I have a large solution with a lot of different libraries in and they are used in various solutions. Is it possible to obfuscate and replace the Dll directly before they are copied to projects that reference them, instead of using a separate directory as output?
Related
I am new to Android Studio and trying to understand how it works. I have a project which is a mixed code base (C++ and Java) and trying to convert that to an Android Studio project.
As of now, I am building my app from command line because my app is currently not using any IDE, it is made up of multiple folders. I was wondering if I should be structuring my project such that every module creates a .so file? In another words should I have:
One module and multiple folder under it
Multiple modules
Does every module create one .so file or multiple .so files?
This depends on the size and complexity of your project. One advantage of having multiple shared libraries (.so files) is that if you make binary-compatible changes in one area of the codebase, you don't have to recompile your entire project. You can just rebuild the module which you made changes in, and the dependent modules will link to the updated library.
If your project is quite large and rebuilding everything takes a long time, this can be a big timesaver. If you want to be able to reuse certain modules in other projects without having to pull in all the code from this project, it would make sense to separate into modules.
Splitting your C++ code into multiple modules does add some complexity to the build (and the syntax to specify C++ builds keeps changing on top of that), so you'll want to take that into account when you decide.
I am building a project on Github written in Objective-C. It resolves MAC addresses down to manufacturer details. The lookup table is currently stored as text file manuf.txt (from the Wireshark project), which is parsed at run-time, which is costly. I would prefer to compile this down to archived objects at build-time, and load that instead.
I would like to amend the build phases such that I:
Build a simple compiler
Run the compiler, parsing manuf.txt and outputting archived objects
Build the framework
Copy the archived objects into the framwork
I am looking for wisdom on how to achieve steps 1 and 2 using Xcode v7.3 as Xcode provides only a Copy Files phase or a Run Script phase. An example of other projects achieving similar goals would be inspiring.
I suspect that what you are asking is possible, but tricky. The reason is that you will need to write a bunch of class files and then dynamically add them to the project.
Firstly you will need to employ a run script phase to run various tools from the command line to parse your file and generate a number of class files from it. I would suggest looking into various templating engines. For example appledoc uses moustache templates to generate API documentation files. You could use the same technique to generate header and implementation files.
Next, rather than generating archived objects an trying to import into a framework. I think you may be better off generating raw source code, adding it to a project and compiling into a framework. Probably simpler in the long run.
To automatically include the generated code I would look into (which means I haven't actually tried this :-) adding a folder reference to the project rather than an Xcode group. Folder references are an option in the 'Add files to ...' dialog.
Folder references refer to a directory and automatically add the entire contents of that directory to a project. So you can use one to point to the directory where you have generated the source code. This is a much better option than trying to manipulate the project or injecting things into an established framework.
I would prefer to parse the file at runtime. After launch you can look for an already existing output, otherwise parse it one time.
However, I have to do something similar at Objective-Cloud. I simply added a run script build phase and put the compiler call into it.
There is code that I want to include in most of my projects. Things like AFNetworking, categories for CoreData and unit testing, etc.
It seems logical to include all of these in a static library, and then use it in each project. I've noticed though, that many third-party libraries (like AFNetworking, and it's predecessor ASIHTTP) are included in projects by copying over all of their source files and then manually linking the necessary libraries to the project target.
This seems to me like the easiest way. It took a fair amount of time to figure out how to include an existing static library into a project. Even after I knew how, it still seems like a pain to do it for every new project. Also, the header search paths that you specify are to a local directory with the static library's files. Wouldn't it be easier, and is there a way, to copy the static library's files into the project? This is the same idea as including the class files directly like most libraries seem to do already, but it would be more organized because everything would be lumped into one library project, instead of having class files everywhere and having to include every one of them.
Static libraries feel like they should be the right way to go. Make a library that can be used with all projects that includes classes that every project will need. Makes sense. I am just conflicted because it seems like the right way to go is to leave everything out of a 'formal' library, and just copy over all of the class files instead.
I guess I am just looking for what experienced developers find to be the best option.
I would be among the first to admit that the process of referencing a static library in Xcode is not entirely intuitive. However, using a static library is the best option, without a doubt.
The main reason is maintainability: when you copy source code of a library to many places, you must remember to update all of them to the latest code when you upgrade to the next version of the library. This may be a rather error-prone process, especially when the underlying library source changes significantly (e.g. new files are added, old files are renamed, etc.)
There's a halfway solution - make an XCode project that builds your static library from source and put that into a shared repository (ie.. git submodule etc) which is included from each project's main repository.
Each of your projects would include this submodule and project. Then they get the latest source code each time they pull that submodule. If you set this up as a build dependency it will build a static library the first time you build and then XCode is smart enough just to include it each subsequent build so you get the benefit of fast build times.
You also get the advantage of having the source right there for stepping though / debugging.
If it's in a separate XCode project and a new version of a library adds or removes a source file you would only need to change that shared project - all your individual projects wouldn't change at all.
What about using CocoaPods? This tool does exactly what you want in a declarative way: you have a file (Podfile) where you declare your dependencies, and the tool downloads all the dependencies and builds a static library that gets added to your project.
I would agree that static libraries feel like they might be the correct way to go for a number of reasons, but can also introduce some issues.
The positives would be creating an easy way to add a library to a project. Although not completely intuitive, it is rather trivial to add a static library to a project after one does it a few times. Add the files, add the search path, done. This could also be useful in certain source control situations. Also, updating a library may be easier.
I think the real problem here is for the open source community. By including, say AFNetworking, for example, as a static library, you lose all access to the implementation files. This is a great feature of including source rather than a library. It lets you change code to how you see fit, and hopefully give back.
Which choices I have to build a VS2008 solution for different target frameworks, with only "one click"? I need to build for .net-2.0 and netcf-2.0.
The problem is that I need referencing different libraries for netcf-2.0.
I tried to do this with nant, but that seems to be a complicated task.
I don't use different build configurations.
When I did this I created a separate project for the CF version. Inside the CF version the Compile property group uses links to all the original source files.
The CF and full-framework libraries are covered by independent projects. Each project can have an independent set of post-build or pre-build tasks, an independent set of references, a distinct set of #defined symbols, etc.
In my case, not all code used in the full-framework version of the library gets compiled for the CF version. Using partial classes, I factor the code used only for the full-framework version into separate modules, and I don't add links for those source files into the CF project.
You could do the equivalent by using #if statements, and defining a CF symbol (or similar) in the .csproj file for the CF project.
Keep different projects in a single solution with the same file list targeted to different framework versions.
Or group projects/solution by framework version.
Have you tried creating separate build configurations for each of the target frameworks?
For example, copy your Debug config and modify to your matching conditions and name it as FrameWork_2_0 and so on...
And now you can simply call an MSBuild/NAnt task on your solution once for each configuration
I have 2 .net dll's which I expose to COM using REGASM. In order to simplify referencing within a COM client I would like to make these into one file.
I have tried converting both files to IDL and then copying the contents of the Library section of one into the other and then compiling back to .tlb with MIDL. This works fine for the TypeDefs within the second IDL however it seems to fail when it comes to the interfaces I copied in. OLE/COM viewer can see the interface definitions but when I try and use the TLB via COM it cant find the interfaces that I copied in.
I wanted to make sure before I spend too much time on this, that it is actually possible to meagre IDL's in this way.
Could you use ILMerge to first combine the .NET assemblies and then use REGASM on the resulting assembly?
ILMerge is a utility for merging
multiple .NET assemblies into a single
.NET assembly. It works on executables
and DLLs alike and comes with several
options for controlling the processing
and format of the output.
I don't see an obvious way this would fail. You said you merged the library sections but you didn't say you copy-pasted the interface declarations from the other .idl. That would be an obvious, but unlikely, explanation.
One failure mode is when the client app uses the type library to marshal interface pointers across apartment boundaries or out-of-process. That however requires registry keys in HKCR\Interfaces. .NET doesn't create them, you'd have to do that yourself. You'd know if you did, not much of an explanation either.
Ok so it turns out that the issues I was experiencing were not related to merging the idl's.
If you wish to merge to idl's you can do so by simply copying the content of a library section in one idl into another. Then run midl on the merged file to turn it into a tlb.