cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Date Wed, 02 Mar 2016 21:41:50 GMT
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com> wrote:

> If it's not well documented how this multiple APKs suppose to work and use.
> then I would say the impact is low
>

I disagree, since people using Crosswalk are expecting that behaviour by
default right now.  We don't have to built multiple APKs with Crosswalk
but bundling both the X86 and the ARM libraries makes the APK 48 MB.


> If it's not part of the build.json in --buildConfig spec [1]  then also low
> impact.
>
>
I would agree if build.json was universally adopted as the way to do
things, and there wasn't multiple ways people were building production
apps.  Right now, it's more likely that someone would store a
settings.gradle file pointing to the keystore instead, especially since it
doesn't prompt for a password like build.json does.



> It would be good to get some of those answers to the questions you have
> about apk requiring different version code on store
>
>
I just tried to deploy multiple APKs with different architectures on the
play store, you can't do it.  If you try, you replace your ARM apk with an
x86 APK.  You have to have a different version code for each of them.



> Maybe it make sense to remove it from builde.gradle and move it to
> build.json if it's something that is something that comes into play when
> releasing instead of being normal dev cycle.
>
> [1]:
>
> https://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/dev/guide/platforms/android/#signing-an-app
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:12 PM Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > First sorry for my stupid questions :-)
> > >
> > > Why do we need to mess with this versionCode?
> > >
> > >
> > Short Answer: We shouldn't have to.
> >
> > Long Answer: We might need it for Crosswalk only.
> >
> >
> >
> > > How a native developer creating a new Android App today using Android
> > > Studio and gradle handle this?
> > >
> >
> > They set it in the Android Manifest like they're supposed to.  This
> hasn't
> > changed AFAIK.  Apparently having multiple APKs in the store means that
> you
> > have to have different version codes, although I haven't tested this yet.
> >
> >
> > > Should that help us determined how it should work for Cordova Apps?
> > >
> >
> > You'd think, but then we wouldn't have this weird system in place right
> > now.  I wish we talked about this more, but this seems to have mostly
> flown
> > in under the radar when we were getting Cordova 4.0 out.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Can we come with a similar system, or no system, or it's user space
> where
> > > they can put a version code they want to use in config.xml in
> conjunction
> > > with of the version string (i.e. 1.0.0) that they are already using in.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I believe that config.xml already does this, but we then munge it all up
> > because someone thought that we might want to have many APKs instead of
> > just one APK for a version of Android.  This is something that's pissed
> off
> > various developers over the past year, and the reason I'm asking is
> because
> > I want to see it deleted, but don't want to break anyone who relies on
> it.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:58 PM Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK, so, I'm dealing with this code, which pisses me off to no end:
> > > >
> > > >     if (Boolean.valueOf(cdvBuildMultipleApks)) {
> > > >         productFlavors {
> > > >             armv7 {
> > > >                 versionCode defaultConfig.versionCode + 2
> > > >                 ndk {
> > > >                     abiFilters "armeabi-v7a", ""
> > > >                 }
> > > >             }
> > > >             x86 {
> > > >                 versionCode defaultConfig.versionCode + 4
> > > >                 ndk {
> > > >                     abiFilters "x86", ""
> > > >                 }
> > > >             }
> > > >             all {
> > > >                 ndk {
> > > >                     abiFilters "all", ""
> > > >                 }
> > > >             }
> > > >         }
> > > >     } else if (!cdvVersionCode) {
> > > >       def minSdkVersion = cdvMinSdkVersion ?:
> > > > privateHelpers.extractIntFromManifest("minSdkVersion")
> > > >       // Vary versionCode by the two most common API levels:
> > > >       // 14 is ICS, which is the lowest API level for many apps.
> > > >       // 20 is Lollipop, which is the lowest API level for the
> > updatable
> > > > system webview.
> > > >       if (minSdkVersion >= 20) {
> > > >         defaultConfig.versionCode += 9
> > > >       } else if (minSdkVersion >= 14) {
> > > >         defaultConfig.versionCode += 8
> > > >       }
> > > >     }
> > > >
> > > > So, right now if you're not using Crosswalk at all, your default
> > version
> > > > code will be 18 instead of 1, and 28 for the second version if you
> > aren't
> > > > using Crosswalk.  I can see why people would build multiple APKs per
> > > > architectures, but if you're building multiple APKs for different
> > > versions
> > > > of Android, we've all done something wrong and we never asked for
> this
> > > > feature to be added to Cordova.  The whole point of Cordova is to
> work
> > > > across multiple platforms, and that does include multiple versions of
> > > > Android.
> > > >
> > > > However, since this stupid code was added back in 4.0.x, I'm
> wondering
> > if
> > > > anyone is relying on this code before I rip it out and have version
> > codes
> > > > mean exactly what they're supposed to mean.  That means that when you
> > > build
> > > > and release your first app without using Crosswalk, your application
> > > > version code will be 1.  Not 18, not 19, but 1.  Then when you build
> > > > another version, that version will be 2, and so on.
> > > >
> > > > What do people think of this code going away?  Crosswalk will
> probably
> > > have
> > > > to have the different version codes, since I think us defining a
> system
> > > > could work better than leaving this up to the user and having things
> go
> > > > horribly sideways when people are trying to keep track of whether
> they
> > > > released an arm or x86 binary, since we already decided to take
> > > > responsibility for this.
> > > >
> > > > So, feedback on this would be good.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Darryl Pogue <darryl@dpogue.ca>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Not intentionally on my end, but when I add the CrossWalk plugin
I
> > > > > seem to get two APKs as output (one for armv7, one for x86).
> > > > >
> > > > > On 18 February 2016 at 11:05, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based on the feedback on those two issues, and other places,
I
> > think
> > > > that
> > > > > > most hated change from Cordova-Android 4.0 that we didn't fix
in
> > > > > > Cordova-Android 5.0 was the fact that we have an undocumented
way
> > of
> > > > > > generating an arbitrary build number that makes absolutely no
> > sense.
> > > > > > Furthermore, this screws up people's automated builds, and can
> > cause
> > > > the
> > > > > > version code to reach MAX_INT.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want to know why nobody has touched it until now, it's
> > because
> > > > > > everyone hates working with Gradle.  I can say the exact same
> thing
> > > > about
> > > > > > why we're not using ProGuard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, I'm starting on my flensing of the gradle files that we
have
> > in
> > > > > here,
> > > > > > trying to figure out what we can rip out and I'm wondering if
> > anyone
> > > is
> > > > > > actually using the multiple APK generation before I remove it.
If
> > > > people
> > > > > > are, I'm going to have to figure out another way for this to
> > happen,
> > > > > > because this is definitely breaking people's applications, and
> > using
> > > > > random
> > > > > > hooks isn't a good answer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, is anyone using this, or can this feature die!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message