Default AdProviderStrategy Problem

Apr 10, 2012 at 8:46 PM


I have download today the latest version.

I'm using the following 

<Ads:AdControl x:Name="AdBasic"                FallbackAdProviderName="MobFox"                IsTest="True">


<Provider:NoneAdProvider />

        <AdDuplex:AdDuplexAdProvider App="xxx" />

         <MobFox:MobFoxAdProvider Publisher="yyy" />

         <Smaato:SmaatoAdProvider AdSpace="zzz"   Publisher="aaa" />




And i see only the adds from MobFox . Why ?

Note that i handle the following events : NoAd,NewAd,AdError,AdEngaged and only thing i get is on NewAd and it comes from MobFox.

I'm expecting rotation i.e. each ad provider get a slice of time to do it's job. Am i missing something ?

Also where can i get documentation regarding e.g. FallbackAdProviderName

Thanks in advanced


Apr 11, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Hi Nathan,


First thing that's important to understand is the rotation. It's not rotating for every ad, it's rotating as soon as a certain adprovider doesn't provide an ad. So it could be 5 ads from MobFox before MobFox doesn't have an ad left and then it rotates to the next being Smaato. This is difficult to test with IsTest="True" because most of the AdProviders always show an ad in test-mode.

About the FallbackAdProviderName, it's confusing that's why I'm thinking about deprecating it. The behavior in case of the DefaultAdProviderStrategy is as follows.

1 - The list of AdProvider has the order in which it is put in the xaml. (eg like above: 1-None, 2-AdDuplex, 3-MobFox, 4-Smaato)

2 - If the FallbackAdProviderName is supplied it will be given priority, which makes this specific adprovider being put at the top of the order list. (eg like: 1-MobFox, 2-None, 3-AdDuplex, 4-Smaato)

3 - Rotation Starts with above list, ask MobFox for an Ad, and as long as it is providing an ad it will not rotate.

Hope this helps a little bit. The RemoteAdProvider is a little bit more advanced and support providing a change that will be used to determine the next adprovider in case of no-ad.


Mark Monster

Apr 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM


Hi Mark

I understand now.