Fixed
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
et...@google.com
xy...@gmail.com
Disabling an application means that it still counts against your three-application limit.
Deleting one would mean that it wouldn't anymore.
Deleting one would mean that it wouldn't anymore.
ma...@martin.st
@srfarley - I'd recommend you use the "New Issue" link instead of scope-creeping an
existing issue and expecting that to work out.
existing issue and expecting that to work out.
et...@google.com
Deleting an entire app would also be a good way to delete a borked datastore, which
seems to be a common issue.
seems to be a common issue.
ma...@martin.st
This is a feature request - the ability to delete an application. But several things
should be noted:
1. There is now 10 apps given per developer
2. You can re-use an App id
3. Deleting an existing datastore is a separate issue.
should be noted:
1. There is now 10 apps given per developer
2. You can re-use an App id
3. Deleting an existing datastore is a separate issue.
ma...@martin.st
I want to change authentication options but it is not available so i need to delete
the application then recreate it. Hope both features will available soon.
the application then recreate it. Hope both features will available soon.
hb...@gmail.com
ma...@martin.st
Being able to delete apps and rename apps is pretty fundamental. I wouldn't consider it to be low priority.
I'm trying to do some GAE development for clients, but I have almost run out of slots. When I was initially
playing around with the system, I was rather liberal with creating applications, and now with no way to delete
or rename them, I'm stuck with the application names I initially chose (and which I no longer want to use).
In the short run, it would be nice if there was an email address documented somewhere so we could ask for
the apps to be manually deleted or renamed (as is the case when more quota is needed).
I'm trying to do some GAE development for clients, but I have almost run out of slots. When I was initially
playing around with the system, I was rather liberal with creating applications, and now with no way to delete
or rename them, I'm stuck with the application names I initially chose (and which I no longer want to use).
In the short run, it would be nice if there was an email address documented somewhere so we could ask for
the apps to be manually deleted or renamed (as is the case when more quota is needed).
hb...@gmail.com
As a workaround:
1. Create a new google account.
2. Add the new google account as a developer for the app you want to get rid of.
3. Remove your real account from the app.
I didn't try this yet, but it should work. Please let us know if it doesn't.
1. Create a new google account.
2. Add the new google account as a developer for the app you want to get rid of.
3. Remove your real account from the app.
I didn't try this yet, but it should work. Please let us know if it doesn't.
ma...@martin.st
yaakovsash,
I tried your proposed workaround. Unfortunately, when you give your applications
away to the other user, you don't get to create a new one.
I now have 9 apps on my dashboard, but I don't have the option to create another one.
I'm also a bit pissed off about the SMS authorization scheme they've introduced - it
may or may not cost me $5 because my cell phone company (Rogers in Canada) is evil.
It took me about an hour of messing around with their gateway and resending the SMS
to get my code. Not Google's fault really - but why build a dependency in on such a
brain-damaged third-party system?
App Engine is a pretty cool system that I'd like to promote as part of my
professional practice, but it's not clear to me that Google is positioning it as
anything other than a 'hobby' tool.
I tried your proposed workaround. Unfortunately, when you give your applications
away to the other user, you don't get to create a new one.
I now have 9 apps on my dashboard, but I don't have the option to create another one.
I'm also a bit pissed off about the SMS authorization scheme they've introduced - it
may or may not cost me $5 because my cell phone company (Rogers in Canada) is evil.
It took me about an hour of messing around with their gateway and resending the SMS
to get my code. Not Google's fault really - but why build a dependency in on such a
brain-damaged third-party system?
App Engine is a pretty cool system that I'd like to promote as part of my
professional practice, but it's not clear to me that Google is positioning it as
anything other than a 'hobby' tool.
ma...@martin.st
[Comment deleted]
et...@google.com
[Comment deleted]
w....@gmail.com
It seems a little silly.
This is one of the oldest issues.
This issue has never been addressed by anyone from google.
There is a published workaround that doesn't work.
The solution seems so ridiculously simple.
I can only assume that google can't delete applications, and that there is a limited
pool of slots for potential applications. Is this the case? *knock* *knock* google,
is anyone listening?
This is one of the oldest issues.
This issue has never been addressed by anyone from google.
There is a published workaround that doesn't work.
The solution seems so ridiculously simple.
I can only assume that google can't delete applications, and that there is a limited
pool of slots for potential applications. Is this the case? *knock* *knock* google,
is anyone listening?
et...@google.com
[Comment deleted]
ho...@gmail.com
There is an interesting security issue arising when you reuse a domain name that has
been previously controlled by someone else. It's described in the "Domain
Contamination" article by Amit Klein
(http://www.webappsec.org/projects/articles/020606.shtml ). The idea of the attack is
to cause some malicious pages to be cached indefinitely.
been previously controlled by someone else. It's described in the "Domain
Contamination" article by Amit Klein
(
to cause some malicious pages to be cached indefinitely.
ho...@gmail.com
It's also a deterrent to domain squatting. With only a limited number of apps, it
doesnt make sense to 'take' domains just because you can - in case you might want it.
doesnt make sense to 'take' domains just because you can - in case you might want it.
Description
Issue:
According to the articles above, Android is defining the uses-feature "android.hardware.camera" to mean rear-facing cameras only. Devices with a front-facing camera only, like the Google Nexus 7, will not appear to be supported by the app. This means the app will not appear in Google Play for that device.
This breaks backwards compatibility for many apps (QR code scanners in my case) and will require developers to remove this requirement if they want to support front camera only devices. This will require run time checks for hardware, UI messaging the user that their device is not supported, localization and re-testing expenses, and a bad customer experience. "Sorry, your device is not supported even though we said it was on the Play page." is not a good experience.
Suggested solution:
1. Define "android.hardware.camera" to mean ANY camera, including future development of externally attached devices.
2. Add new feature fields of "android.hardware.camera.rear" and "android.hardware.camera.front" to explicitly refer to those positions.