Should Pebble Clay still be used for setting watchface settings?
It seems to be unmaintained. My understanding is that it was preferred over having to host a dedicated website for the settings, many of which no longer work for past apps.
Clay currently is still unmaintained AFAIK, but it does still work for simple configs, and is probably the easiest/best solution if you donât have a lot of complex settings.
Since Clay is fairly limited, a lot of watchfaces/apps went for hosted config pages even while it existed. Now that the SDK is under active development again, Iâd love to see some effort toward building a config solution that didnât rely on URL-data-encoding hacks like Clay does!
Personally Iâd like it if there was the ability for a watchface/app to embed static HTML content to function as a config page. (A newer and better Clay-like framework could be built on top of such an addition fairly easily.) I wrote a thing about it here at one point:
1 Like
Same as above, but I do think itâs worth considering what your configuration options will be. I use it for a lot of settings in my app but theyâre all stuff like Checkboxes for categories, language selection, text size, toggles to turn on features.
I quite like it and even though itâs out of date I think itâs still very usable and worthwhile to consider. If you arenât getting too far out of âon or offâ or âone of a fewâ, it probably works.
There is a fork that might have renewed interested from Rebbleâs perspective so it might come back to life yet, I hope
2 Likes
My source told me the plan is to include Clay by defaultâŚ
Make sense, I mean many apps could benefit from having settings so having a default built-in setting page would simplify apps/watchfaces developpement a lot.