OFFLINE BUILD

[ENEMALI_J_]

I just started using intel xdk and discovered you can only get the .apk version of the app if you are online, is there any way to build to apk offline?

thanks in advance

[Thepjday_A_]

@Paul,

Do you have any updates on the licensing questions? Things are coming to a head as XDK is moving directly in the IoT space and leaving the mobile developers behind (retiring samples, removing featured plugins).

Now more than ever, we need to know if we can add the necessary elbow grease and should set up our infrastructure to support the non-supported libraries and such.

I have yet to encounter a failure to compile down to the necessary APK, but I am concerned that is coming soon.

I will be sad to see XDK for regular mobile app development fall out of use as it provides such a stable cross platform environment/IDE.

Thanks.

[PaulF_IntelCorp]

@Thepjday -- We are actively reviewing options for App Designer. Unfortunately, I am not able to provide you with any details on this public forum. I will ask our product manager to contact you directly, but it may be a week before you hear from him.

[Diego_Calp]

Hi Paul,

It would be nice if the comments of the product manager were shared with the rest of us, interested in the future of XDK.

Thank you,

Regards,

Diego

[Thepjday_A_]

@Paul

I have received a response from your management but it clearly articulates a failure to understand the request. The response was an emphatic "we cannot open source because it will cost us money".

I do not want Intel to "have costs".

I do not want Intel to support my changes.

I do not want Intel to own my changes.

I do not want Intel to be liable for my changes

I do not want Intel to maintain my changes

I do not want Intel to provide the repo for my changes

I do not want Intel to be connected in any way shape or form to my changes EXCEPT as the copyright owners of the ORIGINAL code

I want Intel to give me permission to distribute my changes to my friends that work using the XDK for their use

I want Intel to give me permission to charge for only my changes (as I will need to maintain a github repo for the changes and it will take my time to do so).

In this, I see NO CHARGES for Intel. Just permission.

Again, I would ask you to request Management to provide me and my friends with this permission. The permission to make changes and distribute under a different name in order to differentiate the mobile app version from the IoT version with the understanding that the original code is still copyright Intel.

We do not want to see such a great tool as the XDK to fall by the wayside for use with mobile apps and only be available for IoT apps (current direction it would seem for Intel based on current release notes). We are willing to put in the effort required to do so with no intervention or resources from Intel.

We understand that going forward, we may need to use a different name for the mobile app version - this is fine. We understand that Intel will only support the IoT flavor going forward (current direction based on release notes).

Thanks.

[Diego_Calp]

+1 for Thepjday latest comment. 

I agree that release to open source will left Intel without any maintenance cost and properly writing the licence, without any liability.

I like Intel to note that the main page of XDK currently states:

"One solution for IoT applications and mobile app dev!
All the capabilities you know and love for developing mobile HTML5 apps!
Additional software development capabilities for IoT"

and

"Build and deliver HTML5 apps quickly and simply!"

I've been looking for a long time for the features in bold, and they are real today in XDK.

Regards,

Diego

[PaulF_IntelCorp]

Diego and Thepjday -- I will ask management to respond to your statements. Note that those response will likely be private as they may contain confidential information. I would appreciate it if you would please keep any confidential information private to those conversations.

[Thepjday_A_]

@Paul

Just to clarify, I am not asking Intel to "open source" something. This an undertaking of a different quality. To "open source" means to make available in source form all parts required to run a program including items that are currently only binary format.

While making the XDK "open source" *might be* beneficial in the long run, our immediate concern is simply this:

The JavaScript code required to run the XDK in mobile app development mode has ALREADY been shared. What *I* personally am asking for is the permission to make changes and distribute those JavaScript files.

The header of each file clearly articulates that this is NOT a permission I currently have. I can make changes for private use. But I cannot distribute them.

That would be an ideal first step. I would request that if intel were to choose to "open source" the XDK binary code at a later date, that they do so for the earlier versions which are not maintained because those are the versions that still have the mobile development features strongly bound.

"open sourcing" the latest IoT version would simply give us an engine that couldn't do what we wanted anyway. It would be lip service to provide "open source" for something for which we had zero interest in maintaining at this time. Perhaps in the future that would change. And it is correct to state that open sourcing the current code would definitely cause liability issues and support issues and cost Intel money. This is why I would not advocate open sourcing anything other than an older version which is directly tied to mobile development.

Again to be very clear, the permissions requested are:

1. Permission to change and distribute updates to the JavaScript/XML/Files already distributed in source format with the XDK, possibly with a new name if required with no loss of copyright from Intel on the original code. Intel would have no jurisdiction over the new code updates. Only the pre-existing code. (A perfectly good example is the correction in the sidebar code that I patched a while ago, or the code update to stop checking for updates and so on). This is the thing that is required IMMEDIATELY.

2. Permission to distribute older copies of the Intel XDK package - UNMODIFIED - this is required to get the installation engine and the existing binaries. Also required IMMEDIATELY.

3. Optionally, should Intel choose to pursue, at a later date, to "open source" earlier versions of the XDK which are tightly coupled with Mobile development such as 3522 or 3641 or whatever version makes sense to do so. This is the thing that can wait.

Sorry I was so long in my reply. Just making sure we are not losing the request in translation.

[PaulF_IntelCorp]

Thepjday -- thanks for the clarification. I understand your desire and management has been informed. The issue is still under discussion.

FYI -- regarding the major components in the current and older versions of the XDK:

• Develop tab code editor is standard Brackets
• Live Layout is [mostly] the standard Brackets Live Preview feature
• Emulate tab was standard Ripple Emulator with a few additions
• Simulate tab is standard Microsoft Cordova Simulator tool
• Test tab debug console was based on standard weinre debugger
• Debug tab was based on Remote Chrome DevTools for WebViews
• Build tab is standard Cordova CLI
• Web Services is unique to the Intel XDK
• Test tab + App Preview is unique to the Intel XDK (similar to https://github.com/phonegap/phonegap-app-developer)
• Publish tab is unique to Intel XDK
• App Preview (UI layout editor) is unique to the Intel XDK

Of the above elements, the Test tab, the Debug tab, the Build tab and App Preview are heavily dependent on our backend services, which will continue to change as the product evolves.

[Thepjday_A_]

@Paul

Accepted that the Test Tab, App Preview, Debug Tab and the Build tab may stop working in our derivative product. This does not matter to us since if we really wanted to test it, we could import the project into the current version of XDK and test there. Or we could use PhoneGap to run our testing there. These are accepted and understood as failings should we pursue the option we are discussing here. There may be other pieces also that rely on the backend that may stop working going down this road. That is also acceptable.

But it gives us a competitive advantage. To be able to add additional JavaScript toolkits and widgets to the App Designer, to cobble together additional templates, and so on.

Please let management know that these restrictions and limitations are acceptable to myself. I cannot speak for my compadres, but I suspect they will be on board as well.

Thanks.

[Thepjday_A_]

P.S. If we go this route, we will most definitely need the proper documentation on how to setup build services outside of Intel (at least a step by step migration path would be suffiicient) which we could then include in our documentation (with permission).

[Phelix_C_]

Hi,

I am currently looking for a way to improve the speed of the emulated function in intel XDK. It is very slow and takes few minutes to loading. Is there any video tutorial guidelines for beginners to make it easier for the trainee to learn via video? if have kindly let me know.

I am looking the trainer which can guide me to do Apps using Intel XDK.

Thank you.

Phelix

[PaulF_IntelCorp]

Phelix C. wrote:

I am currently looking for a way to improve the speed of the emulated function in intel XDK. It is very slow and takes few minutes to loading.

Do you mean the speed of the "Simulate tab"? I'm not clear on what the issue is. Please provide additional details.

Phelix C. wrote:

Is there any video tutorial guidelines for beginners to make it easier for the trainee to learn via video? if have kindly let me know. I am looking the trainer which can guide me to do Apps using Intel XDK.

What sort of training are you looking for? We do not provide training on how to write mobile apps. The XDK is a collection of tools to help you debug and build, but it is not a tool for teaching how to write apps.

[Thepjday_A_]

@Paul

Any updates based on the latest announcement of the retirement of the Intel cloud build system? Now more than ever it makes sense to allow us to continue to drive the usage of the XDK.

[PaulF_IntelCorp]

There is still discussion going on regarding open source of specific elements of the product. Unfortunately, the manager who needs to provide the final say on that issue is out on an extended leave. However, I can tell you that we do not plan to open-source the build system, because it is simply a cloud-based implementation of standard Cordova CLI, so there is very little value to you or us in doing that. You'd be better served by simply using PhoneGap Build or Cordova CLI directly.

[PaulF_IntelCorp]

Thepjday A. wrote:

Any updates based on the latest announcement of the retirement of the Intel cloud build system? Now more than ever it makes sense to allow us to continue to drive the usage of the XDK.

A decision has been made by our product and engineering management to NOT open-source the Intel XDK project nor any of its deprecated components. In addition, we will not change the license terms that are already in place for existing and for prior releases of the Intel XDK source code.

[Thepjday_A_]

@Paul

In windows 10, what kind of package does the XDK build generate? signed or unsigned or signed with test certificate?

I need to mimick the same in the CLI.

[PaulF_IntelCorp]

@Tehpjday -- please see the response here > https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/intel-xdk/topic/722004#comment-1907584 <