I'm currently working on a project which source code should be as portable as possible; that is, the project (in C#, but it is not very relevant) represent an application that should be executed on Android (with Mono-Android), on iPhone (with MonoTouch) and WinMobile (with official Compact Framework). Without going into details, the corresponding MSBuild solution consists of an independent-platform library (from a source code point of view, at least) which declare various interfaces and classes that represent an abstraction of each feature that is not common to the various platform (i.e. the UI). In addition, there are a corresponding library that specialize (for each platform) the "base library"; the effective application executable is a program that uses the abstraction and the common standard libraries.
Developing on WinMobile and Android is not really a problem: Mono-Android add-in can be installed on VS 2010, so both platforms can be handled with MS VS.
Initially the solution was created in VS, so the initial configuration and the related projects (Android and WinMobile) are automatically generated.
After that I've imported the solution in MonoDevelop under Mac (the only platform that is officially supported by MonoTouch), and I've created the project for the iPhone library; switching the configuration to generate the assemblies (iPhoneSimulator) the "base library" was not possible to compile due to a missing project type configuration; specifically, the GUID used by MonoTouch for <ProjectTypeGuids> is {E613F3A2-FE9C-494F-B74E-F63BCB86FEA6}; adding this GUID I can now compile "base library" in MonoDevelop.
The problem arises when I try to re-import the solution in VS: since there's no Windows version of MonoTouch, VS cannot find the add-in for the specified project type, and the project doesn't load.
Looking to the specifications of MSBuild project file, it seems that there are tons of options that cannot be set or modified within the project/solution editor in VS; however the format is quite complicated and now I'm asking your help!
Is there a way to specify in the project file that a project type is present only if a particular configuration is selected independently to which is the environment I'm using?
The general approach is something like this; a condition that progressivly builds your property, referencing any value the property already may have:
<ProjectTypeGuids
Condition="'$(BuildingInsideVisualStudio)' != 'true'"
>;{E613F3A2-FE9C-494F-B74E-F63BCB86FEA6}"</ProjectTypeGuids>
<ProjectTypeGuids>{OTHER-GUIDS-HERE}$(ProjectTypeGuids)</ProjectTypeGuids>
This will detect the VS condition (when building) and omit the unkonwn guid. I'm not sure however if it will work when the project is opened, this property might only apply to building. There may be a similar "sentinal" property for building on Mono, and you can reverse the condition.
I solved an unrelated, but very similar issue of cross-platform development by excluding the files that presented themselves as cranky when going between Linux and Windows. I have my project under source control and utilized that to keep things working cooperatively.
http://www.aydabtudev.com/2011/05/what-goes-into-source-control-android.html
It's not a 1-to-1 for your issue, but it might give you clues/ideas on how to solve your problem.
Related
Together with my team I'm developing multiple native plugins based on Trigger.io. Since the recent changes I'm not completely sure on the workflow and cannot find anything about it in the documentation either. Some questions that arise:
1) Should one set of inspector projects be used for all the plugins or should each plugin has its own set?
2) Which parts of the inspector projects should be maintained via version control, which should remain local? (fyi: we use SVN)
3) (Android) When using one inspector project for each plugin, whats the best way to import them all as Java projects in Eclipse? Note: each inspector project has 3 sub projects which have the same name across different plugins, so they'd have to renamed? Assuming I have 5 plugins in development, that'd mean that I have to import 15 Java projects into Eclipse. Is this really how it's meant to be?
The most effective way to develop plugins is still something we're working on, how things are right now is probably not as good as it could be (especially for developing multiple plugins), but as things are right now:
1) Each plugin should have its own set of inspector projects.
2) The majority of what the Toolkit puts in the plugins folder is probably best in version control. Things you can safely ignore are the .trigger folder and any bin, gen, or build folders in the inspector projects. If you are trying to keep less files in version control the things you definitely need are the assets/src folder in the ForgeInspector, and any of your own source in ForgeModule, the rest of the inspector project should be regenerated by the Toolkit.
3) I'd recommend using an eclipse workspace per plugin, as the Toolkit regenerates a lot of the code when you update the inspector I don't think it is currently possible to rename the projects.
I thought I'd include a quick overview of what the 3 projects are and why there are 3:
ForgeCore - This is the pre-build core library for Trigger.io apps, its used by both ForgeInspector and ForgeModule so it needs to be a separate project that can be referenced by both
ForgeInspector - This is meant to replicate as closely as possible how your plugin will actually be used, so is basically a stripped down Trigger.io app, its separate to ForgeModule so that you can see what code is in your plugin and what code needs to be put into build_steps.json so it will also be applied to a real Trigger.io app at build time.
ForgeModule - This contains your plugin code
I'm using the Unity 3D engine to build an iPhone app, and when I go to generate my Xcode project for compilation, it includes a few fairly large libraries: Mono.Security.dll.s, System.dll.s, System.Core.dll.s, etc.
I don't know if this question is really an Xcode question or a Unity question, but I'm trying to figure out why each of those libraries is being linked - which functions / classes are being referenced - ideally so that I can rewrite my code to remove as many of the dependencies as possible. Does anybody know a way to find this information out?
Are you using any external assemblies? If so you should get the source code for them and check what they are including. Sometimes it's possible to disable stuff in external assemblies to remove unneeded dependencies.
Go into the "project settings->player" menu in Unity and make sure that stripping level is set as high as possible. Stripping will attempt to swap System.Core with mscorlib, which doesn't include stuff like Linq.
A way to find out why a particular assembly is being included is to open up the references section of your MonoDevelop solution, and double-click on an assembly. This will open the assembly browser and you'll be able to get an idea of the namespaces that depend on a particular assembly.
This DLL stuff is added to project by Unity3D, Xcode has nothing to do with this. What version of Unity3D do you use? Try to tweak Optimization options in project settings (Inspector), especially 'Stripping'.
I've build a static library working nice in a Cocoa Touch environment. Now I'd like to compile it also for Cocoa.. Can I have a single XCode project with different sdk targets? Is there some resource out there able to give hints about best the practices in this (and other) sense?
This last two months I have been working on exactly this task ( cross compiling static library for iPhone/Android/Mac OS/Linux/Windows...
It is certainly possible, a nice way, is adding an external xcode project as a target to your first xcode project. So you create a new "Active Configuration" for Mac OS X, iPhone and other platforms that you want to support.
Here, you can find a good tutorial about how to use a secondary Xcode project as a target of your main project to build a static library. It's a cool way because if you debug for example you still have all the symbols of the library, etc.
It can be done but it requires some manual tweaking of the build.
Start with the Xcode Build System Guide.
As an informal way of accomplishing this, you can create two separate projects and add references for exact same set of library source files to each project. Set one project to compile for Cocoa-Touch and the other for Cocoa. If both projects reference the same files, changes made in one project will be automatically reflected in the other. (If you have both projects open, Xcode will complain that the file has been changed by another app but otherwise it won't notice.)
I have a utility class that I continually dump new methods in. I add it to every project and just park methods as I need it. The new methods show up in old projects because the source files are shared across all the projects.
I've developed a static library that I'd like to share between XCode projects. I did some reading to learn exactly how to include this library as a binary dependency so that it runs on both the device and the simulator and that lead to a couple of manual steps which I'd now like to automate. Overall I'd like to be able to release new versions of my library and have a simple upgrade process for any project using the older version. Currently that process consists of deleting and/or copying the new binary files over the original location, deleting copying over new header files. The initial install consists of the same two steps along with additional project/target level configuration to set conditional linker flags based on the target SDK. Is there a way this could be automated? I mean I know I could do something like write an Applescript to do the heavy lifting but how? Has anyone ever automated xcode build settings via applescript? How would I call into XCode via Applescript? Are there any other alternatives? Is there a better way to maintain binary level dependencies?
Update
I'm looking to maintain a binary level dependency where project A depends on a static library created by project B. Something similar to a framework that can be included into an XCode iPhone project easily. After building "B" I want something that can practically be dropped into and project including A. While I am becoming aware of all the procedures around leveraging such a dependency I am looking for some solutions to soften up all of the rough edges.
Add a custom build script through Xcode:
select your target under the Targets group on the left
select Add -> New Build Phase -> New Run Script Build Phase
double click on the new Run Script item underneath your target
this allows you to write a shell script, accessing most of the Xcode environment variables related to the current build, e.g. $BUILT_PRODUCTS_DIR
if you check the "Show environment variables in build log" and view the detailed build output you can see all the variables available.
Have a Google search and you'll find lots of examples, e.g. section 20.3 here etc.
If you are using Subversion I believe you can use SVN externals to specify which particular version of your library to use.
You just have to drag & drop your library project in your project. xCode will dot the rest...
Regards,
Thierry
Putting development tools (compilers, IDEs, editors, ...) and runtime environments (jre, .net framework, interpreters, ...) under the version control has a couple of nice reasons. First, you can easily compile/run your program just by checking out your repository. You don't have to have anything else. Second, the triple is surely version compatible as you once tested it. However, it has its own drawbacks. The main one is the big volume of large binary files that must be put under version control system. That may cause the VCS slower and the backup process harder. What's your idea?
Tools and dependencies actually used to compile and build the project, absolutely - it is very useful if you ever have to debug an issue or develop a fix for an older version and you've moved on to newer versions that aren't quite compatible with the old ones.
IDE's & editors no - ideally you're project should be buildable from a script so these would not be necessary. The generated output should still be the same regardless of what you used to edit the source.
I include a text (and thus easily diff-able) file in every project root called "How-to-get-this-project-running" that includes any and all things necessary, including the correct .net version and service packs.
Also for proprietry IDE's (e.g. Visual Studio), there can be licensing issues as this makes it difficult to manage who is using which pieces of software.
Edit:
We also used to store batch files that automatically checked out the source code automatically (and all dependencies) in source control. Developers just check out the "Setup" folder and run the batch scripts, instead of having to search the repository for appropriate bits and pieces.
What I find is very nice and common (in .Net projects I have experience with anyway) is including any "non-default install" dependencies in a lib or dependencies folder with source control. The runtime is provided by the GAC and kind of assumed.
First, you can easily compile/run your program just by checking out your repository.
Not true: it often isn't enough to just get/copy/check out a tool, instead the tool must also be installed on the workstation.
Personally I've seen libraries and 3rd-party components in the source version control system, but not the tools.
I keep all dependencies in a folder under source control named "3rdParty". I agree that this is very convinient and you can just pull down the source and get going. This really shouldnt affect the performance of the source control.
The only real draw back is that the initial size to pull down can be fairly large. In my situation anyone who pulls downt he code usually will run it also, so it is ok. But if you expect many people to pull down the source just to read then this can be annoying.
I've seen this done in more than one place where I worked. In all cases, I've found it to be pretty convenient.