09-06-2009 11:21 AM
I hate posting ANOTHER thread on network connections, but as I dive back into BB development (been off working on other stuff for 1.5 years) I still haven't found a single piece of code that encapsulates detecting and setting the URL suffixes for the various network connection types. I'm happy to start working on something but before I did I figured I'd check in to make sure that a "gold standard" for such functionality hasn't already been found.
If you know of such a "helper class" please let me know, if not I'm going to start to work on something and will post code on this board for comments/improvements.
Solved! Go to Solution.
09-06-2009 11:53 AM
Have a look at net.rim.device.api.io.transport in JDE 5.0.0 (http://www.blackberry.com/developers/docs/5.0.0api
09-06-2009 01:42 PM
kyubin - yes that is what I was intending to build, but for older JDE versions. Are there really alot of people out there with 5.0 phones? I know I only have 4.5.
09-06-2009 01:48 PM - edited 09-06-2009 01:49 PM
there's no official release of 5.0 yet. it is still under testing. and JDE 5.0 is still in BETA release. if you're not in a hurry then you can wait for it then.
if you're going to support devices below 5.0 then you'll have to implement your own Transport layer.
09-06-2009 02:17 PM
Is there any recent data on the breakdown of the OS versions used currently? Also from a transport layer standpoint what are the most common ones to support?
09-06-2009 02:22 PM
regarding the breakdown of the OS version currently use in the market, i don't have figures for that. google it.
regarding the transport layer, well, you can support the following: wifi,bes, bis(for alliance member only), wap2.0/1.0 and direct tcp.
to understand the network transport better, watch the network transport protocol video in developer video archive.
09-06-2009 10:07 PM
For what PodTrapper's update check is seeing, OS and Device-wise, see this page:
(That's from June, but pretty close).
For the networking stuff, I put together a wrapper here if you want to use it:
Hope it helps!
03-30-2010 01:17 AM
This code very unfortunately does not work for many many people... I am talking from experience. I tried to use this code and it proved to be actually worse than the one I was using before (in the sense that it did not work for more people). But, the good thing is that it usually covered the users that had problem with my original code. So I am trying to combine those two together now.