(keitai-l) Re: au appli download woes

From: Colin Mack <colin_at_b-factory.co.jp>
Date: 11/01/02
Message-Id: <AA3D29FE-ED77-11D6-98AB-0003934BD90C@b-factory.co.jp>
Hi Sam,

Thanks for the advice. Oh, and on a totally unrelated note -- 
congratulations :)

Don't know if you saw the last message on javahz yet, but it turned out 
that the panasonic is very strict on enforcing the rules of what you 
put in your jad file. Specifically, it checks the *minimum* length 
requirement as well as maximum length requirement for the MIDlet-Vendor 
value. I mean, checking the jar file size I can believe; an overly long 
value for a parameter in the .jad file I can believe; but not allowing 
an application to run because the vendor id is only 2 characters and 
the rules say the minimum is 3? Ouch. They've got some seriously anal 
engineers down there in Osaka.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that you need to be very careful to 
read and follow the rules EXACTLY when filling in the values in a jad 
file if you want your appli to work on the C3003P handsets.

- Colin


On 2002.11.1, at 12:53  PM, Sam Joseph wrote:

>
> Hi Colin
>
> Colin Mack wrote:
>
>> Thanks Gaurang,
>>
>> Checksum here is not the problem though -- a bad checksum will result
>> in a failure of the download itself -- the appli never gets saved to
>> the data folder, so you never get the chance to see the lovely $BIT_at_5%G!<%?(B
>> message. Also, it wouldn't work on the other phones, as I know from
>> painful experience with getting my crc and download setup working in
>> the first place ;)
>>
>> Any other suggestions?
>>
> I had the $BIT_at_5%G!<%?(B problem on the sony ericsson for a while, and the
> cause was due to a mismatch between the jar size and that specified in
> the jad file and the manifest file. I know you're on the panasonic, but
> I thought I'd mention it.
>
> I've been following you on the JavaHz list, and I can see you've been
> looking at your manifest details. The problems I had arose when I tried
> to automate the process of appli creation, and there was an issue of
> whether the jar size in the jad file and mf file were the jar size
> before or after it had been checksummed.
>
> Now maybe the panasonic follows different rules from the other phones?
> Try increasing the jar file size as specified in the mf and jad files 
> to
> reflect the checksummed jar file, or the other way round, if thats what
> you're doing already.
>
> I would also recommend decompiling an appli that does work on the
> panasonic you are testing on and checking the relation between all 
> these
> jar size specs, and actual & checksummed sizes of the files.
>
> CHEERS> SAM
>
>
> This mail was sent to address colin@b-factory.co.jp
> Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
>
Received on Fri Nov 1 11:07:16 2002