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.
Related
I am writing a very basic library in VB.NET
The library just contains classes and modules.
Now in built output I see this files
Application.Designer.vb
Application.myapp
AssemblyInfo.vb
Resources.Designer.vb
Resources.resx
Settings.Designer.vb
Settings.settings
Since I've seen other libraries with only AssemblyInfo.vb file, I was wondering if I can delete the rest.
What is the minimum of files I need here for the lib to work correctly, since I don't have any ressource or setting?
All the files you listed are necessary for a vb.net library project. And these files are generated (in My Project folder) when the project created not the build output files. So you need to keep all the files you listed in order to develop and build your project locally.
And for the files of build output, you can add these files in .gitignore.
When you create a project in VS, you select a predefined template that dictates what gets created. People often become accustomed to seeing the superfluous objects that a given template creates and assume that those objects are mandatory and must be there, However, much of it is not needed.
There is also the Empty Project template (the exact name of this template varies depending on the VS version used).
In VS2017, selection of the template would look like this:
This is a bare-bones project and the Solution Explorer will look like this:
As you can see, there are no pre-loaded references. You will need to add them yourself. About the only thing defined in this template is that you are using the VB language; This project starts out as a WinForm type, so go to the Project Properties->Application tab and change the "Application type" to "Class Library" since you want to create a library.
You may find it useful to start with an Empty Project and add the stuff you normally use and then export the project as new template (in VS2017: Project Menu->Export Template). For more on creating termplates, see: Creating Project and Item Templates
Edit: I just realized that I did not answer your real question about deleting the unused items. I just did a test case and deleted the items under MyProject. I received an error on deletion, but doing a clean/rebuild allowed me to proceed without issues. I would recommend that you backup the project before attempting this on an existing project, but I saw no long term issues in deleting unneeded objects from MyProject.
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.
This question is about the project command and, by extension, what the concept of a project means in cmake. I genuinely don't understand what a project is, and how it differs from a target (which I do understand, I think).
I had a look at the cmake documentation for the project command, and it says that the project command does this:
Set a name, version, and enable languages for the entire project.
It should go without saying that using the word project to define project is less than helpful.
Nowhere on the page does it seem to explain what a project actually is (it goes through some of the things the command does, but doesn't say whether that list is exclusive or not). The cmake.org examples take us through a basic build setup, and while it uses the project keyword it also doesn't explain what it does or means, at least not as far as I can tell.
What is a project? And what does the project command do?
A project logically groups a number of targets (that is, libraries, executables and custom build steps) into a self-contained collection that can be built on its own.
In practice that means, if you have a project command in a CMakeLists.txt, you should be able to run CMake from that file and the generator should produce something that is buildable. In most codebases, you will only have a single project per build.
Note however that you may nest multiple projects. A top-level project may include a subdirectory which is in turn another self-contained project. In this case, the project command introduces additional scoping for certain values. For example, the PROJECT_BINARY_DIR variable will always point to the root binary directory of the current project. Compare this with CMAKE_BINARY_DIR, which always points to the binary directory of the top-level project. Also note that certain generators may generate additional files for projects. For example, the Visual Studio generators will create a .sln solution file for each subproject.
Use sub-projects if your codebase is very complex and you need users to be able to build certain components in isolation. This gives you a very powerful mechanism for structuring the build system. Due to the increased coding and maintenance overhead required to make the several sub-projects truly self-contained, I would advise to only go down that road if you have a real use case for it. Splitting the codebase into different targets should always be the preferred mechanism for structuring the build, while sub-projects should be reserved for those rare cases where you really need to make a subset of targets self-contained.
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.
An iPad project I have been working on has become bloated with a huge number of files. The application is a prototype and we are considering ways to prevent this when we rewrite it.
One of the members of our team suggests dividing all of the components into separate Xcode projects which will be included in a master Xcode project.
Is this a good idea? What are the reasons, if any, to avoid dividing features/components/controls into separate Xcode projects?
You can add a subsidiary project file to a master project file in Xcode. Just choose "Add File" and add it. When Xcode builds the master it will build the subsidiary as well if needed.
I use a similar system. I often break a project into sub projects just so I can focus on and enforce encapsulation. I write the data model first, then add the app delegate, then specific UI elements. I add each project to the next in turn. This also allows me to go back and change things without as much risk of breaking.
Really, a properly designed objective-c app should be easy to decompose into multiple project. Ideally, all the components are so encapsulate that they don't need any others save the data model.
We have put some of the code in its own project, building a framework which we link against at some of the other projects. It's sometimes annoying that you won't see the implementation files of the framework code right away in another project (by cmd+clicking or cmd+shift+D, or whatever you do normally to navigate). Xcode will only show you the header, you'll have to open the other project and find your file there manually. Not a big deal, but if you look up the code often, it will bother you.
A real problem is that you change the scope of some operations. Stuff like "Find in project" will work on a different file set, which might not be what you want sometimes (trying to find where this method is called / key is used in your whole code, or something); well, there remains Finder / find, so it might be okay. Refactoring is not - all the renaming stuff just breaks, as it will change only the code of the current project, but not of projects referencing this one. If you change interfaces often, better avoid splitting up the project.
A good thing is that you will get less conflicts on your .xcodeproj files (if stored in a shared repository) as someone removing a file from project X won't create a conflict with someone else adding a target on project Y, which where previously the same .xcodeproj (not exactly sure this is a conflict case, but there definitely are some).
Now with Xcode4 you can create a workspace and add all your projects there. Only for documentation purpose :)
To view and modify subproject implementation files, you should add the sub projects directly into the main project.
1 step - Drag and drop the .xcode project files to main project.
2 step - Go to main project TARGETS - > Build Phases. Add subproject target in Target Dependencies. You can also add binary files in Link Binary With Libraries.
3 step - Add subproject source path to main projects header search path.
Go to main project - > Build Settings - > Header Search Paths (e.g $(SRCROOT)/../CoconutKit-master/CoconutKit/Sources )
An Xcode project can have any number of build targets within it, and you can arbitrarily group source files into folders. What makes you think that multiple projects are necessary?