Hello! I’m creating native client for immich. Before a start to push builds to storeman, I want to reveal my doubts.
App name
I’m considering two options: Sailmich, following naming of other client apps for SFOS. Or Immich, matching the official app’s name. I would like to continue the “sail*” name tradition, so I prefer Sailmich. I’m not a native english speaker, so maybe this name sounds little strange or silly?
Package name
Is it acceptable to use harbour-* pacakge name for non-jollastore releases?
About nearest plans: I don’t intent to recreate all features of official app, My initial goal is to provide timelines, albums, and syncing local images to server
Does gallery has a plugin support? I doubt it’s allowed to rewrite a standart application to bind it to a third-party service, even opensource. But, system integrated (via account framework) account of Immich server with optional frontend-app with Immich UX seems good. So, patched gallery app can also use this sync service
Yes, definitely, as long as you do not plan to create two functionally different versions, one for the Jolla Store and the other one for OpenRepos etc. But please note, that Jolla Store restrictions may easily result in exactly this requirement, if you intend to publish for the Jolla Store at all. If you create two functionally different versions, IMO it is best to clearly denote that by using two different package names, one with the harbour- prefix for the Jolla Store and an unrestricted one without this prefix. Except for this prefix, I also believe it is best to use exactly the same package name and versioning scheme in order to avoid confusion.
If you do not plan to ever distribute your app via the Jolla Store, you might drop the harbour- prefix, because it is simply superfluous.
Hello. In this week, maybe next. I’m finishing up albums pages. I wanted to publish already all “read only surfing account” features for photos at once to public test, but it is more complicated, that i thought
Thank you in advance from the native app <3
