Rom developers... the BT stack on the Touch works-

[ponicg]

Sfaure03, I read somewhere that the touch supports SPP. I'm going to use it either way, since it'll make the Mogul better I'm just curious if it does support SPP - Can you go to your bluetooth settings, and then COM Ports, and tell me if it says "New Outgoing Port" only, or if there's some verbiage for Incoming Port too? SPP is the bluetooth Serial Port Profile, btw. HSP is the headset profile.

[sfaure03]

sorry, cant get into that habit. Feel free to try it though.

[sfaure03]

Ok.. New rom, i did have a bt failure, however tihs was after a 20 min sleep and the system had been up for a full 14 hours {unusual for me}. If you use this newer rom and have an issue, it probably is a good idea to include a rough idea of how long since last reset, as well as detail of any power state changes just prior to you're problem. Will make our efforts to recreate much easier. Thanks

[ponicg]

Hrm well ok then... That was real friendly and helpful. The whole half-a-second it would have taken to look while you were fiddling with your bluetooth settings anyway... and was the response like that really necessary?

sorry, cant get into that habit. Feel free to try it though.

I'll test it out and report later. You might just get credit for fixing TWO bugs not just one... but shrug.

[dishe]

Originally Posted by ponicg

Hrm well ok then... That was real friendly and helpful. The whole half-a-second it would have taken to look while you were fiddling with your bluetooth settings anyway... and was the response like that really necessary?



I'll test it out and report later. You might just get credit for fixing TWO bugs not just one... but shrug.

dude, that's uncalled for. Some of us haven't even had a moment to respond to the questions some folks ask... at least he took a second to write something!

[ponicg]

Originally Posted by dishe

dude, that's uncalled for. Some of us haven't even had a moment to respond to the questions some folks ask... at least he took a second to write something!

Excuse me? It's absolutely called for. No answer would have been better than the post he made. He basically told me "no, stfu noob," on something that would take him a half-second to do. Not only that, but read the post he made. It was pretty uncool and uncalled for... I'm not a jerk, a jackass, or an idiot. I have no problem helping to beta(alpha?) test this ROM - I'd love to help, but now I wonder if I should. You guys want to encourage cooperation, etc, in this forum but yet your lead developer can't even be bother to be polite to a new poster? If nobody responded to my question - fine - I wouldn't post it a second time. I know forum etiquette. What "habit" was sfaure03 unable to get into? The habit of fostering cooperation, or the habit of answering questions he thinks are unrelated to the ROM? Believe it or not, a side-effect of the changed BT Stack might be to fix that issue... but why would you want to advertise a second fix when sfaure03 here thinks that his reason for hacking the ROM is the only one there is?

/rant

[sfaure03]

The habit of checking for new feature/application cross checks requests. I'm working solely on the bt issue ponicg. The comment was not intended to be rude, only that I saw you're request, and rather than just blowing you off, figured i'd tell you that i wouldnt persue it. I had responded to you before that I was not focusing on testing this kind of feature implementation, and you returned again asking me to again test it. I simply cannot "get into the habit" of cross checking against other issues especially when they are features that the original rom did not support.

You're comments that "this would only take a couple seconds" NEVER turn into a couple seconds, indeed they often take up days once you start down the path, and I need to stay as focused on this as I can.

Sorry you took it wrong. I do NOT think this is the only problem with the ROM, but i DO think it is a SIGNIFICANT ONE, and it is the ONE i am trying to find a fix for, and what we're addressing here.

If this fix also has the side affect of fixing other issues, yes i would like to see and hear about that. But its not my INTENT to track down every possible combination people come up with. This approach and focus has been stated and restated in the thread many times. The "habit" i cannot get into is to be distracted by other requests. Sorry you took offence, it was not intended as such.

[ponicg]

Originally Posted by sfaure03

The habit of checking for new feature/application cross checks requests. I'm working solely on the bt issue ponicg. The comment was not intended to be rude, only that I saw you're request, and rather than just blowing you off, figured i'd tell you that i wouldnt persue it. I had responded to you before that I was not focusing on testing this kind of feature implementation, and you returned again asking me to again test it. I simply cannot "get into the habit" of cross checking against other issues especially when they are features that the original rom did not support.

You're comments that "this would only take a couple seconds" NEVER turn into a couple seconds, indeed they often take up days once you start down the path, and I need to stay as focused on this as I can.

Sorry you took it wrong. I do NOT think this is the only problem with the ROM, but i DO think it is a SIGNIFICANT ONE, and it is the ONE i am trying to find a fix for, and what we're addressing here.

If this fix also has the side affect of fixing other issues, yes i would like to see and hear about that. But its not my INTENT to track down every possible combination people come up with. This approach and focus has been stated and restated in the thread many times. The "habit" i cannot get into is to be distracted by other requests. Sorry you took offence, it was not intended as such.

Shawn,

My apologies then too. I took offense to it based on tone - In retrospect(hindsight is 20/20... bleh) I should have realized that internet posts have no tone and not read into what you wrote. I also could have responded differently. I appreciate the apology and offer my own apology, as well as an offer to help in any way I can. I write .NET software for a living, and have been dabbling recently in the .NET CF. Perhaps if we determine that the bluetooth issue is related to comm manager, I can help build a replacement, depending on how easy it is to touch the drivers w/the .NET CF.

The only reason I felt that my issue was related to yours is that they both related to the bluetooth stack on the device. Regardless of whether they're inter-related, it really would have been a two-second check. You'd click the COM Ports tab, and read that 30 word page for the word "incoming" - If you didn't see it, you'd know that it wasn't fixed. I had someone else check it, and indeed it does not fix this issue. I still intend to install it tonight and see what happens.

-George

[sfaure03]

Originally Posted by sfaure03

......
EDIT, and even if the touch drivers support it, we most assuredly did not copy over the CONFIGUATIONS, that would integrate it into the other parts of the os.

As I had said before because we didnt adapt the configurations i wouldn't expect the other subsystems to start trying to offer a service not otherwise available.

The 2 second test would have required me to build again and then "reflash" to test that. so 2 seconds is at least 15 minutes, and then its more to cross check whether i even loaded the right thing, etc etc etc....

Appreciate the comments back, and once we are "happy" with the bt HSP functionality, seeking out other protocols and options will be another round of fun.

[willysp]

Originally Posted by wlin1998

Check if the 2.16 ROM actually "upgrade" your radio to 1.47.

No - it did not.