1 / 21

Dirk van Schalkwyk Supervisor: Prof Greg Foster Co-Supervisor: Mrs Madeleine Wright

Dirk van Schalkwyk Supervisor: Prof Greg Foster Co-Supervisor: Mrs Madeleine Wright. Project Title: A Comparative Study of JME and Flash Lite for Mobile Data Services. Presentation Outline. Problem Statement Project Objective Approach Analysis and Results Conclusion Questions.

taran
Download Presentation

Dirk van Schalkwyk Supervisor: Prof Greg Foster Co-Supervisor: Mrs Madeleine Wright

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dirk van SchalkwykSupervisor: Prof Greg FosterCo-Supervisor: Mrs Madeleine Wright Project Title: A Comparative Study of JME and Flash Lite for Mobile Data Services

  2. Presentation Outline • Problem Statement • Project Objective • Approach • Analysis and Results • Conclusion • Questions

  3. Problem Statement • High investment in mobile technologies • In 2006, voice calls declined by 28% for prepaid and 22% for postpay customers (UK) • Mobility companies turn to mobile data services • Need the right development tools to ensure the rapid and efficient creation, deployment, and management of custom content on mobile phones

  4. Definitions • Mobile data service: • any service on a mobile phone other than voice e.g. SMS (Short Message Service), Mobile Chats, Number Portability [Vodacom, 2007] • 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

  5. Project Objective • Develop a prototype incorporating selected APIs developed under Flash Lite and JME. • Test effectiveness of competing standards. • Conclusions drawn will enable a trade-off decision as to which platform to use for a particular mobile data service.

  6. Approach Flash Lite JME Client/Server communication across a wireless network XML server response Web Server SQL commands Database

  7. Demo

  8. Analysis and Results • Foundation Language • Available IDEs • Emulator platforms • Dynamic XML handling • GUI designing • Multimedia capabilities • Persistent Storage • Packaging and Deploying • Mobile device diversity

  9. Foundation Language Comparison and Evaluation: • Both languages allow platform independence. • Java is more robust and secure as JME applications never escape from the confines of the JVM and therefore will not write to device memory that does not belong to the JVM.

  10. Available IDEs Comparison and Evaluation: • Various IDE options are available for JME each providing better features for writing code whereas Flash Lite offers a powerful GUI designer not available in JME. • Adobe Flash Authoring IDE is an expensive proprietary software and therefore JME is recommended if financial resources are limited.

  11. Emulator Platforms Comparison and Evaluation: • Key features are provided by both platforms including memory analysis, network management and monitoring, object creation (JME only) and persistent storage monitoring. • JME provides a more comprehensive feedback in the form of graphs and tables allowing for better application testing.

  12. Dynamic XML handling

  13. Dynamic XML handling cont… Comparison and Evaluation: • Flash Lite is recommended as it parses the XML faster and requires less coding, reducing possible errors, application size as well as the time to create the application. Time (milliseconds)

  14. GUI Designing Comparison and Evaluation: • Flash Lite provides fast, easy and efficient creation of rich GUIs not possible with JME. • Flash Lite’s stronghold in the mobile industry.

  15. Multimedia Capabilities

  16. Multimedia Capabilities cont… Comparison and Evaluation: • JME allows greater portability and video control compared to Flash Lite which relies on the capability of the device. • Flash Lite video streaming is recommended when dealing with large video files as play starts quicker and they do not take up a lot of device memory. • Caution required when opting to stream video as it may be blocked by firewalls. Time (milliseconds)

  17. Persistent Storage Comparison and Evaluation: • JME is recommended if other applications are required to access stored data. • Flash Lite is an advantage if considering the lines of code required and this could also reduce error occurrences and speed up application development.

  18. Packaging and Deploying Comparison and Evaluation: • Both platforms produce small packaged file sizes and deploy them through USB, Bluetooth and OTA.

  19. Mobile device diversity Comparison and Evaluation: • Both platforms provide effective features to address device diversity.

  20. Conclusion • Analysis and tests showed various strengths and weaknesses of the JME and Flash Lite platforms enabling trade-offs to be made when developing specific mobile data services. • Generally, JME provides more control and functionality through its numerous APIs whereas Flash Lite allows for the rapid creation of applications with rich GUIs.

  21. Questions?

More Related