I have a BIG project in IDEA (basically the trunk of my company source code), but I need to work only on one of the "modules" (not sure how to call those). Is there a way I could export/create from/in IDEA a smaller project with the part of trunk I'm interested in? It's pretty self-contained, there should be dependencies only on 1 or 2 other projects in trunk.
There is no automatic option to extract a part of a project. You should create a new project from the existing sources, it will contain only required modules with content roots set to the parts of the bigger project and dependencies configured between them.
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.
Moving to intellij i'm trying to understand properly the logic behind the its project structure. I come from eclipse. After reading for a while i understood the relation between workspace and project, then between project and modules. However something that is puzzling me is the logic of the default project configuration in Intellij. Indeed, when you create a project there is an initial module which to a certain extend is equivalent to the Project itself. To be more precise, the initial module folder is the Project folder. This is kind of confusing to me. Then when you add more module they are sub-module of that module.
My first question is what is the rationale of making this first module equivalent to the project folder ?
Following this, i would further ask, what the point of having modules as sub-module of others.
In eclipse i use to have simply different project (i.e. module) independent from each other and adding the dependency as necessary. So how does the Idea solution makes it better, if not what is the rational here ?
I saw that one can start an empty project and then add modules to it. However in that case, the modules added are added as subfolder of the Project and therefore there is no initial module equivalent to the Project folder ? So why this difference and what is the rationale behind it ?
What would be the better approach, the first or second ?
Would it be ok to have this first initial module with no src or test folder but just with the proper facet so as to spread it to the sub-module?
I would appreciate if someone could explain a bit the rational of all of it ?
I will move to SBT soon (i.e. maven structure which I suppose inspired all modern IDE project Structure) if one want to explain within that context fine, nevertheless i want to understand the rationale in intelliJ first.
Many thanks,
-M-
PS: What i'm looking for is some advise for some multi-module project structure in Intellij as i'm moving my eclipse workspaces to it.
I think that it's not uncommon for projects to be relatively small, so they don't need fancy modules with dependency management etc. In that case, I find the default project created by IntelliJ to fit perfectly my needs: no need to add submodules, everything is directly in the parent project, it reduces the structure to its bare minimum.
On the other hand, big projects with submodules will likely resemble the structure of a Maven multimodule project (perhaps SBT too, but I don't know this tool at all). You have a parent root which acts as a container for submodules. The parent project may also store configuration (a default SDK, a language level etc. that will be inherited by the submodules). The actual code will be contained in the submodules.
Regarding your questions, it all depends on the kind of project you are developing. For a small codebase, you could keep a simple project with no submodule. For bigger codebases, you can either create modules manually, or import an existing Maven/SBT/whatever project, which will automatically create modules reflecting the imported structure.
I just banged my head for a while and figured out a solution, but I want to make sure that I'm doing things right and that I actually know what I'm doing (I'm pretty sure I never know what I'm doing :)
I have two projects that I've been working on, each offering different functionality. I want one project (A) to be able to use the functionality of the other (B). I tried going about it by creating a workspace and putting both projects into it, but I couldn't "see" project B's files from project A (autocomplete after #import did work, but it gave a compiler error). So I tried adding it as a "sub-project" and found the same. I figured this would be easy, but guess not.
What I ended up doing was creating a new project (C) as a "Cocoa Touch Static Library" project, and put my files from Project B into it. I built it.
I then went back to project A and added project C into it as a sub-project.
Then I added the path on the filesystem of project C into the User Header Search Paths setting under Build Settings of project A.
Then I added the .a file from Project C into the Link Binary with Libraries section of Project A.
Then it worked.
But honestly I have no idea what the meaning of a static library is.
Is all this necessary? Or is there an easier way to just integrate two projects (without me having to copy the files from one project to another)?
Thanks in advance!
Jon
You were on the right track with workspaces. What I do is have three projects in the workspace. One with no targets just to hold the generic classes. A second for my iOS target Project. And a third for mac. Keep the original files in the one with no target, then drag the files to the other two projects that creates references, so when you edit one it changes all three.
There are often conflicts in the Xcode project file (Project.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj) when merging branches (I'm using git). Sometimes it's easy, but at times I end up with a corrupt project file and have to revert. In the worst case I have to fix up the project file manually in a second commit (which can be squashed with the previous) by dragging in files etc.
Does anyone have tips for how to handle merge conflicts in big and complex files like the Xcode project file?
EDIT-- Some related questions:
Git and pbxproj
Should I merge .pbxproj files with git using merge=union?
RESOURCES:
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/xmldiffmerge
http://www2.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~obecker/XSLT/#merge
http://tdm.berlios.de/3dm/doc/thesis.pdf
http://www.cs.hut.fi/~ctl/3dm/
http://el4j.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/el4j/trunk/el4j/framework/modules/xml_merge/
Break your projects up into smaller, more logical libraries/packages. Massive projects are regularly the sign of a bad design, like the object that does way too much or is way too large.
Design for easy rebuilding -- this also helps if you're writing programs which must be built by multiple tools or IDEs. Many of my 'projects' can be reconstructed by adding one directory.
Remove extraneous build phases. Example: I've removed the "Copy Headers" build phase from all projects. Explicitly include the specific files via the include directive.
Use xcconfig files wherever possible. This also reduces the number of changes you must make when updating your builds. xcconfig files define a collection of build settings, and support #include. Of course, you then delete the (majority of) user defined settings from each project and target when you define the xcconfig to use.
For target dependencies: create targets which perform logical operations, rather than physical operations. This is usually a shell script target or aggregate target. For example: "build dependencies", "run all unit tests", "build all", "clean all". then you do not have to maintain every dependency change every step of a way - it's like using references.
Define a common "Source Tree" for your code, and a second for 3rd party sources.
There are external build tools available. This may be an option for you (at least, for some of your targets).
At this point, a xcodeproj will be much simpler. It will require fewer changes, and be very easy to reconstruct. You can go much further with these concepts to further reduce the complexity of your projects and builds.
You might want to try https://github.com/simonwagner/mergepbx/
It is a script that will help you to merge Xcode project files correctly. Note that it is still alpha.
Disclaimer: I am the author of mergepbx.
The best way I have found is to instruct Git to treat the .pbxproj file as a binary. This prevents messy merges.
Add this to your .gitatributes file:
*.pbxproj -crlf -diff -merge
To compare two Xcode projects open open FileMerge (open xcode and select Xcode (from the manu pane) --> Open developer tools --> FileMerge).
now click "left" button and open xcode project main directory.
click "right" button and open xcode project main directory to compare.
Now click "merge" button!
Thats it!
Another option to consider which may help to reduce the number of times you experience the problem. To explain, I'll call the branch that team members' branches come from the "develop" branch.
Have a convention in your team that when the project file is modified, the changes (along with any other changes required to ensure the build integrity) are committed in a separate commit. That commit is then cherry picked onto the develop branch. Other team members who plan to modify the project file in their branch can then either cherry pick into their branch or rebase their branch on the latest develop. This approach requires communication across the team and some discipline. As I said, it won't always be possible; on some projects it might help a lot and on some projects it might not.
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?