Symbian OS 9.1 Implications
Some ‘fan’ and gadget sites are starting to over-sell how easy it is to migrate applications to Symbian 9.1. For example, Engadget have said…
"The phone is one of the first to run S60 v3, and therefore can’t run any existing S60 apps, though that shouldn’t be much of a deal breaker since most apps will merely need a recompile."
All about Symbian also gave a similar message in their Nokia 3250 review…
"…although recompiling applications for OS 9 and S60 v3 isn’t too difficult a task"
I have migrated several applications to UIQ 3.0 and Series 60 3rd Edition and can say that this is a significant amount of development for any non-trivial applications.
First of all, some programming APIs have changed. Most developers have been programming to much earlier SDKs so as to encompass as many devices as possible - the jump from the SDK that, for example, supports the Nokia 3650 to that for 9.1 involves many changes. The UIQ 3.0 UI and command processing has completely changed and while there’s some backwards compatibility, it’s best to use the new ways of doing things in order for control focus and screen sizing/re-orientation to work correctly.
The second stumbling block is Symbian Signing. Any non-trivial application that does anything more that read/write it’s own files and access the Internet will need to be Symbian Signed.
While I haven’t signed any 9.1 applications yet (i am waiting so I can test on production devices), I have signed pre-9.1 applications.
I have found that extra code/changes typically have to be written to cater for…
-
Low memory handling, especially at application startup
-
Responding to interrupts from the phone (e.g. SMS) so that they take precedence
-
Forced exit handling when the application is interacting with the user
This is fairly complex stuff the first time you try to do it and probably beyond the patience of some freeware developers.
Initially, freeware developers were dismayed with the new 9.1 platform security (Symbian signed) scheme due to the cost. In response, Symbian have allowed Free testing/signing for freeware. However, I would argue that the Symbian Signed test criteria and red tape may be as great as barrier as cost.
Another peculiarity of the freeware route is that only Cellmania sign freeware. It’s strange that the established Symbian Signed test houses are not being used. I may be over sceptical, but it may have something to do with the fact that you give Cellmania full rights to distribute your application.
Over on discussion.symbian.signed, Anthony Pranata has been having trouble getting freeware signed…
"Is there anybody who has successfully signed freeware application? I have submitted my freeware application about three weeks ago, but I don’t know the status of my submission. No email at all… I have written two emails to symbiansigned@symbian.com. I got reply from the first email, saying they will contact CellMania as soon as possible.
One week later, I wrote the second email because I still didn’t get any status update. Unfortunately, I didn’t get any reply at all from the second email."
Anthony’s experience of migrating his application to Series 60 3rd edition is documented on his blog and gives lots of great tips on how to pass the low memory at startup tests.
It’s still early days for the freeware/Cellmania scheme. Over time, developers will become more more au-fait with the peculiarities of Symbian Signing. However, it’s certainly not a "walk in the park" as indicated by some sites.