> I feel that I finally have to weigh in on this. People are banging
> the same drum again and again because of completely obvious and
> reasonable risk that their app won't make it in specifically because
> they chose to use PhoneGap. That the main phonegap authors won't even
> admit that maybe they should try to talk to apple and instead push it
> off to every phonegap user and then insult the developers for the
> concern is about is pretty demeaning and discouraging to the
> community.
> I think if the phonegap authors take a step back, catch their breath,
> calm the ruffled feathers, they will realize that the obvious thing is
> for them to talk to apple and try to resolve the issue.
> Cheers,
> Dave
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Scott McWhirter
> <sc...@konobi.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM, John777 <John3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I do use phonegap in my app and also has email about it. And also
>>> thank you for PhoneGap that already provided that opportunity.
>>> At the same time, this directly related to time and money investment
>>> in creating the app using phonegap, I don't think it is fear-
>>> mongering. What I am trying to do, is to bring awareness that this
>>> might possibly a bigger priority. Sometimes, we might think all we
>>> need is just to create a good framework however there is the other
>>> end
>>> of business/legal side that we need to deal with.
>> We're aware of the situation, but I know of other phonegap users
>> that have
>> had their apps rejected for reasons completely unrelated to
>> phonegap, so
>> it's probably a LOT more common than you think.
>> While PhoneGap advertises itself as an API, it really isn't... it's
>> just an
>> application skeleton, the same as the examples you can download
>> from the
>> apple website. If you want to be constructive, please feel free to
>> contact
>> apple for clarification on the issue and ask them why phonegap is any
>> different from the facebook connect API, or the medialets api or
>> the admob
>> api.
>>> Sorry, if my message cause fear-mongering. I will keep quite about
>>> it
>>> then and put it in the back burner.
>> Perhaps not fear-mongering, but banging the same drum again and
>> again isn't
>> constructive and I'd rather just get on with it and move forward than
>> constantly freaking out about the possibility of an app getting
>> rejected.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:15 PM, David Orchard <orch...@pacificspirit.com>wrote:
> I feel that I finally have to weigh in on this. People are banging > the same drum again and again because of completely obvious and > reasonable risk that their app won't make it in specifically because > they chose to use PhoneGap.
We're not responsible for Apple's actions. This is an open source project. We spend our time making fixes, adding features, etc.
> That the main phonegap authors won't even > admit that maybe they should try to talk to apple and instead push it > off to every phonegap user and then insult the developers for the > concern is about is pretty demeaning and discouraging to the > community.
It's a risk, but it's one that I'm willing to take since I can just rename stuff.
If you need YOUR risk reduced, then it's up to you to help reduce the risk to the community as a whole. I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just making people aware that the perceived risk is based on your own perception. The contributors perception is that it's no more or less a risk than anything else.
Perhaps if you understand that we don't make any money from this and that there's no guaranteed support, then you can see that we're just not motivated to fix a perceived problem. People are still submitting phonegap based apps to the appstore and getting them approved.
I think if the phonegap authors take a step back, catch their breath,
> calm the ruffled feathers, they will realize that the obvious thing is > for them to talk to apple and try to resolve the issue.
I'm willing to work with people to get things clearer, but I just don't have the time to fix a problem I just don't have.
Brock, Rob; are Nitobi willing to talk to Apple on behalf of the project to help steady the tides of concern coming from the phonegap users?
> > BTW, has anyone heard of other frameworks like QuickConnect or Rhodes
> > having problems?
> I don't know about quickconnect but rhodes is actually a compiler for a ruby
> like language and a framework. It actually compiles the language down to
> java bytecode. I saw a web cast and the person said they specifically got
> an OK from apple.
You mean compiles it down to Objective-C binaries, right? No Java on
the iPhone...
Just in case you missed it, I did get confirmation from Apple that
they are targeting PhoneGap:
Hello,
Your application uses the PhoneGap API which is an external
framework.
Thank you.
Regards,
iPhone Developer Program
While I don't agree with them, it does seem that Apple (or at least
some app reviewers) think PhoneGap is against the rules. I've emailed
them back again explaining that it's a shell, not a framework, but I
have not gotten a reply.
I do think it would help if some of the PhoneGap developers got in
contact with Apple to see what, if anything, PhoneGap does that they
don't like.
On May 13, 6:48 pm, Scott McWhirter <sc...@konobi.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:40 PM, John777 <John3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > or until they discover you fool Apple too much then Apple might ban
> > your account instead.
> So you personally have been in contact with Apple to ask for clarification
> on why they think the PhoneGap application skeleton isn't appropriate?
> All I have seen from you in respect to this topic is fear-mongering, so
> either do something constructive (contact Apple) or decide that PhoneGap is
> not for you and move on. Use of phonegap is no different that using the
> Facebook connect iPhone skeleton. Apple rejects hundreds of apps per day
> that aren't phonegap related, so not using phonegap doesn't guarantee you a
> thing.
> For us, we're just going to get along with developing phonegap and deal with
> issues as they come along.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Jonathan <jonathan.mulc...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Just in case you missed it, I did get confirmation from Apple that > they are targeting PhoneGap:
> Hello, > Your application uses the PhoneGap API which is an external > framework. > Thank you. > Regards, > iPhone Developer Program
This doesn't state that they are targetting phonegap, just that this review has rejected your app because they believe phonegap to be an external api. You could also ask why it's any different from the Facebook Connect API (iphone), the Medialets API, the Admob API or the multitude of other API/frameworks that are already currently out there and being used.
While I don't agree with them, it does seem that Apple (or at least
> some app reviewers) think PhoneGap is against the rules. I've emailed > them back again explaining that it's a shell, not a framework, but I > have not gotten a reply.
Thanks Jonathan, this is the sort of action that we need!
I do think it would help if some of the PhoneGap developers got in
> contact with Apple to see what, if anything, PhoneGap does that they > don't like.
Ask nitobi, since they're the ones sponsoring the project. They're also more likely to be the ones to have any sway since they're the ones who got recognised for the TechCrunch award.
I think there are two different ways that Apple may be objecting to
PhoneGap, and it would be helpful to get them to explain which one is
the fundamental problem. The two objections that I imagine could be:
1) Any application that loads JavaScript over the net is objectionable
because the JS could change at any time and cause unpredictable
results.
2) Exposing iPhone APIs to JavaScript is the objection, because it
makes it too easy for a JavaScript application to get into the
internals of the iPhone. For example, an application could grab the
contents of a user's contact list.
If 1) is the objection, then there is no hope for PhoneGap. But it's
an extreme objection because any web site that an iPhone user visits
with Safari can load random JavaScript.
If 2) is the objection, then perhaps limiting the list of exposed APIs
would make Apple happy.
A third possibility is that Apple does not understand what PhoneGap
does, and just saw the word "API" in its description and banned it out
of ignorance. If this is the case, perhaps they could be educated if
the right people were reached.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM, nurikabe <eaow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > BTW, has anyone heard of other frameworks like QuickConnect or Rhodes > > > having problems?
> > I don't know about quickconnect but rhodes is actually a compiler for a > ruby > > like language and a framework. It actually compiles the language down to > > java bytecode. I saw a web cast and the person said they specifically > got > > an OK from apple.
> You mean compiles it down to Objective-C binaries, right? No Java on > the iPhone...
Rhodes does not use Java on the iphone. It runs a ruby interpreter.
In my view, Rhodes is a framework similar to Phonegap. The most
significant difference, as I see it, is that with Rhodes, the web
pages and javascript are bundled with the compiled application.
Instead of an application calling a remote website, it basically calls
a stripped down, local web server that runs ruby script. So, a Rhodes-
based application is essentially static. There are downsides to the
Rhodes approach. Also, Rhodes has a more restrictive licensing
model. So if being a "framework" is the issue, I don't see how Rhodes
avoids the same "attention" from Apple.
Ryan
On May 13, 9:46 pm, Tim Uckun <timuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM, nurikabe <eaow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > BTW, has anyone heard of other frameworks like QuickConnect or Rhodes
> > > > having problems?
> > > I don't know about quickconnect but rhodes is actually a compiler for a
> > ruby
> > > like language and a framework. It actually compiles the language down to
> > > java bytecode. I saw a web cast and the person said they specifically
> > got
> > > an OK from apple.
> > You mean compiles it down to Objective-C binaries, right? No Java on
> > the iPhone...
Is that right? Does Phonegap not complile the html and js in with the
executable? It must be hosted elsewhere? Was under the impression it
did compile in for some reason. Can anyone do me a bit favour and
clarify?
On May 14, 6:12 am, Ryan <rhuff.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rhodes does not use Java on the iphone. It runs a ruby interpreter.
> In my view, Rhodes is a framework similar to Phonegap. The most
> significant difference, as I see it, is that with Rhodes, the web
> pages and javascript are bundled with the compiled application.
> Instead of an application calling a remote website, it basically calls
> a stripped down, local web server that runs ruby script. So, a Rhodes-
> based application is essentially static. There are downsides to the
> Rhodes approach. Also, Rhodes has a more restrictive licensing
> model. So if being a "framework" is the issue, I don't see how Rhodes
> avoids the same "attention" from Apple.
> Ryan
> On May 13, 9:46 pm, Tim Uckun <timuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM, nurikabe <eaow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > BTW, has anyone heard of other frameworks like QuickConnect or Rhodes
> > > > > having problems?
> > > > I don't know about quickconnect but rhodes is actually a compiler for a
> > > ruby
> > > > like language and a framework. It actually compiles the language down to
> > > > java bytecode. I saw a web cast and the person said they specifically
> > > got
> > > > an OK from apple.
> > > You mean compiles it down to Objective-C binaries, right? No Java on
> > > the iPhone...
Does Phonegap not embed the js and html in the executable? and the www
must be hosted elsewhere? was under the impression it did embed to be
honest. can someone clarify?
On May 14, 6:12 am, Ryan <rhuff.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rhodes does not use Java on the iphone. It runs a ruby interpreter.
> In my view, Rhodes is a framework similar to Phonegap. The most
> significant difference, as I see it, is that with Rhodes, the web
> pages and javascript are bundled with the compiled application.
> Instead of an application calling a remote website, it basically calls
> a stripped down, local web server that runs ruby script. So, a Rhodes-
> based application is essentially static. There are downsides to the
> Rhodes approach. Also, Rhodes has a more restrictive licensing
> model. So if being a "framework" is the issue, I don't see how Rhodes
> avoids the same "attention" from Apple.
> Ryan
> On May 13, 9:46 pm, Tim Uckun <timuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM, nurikabe <eaow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > BTW, has anyone heard of other frameworks like QuickConnect or Rhodes
> > > > > having problems?
> > > > I don't know about quickconnect but rhodes is actually a compiler for a
> > > ruby
> > > > like language and a framework. It actually compiles the language down to
> > > > java bytecode. I saw a web cast and the person said they specifically
> > > got
> > > > an OK from apple.
> > > You mean compiles it down to Objective-C binaries, right? No Java on
> > > the iPhone...
I did not mean to imply that Phonegap does not allow for embedded
static web pages in the assembly. I assume it can read local pages in
the same way it can call remote pages. Of course, remote pages can be
changed at will. I think you will find many developers will use
remote services with Phonegap, as it allows for easy updates without
going through Apple's lengthy app approval process. That was
certainly attractive to me.
On May 13, 10:30 pm, Jon Paul Davies <JonPaulDav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does Phonegap not embed the js and html in the executable? and the www
> must be hosted elsewhere? was under the impression it did embed to be
> honest. can someone clarify?
> On May 14, 6:12 am, Ryan <rhuff.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Rhodes does not use Java on the iphone. It runs a ruby interpreter.
> > In my view, Rhodes is a framework similar to Phonegap. The most
> > significant difference, as I see it, is that with Rhodes, the web
> > pages and javascript are bundled with the compiled application.
> > Instead of an application calling a remote website, it basically calls
> > a stripped down, local web server that runs ruby script. So, a Rhodes-
> > based application is essentially static. There are downsides to the
> > Rhodes approach. Also, Rhodes has a more restrictive licensing
> > model. So if being a "framework" is the issue, I don't see how Rhodes
> > avoids the same "attention" from Apple.
> > Ryan
> > On May 13, 9:46 pm, Tim Uckun <timuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM, nurikabe <eaow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > BTW, has anyone heard of other frameworks like QuickConnect or Rhodes
> > > > > > having problems?
> > > > > I don't know about quickconnect but rhodes is actually a compiler for a
> > > > ruby
> > > > > like language and a framework. It actually compiles the language down to
> > > > > java bytecode. I saw a web cast and the person said they specifically
> > > > got
> > > > > an OK from apple.
> > > > You mean compiles it down to Objective-C binaries, right? No Java on
> > > > the iPhone...
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Ryan <rhuff.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rhodes does not use Java on the iphone. It runs a ruby interpreter.
You may be right. Readinng this in the article I got the impression that it was java.
"Supporting Rhodes and *Ruby* on the *BlackBerry*, where applications are written in Java, required a bit more effort. Rhomobile chose an ambitious solution that uses XRuby <http://www.infoq.com/xruby>. *XRuby* is a Ruby version for Java which *compiles* Ruby code to Java class files. Development of XRuby has slowed in the last year, but Rhomobile has taken XRuby, improved it, and is now using XRuby to run Rhodes applications on the RIM BlackBerry. Adam also mentions:"
But maybe they took xruby and built an interpreter.
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:15 PM, David Orchard <orch...@pacificspirit.com > > wrote:
> I feel that I finally have to weigh in on this. People are banging
> the same drum again and again because of completely obvious and
> reasonable risk that their app won't make it in specifically because
> they chose to use PhoneGap.
> We're not responsible for Apple's actions. This is an open source
> project. We spend our time making fixes, adding features, etc.
> That the main phonegap authors won't even
> admit that maybe they should try to talk to apple and instead push it
> off to every phonegap user and then insult the developers for the
> concern is about is pretty demeaning and discouraging to the
> community.
> It's a risk, but it's one that I'm willing to take since I can just
> rename stuff.
> If you need YOUR risk reduced, then it's up to you to help reduce
> the risk to the community as a whole. I'm not insulting anyone, I'm
> just making people aware that the perceived risk is based on your
> own perception. The contributors perception is that it's no more or
> less a risk than anything else.
> Perhaps if you understand that we don't make any money from this and
> that there's no guaranteed support, then you can see that we're just
> not motivated to fix a perceived problem. People are still
> submitting phonegap based apps to the appstore and getting them
> approved.
Can you name one in the last 30 days ?
I'm aking this because I have an (phonegap) app on the app store. 3
weeks ago I tried to submit an update. The *only* change I made was
the loading image (Default.png). Apple rejected the app/update. The
reason ?... "cannot be added to the App Store because it is using an
undocumented API".
> I think if the phonegap authors take a step back, catch their breath,
> calm the ruffled feathers, they will realize that the obvious thing is
> for them to talk to apple and try to resolve the issue.
> I'm willing to work with people to get things clearer, but I just
> don't have the time to fix a problem I just don't have.
> Brock, Rob; are Nitobi willing to talk to Apple on behalf of the
> project to help steady the tides of concern coming from the phonegap
> users?
i guess it more like who reviews your code.... i guess not everyone knows about PhoneGap... or maybe they are just too lazy after all they get so many apps per day...
i would say if u get rejected don't loose hope and try again... maybe next time it will work out...
If anyone else is rejected in next few days, do let us know... maybe Apple change their view about phoneGap
Not sure if I've just been lucky or not... I have 28 apps in appstore
all using some flavor of phonegap/big5... recently I've gone to the
trouble of "cleaning" references to either phonegap or big5, now the
references say "my"... I've only received the "non-public API" note
once, and then cleaned the references, resubmitted and it was
accepted.
I think Apple is being weird for no good reason, clearly UIWebview is
at the heart of any web framework and it's a very well documented
Apple API. Running javascript is also in the API, so I don't
understand how they could consider it a private API.
On May 12, 1:45 pm, Vivian Aranha <vivianara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah - I love phonegap.... But now we need to either update PhoneGap or
> find ways to get around apple....
> I am taking next 3 weeks off from work and working on PhoneGap Framework so
> that it can work for me and will keep on updatign the group if Apple
> approves anything that I make....
> If anyone else has any comments or anythgn to share regarding apple's
> approval technique pelase share....
> If anyone had their App approved in last 2 days or in future please share
> details
> Viv
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Brock Whitten <brock.whit...@nitobi.com>wrote:
> > Wow, 7 phonegap apps? thats awesome.
> >> So if you see they have started lookign into it adn they dont like
> >> applications that use loading safari adn runngn teh entire app
> > really? can you please share the letter where they told you this?
> > -b
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Vivian Aranha <vivianara...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> Yeah I totally understand this...
> >> I am a Objective C programmer but I am better at HTML and JS.... i have
> >> done everything to make sure adn all my applications in teh start - check
> >>http://www.vivianaranha.com- I have 7 phonegap applications approved
> >> from APPLE.... Only that recently i have submitted more 12 applications and
> >> all of them were rejected....
> >> So if you see they have started lookign into it adn they dont like
> >> applications that use loading safari adn runngn teh entire app....
> >> But if you still wnat to make your applications in phonegap go ahead and
> >> try to submit... you will have the same outcome
> >> Viv
> >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Brock Whitten <brock.whit...@nitobi.com>wrote:
> >>> Apple does not have a any problems "dynamic" applications and they don't
> >>> have problems with the phonegap technique. They seem to have an issue with
> >>> us saying we have an API. This falls under the "3rd party" clause. Its just
> >>> semantics. When apple is unaware that "phonegap" is being used, they have no
> >>> complaints. Those who have renamed their applications before submission have
> >>> not had issues getting in the app store.
> >>> This issue really needs to be put to rest. It seems that it is those who
> >>> are not producing apps that seem to be most vocal on this issue meanwhile
> >>> others are cranking out phonegap applications in bunches.
> >>> For those who are sharing their "rejection" stories. We really appreciate
> >>> knowing these issues. It will help others avoid this problems. So thank you.
> >>> -brock
> >>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Vivian Aranha <vivianara...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>> All my applications since last one week are being rejected...
> >>>> one of my application LEMI got approved so I made some graphics change
> >>>> and updated the app and that got rejected too....
> >>>> So I guess they are looking into to see if phonegap is used....
> >>>> I have not mentioned abt phonegap anywhere - So I now know they have
> >>>> some kinda tool whcih checks for it....I say stay away from phonegap.... All
> >>>> the work will be just waste.... i am going to write my own framework
> >>>> probably that will be much easier then to use any other... Coz its not fair
> >>>> to all those OBJ C programmers
> >>>> Viv
> >>>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Giraldo Rosales <nitr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>>> You could, in Obj-C, create a time-sensitive app that loads one view
> >>>>> then after a month, it changes to a whole new app. That would actually be
> >>>>> hilarious and really screw with their approval system.
> >>>>> -G
> >>>>> LiquidGear.net
> >>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, ade <adeib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Ryan wrote:
> >>>>>> What is clear is that Apple does not want "dynamic" apps.
> >>>>>> that doesnt make sense - how do you have a cinema listings app that
> >>>>>> isnt dynamic - the mlb app etc etc
"I think you will find many developers will use
remote services with Phonegap, as it allows for easy updates without
going through Apple's lengthy app approval process."
Which is also likely the reason that Apple objects to it.
On May 14, 7:45 pm, Ryan <rhuff.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did not mean to imply that Phonegap does not allow for embedded
> static web pages in the assembly. I assume it can read local pages in
> the same way it can call remote pages. Of course, remote pages can be
> changed at will. I think you will find many developers will use
> remote services with Phonegap, as it allows for easy updates without
> going through Apple's lengthy app approval process. That was
> certainly attractive to me.
> On May 13, 10:30 pm, Jon Paul Davies <JonPaulDav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Does Phonegap not embed the js and html in the executable? and the www
> > must be hosted elsewhere? was under the impression it did embed to be
> > honest. can someone clarify?
> > On May 14, 6:12 am, Ryan <rhuff.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Rhodes does not use Java on the iphone. It runs a ruby interpreter.
> > > In my view, Rhodes is a framework similar to Phonegap. The most
> > > significant difference, as I see it, is that with Rhodes, the web
> > > pages and javascript are bundled with the compiled application.
> > > Instead of an application calling a remote website, it basically calls
> > > a stripped down, local web server that runs ruby script. So, a Rhodes-
> > > based application is essentially static. There are downsides to the
> > > Rhodes approach. Also, Rhodes has a more restrictive licensing
> > > model. So if being a "framework" is the issue, I don't see how Rhodes
> > > avoids the same "attention" from Apple.
> > > Ryan
> > > On May 13, 9:46 pm, Tim Uckun <timuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:54 PM, nurikabe <eaow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > BTW, has anyone heard of other frameworks like QuickConnect or Rhodes
> > > > > > > having problems?
> > > > > > I don't know about quickconnect but rhodes is actually a compiler for a
> > > > > ruby
> > > > > > like language and a framework. It actually compiles the language down to
> > > > > > java bytecode. I saw a web cast and the person said they specifically
> > > > > got
> > > > > > an OK from apple.
> > > > > You mean compiles it down to Objective-C binaries, right? No Java on
> > > > > the iPhone...
You're must be shittin' me...
I'm just so excited! Another of my apps got approved. WITHOUT cleaning
any phonegap preferences. This app is also fully online. Please note i
didn't use any phonegap functions (but they are still in the
programming), and i chose the netherlands as the review store. So,
maybe that's an idea, choose another review app store, where they
don't know about phonegap... yet.
My app got rejected again on the "PhoneGap API is an external
framework" premise. This was after I followed the directions on the
wiki for removing references of PhoneGap and resubmitted it. Either
it was a lucky guess, or they have some other way of determining when
PhoneGap is being used beyond the "PhoneGap" keyword. Either way it's
a bummer.
My app is completely external and doesn't call any native functions -
PhoneGap or otherwise.
Any ideas?
The Apple App Store rejection letter is listed below:
Upon review of your application, ********** cannot be posted to the
App Store due to the usage of private API. Usage of such non-public
API, as outlined in the iPhone SDK Agreement section 3.3.2 is
prohibited:
" An Application may not itself install or launch other executable
code by any means, including without limitation through use of a plug-
in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No
interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except
for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and
built-in interpreter(s).
The PhoneGap API implemented in your application is an external
framework.
Regards,
iPhone Developer Program
On May 14, 5:12 pm, fuen <danield...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're must be shittin' me...
> I'm just so excited! Another of my apps got approved. WITHOUT cleaning
> any phonegap preferences. This app is also fully online. Please note i
> didn't use any phonegap functions (but they are still in the
> programming), and i chose the netherlands as the review store. So,
> maybe that's an idea, choose another review app store, where they
> don't know about phonegap... yet.
This is definitely unsettling. Right now, with the exception of the
Nitobi crew (who seem to have their hands busy these days, and aren't
up to much PhoneGap-related stuff), there aren't really any official
representatives of PhoneGap. I'd love to be able to get Apple to
realize that this is just code, like any other code someone could
write in XCode, and doesn't take advantage of any hidden features.
But, since everyone here has been trying to find ways to remove
references of PhoneGap from their projects, I figured I'd automate the
process. Try out my little experiment in the "buildprocess" branch
below.
Basically this encapsulates some of the stuff I've wanted to do
anyways, e.g. use the javascript build process to automagically merge
and compress my own app's javascript, and uses some shell script magic
to search and replace occurrences of PhoneGap with whatever your app
is named. Plus, it round-trips that into the Objective-C code, so
that calls out to JavaScript-land from within the commands also uses
the proper name.
If I do a "strings" search through the built application, the only
references to PhoneGap are in the command and class names, which are a
bit more difficult to get rid of.
Keep in mind, though, hopefully such drastic measures aren't needed.
I would love to talk to Apple directly and find out what it is that's
got them cheesed about PhoneGap, but it's kinda hard to get in touch
with them beyond the fire-and-forget form emails they send out.
On May 14, 5:32 pm, Josiah <josiahlcarl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My app got rejected again on the "PhoneGap API is an external
> framework" premise. This was after I followed the directions on the
> wiki for removing references of PhoneGap and resubmitted it. Either
> it was a lucky guess, or they have some other way of determining when
> PhoneGap is being used beyond the "PhoneGap" keyword. Either way it's
> a bummer.
> My app is completely external and doesn't call any native functions -
> PhoneGap or otherwise.
> Any ideas?
> The Apple App Store rejection letter is listed below:
> Upon review of your application, ********** cannot be posted to the
> App Store due to the usage of private API. Usage of such non-public
> API, as outlined in the iPhone SDK Agreement section 3.3.2 is
> prohibited:
> " An Application may not itself install or launch other executable
> code by any means, including without limitation through use of a plug-
> in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No
> interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except
> for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and
> built-in interpreter(s).
> The PhoneGap API implemented in your application is an external
> framework.
> Regards,
> iPhone Developer Program
> On May 14, 5:12 pm, fuen <danield...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You're must be shittin' me...
> > I'm just so excited! Another of my apps got approved. WITHOUT cleaning
> > any phonegap preferences. This app is also fully online. Please note i
> > didn't use any phonegap functions (but they are still in the
> > programming), and i chose the netherlands as the review store. So,
> > maybe that's an idea, choose another review app store, where they
> > don't know about phonegap... yet.
I just got rejected again, this time with a new application I
submitted. And this was one of the apps I 'cleaned' of all phonegap
references. I received this notice from apple this morning:
------------------------------
Upon review of your application, rMote Lite cannot be posted to the
App Store due to the usage of private API. Usage of such non-public
API, as outlined in the iPhone SDK Agreement section 3.3.2 is
prohibited:
" An Application may not itself install or launch other executable
code by any means, including without limitation through use of a plug-
in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise.
No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application
except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs
and built-in interpreter(s).
The PhoneGap API implemented in your application is an external
framework.
Regards,
---------------------------
I replied back calling them out on thier assessment asking again, what
exactly they have a problem with, but I don't expect an answer. That's
the 3rd release I've had rejected this week, 2 updates and a new app.
I've released 8 PhoneGap apps to the app store since February, and
never had a problem. I still have 4 more pending updates this week, if
they all get rejected, I think I'll have to moveon from PhoneGap :(
