to work on any machine that runs a "compatible" Java. That's it's beauty. But is it worth the time, effort and money? Maybe, maybe not. It sometimes would be more efficient just to start from scratch with the hardware you have and develop from there.

    Not every square peg should be forced into a round hole, LOL.
    10-16-10 11:07 AM
  3. Slavex's Avatar
    Well one thing I can honestly say I care about in regards to all this, is, I just want to be able to use Knights Armament Ballistics software like the Iphone/pad can. Give me a 3 or 4 G PB no BB needed that runs that software and you will see a ton of PB entering a world that RIM probably hasn't even considered. The shooting sports and big military. Its sad when the military is using kids toys to do fire control exercises and plot shots for precision marksman , while all a BB can do is handle emails well.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-22-10 05:07 AM
  4. 1812dave's Avatar
    , while all a bb can do is handle emails well.

    Posted from my crackberry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    bs.


    -------------
    10-22-10 09:18 AM
29 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD