On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 20:14 +0000, sebb wrote: > On 27 January 2014 19:43, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 19:33 +0000, sebb wrote: > >> On 27 January 2014 18:54, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 13:24 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> >> Wow this is confusing! Why not repackage the classes instead of > >> >> renaming each one with an HC4 postfix? > >> >> > >> > > >> > That was my initial plan, too. But try re-writing the sources using > >> > regex when you have multiple classes with the same name. I had to give > >> > up after a full day of wasted efforts. My regex skills are very basic, > >> > though. So, improvements are highly welcome > >> > > >> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient-android/trunk/build.gradle > >> > >> How do you decide which classes need renaming, and which ones don't? > >> > > > > By comparing different versions using reflection. It is in the script. > > The script contains lots of special ("magic") package and class names, > so presumably a simple comparison is not sufficient. > How are these exceptions determined? >
There are several differences between version 4.0-beta1 used by the script and some arbitrary snapshot taken by Google. Some things unfortunately have to be adjusted manually. > >> == > >> > >> Are there likely to be many developers who need to provide an > >> application that runs unmodified on both Android and Java? > >> If not, then it would surely be sufficient to just provide a shaded > >> version for Android which uses a different package name? > >> > > > > Maybe not. But there are enough applications that are compiled against > > Android APIs that cannot be used with repackaged code. > > Not sure I follow. > > If an app is compiled against the Android APIs, I don't see how it can > take advantage of any new classes without changing the source and > recompiling. How about multiple implementations of the same abstract API, one being newer and containing fewer bugs? > In which case, would it not make sense to convert the code to use all > new class names? > > Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing any great advantage to > the proposed Android build. > If you are familiar with Spring, think of Spring Rest template. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
