130 likes | 279 Views
Dirk van Schalkwyk Supervisor: Dr Greg Foster Co-Supervisor: Mrs Madeleine Wright. Project Title: A Comparative Study of JME and Flash Lite for Mobile Data Services. Agenda:. Background/History of the Study Objective of Research Approach to the Study Information to be Derived/Deliverables
E N D
Dirk van SchalkwykSupervisor: Dr Greg FosterCo-Supervisor: Mrs Madeleine Wright Project Title: A Comparative Study of JME and Flash Lite for Mobile Data Services
Agenda: • Background/History of the Study • Objective of Research • Approach to the Study • Information to be Derived/Deliverables • Q & A
Background/History of the Study • Early 1990s • Mobile phones were basic devices designed with voice as the core functionality • Today • Mobile phones are intelligent devices with enhanced functionalities
Statistics • Over 2 billion worldwide mobile subscribers • 3.9 billion worldwide subscribers by 2010, 50% of world’s population • 350 billion text messages sent every month worldwide [Kona Survey, 2007]
Why Flash Lite or JME? • Flash Lite • a version of Adobe Flash Player designed for mobile phones • JME (formerly J2ME) • a Java Platform consisting of a set of technologies and specifications developed for mobile phones • Allow for the rapid and efficient creation, deployment and management of custom content on mobile phones
Objective of Research • Compare development of mobile phone data services • Focus will be on Flash Lite and Java Micro Edition (JME) technologies
Objective of Research • Focuses on the different mobile phone API development life cycles • Qualitative and quantitative comparisons will be made • Conclusions will then be drawn to enable a trade-off decision as to which platform to use
Approach to the Study • Takes an experimental system building approach to computer science • Prototype incorporating selected APIs developed under both platforms • Assess the software engineering process and run-time target system from prototype development life cycle • Qualitative and quantitative conclusions drawn
Mobile development comparison Application development • Foundation language • Learning curve • Debuggers available • Emulators available • IDE available • Cross-platform deployment • Installer packaging options
Mobile development comparison Capabilities • Graphical interface • Functionality • Phone data access • Runtime speed
Mobile development comparison Growth • Developer community and support • Market penetration
Information to be Derived/Deliverables • Choice of platform primarily depends on the expectation of the specific mobile phone application • Conclusions drawn enable a trade-off decision as to which platform to use