| Comments

Last night after a quick e-mail exchange with Phil, David and Scott I revised my Silverlight Toolkit “NuPack” packages I had previously created when NuPack NuGet first came out.  At the time there were a couple of things still not supported and frankly, I got busy and never bothered to check back.  Scott had seen something on a forum inquiring why Silverlight stuff, namely our open source controls, aren’t deployable via NuGet.  There wasn’t any other reason other than resources not currently scheduled to add this to the build flows, etc.  So I spent a few minutes revising the packages and putting them up there:

Silverlight Toolkits on NuGet

What you see above is the “Add Library Package Reference” results after you install NuGet.  Now instead of having to install an MSI, etc. you can basically add a reference to the package and the bits will be copied to your project and automatically referenced.  In order to componentize the main Silverlight Toolkit, I created the NuGet packages in a way that they can be individually consumed, or a meta-package as “All.”  It’s cool that NuGet allows you to create a meta-package which is basically a dependency graph.  For instance, my “all” package has zero content…but here is the .nuspec contents:

   1: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> 
   2: <package> 
   3:   <metadata> 
   4:     <id>SilverlightToolkit-All</id> 
   5:     <version>4.2010.04</version> 
   6:     <authors>Microsoft</authors>
   7:     <description>The complete Microsoft Silverlight Toolkit.  Details at http://silverlight.codeplex.com</description> 
   8:     <language>en-US</language>
   9:     <licenseUrl>http://silverlight.codeplex.com/license</licenseUrl>    
  10:     <projectUrl>http://silverlight.codeplex.com/</projectUrl>
  11:     <dependencies>
  12:       <dependency id="SilverlightToolkit-Core" version="4.2010.04" />
  13:       <dependency id="SilverlightToolkit-Data" version="4.2010.04" />
  14:       <dependency id="SilverlightToolkit-DataViz" version="4.2010.04" />
  15:       <dependency id="SilverlightToolkit-Input" version="4.2010.04" />
  16:       <dependency id="SilverlightToolkit-Layout" version="4.2010.04" />
  17:       <dependency id="SilverlightToolkit-Theming" version="4.2010.04" />
  18:     </dependencies>
  19:     <title>Silverlight Toolkit - All</title>
  20:     <owners>Tim Heuer</owners>
  21:     <iconUrl>http://silverlight.microsoft.com/assets/sl-32.png</iconUrl>
  22:     <tags>silverlight toolkit sltoolkit</tags>
  23:   </metadata> 
  24: </package>

It’ basically defines the pointers to what it needs and NuGet does the magic to manage the dependencies on install.  For the Silverlight for Windows Phone Toolkit, we also have icons.  NuGet allows me to package up those icons as well so that when the package gets added, so do the icons (NOTE: there is still a step to mark them as content in the project).  I point this out because when the phone toolkit first came out some of the samples weren’t working for people because they didn’t read that they had to actually include some icons to get them to work.  Using NuGet, at least we’re able to help them even further.

I really like this model.  I love that I can use a familiar “Add Reference” gesture in Visual Studio, but I can also use a PowerShell VS window to do my package management as well if I wanted.  Take a look at the NuGet stuff and if you are a Silverlight developer, now you have everything easily at your fingertips!

NOTE: The version numbers in the toolkit packages are package version numbers.  We’ve never really promoted the toolkit versions as they literally are (i.e., 4.0.31319.blah) but rather as the release timeframe i.e., “April 2010” release.  Because NuGet follows CLR versioning taxonomy I created the package versions to hopefully be somewhat descriptive: 4.2010.04 – For Silverlight 4, April 2010 release – as an example.  It’s not perfect, but it works.

NuGet has over 670 packages now in the repository with an amazing set of tools readily available at your fingertips.  There are some good Silverlight nuggets in there as well and it is nice to have our toolkits in there now also!  When updates come out, the Library Package Manager will show the updates, giving the developer the option to update them quickly.

Hope this helps!

| Comments

The source code for the Silverlight 2 controls was just published!  This is the source for the controls as shipped in the runtime and the SDK.  When you download the project you’ll see the structure:

Image of source project tree in Visual Studio

The source, released under the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), includes the source for the following controls in the runtime:

    • ButtonBase
    • Button
    • HyperlinkButton
    • CheckBox
    • RadioButton
    • ToggleButton
    • RangeBase
    • ProgressBar
    • Slider
    • ScrollBar
    • Thumb

and the following from the SDK (part of the Silverlight Tools for Visual Studio):

    • Calendar
    • DatePicker
    • DataGrid
    • TabControl
    • GridSplitter

Unit tests for the SDK controls have also been included as well!

With the release of this source code as well as having access to the source for the Silverlight Toolkit, you should have some great base implementations to extend and learn from!  Get the code here: Source code for Silverlight 2 controls.

| Comments

This is a public service announcement for my Flickr4Writer project.  It was recently brought to my attention that Flickr has some privacy settings that users can opt-in for in their account to protect their images.  Some users felt that my plug-in for Writer was not honoring these settings.  Truly, I didn’t know about them.  You can read the thread on the discussion lists here if you are so inclined.  For me it came down to a couple of items:

    • Flickr enables users to set a flag to prevent “blogging” of their images
    • Flickr enables users to be hidden from 3rd Party/API searches

First, a note on the “blogging” flag.  This is a setting under your Flickr account privacy tab labeled Who can blog your photos or videos?.  To me, this setting is a little misleading because the description of it actually reads:

This means that anyone who does not match at least the contact level you select will not be able to see the "Blog This" button. (Source: http://www.flickr.com/account/prefs/blogging/?from=privacy 07 NOV 2008)

This setting is clearly for the “Blog This” functionality that shows up if you are logged into Flickr as a non-anonymous user and browse photos.  There is some functionality for them to integrate directly with your blog engine to do some one-click blogging of photos and videos.  Because of the way the setting is named however, some users interpret “blogging” in the broader sense.  flickr4writer was challenged as one violating the principal of this setting.  Since the setting ONLY enables authenticated users to even blog (the setting options go from any Flickr user (non-anonymous) to your specific friends/family settings.  flickr4writer does not use any authentication, so browsing any photos has the appearance to violate this term if the plugin enables an anonymous user to browse and select photos in a tool that is build for “blogging.”  While I draw the correlation that flickr4writer is basically a shell to the web site and does not do anything different than an anonymous user being able to browse and grab an image URL, it is the essence of the rule that I was alleged to violate.  One challenge here is also that the API is poorly designed in this regard because the “canblog” setting is returned only at the photo level even though it is an uber setting for the user’s account.  I think it should be a filter param of the photos.search API call.

The second setting about 3rd Party/API blocking from searches gets even more interesting.  First, this totally makes sense.  Again, it was a setting I wasn’t aware of.  You can change your setting under a section titled Hide your photostream from searches on 3rd party sites that use the API?  Great.  You’d think that once a user selected this setting that any search would filter out their photos/vidoes at the API level right?  Wrong.  flickr4writer uses photos.search calls to query data (actually technically the library that Flickr4Writer uses does).  Again, by definition of this API, only public searchable photos will be returned.  UNLESS you specify a user name.  What?!?!  Yes, that’s right…if you specifc a user name, their results will come back in the API call.  Read that again.  If you specify a user name in flickr.photos.search it will not honor the user’s privacy setting.  So this sucks for me as an API developer/consumer who wants to honor those settings.

So on to the resolutions.  First, I added authentication.  flickr4writer now requires you to have a valid Flickr account to even use it (their accounts are free).  This helps with the first part about blogging.  If a user has specified they do not want their content to be blogged, I honor that and will alert the flickr4writer user with a message that the user they searched prevents blogging and no search results will display.  I feel that this complies with that setting within my application.  If a user wants to bypass my app and copy/paste the URL to the photo/video still…that’s Flickr’s problem now, not mine.  Adding authentication also enabled me to comply with the blogging settings of users because it identifies who the user is and whether or not they can blog the content.

The second thing I modified was to only return content that had Creative Commons or No known license attributes.  This actually makes sense and I needed to do it for a while.  The licenses I filter for are identified in the flickr.photos.licenses.getInfo API.  So if a user has content that is “All rights reserved” then it will no longer show up in the search…even if you are the owner of that content.  I’m interested in feedback on this one if you think I should do a check to see if you are the owner and allow you to see licensed content…leave a comment on how you feel about this one.

For the setting of hiding from 3rd parties…I cannot resolve this.  There is no setting for me to look at.  I’m quite disappointed that Flickr isn’t doing this at the API level as I think that they are violating the user preferences by enabling a loophole.  Should they enable a setting for this (I think they just need to fix the API), I will enable my application to comply even more.  Please if you are a Flickr user who has set this privacy setting, let Flickr know that you want it to be honored.

The authentication adds some initial screens to the use of flickr4writer.  When you launch the plug-in from within Writer, you’ll now see some prompts to authorize the application with Flickr.  There will be a button that will take you to Flickr to authorize the action.  This is only required one time and you won’t see it anymore unless you de-authorize the application on your account (which you have the complete control to perform).

Please upgrade to the latest version.  You will have to uninstall any previous version before installing, but will not lose any settings.  Thanks for your assistance in helping keeping flickr4writer compliant.

| Comments

Well, it seems that in addition to problems with MobileMe, Apple is getting into some gray area with AppStore.  Applications are appearing, disappearing without explanation to the authors.  The one that got more attention was NetShare, an app that purports to enable tethering of your iPhone 3G.  However despite it being available (actually for me clicking on the link it wasn’t even available then) it seems to be performing one of Criss Angel’s greatest feats in appearing/disappearing at will (or at Steve Jobs’ request).

The latest app to fall to this scenario and be removed from the AppStore without explanation is BoxOffice.  The developer of BoxOffice posted a plea on MacForums:

Apple pulled the app yesterday without giving my any notification that they were doing it, or what their justification was for removing it.


I've tried to contact them about the issue, but it's been a complete dead end. If anyone has a useful contact number for apple, please let me know.


I'm in regular contact with all my data providers, and none of them have had an issue with my app. Indeed, the response was the exact opposite. They like my app and have even asked if i would do custom application work for them in the future. Furthermore, all the data i use is licensed by the owners as 'free for non commercial use'. i.e. precisely what BoxOffice is. Source: MacForums

Here’s my guesses (and only guesses):

1) NetShare pulled because of violation of AT&T terms.  I can’t cite them specifically but I’m pretty sure there is some fine print about tethering and normal use.  Heck AT&T sells a tethering option on some of their devices so I’m sure their crafty attorneys have legalese in their normal terms for 3G devices like iPhone about tethering. 

2) BoxOffice – pulled because it is Open Source licensed under the GPLv2.  BoxOffice has had it’s code up there on Google Code for a while.  Could this be a sign that Apple is now getting around to tightening their reigns on their terms and that OSS applications would not be allowed?  Or perhaps because he has a ‘Donate’ button in the app and Apple can’t get their chocolaty fingers on any donations (which probably violates the terms anyway-however other apps do the same thing).  I can’t wait to see what Cyrus hears back regarding BoxOffice and why it was removed.  And if he does receive that reason…will WordPress follow next?

What gives with updates?

The AppStore model was an exciting one.  I say was becuase I’m starting to see some faults.  This whole appearing/disappearing thing without communication to the authors is frustrating.  Even if they are in violation of whatever terms…a communication to the author is something that should occur.  “Hey you are violating terms XYZ, if you want to be listed in the AppStore you need to patch your software and re-submit.”  Is that so hard?

The other pain I’m seeing is updating.  While the AppStore seemed a great model, the update model sucks big time.  Authors have to go through the same process to submit an update it seems as they would a new app.  For real?  So 1.0 to 1.1 takes forever?  Is that a model that is acceptable to the security world?  What if someone found an exploit in Super Monkey Ball that it was actually taking your contacts and passing them around somewhere?  The v1.x patch has to go through a similar process of a new app?  Seems strange.

The other updating just seems hokey to me.  It really isn’t enabling a software+services model.  One case is the apps that provide reference.  For example, I downloaded the Spanish phrase app (handy by the way).  Let’s say the authors want to add more phrases.  They have to release a whole other app!  I have to download/install a whole other app.  Why can’t the author have their own update mechanism like other real software?!  Imagine if that every time your favorite app was updated you had to completely re-install it each time.  Ridiculous right?  Why should an iPhone app be any different.  Enabling this model of auto-updating should be added to their SDK to enable authors to quickly provide patches and incremental updates to their applications without the AppStore getting in the way.

Well, it is interesting to see how Apple is going through these pains in their new adventures.

| Comments

NDA.  Non-disclosure.  Hush documents.

Not many people like them.  In the technology world they are a necessary evil.  Personally I don’t think that way.  I think NDA’s are generally a good thing.  It’s enabling legalese to let two parties participate in information exchange when they don’t want the rest of the world to know about them.  NDA is a general term, of course, and the wording in any non-disclosure agreement is subject to the two parties involved.  Heck it could say “We’re going to show you everything and you agree only to not talk about feature X…everything else is fair game.”  Usually they don’t.

Enter the iPhone SDK.  The frustrating part for iPhone developers wanting to share their knowledge, innovate on the platform, etc.  It was assumed from a lot of developers that upon the release of iPhone 2.0 software that the NDA would be lifted.  Guess what – it isn’t (as of this writing).  What does that mean?  Well, among other things, people who have the SDK are under that NDA and shouldn’t be discussing it with anyone other than Apple.  Guess what…even if your best friend is under the same NDA, technically your agreement is only with Apple, not ‘anyone else under NDA.’

My local Cocoa/iPhone user group in my area recently shut off their email list and posted this message:

“IMPORTANT NOTE: AT THE PRESENT, IN ORDER TO RESPECT THE IPHONE DEVELOPER TERMS AND CONDITIONS, WE HAVE DEFERRED MESSAGE POSTING AND OUR FIRST MEETING UNTIL OPEN DISCUSSION ON IPHONE DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED BY THE NDA, AND BLESSED BY APPLE. OUR GOAL IS TO PROMOTE APPLE IPHONE TECHNOLOGY ACCORDING TO PROPER GUIDELINES AND NOT PRESENT EVEN AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. ALL GROUP MEMBERS WILL BE NOTIFIED AS SOON AS WE ARE FREE TO OPENLY COLLABORATE.” source: Phoenix iPhone Developer Group

As frustrating as it is for passionate folks, bravo to this group to at least ensuring their channel they’ve created isn’t a faucet of information that shouldn’t be shared just yet.  There are other groups that I’ve seen hosting iPhone developer discussions and I can’t imagine how they are doing that without talking about thing that violate the agreement they have in place. 

NOTE: If you downloaded the SDK, you agreed to the NDA – sorry if you didn’t read it, but you did.

An NDA is in place to provide valuable information to those who want to agree to it.  By not honoring that you’re stealing information essentially.  Beyond the legal stuff which I don’t pretend to understand in a deep manner, it just isn’t really ethical for you as an individual, business, developer, community, whatever.  I don’t care if it is with a darling company like Apple…no matter what if you agree you should be responsible. 

Another part of the SDK is the terms.  Besides not being able to be discussed, shown, shared, the terms of the iPhone SDK might prohibit any open source project.  Which brings into question the project from Wordpress.  This is an AppStore approved app that now has source available. (which is using the GPL license).  As Nathan Willis of Linux.com points out that two terms of the SDK and AppStore deployment violate explicitly the GPL (nondisclosure and code signing).  Wordpress putting the source out there violates not only the terms of the iPhone SDK but as well isn’t in line with the GPL they have selected.  How is nobody claiming shame on them?  Just because they are open source doesn’t mean they have the right to violate agreements.

Yes, I know Microsoft isn’t open source all the way by ANY means.  I don’t believe I’ve ever made that comment and certainly not here…this isn’t about a ‘well then you should to’ but rather about honoring known agreements and terms/conditions of use.

If people get lost in a frenzy of excitement and decide just to start violating things they agree to, where does that leave organizations wanting to plan and share information?  There isn’t a lot of trust left is there?  I honestly think that Apple will rectify this soon and perhaps it is just an oversight while they are dealing with the MobileMe troubles as of late, but regardless the terms are still there, the confidentiality agreements are still in place and if you agreed to them, you should honor them.  I know that is a bit of a “duh” moment…but seeing stuff like what Wordpress is doing and user groups sprouting information makes me sad that we as professionals have disregard for these types of things.

I had an idea for an iPhone app that I wanted to do to manage the life-sucking-battery-settings and others even wrote they’d pay money for that app.  When I had the idea I immediately contacted an Apple evangelist and began starting a discussion about this.  Turns out that the settings I’d need to get to aren’t available according to this evangelist in email.  I noticed the iPhone dev team has the headers needed, but even completing the app wouldn’t give me any distribution beyond myself because the mere coding against the properties would violate the terms and wouldn’t be approved in AppStore.  I suspect an app like this will surface (perhaps in the Jailbreak world) and if it does on AppStore, I’ll be pissed that I was misinformed and missed out on an opportunity!  Where was I?  Oh yeah, anyway I went to the source (Apple), inquired, and was told it wasn’t possible per the terms.  It sucks, but I’m going to honor those terms…because I agreed to.

And if you did, so should you.  Wordpress…shame on you.

Related articles: