Welcome to Cemetech! Yes, there will be a Doors CSE 9 / Doors CE 10 / whatever it will be called. No, it is not yet available, as we're trying to determine if it's worth continuing to fight to make it an App or to make it a regular RAM assembly program. I hope you'll stick around and stay informed, though, and while you're here, grab the excellent TI-84 Plus CE games our members have already published.

Doors CSE offers headers for both ASM and BASIC programs that hide those programs from Doors CSE. The purpose is to keep subprograms that you don't run (ie, components of larger programs) off the desktop.

I downloaded TI Connect on my computer and I had some problems.
1) The calculator explorer didn't do anything when I tried to add programs from my computer and
2) The Doors CSE file I downloaded was a .8ck file, but the program editor (which I have confirmed CAN transfer programs to my calculator) only accepts .8xp files.

What should I do?

That's normal - Doors CSE is written in assembly (not BASIC), so you can't open it with the program editor. You'll want to press Ctrl+M (or go to the Actions menu -> Add Files from Computer...) then find your Doors CSE file to send it to your calculator.

Is there any specific date or time we need to wait until we can download Doors CE?

Doors 10 is good.

Additionally, can some features that will be on the CE be available to an extent on the CSE?

No, we are still waiting on some things from TI.

Things which may very well never be delivered.

Nope; you'll get updates here if you keep an eye on the forum.
No.
No, for reasons including the limitations of the CSE, the no doubt dwindling users of the platform, and the fact that most of the features already exist on the CSE.

I don't think that's right. It doesn't harm TI to provide a way to build flashapps for the community. Heck, they could give us a toolchain with the signing keys built in so they don't even have to make them public.

Why haven't they yet? No clue, but I trust that it will happen.

That would precisely be making the signing keys public...

(no spoiler tag for folding a text block by default ? At least yAronet and TI-Planet have that sometimes desirable feature)

We've already had this discussion many times before. In the eyes of us programmers and users, caring about fellow programmers and users, making the signing keys publicly available is obviously the correct thing to do, for expanding the platforms' usability, making them even better than competitors' platforms, and selling more.
In the eyes of some standardized testing regulation authorities, things are different. Openness (out of the box, or forced) is a curse which might, you never know, ease tampering with exams. I have first-hand experience with scaring one of the major standardized testing regulation authorities to death (out of their sheer incompetence), and therefore scaring TI EdTech top management... in fact, the closer contacts between multiple members of the TI-Planet staff and TI EdTech, are partially a byproduct of that experience (which came in the same timeframe as someone's attempt - I have no clue whether I'm supposed to name him publicly - to create contacts between TI EdTech and some community members interested in Nspire Lua). Later, our contacts paved the way for (positive, AFAICT) consequences such as contacts between Kerm and TI EdTech.

Look at things another way:
* the Nspire series has consistently been a closed platform series since 2007;
* the '2013 84+CSE is still waiting for an official SDK which, by now, will probably never come to be - to date, the 84+CSE's OS hasn't been updated with some of the bugfixes brought by TI-eZ80 OS 5.1, and few of us think the 84+CSE isn't abandoned;
* the '2015 82A is a severely crippled 84+ (non-SE) which doesn't even have any kind of support for third-party FlashApps or ASM programs (granted, it has at least one arbitrary code execution 0-day, but still - TI effectively created the first closed TI-Z80 platform).
I can't understand how anyone can seriously believe TI's going to provide the TI-eZ80 FlashApp signing key...

There are other workable ways for TI to enable third-party FlashApp development, though they would be less than ideal. We TI-Planet admins wrote details about that to TI EdTech top-level management, as a workaround, in case they don't want to publish the signing key.
As I already wrote multiple times I'm not really hopeful they'll do that for real, but I'll be happy to be proved wrong - and for once, I'm going to write something more: I'd thank TI EdTech top-level management for doing the right thing, if that unlikely event occurs.
Put another way: I'm preemptively dashing users' overly high hopes in advance, just in case TI does the wrong thing. Why am I doing that ? Because that's a more constructive behaviour wrt. fellow programmers than (involuntarily) raising hopes by talking about things which will, perhaps, never be delivered in the end. Users will be less angry if they already know their hopes are likely to be dashed than if they get caught out of the blue.
If TI does the right thing, some users will blame me for incorrectly preemptively dashing their hopes - and what ? My community karma will hardly suffer from something so insignificant, as long as I keep helping out on IRC and message boards, working on libti*, bringing suggestions for Mateo's TI-eZ80 library efforts, etc.

If it's embedded into the toolchain without some way to read them separately, they're not public because we don't know them, but I see what you mean.



This makes sense if say, you can put a CAS OS on a non-CAS calculator, but there is no CAS OS here. If TI thinks that the presence on 3rd party apps changes testing eligibility, they are mistaken. They can also use Press-to-Test, anyways.



This is not relevant. The Nspire is not on the same level as the (e)z80s because of the CAS OS existence (and the OS hack thereof). The CE is the CSE that TI made after the programmers and teachers complained, so of course they are dropping support for it. The original TI-82 wasn't meant to have assembly in the first place.



So what? If TI dashes our hopes, they dash our hopes. Optimism and speculation are part of the fun, imo.



This has no place in this topic.

+

Not a full-blown CAS, but an exact math engine on the 83PCE, which is not supposed to be used on the 84+CE(-T) model...


And if their customers (read: the standardized testing regulation authorities) say so ?


The original TI-82 not being the model which has that explicit Send(9prgm easter egg in its ROM, you mean ?

App Signing keys still aren't OS keys. If the testing authorities are that stupid, then TI can inform them properly, and I misread the TI-82 docs I used as reference.

OK, I'm finally back on deck and will *hopefully* have some more time to code .

Kerm: I was wondering if you would be able to outline your thoughts on how you envisage hybrid hooks operating?

At present for testing I just have a code stub at the bottom of the stack that will locate the lib in memory and jump to it if it exists. I figured this was safe for testing given the size of the stack on the CE ... though not always an ideal solution - I'm sure a more elegant solution will be required for release. Still the majority of the work is in porting over and testing all of the functions.

I have at least completed the tilemap, sprite and line routines.

I *was* working on a getkey replacement, though I'm not sure where I was up to with it.

Good luck with xLIBCE, tr1p1ea, I'm getting into the parts of C2CSE (do I call it C2CE now?) that work with sprites, for which I noticed I use the TEMPBUFFER + NNN construct from xLIBCE. That reminded me that you had your work cut out for you with xLIBCE, so I wanted to check in on you and it.