Forums | developer.brewmp.com Forums | developer.brewmp.com

Developer

Forums

Hi,
Can anyone tell me how to enter license information into the CIF file so that the ILicense interface gives me the values I'm looking for?... Information such as purchase type, number of uses, etc? I couldn't find any information on this.

Thanks!
Tim

Hi Tim,
For a good overview of what is required and available as content for the CIF (including licensing support), please refer to the following:
https://brewmobileplatform.qualcomm.com/devnet/docviewer.jsp?method=show...
Let me know if this information helps to answer your query.
Regards,
Brian

Hi Tim,
For a good overview of what is required and available as content for the CIF (including licensing support), please refer to the following:
https://brewmobileplatform.qualcomm.com/devnet/docviewer.jsp?method=show...
Let me know if this information helps to answer your query.
Regards,
Brian

Hi Brain,
I saw that, but I'm not sure how to integrate it into my .cif file. Is it a ModRsc or SysRsc? I was guessing SysRsc, but the licensing parameters don't seem to fit into the format. Or am I supposed to create 3 different resources that specify the License Type, Price Type and Expire separately? It's not clear to me how to format the script.
I have a feeling this is wrong:
SysRsc {
type = AEECLSID_LICENSE,
id = AEECLSID_MYAPP,
Type = LT_USES,
Price = PT_PURCHASE,
Expire = 5,
}
Could this be the correct way?
SysRsc {
type = AEECLSID_LICENSE,
id = "Type",
data = LT_USES,
}
SysRsc {
type = AEECLSID_LICENSE,
id = "Price",
data = PT_PURCHASE,
}
SysRsc {
type = AEECLSID_LICENSE,
id = "Expire",
data = 5,
}
Can you give me a better clue as to how to do this? We've been kind of flying blind, and this is difficult to test.
Thanks.
Tim

Hi Brain,
I saw that, but I'm not sure how to integrate it into my .cif file. Is it a ModRsc or SysRsc? I was guessing SysRsc, but the licensing parameters don't seem to fit into the format. Or am I supposed to create 3 different resources that specify the License Type, Price Type and Expire separately? It's not clear to me how to format the script.
I have a feeling this is wrong:
SysRsc {
type = AEECLSID_LICENSE,
id = AEECLSID_MYAPP,
Type = LT_USES,
Price = PT_PURCHASE,
Expire = 5,
}
Could this be the correct way?
SysRsc {
type = AEECLSID_LICENSE,
id = "Type",
data = LT_USES,
}
SysRsc {
type = AEECLSID_LICENSE,
id = "Price",
data = PT_PURCHASE,
}
SysRsc {
type = AEECLSID_LICENSE,
id = "Expire",
data = 5,
}
Can you give me a better clue as to how to do this? We've been kind of flying blind, and this is difficult to test.
Thanks.
Tim

*Update*
So when I tried both of the 2 methods I mentioned above, I get the following error when running cifc.exe:
C:\Project>"%BREWMP_TOOLSET%"\bin\cifc -mif myapp.mif -I "%BREWMP_PLATFORM%"\system\inc -I "%BREWMP_PLATFORM%"\addons\inc -I "%BREWMP_PLATFORM%"\networking\inc -I "%BREWMP_PLATFORM%"\ui\inc -I "%BREWMP_PLATFORM%"\media\inc myapp.cif
myapp.cif:96: error: cound't find include file: AEE_static.h included in: C:\Program Files\Qualcomm\Brew MP SDK\Platforms\1.0.2.410\platform\system\inc/AEE.h
Basically, it appears that if I include "AEELicense.h" at all, I will have this problem. Since AEE.h is included by default, and it needs to include AEE_static.h... since there is no file called AEE_static.h, I am stuck.
So apparently I'm running into multiple problems.
Any advice?
Thanks.
Tim

*Update*
So when I tried both of the 2 methods I mentioned above, I get the following error when running cifc.exe:
C:\Project>"%BREWMP_TOOLSET%"\bin\cifc -mif myapp.mif -I "%BREWMP_PLATFORM%"\system\inc -I "%BREWMP_PLATFORM%"\addons\inc -I "%BREWMP_PLATFORM%"\networking\inc -I "%BREWMP_PLATFORM%"\ui\inc -I "%BREWMP_PLATFORM%"\media\inc myapp.cif
myapp.cif:96: error: cound't find include file: AEE_static.h included in: C:\Program Files\Qualcomm\Brew MP SDK\Platforms\1.0.2.410\platform\system\inc/AEE.h
Basically, it appears that if I include "AEELicense.h" at all, I will have this problem. Since AEE.h is included by default, and it needs to include AEE_static.h... since there is no file called AEE_static.h, I am stuck.
So apparently I'm running into multiple problems.
Any advice?
Thanks.
Tim

Hi Tim,
Firstly, what you want to do it to define something like this under Applet:
Applet {
appletid = 0x102ce0e,
resbaseid = 20,
applethostid = 0,
privs = {
},
type = 0,
flags = 0x0,

License Type, Price Type and Expire should not be defined separately. To keep this in sync, I would recommend using the Resource Manager (see related documentation) and have it generate the cif for you directly (you can also compile into mif from that tool as well). The command line compilation errors may be environment related, so I may have to dig into this a little deeper. Give this a try and see where you get.
Thanks,
Brian

Hi Tim,
Firstly, what you want to do it to define something like this under Applet:
Applet {
appletid = 0x102ce0e,
resbaseid = 20,
applethostid = 0,
privs = {
},
type = 0,
flags = 0x0,

License Type, Price Type and Expire should not be defined separately. To keep this in sync, I would recommend using the Resource Manager (see related documentation) and have it generate the cif for you directly (you can also compile into mif from that tool as well). The command line compilation errors may be environment related, so I may have to dig into this a little deeper. Give this a try and see where you get.
Thanks,
Brian

Hi Brian,
Thank you for your reply.
The Resource Manager is actually where my problems begin. I have a .mfx file with the licensing information included, but when I import this into the Resource Manager, this information is skipped. Because of this, I am in the position of attempting to include this manually.
Here is the line in myapp.mfx that is being skipped:
For reference, I am using SDK 7.6 to attempt this.
Since this is not working, I am forced to use the manual process which I am having trouble getting to compile the .mif from the .cif. After manually changing the .cif file to what I have tried to enter into the file before, I am now trying to use the Resource Manager to compile the .mif from the .cif. When I try to open the .cif file in the Resource Manager, there is a window that pops up that says "Unused files and directories included in the file will be removed." When I click on the "Source" button on the bottom of the Resource Manager screen, I can see that the licensing information that I had entered is indeed not in the .cif file anymore. It was removed automatically, I gather, because the tool didn't understand the context.
Unless someone can tell me the exact lines I need to enter in the .cif, I am just working on trial and error, and not able to complete this project because of the errors I receive.
Thank you,
Tim

Hi Brian,
Thank you for your reply.
The Resource Manager is actually where my problems begin. I have a .mfx file with the licensing information included, but when I import this into the Resource Manager, this information is skipped. Because of this, I am in the position of attempting to include this manually.
Here is the line in myapp.mfx that is being skipped:
For reference, I am using SDK 7.6 to attempt this.
Since this is not working, I am forced to use the manual process which I am having trouble getting to compile the .mif from the .cif. After manually changing the .cif file to what I have tried to enter into the file before, I am now trying to use the Resource Manager to compile the .mif from the .cif. When I try to open the .cif file in the Resource Manager, there is a window that pops up that says "Unused files and directories included in the file will be removed." When I click on the "Source" button on the bottom of the Resource Manager screen, I can see that the licensing information that I had entered is indeed not in the .cif file anymore. It was removed automatically, I gather, because the tool didn't understand the context.
Unless someone can tell me the exact lines I need to enter in the .cif, I am just working on trial and error, and not able to complete this project because of the errors I receive.
Thank you,
Tim

Hi Tim,
An update for you. I just found out that licensing is not supported in the CIF. What you will be required to do is to use a License Editing tool. Unfortunately this is not yet available on the Brew MP website. It is however available on the Classic Brew Developer Extranet. If you have an account there, please visit the following link:
https://brewx.qualcomm.com/bws/content/docx/products/licenseedit/1.1/1.1...
If you unable to access this link, please contact your Qualcomm Account Manager and request that such access be granted. Please let me know if you still have issues.
Regards,
Brian

Hi Tim,
An update for you. I just found out that licensing is not supported in the CIF. What you will be required to do is to use a License Editing tool. Unfortunately this is not yet available on the Brew MP website. It is however available on the Classic Brew Developer Extranet. If you have an account there, please visit the following link:
https://brewx.qualcomm.com/bws/content/docx/products/licenseedit/1.1/1.1...
If you unable to access this link, please contact your Qualcomm Account Manager and request that such access be granted. Please let me know if you still have issues.
Regards,
Brian

Hi Brian,
This did not work for me, so I had to resort to older methods.
For reference, my app is built on BREW 3.1.5 but I need to compile a .cif file to add some lines that have to do with Brew MP licensing. I was told that this would work. There was no way for me to test that the new lines worked, but the new generated .mif file seemed to work ok and the OEM hasn't complained yet.
This was all an exercise to test our app with the licensing information included in the newly generated .mif file, but the tool you sent me didn't work for this. I assume that this was because of the extra lines I needed to include in the .cif, but I don't know this for sure. The new .mif with the licensing info added did not show the desired results when we ran this on the handset.
In any case, we just ended up testing using the legacy BREW mif format so there was no issue with adding the licensing paramaters in the legacy MIF Editor.
I'm hesitant to convert my app to Brew MP because of this issue, because it would seem that we wouldn't be able to test the license funtionality with a demo version and unlocking the full app. Can this be rectified for the future?
Thanks for your help.
Tim

Hi Brian,
This did not work for me, so I had to resort to older methods.
For reference, my app is built on BREW 3.1.5 but I need to compile a .cif file to add some lines that have to do with Brew MP licensing. I was told that this would work. There was no way for me to test that the new lines worked, but the new generated .mif file seemed to work ok and the OEM hasn't complained yet.
This was all an exercise to test our app with the licensing information included in the newly generated .mif file, but the tool you sent me didn't work for this. I assume that this was because of the extra lines I needed to include in the .cif, but I don't know this for sure. The new .mif with the licensing info added did not show the desired results when we ran this on the handset.
In any case, we just ended up testing using the legacy BREW mif format so there was no issue with adding the licensing paramaters in the legacy MIF Editor.
I'm hesitant to convert my app to Brew MP because of this issue, because it would seem that we wouldn't be able to test the license funtionality with a demo version and unlocking the full app. Can this be rectified for the future?
Thanks for your help.
Tim

Hi Tim,
Thanks for the input on this issue. I have escalated this issue to our Prod Management team and they are working on making sure that this is addressed in future kit enhancements. We do realize that others will more than likely run into the same situation, therefore this must be addressed. Again, sorry for all this confusion. We look forward to your adoption of Brew MP as your defacto platform moving forward. We also understand that tool availability and usefulness are key to making such migrations as smooth as possible.
Regards,
Brian

Hi Tim,
Thanks for the input on this issue. I have escalated this issue to our Prod Management team and they are working on making sure that this is addressed in future kit enhancements. We do realize that others will more than likely run into the same situation, therefore this must be addressed. Again, sorry for all this confusion. We look forward to your adoption of Brew MP as your defacto platform moving forward. We also understand that tool availability and usefulness are key to making such migrations as smooth as possible.
Regards,
Brian