is there any advantage in having a Solution that contains 2 projects (smart phone and professional devices)

Question

Hi all. Another quick question as I'm almost almost ready to submit.

It looks like we have to submit two separate times to have an app both for smart phone and professional devices. I believe we can't submit a cab which covers both devices in one submission. If so, what's the advantage in having two projects in one solution as I do now - apart from maybe my workflow being a little easier, and the advantage of using inheritance. 

So my questions are:

1) I'm thinking of separating my solution in to 2 solutions (1 smart phone, 1 professional device). That way I don't have to submit / worry about giving the privileged details in the app submission process. It'll also reduces the size of the cab. Does this seem like a good option?

2) If I submit a separate cab that just contains the smart phone version, I don't need to set it as privileged during the application submission process due to the static icon method only being used in a single project solution? Is this true?

3) The Marketplace check time will be reduced as the testing is quicker for an application that is only required to be run in normal mode (non-privileged), is that correct?

Thanks very much guys.

-M

Answer 1

Yep, you seem to have to submit 2 cabs, even if they are identical. Quite why is beyond us but there you go.

Splitting up.
Rather depends on your engineering requirements. We strongly prefer to keep all things together (usually simplify things) if possible. One bug fix in any shared code = fixed in both etc...
In the case of 2 cabs, we simply have 2 smartphone output projects from a single DevStudio solution. Basically they only vary in the usage of PNG icon or not.
Splitting up also depends on the size of your output. It needs to be <10MB to get though Mobile Operator networks (+MS testing). Also bigger size = potentially more download cost to user so...

2) Neither versions need to be set as 'privileged' - IFF you omit the patching of the secure registry entry with a link to your PNG icon in the smartphone version - e.g. via code in the setup dll. For static usage - dont do the PNG bit on smartphone builds. In general its always best to use the lowest possible set of resources if you can - in this case not using priviliged signing is preferable to requiring it - just less to go wrong, testers to validate etc etc...

3) In theory yes, in practice its hard to see how it can take much longer than some submissions take. Several weeks to simply validate some text is not uncommon for us.

Answer 2

Hey bbj, thanks for the reply post. Very helpful.

I've just seperated my solution in to two CABs now, so one for smart devices and one for professional devices.

So just to clarify:

1) My smart device CAB isn't using any PNG icon now, just the standard ico file, and so no privilage signing is required. Is that correct?

2) My professional device CAB is using the static method to load the PNG icon file, which is working fine. This doesn't need to run privilaged either, is that correct?

Thanks again, much appreciated : )

-M

Answer 3

Hi Macfinch,


Refer Link for information :

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsmobile/dd569931.aspx

Thanks,
Gouse

Answer 4

To Macfinch:

Correct on both points.

Standard devices (smartphones) does not need/does not use the PNG icon. Only uses the .ICO. Only needs 'normal' signing. Do not attempt to add registry entries pointing at PNG.

Professional devices - requires PNG for WM Marketplace but only needs 'normal' signing.


The above is perhaps best understood by the fact that the devices have 2 different security policies. The policy on the Std devices is much more rigid than on the Professional devices. If you want to patch secure registry entries on Std devices you need more privileges than doing the same on a Professional device. (Why is an altogether different can of worms!!).

Answer 5

Hey bbj.

Thanks again for the reply. Yeah it seems like this whole icon thing is a lot more confusing than it needs to be. I thought it would have been the easiest part, lol.

Feel free to connect with me on email / msn (macfinch 'at' hotmail.co.uk).

Thanks again, all the best.

-M