Public content provider registry
2 views
Skip to first unread message
friedger
Sep 17, 2008, 4:30:52 AM9/17/08
to OpenIntents
Continuing from thread http://groups.google.com/group/openintents/browse_frm/thread/533d71bd16caed02
about intents, this is about content providers.
So hackbod suggest to host a list of libraries for content providers
that can be linked in to other applications.
Do you like this idea or would you prefer to write your own piece of
code, mainly making calls to the content resolver?
Have you already tried using the OI library (openintents-lib.jar at
http://openintents.googlecode.com/files/openintents-binary-0.9.0.zip)
within your application? Is this a suitable solution?
Friedger
about intents, this is about content providers.
So hackbod suggest to host a list of libraries for content providers
that can be linked in to other applications.
Do you like this idea or would you prefer to write your own piece of
code, mainly making calls to the content resolver?
Have you already tried using the OI library (openintents-lib.jar at
http://openintents.googlecode.com/files/openintents-binary-0.9.0.zip)
within your application? Is this a suitable solution?
Friedger
hackbod
Sep 18, 2008, 1:43:38 PM9/18/08
to OpenIntents
For now, I would suggest focusing on intents and not content
providers. Intents are going to give you the biggest bang for the
buck by far. We are definitely leaning towards going down the path of
putting content provider protocols in to static libraries, because it
is much more convenient that way to be able to use javadoc to write
their documentation and have corresponding typed symbols for clients
to use with their app for autocompletion and stuff. So I think doing
a registry of these things would probably involve allowing people to
upload the source for their protocol definition and generating the
java docs for that which people can browse along with being able to
download the code (and probably compiled library).
So this is very very different than intents, it is not as clear how it
should be approached, it will be used much less frequently as a way to
share between developers, etc.
On Sep 17, 1:30 am, friedger <fried...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Continuing from threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/openintents/browse_frm/thread/533d71bd...
providers. Intents are going to give you the biggest bang for the
buck by far. We are definitely leaning towards going down the path of
putting content provider protocols in to static libraries, because it
is much more convenient that way to be able to use javadoc to write
their documentation and have corresponding typed symbols for clients
to use with their app for autocompletion and stuff. So I think doing
a registry of these things would probably involve allowing people to
upload the source for their protocol definition and generating the
java docs for that which people can browse along with being able to
download the code (and probably compiled library).
So this is very very different than intents, it is not as clear how it
should be approached, it will be used much less frequently as a way to
share between developers, etc.
On Sep 17, 1:30 am, friedger <fried...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Continuing from threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/openintents/browse_frm/thread/533d71bd...
> about intents, this is about content providers.
>
> So hackbod suggest to host a list of libraries for content providers
> that can be linked in to other applications.
>
> Do you like this idea or would you prefer to write your own piece of
> code, mainly making calls to the content resolver?
>
> Have you already tried using the OI library (openintents-lib.jar athttp://openintents.googlecode.com/files/openintents-binary-0.9.0.zip)
>
> So hackbod suggest to host a list of libraries for content providers
> that can be linked in to other applications.
>
> Do you like this idea or would you prefer to write your own piece of
> code, mainly making calls to the content resolver?
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages