Re: [Orekit Developers] [SOCIS 2011] usability

[Alexis Robert <alexis.robert@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:02 PM, MAISONOBE Luc <luc.maisonobe@c-s.fr> wrote:
> OK. If you prefer to go with Android 3.X, you have my green light to do so.
> Are there many devices that are already shipped with this version ?

Not a lot, I think just the Motorola Xoom, the Galaxy Tab 10.1v, the
EEE Transformer, and the soon to be released Archos G9, but new
tablets will be released under Android 3.x.

It will be more massive when they release the source code (Android 3.x
is still closed source, if I understood correctly the reason would be
that the phone version is not finished yet and so they don't want
Cyanogen messing their work by releasing a poorly hacked Android 3.x
for phones when it's not ready to be used as this, and they would
Opensource it as soon as they release a phone version).

> In fact, there should be no real difference between LOF frames and any other
> frame from a user point of view. From the application point of view, there
> are two enums (LOFType and Predefined), so depending on what the user
> choose, when we need to really build the frame, we either use
> FramesFactory.getFrame(predefined), or new
> LocalOrbitalFrame(orbit.getFrame(), loftype, propagator,
> loftype.toString()).

Ok I see :)

> Here is another problem I encountered. when I attempt to frame conversion
> between EME2000 and one of the ITRF frames, I get an error: « unable to find
> file /META-INF/IERS-conventions-2003/tab5.2a.txt ». In fact, this file is an
> internal resource of the library and should be embedded in the Orekit jar,
> and we use the Java standard getResourceAsStream to read it as it is in the
> classpath. Did you build your own jar without this file or is there a
> problem loading resources from the classpath in Android ?

Right ! The file is present on my original Orekit jar but looks to
have been removed when building the apk, I'll look at this. Thanks !

Alexis