I should have said, "statically linked code isn't really doing anything *differently*"
Kris On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Kristopher Micinski <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm still confused for two reasons: > > - I've made the jar approach work before, and intuitively statically > linked code shouldn't really be doing anything as long as you're not > making references to the resources classes. > > - Why do you think you have to distribute code with an Android library > project? You can just remove (everything in) the src/ directory and > distribute it that way, no source required. > > I'm not sure why your previous approach wasn't working: I'd have to > see an example of what you're doing to postulate as to why you > couldn't make it work, but in the end everything is bytecode. > > Kris > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:25 PM, RKSHR <[email protected]> wrote: >> The discussion that I started initially was to find out if a service can be >> defined in a jar file (not Android library) and if the jar file can be >> distributed for application developers and if they can bind or start that >> service ? I was simply unable to do it. Ofcourse, the service was declared >> in the application's manifest file. Once I created a Android library and >> defined the service in the library, then it worked fine, but with this >> approach, source code of the library will have to distributed. >> >> RK >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:26:51 PM UTC-8, Kristopher Micinski wrote: >>> >>> If I'm not misreading this discussion, the problem is that every >>> service must explicitly be declared in a manifest file. There is no >>> such thing as implicitly or programmatically creating a service. >>> (This has an unfortunate benefit for would be dynamic scripting >>> languages implemented ala JVM wrapper which might otherwise allow you >>> to have first class components..) >>> >>> This is pretty typical: lots of jars for Android are distributed with >>> the caveat that you need to explicitly declare a certain Service in >>> your Android manifest. >>> >>> And yes, library projects basically allow you to do this for the user >>> using your project, so that they don't have to (as) explicitly set up >>> your components. >>> >>> Kris >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:11 PM, RKSHR <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > I spent some more time and this is what I found so far. >>> > >>> > - An app cannot bind to a service or instantiate a service if the >>> > service is >>> > declared in a jar file (that is not a Android library). Note that I'm >>> > just >>> > building a jar file using javac compiler and jar utility, without the >>> > need >>> > for AndroidManifest xml file. I tried creating a TestService class that >>> > extends Service class and built that into a jar. In a test app, I >>> > imported >>> > the jar file and put a break point in onStart() and onCreate() methods >>> > of >>> > TestService class. In the app I tried calling both bindService and >>> > startService, both of them return a false or a null value and the >>> > debugger >>> > never breaks in onStart() or onCreate(). Both these methods had one >>> > line >>> > implementations with a just a call to their super class like >>> > super.onStart(). >>> > >>> > - In the next step I moved the TestService outside of the jar into an >>> > Android library (in Eclipse enable checkbox "Is Library" or >>> > project.properties should contain android.Library=true ). I built the >>> > library and included it into the test app. Now i can instantiate the >>> > service >>> > using bindService API from the app, the debugger breaks in onStart() and >>> > onCreate() methods of TestService class. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Monday, February 11, 2013 4:30:56 PM UTC-8, Lew wrote: >>> >> >>> >> RKSHR wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> No the JAR is not set up as a Library project, as all I have is, >>> >>> compile >>> >>> the classes using javac and then bundle them into a jar using jar >>> >>> builder. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> You should probably build it as a library project, since it does have >>> >> something specific to Android in it. >>> >> >>> >> I'm not expert in library projects, but as I understand they're the way >>> >> to >>> >> package Android stuff for other Android stuff. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> By "nothing specific to android [sic]", I meant the classes used within >>> >> the service, other than the obvious service class. I did not have this >>> >> service class before and there is a singleton factory class that the >>> >> app was >>> >> using to instantiate. Now I have moved the factory instantiation into >>> >> the >>> >> service class. I want the app to just bind to the service, so the >>> >> factory >>> >> instantiation happens in the background within the service. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> There's a world of difference between "nothing" and "nothing other >>> >> than... >>> >> ". >>> >> >>> >> And that difference might be the difference that makes the difference. >>> >> You >>> >> might want to investigate. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Lew wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> RKSHR wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I did make sure that there were no R.xx classes in the service, >>> >>>>> infact >>> >>>>> I dont need any resources in the service. I did double check again >>> >>>>> and >>> >>>>> nothing was present, although an import definition to resources >>> >>>>> class was >>> >>>>> left there. I wasn't sure if it would make a difference, but I >>> >>>>> removed that >>> >>>>> definition anyway and recompiled the jar without any different >>> >>>>> result. The >>> >>>>> application loading the jar, still cannot bind to the service. The >>> >>>>> service >>> >>>>> is a very simple class that just instantiates a set of regular java >>> >>>>> classes >>> >>>>> (nothing specific to Android). I'm not even able to debug into the >>> >>>>> service, >>> >>>>> I have a break point at onStart() and onCreate() methods and it >>> >>>>> never falls >>> >>>>> there. I will continue looking. .thanks. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> "nothing specific to Android" is obviously false since there's a >>> >>>> service >>> >>>> class in there. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Is the JAR source set up as an Android library project? >>> >>>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> > Groups "Android Developers" group. >>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> > [email protected] >>> > For more options, visit this group at >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en >>> > --- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> > Groups >>> > "Android Developers" group. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> > an >>> > email to [email protected]. >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> > >>> > >> >> -- >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Android Developers" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Android Developers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
