Hello all !
What's the easiest (and cheapest 😉) ) way to obtain a certificate for
testing only, be it native or Java. Or put differently, if I would like to
assess the "look and feel" of my software, without the prompts, for testing
purposes only, before deciding whether to "go live"...
What does the usual procedure look like in detail?
Thanks in advance and kind regards,
Arvind.
Hi,
>What's the easiest (and cheapest 😉) ) way to obtain a certificate for
>testing only, be it native or Java. Or put differently, if I would like to
>assess the "look and feel" of my software, without the prompts, for testing
>purposes only, before deciding whether to "go live"...
>
>What does the usual procedure look like in detail?
The 'look and feel' differs only at installation time...if you want to see what
happens when you install a Signed app on your current phones, my advice would be
to obtain a Signed demo SIS from somewhere like www.handango.com (look for
downloads with a 'for Symbian OS logo' which means they are Symbian Signed) and
you can easily compare the differences in the install progress. There are no
'test' certificates.
Regards,
Phil
Hi Phil !
Thanks !
Regards,
Arvind
"Phil Spencer" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>[color=green]
>>What's the easiest (and cheapest 😉) ) way to obtain a certificate for
>>testing only, be it native or Java. Or put differently, if I would like
>>to
>>assess the "look and feel" of my software, without the prompts, for
>>testing
>>purposes only, before deciding whether to "go live"...
>>
>>What does the usual procedure look like in detail?
>
> The 'look and feel' differs only at installation time...if you want to see
> what
> happens when you install a Signed app on your current phones, my advice
> would be
> to obtain a Signed demo SIS from somewhere like www.handango.com (look for
> downloads with a 'for Symbian OS logo' which means they are Symbian
> Signed) and
> you can easily compare the differences in the install progress. There are
> no
> 'test' certificates.
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil[/color]
"Phil Spencer" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>[color=green]
>>What's the easiest (and cheapest 😉) ) way to obtain a certificate for
>>testing only, be it native or Java. Or put differently, if I would like
>>to
>>assess the "look and feel" of my software, without the prompts, for
>>testing
>>purposes only, before deciding whether to "go live"...
>>
>>What does the usual procedure look like in detail?
>
> The 'look and feel' differs only at installation time...if you want to see
> what
> happens when you install a Signed app on your current phones, my advice
> would be
> to obtain a Signed demo SIS from somewhere like www.handango.com (look for
> downloads with a 'for Symbian OS logo' which means they are Symbian
> Signed) and
> you can easily compare the differences in the install progress. There are
> no
> 'test' certificates.[/color]
Don't expect too many demo apps to be signed. It cost as much to sign a demo
as it does to sign the normal application.
--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com
"Sander van der Wal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ZXAXclMmFHA.3016@extapps30...
> Don't expect too many demo apps to be signed. It cost as much to sign a
> demo as it does to sign the normal application.
And, BTW, shall we expect many non-demo applications to be signed? As far as
I know, the costs are very high, at least for small-scale developers. What
is the current lowest signing price? Is it still payable again and again for
all small updates, as bug fixes? What will happen in the future to
applications that will not be signed? Will they be at serious disadvantage
in terms of distribution?
> all small updates, as bug fixes? What will happen in the future to
> applications that will not be signed? Will they be at serious disadvantage
> in terms of distribution?
On upcoming OS v9.x phones (with Platform Security enabled), such apps
are at least limited in what functionality/APIs they can access.
Some licensees / operators might even disallow installing unsigned
apps completely.
I would call that a serious disadvantage, yes 😊
:: Heikki Pora
> such apps
> are at least limited in what functionality/APIs they can access
Very nice indeed... Do you have an example in mind? Non-licensed programs
can't access CEikonEnv::Static() or what?
Hello lads !
Let's give this nice new forum a break 😉). There is, of course, a lot of
dismal going around amongst us developers about the whole "Symbian Signed"
topic. Let's not forget that the reason for signing is a very virtuous
one - to keep the landscape clean for the user - unlike, say, the internet
in general.
I doubt that this is a (future) prime source of revenue for Symbian ( I
might be mistaking though 😉) - why not start a new thread... ).
(BTW a customer of mine was very enthusiastic about Windows Mobile and then
drew back for some mysterious reason, albeit it could of been the daily
crashes, just as well... 😊 )
Of course most any developer, that first hears about "signing" is put off.
But isn't it an even nicer move of Symbian then to address this distress by
opening up a dedicated forum? Well done lads ! 😊
My first impression is, that commercial customers show fairly good
acceptance to the topic. The whole thing seems to be plausible to a
business man. They just want to know the story, nice and *brief* - what do
I have to do, to be "in"...
A frequent question is, whether there is a "leightweight" certificate
variant for testing only. A very natural question, in my opinion. Now I
know there are no other certificates than "real" certificates and they cost
a significant amount to a "private" developer (peanuts to an organisation, I
would guess).
Fair play, that's a lot better than not knowing at all - I can now easily
communicate that. Thanks!
The question is still pending what the usual procedure is to obtain, say,
the "simplest of all certificates" (i.e. for the level just above
"unsigned"😉.
Thanks again for your help and kind regards,
Arvind.
"zol" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:s02oHmPmFHA.1872@extapps30...[color=green]
>> such apps
>> are at least limited in what functionality/APIs they can access
>
> Very nice indeed... Do you have an example in mind? Non-licensed programs
> can't access CEikonEnv::Static() or what?
>[/color]
zol wrote:[color=green]
>>such apps
>>are at least limited in what functionality/APIs they can access
>
>
> Very nice indeed... Do you have an example in mind? Non-licensed programs
> can't access CEikonEnv::Static() or what?[/color]
Nothing THAT serious 😊 More like restricted access to telephony,
networking, many parts of the file system, install engine etc.
:: Heikki Pora
"zol" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:s02oHmPmFHA.1872@extapps30...[color=green]
>> such apps
>> are at least limited in what functionality/APIs they can access
>
> Very nice indeed... Do you have an example in mind? Non-licensed programs
> can't access CEikonEnv::Static() or what?[/color]
It won't be that bad. The idea is that unsigned apps cannot do things that
cost the user money by accessing the network in expensive ways, and cannot
access his information (like the contacts database).
An example. You will not be able to send out an SMS without the user knowing
it. The CSendAs api will work (AFAIK), because the user must select the
command to send something. Sending an SMS without the user giving permisson
should be impossible when your are not a signed app.
--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com