01-17-2012 10:49 AM
Further to my previous and unanswered post about a significant database problem that occurs ONLY on CURVE 9360 devices I have found a further issue that again manifests ONLY on the CURVE 9360...
Using the 2.3 SDK and the new <rimrientation mode="portrait" /> config element the application is rendered sidewides on the CURVE 9360.
On all other devices we've tested the application is rendered correctly.
To make it work on all devices I've had to revert to using the SDK orientation hack (editing the Widget.java file) and setting the orientation to NORTH...
int directions = net.rim.device.api.system.Display.DIRECTION_NORTH;
01-17-2012 11:23 AM
Thanks for posting this HggieLad. We're looking into it.
01-17-2012 12:35 PM
Its a bit of strange one really because surely the definition of the portrait orientation is that the sides are longer than the top/bottom.
If that were the case in "portrait" mode I'd expect an app to render upright on TORCH devices and sidewides on BOLD and CURVE devices.
So NORTH does make more sense (if its in relation to the keyboard) so perhaps a <rimrientation mode="north" /> would be a nice option?
01-17-2012 04:32 PM
Our testing team did some investigations and found it fine on recent 7.0 builds. Do you have a list of builds where this is the case?
01-20-2012 05:11 PM
I have had this issue with the 9900 for some time also. I just lived with it and modified the widget.java to handle the orientation.
With SDK 2.3, I just set it to landscape in the config and it works as if it was portrait.
I found that the 9360 is doing this also after a customer pointed it out. It looked OK in the downloaded simulator and ripple.
06-19-2012 11:29 AM - edited 06-19-2012 11:29 AM
A client has recently gotten back to us as well with the same orientation problem on the 9360. I of course ran it through the simulator and it worked fine, so I was unable to recreate the problem hence unable to fix the issue.
Has anyone found anything helpful?? The post is a little old, has this been fixed???
By the way our client with the issue was using OS 184.108.40.2069. Has this been resolved in later updates??