Comments on: BlackBerry WebWorks SDK for Tablet OS Beta3 now live!

By: David Shannon

David Shannon — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:33:00 +0000

Ughhhh! waiting for yet another approval – if Rim want developers for PlayBook, why do they make us contend with this crap?

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 01:59:00 +0000

I’ve tried to create an app to get approved for the free playbook offer… first it was rejected after I used beta2, while beta3 came out while my app was pending. Then rejected with a problem with my icon file. Is it 86×86 or 90×90? I know this is beta but having trouble with the information that is being released and the timing of it all. My app is back in the pending queue, but is it still eligible for the playbook offer?

By: Berryreview

Berryreview — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 04:43:00 +0000

Just as a follow up note. This part of the post:

Format of bbwp command line arguments changed from “-“ to “/”.

Is actually the wrong way around. Oh and the documentation at this link is still totally wrong:
http://docs.blackberry.com/en/developers/deliverables/23977/Sign_the_cod_file_for_a_BB_Widget_application_836008_11.jsp

What I really am curious to know is why does code signing and packaging have to be such a “scratch your left ear with your right hand” approach? For example why must we uncomment this line which many developers are running into when they upgrade to a new beta:
http://supportforums.blackberry.com/t5/Web-Development/Package-Author-in-Manifest-not-set-to-blah-blah-company-inc/td-p/814617/page/2

Better yet why MUST we increment the package ID for signing?
http://supportforums.blackberry.com/t5/Testing-and-Deployment/Code-signing-request-failed-because-this-file-has-been/ta-p/798291

Where do these requirements come from? Oh and don’t forget the command line code singing process requires you to enter yet another -BuildID… No Idea what that one does…

By: Second

Second — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:20:00 +0000

I agree with the other commenters. This post is very confusing. For future postings like this, it would help a great deal if you specify that you are referring to a version that’s been out for three weeks now (instead of “Beta3 now live!”).

The information in the post itself is helpful, but it might’ve caused more confusion than clarity.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:44:00 +0000

OK, thanks for clarifying

By: Tim Neil

Tim Neil — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:54:00 +0000

Hi there,

This is simply a follow up post for those who may have not known that the Beta 3 SDK was available.

If you already have Beta 3 of the WebWorks SDK you are good to go

By: Tim Neil

Tim Neil — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:52:00 +0000

Yes, WebWorks Beta2 applications need to be re-packaged and re-submitted to AppWorld. The version of the Tablet SDK used with Beta2 is not binary compatible with 0.9.4 and RTM of the PlayBook OS

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:10:00 +0000

Yes.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:59:00 +0000

This blog post took a bit longer than expected to be published, and so is coming out later than we had hoped. Sorry for any confusion. Although similar to Tim’s post from a few weeks back, we wanted to take a moment to focus on the Beta3 release.

The most important thing to note is that developers are highly encouraged to rebuild and resubmit their applications to App World whenever a new version of the WebWorks SDK for Tablet OS is released. Currently this is Beta3. If you have already done this, then no action is necessary.

By: Me

Me — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:31:00 +0000

Either RIM “re-announces” these old news items trying to get attention or they are just inept and clueless as to what’s already been released. Either way it’s sad.