On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: > Let's say my 2 app manifests contain something like this: > > <application package="my.package"/> > <activity name=".MyActivity"/> > > <application package="my.packagepro"/> > <activity name=".MyActivity"/>
There is no package attribute on <application>. I presume you mean the package attribute on the root <manifest> element. > Here's where the problem started. Any existing appwidgets on the > homescreen would disappear. Your app widgets will not be affected by any <activity> elements. They definitely will be affected by your <receiver> elements for your AppWidgetProviders. If the user has an app widget installed for a my.package.AppWidget, and you refactor things such that there is no my.package.AppWidget, the user will have problems. I wouldn't expect the app widget to turn invisible -- I would have guessed a "problem loading widget" placeholder instead -- but perhaps my guess is wrong. Bear in mind, though, that through the magic of inheritance, you can have my.package.AppWidget be a simple subclass of my.package.core.AppWidget, so you can have the business logic in your library project without breaking your original public API. > Can I leave the activity name as > ".MyActivity" and it will reference my.package.core.MyActivity? No. > I though > that when the name begins with a ".", then the application package is used. Correct. -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com | http://github.com/commonsguy http://commonsware.com/blog | http://twitter.com/commonsguy Android Training... At Your Office: http://commonsware.com/training -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
