I have a set of functionality (classes) that I would like to share with an application I'm building for the iPhone and for the Blackberry (Java). Does anyone have any best practices on doing this?
This is not going to be possible as far as I understand your question - the binary format for the iPhone and Java are not compatible - and even for a native library on a blackberry device.
This is not like building for OS X where you can use Java unfornately the iPhone doesn't support Java.
The best idea is probably to build you library in Objective-C and then port it to Java which is an easier transition than going the other way. If you programme for Objective-C and make sure you code has no memory leaks - then the changes are not so complex.
If you keep the structure of your classes the same then you should find maintenance much simpler - fix a bug in the Java and you should find it easy to check for the same bug in the ObjC methods etc.
Hope this helps - sorry that it is not all good news.
As Grouchal mentioned - you are not going to be able to share any physical components of your application between the two platforms. However you should be able to share the logical design of your application if you carefully separate it into highly decoupled layers. This is still a big win because the logical application design probably accounts for a large part of your development effort.
You could aim to wrap the sections of the platform specific APIs (iPhone SDK etc.) that you use with your own interfaces. In doing so you are effectively hiding the platform specific libraries and making your design and code easier to manage when dealing with differences in the platforms.
With this in place you can write your core application code so that it appears very similar on either platform - even though they are written in different languages. I find Java and Objective-C to be very similar conceptually (at least at the level at which I use it) and would expect to be able to achieve parity with at least the following:
An almost identical set of Java and Objective-C classes with the same names and responsibilities
Java/Objective-C classes with similarly named methods
Java/Objective-C methods with the same responsibilities and logical implementations
This alone will make the application easier to understand across platforms. Of course the code will always look very different at the edges - i.e when you start dealing with the view, threading, networking etc. However, these concerns will be handled by your API wrappers which once developed should have fairly static interfaces.
You might also stand to benefit if you later developer further applications that need to be delivered to both platforms as you might find that you can reuse or extend your API wrappers.
If you are writing a client-server type application you should also try and keep as much logic on your server as possible. Keep the amount of extra business logic on the device to a minimum. The more you can just treat the device as a view layer the less porting you'll have to do over all.
Aside from that, following the same naming conventions and package structure across all the projects helps greatly, especially for your framework code.
The UI API's and usability paradigms for BlackBerry and iPhone are so different that it won't be possible in most cases to directly port this kind of logic between apps. The biggest mistake one could make (in my opinion) is to try and transplant a user experience designed for one mobile platform on to another. The way people interact with BlackBerrys vs iPhones is very different so be prepared to revamp your user experience for each mobile platform you want to deploy on.
Hope this is helpful.
It is possible to write C++ code that works in both a BB10 Native app and an iOS app.
XCode would need to see the C++ files as ObjectiveCPP code.
I am currently working on such a task in my spare time. I have not yet completed it enough to either show or know if it is truly possible, but I haven't run in to any road-blocks yet.
You will need to be disciplined to write good cross-platform code designed w/ abstractions for platform-specific features.
My general pattern is that I have "class Foo" to do cross platform stuff, and a "class FooPlatform" to do platform specific stuff.
Class "Foo" can call class "FooPlatform" which abstracts out anything platform specific.
The raw cross-platform code is itself not compile-able on its own.
Separate BB10 and XCode projects are created in their respective IDEs.
Each project implements a thin (few [dozen] line) "class FooPlatform" and references the raw cross-platform code.
When I get something working that I can show I will post again here...
Related
I have integrated Lua with my ObjC code (iphone game). The setup was pretty easy, but now, I have a little problem with the bridging. I have googled for results, etc... and it seems there isn't anything that could work without modifications. I mean, I have checked luaobjc bridge (it seems pretty old and dicontinued), I heard about LuaCocoa but it seems not to work on iphone, and wax is too thick.
My needs are pretty spare, I just need to be able to call objc methods from lua and don't mind having to do extra work to make it work (I don't need a totally authomatic bridging system).
So, I have decided to build a little bridge myself based on this page http://anti-alias.me/?p=36. It has key information about how to accomplish what I need, but the tutorial is not completed and I have some doubts about how to deal with method overloading when called from lua, etc...
Do anybody know if there exist any working bridge between objc and lua on the iphone or if it could be so hard to complete the bridge the above site offers?
Any information will be welcomed.
Don't reinvent the wheel!
First, you are correct that luaobjc and some other variants are outdated. A good overview can be found on the LuaCocoa page. LuaCocoa is fine but apparently doesn't support iPhone development, so the only other choice is Wax. Both LuaCocoa and Wax are runtime bridges, which means that you can (in theory) access every Objective-C class and method in Lua at the expense of runtime performance.
For games and from my experience the runtime performance overhead is so significant that it doesn't warrant the use of any runtime binding library. From a perspective of why one would use a scripting language, both libraries defy the purpose of favoring a scripting language over a lower-level language: they don't provide a DSL solution - which means you're still going to write what is essentially Objective-C code but with a slightly different syntax, no runtime debugging support, and no code editing support in Xcode. In other words: runtime Lua binding is a questionable solution at best, and has lots of cons going against it. Runtime Lua bindings are particularly unsuited for fast-paced action games aiming at a constantly high framerate.
What you want is a static binding. Static bindings at a minimum require you to declare what kind of methods will be available in Lua code. Some binding libraries scan your header files, others require you to provide a special declaration file similar to a header file. Most binding libraries can use both approaches. The benefit is optimal runtime performance, and being able to actually design what classes, methods and variables Lua scripts have access to.
There are but 3 candidates to bind Lua code to an iPhone app. To be fair, there are a lot more but most have one or more crucial flaws or are simply not stable or for special purposes only, or simply don't work for iPhone apps. The candidates are:
tolua and tolua++
luabind
SWIG
Big disadvantage shared by all Lua static binding libraries: none of them can bind directly to Objective-C code. All require to have an additional C or C++ layer available that ultimately interfaces with your Objective-C code. This has to do with how Objective-C works as a language and how small a role it has played (so far) when it comes to embedding Lua in Objective-C apps.
I recently evaluated all three binding libraries and came to enjoy SWIG. It is very well documented but has a bit of a learning curve. But I believe that learning curve is warranted because SWIG can be used to combine nearly any programming and scripting language, it can be advantageous to know how to use SWIG for future projects. Plus, once you understand their definition file implementation it turns out to be very easy (especially when compared to luabind) and considerably more flexible than tolua.
OK, bit late to the party but in case others come late also to this post here's another approach to add to the choices available: hand-code your LUA APIs.
I did a lecture on this topic where I live coded some basic LUA bindings in an hour. Its not hard. From the lecture I made a set of video tutorials that shows how to get started.
The approach of using a bindings generation tool like SWIG is a good one if you already have exactly the APIs that you need to call written in Objective-C and it makes sense to bring all those same API's over into LUA.
The pros of the hand-coding approach:
your project just compiles with one standard Xcode target
your project is all C & Obj-C
the LUA is just data shipped along with your images
no fiddling with "do I check in generated code" to Git
you create LUA functions for just the things you want
you can easily have hosted scripts that live inside an object
the API is under your control and is well known
dont expose engine APIs to level building team/tools
The last point is just that if you have detail functions that only make sense at the engine level and you don't want to see those when coding the game play you'll need to tell SWIG not to bind those.
Steffens answer is perfect and this approach is just another option, that may suit some folks better depending on the project.
I am about to start building an app that will be used across all platforms. I will using monotouch and monodriod so I can keep things in .net
I'm a little lazy so I want to be able to reuse as much code as possible.
Lets say I want to create an application that stores contact information. e.g. Name & Phone number
My application needs to be able to retrieve data from a web service and also store data locally.
The MVVM pattern looks like the way to go but im not sure my approach below is 100% correct
Is this correct?
A project that contains my models
A project that contains my views,local storage methods and also view models which I bind my views to. In this case there would be 3 different projects based on the 3 os's
A data access layer project that is used for binding to services and local data storage
Any suggestions would be great.
Thanks for your time
Not specifically answering your question, but here are some lazy pointers...
you can definitely reuse a lot of code across all 3 platforms (plus MonoWebOS?!)
reusing the code is pretty easy, but you'll need to maintain separate project files for every library on each platform (this can be a chore)
MVVM certainly works for WP7. It's not quite as well catered for in MonoTouch and MonoDroid
some of the main areas you'll need to code separately for each device are:
UI abstractions - each platform has their own idea of "tabs", "lists", "toasts", etc
network operations - the System.Net capabilities are slightly different on each
file IO
multitasking capabilities
device interaction (e.g. location, making calls etc)
interface abstraction and IoC (Ninject?) could help with all of these
The same unit tests should be able to run all 3 platforms?
Update - I can't believe I just stumbled across my own answer... :) In addition to this answer, you might want to look at MonoCross and MvvmCross - and no doubt plenty of other hybrid platforms on the way:
https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross
http://monocross.net (MVC Rather then Mvvm)
Jonas Follesoe's cross platform development talk: Has to be the most comprehensive resource out there at the moment. He talks about how best to share code and resources, abstract out much of the UI and UX differences, shows viable reusable usage of MVVM across platforms and nice techniques for putting together an almost automated build. (yes, that includes a way for you to compile you monotouch stuff on Visual Studio)
Best of all he has a available source code for the finished product and for a number of the major component individually placed in its own workshop project and a 50 + page pdf detailing the steps to do so.FlightsNorway on github
IMO the only thing missing is how best to handle local data storage across all platforms. In which case I would direct you to Vici Cool Storage an ORM that can work with WP7, MonoTouch and (while not officially supported) MonoDroid.
*Disclaimer* The site documentation isn't the most updated but the source code is available. (Because documentation is Kriptonite to many a programmer)
I think the easiest way to write the code once and have it work on all three platforms will probably be a web-based application. Check out Untappd for example.
You can start by looking at Robert Kozak's MonoTouch MVVM framework. It's just a start though.
MonoTouch MVVM
I'm interested in creating a basic web application (for learning, but I want to finish within a few months), and I've read that using a web framework can make that task much easier.
After reading about different frameworks online, it seems to me that using frameworks would hide a lot of detail on they work. I fear that if I use a framework, I won't really know how my website is running.
Is it important to understand how frameworks do what they do, or am I worrying too much? (eg. I don't know how the Linux kernel works, or the C compiler, etc.)
Even if you don't have a particular interest in web frameworks, I would say it's good to play with a few and then crack them open if only for the exposure to new design patterns and solutions that can be applied anywhere in development. (MVC in particular when talking about most web frameworks)
It is (to some extent) important to understand how frameworks work, but you'll never learn that without using them.
So, start using some framework and you'll get basic understanding of it. And then, if you have interest, you can always dig deeper into it (maybe even submit patches and participate in its development). But not in the opposite order.
Using your analogy, you don't become Linux kernel developer without being Linux user for some time.
I'm moving away from strict Android development and wanting to create iPhone applications. My understanding is that I can code the backend of iOS applications in C/C++ and also that I can use the NDK to include C/C++ code in Android apps. My question however is how? I've googled quite a bit and I can't find any clear and concise answers.
When looking at sample code for the NDK, it seems that all the function names etc. are Android (or at least Java) specific and so I would not be able to use this C/C++ backend to develop an iPhone frontend?
I'd appreciate some clarification on this issue and if at all available some code to help me out? (even just a simple Hello World that reads a string from a C/C++ file and displays it in an iOS and Android app).
Thanks guys
Chris
Note that I almost exclusively work on "business/utility/productivity" applications; things that rely heavily on fairly standard UI elements and expect to integrate well with their platform. This answer reflects that. See Mitch Lindgren's comment to Shaggy Frog's answer for good comments for game developers, who have a completely different situation.
I believe #Shaggy Frog is incorrect here. If you have effective, tested code in C++, there is no reason not to share it between Android and iPhone, and I've worked on projects that do just that and it can be very successful. There are dangers that should be avoided, however.
Most critically, be careful of "lowest common denominator." Self-contained, algorithmic code, shares very well. Complex frameworks that manage threads, talk on the network, or otherwise interact with the OS are more challenging to do in a way that doesn't force you to break the paradigms of the platform and shoot for the LCD that works equally badly on all platforms. In particular, I recommend writing your networking code using the platform's frameworks. This often requires a "sandwich" approach where the top layer is platform-specific and the very bottom layer is platform-specific, and the middle is portable. This is a very good thing if designed carefully.
Thread management and timers should also be done using the platform's frameworks. In particular, Java uses threads heavily, while iOS typically relies on its runloop to avoid threads. When iOS does use threads, GCD is strongly preferred. Again, the solution here is to isolate the truly portable algorithms, and let platform-specific code manage how it gets called.
If you have a complex, existing framework that is heavily threaded and has a lot of network or UI code spread throughout it, then sharing it may be difficult, but my recommendation still would be to look for ways to refactor it rather than rewrite it.
As an iOS and Mac developer who works extensively with cross-platform code shared on Linux, Windows and Android, I can say that Android is by far the most annoying of the platforms to share with (Windows used to hold this distinction, but Android blew it away). Android has had the most cases where it is not wise to share code. But there are still many opportunities for code reuse and they should be pursued.
While the sentiment is sound (you are following the policy of Don't Repeat Yourself), it's only pragmatic if what you can share that code in an efficient manner. In this case, it's not really possible to have a "write once" approach to cross-platform development where the code for two platforms needs to be written in different languages (C/C++/Obj-C on iPhone, Java for Android).
You'll be better off writing two different codebases in this case (in two different languages). Word of advice: don't write your Java code like it's C++, or your C++ code like it's Java. I worked at a company a number of years ago who had a product they "ported" from Java to C++, and they didn't write the C++ code like it was C++, and it caused all sorts of problems, not to mention being hard to read.
Writing a shared code base is really practical in this situation. There is some overhead to setting up and keeping it organized, but the major benefits are these 1) reduce the amount of code by sharing common functionality 2) Sharing bug fixes to the common code base. I'm currently aware of two routes that I'm considering for a project - use the native c/c++ (gains in speed at the expense of losing garbage collection and setting targets per processor) or use monodroid/monotouch which provide c# bindings for each os's platform functionality (I'm uncertain of how mature this is.)
If I was writing a game using 3d I'd definitely use approach #1.
I posted this same answer to a similar question but I think it's relevant so...
I use BatteryTech for my platform-abstraction stuff and my project structure looks like this:
On my PC:
gamename - contains just the common code
gamename-android - holds mostly BatteryTech's android-specific code and Android config, builders point to gamename project for common code
gamename-win32 - Just for building out to Windows, uses code from gamename project
On my Mac:
gamename - contains just the common code
gamename-ios - The iPhone/iPad build, imports common code
gamename-osx - The OSX native build. imports common code.
And I use SVN to share between my PC and Mac. My only real problems are when I add classes to the common codebase in Windows and then update on the mac to pull them down from SVN. XCode doesn't have a way to automatically add them to the project without scripts, so I have to pull them in manually each time, which is a pain but isn't the end of the world.
All of this stuff comes with BatteryTech so it's easy to figure out once you get it.
Besides using C/C++ share so lib.
If to develop cross-platform apps like game, suggest use mono-based framework like Unity3D.
Else if to develop business apps which require native UI and want to share business logic code cross mobile platforms, I suggest use Lua embedded engine as client business logic center.
The client UI is still native and get best UI performance. i.e Java on Android and ObjectC on iOS etc.
The logic is shared with same Lua scripts for all platform.
So the Lua layer is similar as client services (compare to server side services).
-- Anderson Mao, 2013-03-28
Though I don't use these myself as most of the stuff I write won't port well, I would recommend using something like Appcelerator or Red Foundry to build basic applications that can then be created natively on either platform. In these cases, you're not writing objective-c or java, you use some kind of intermediary. Note that if you move outside the box they've confined you to, you'll need to write your own code closer to the metal.
Is there a distributed application framework (commercial is okay as well) that supports iPhone / iPad ?
What I'm looking for in the framework:
Allows me to focus on the application logic
I don't have to code "low-level" network programming (I've done it too many times that I dont wanna do it again =p)
Should be actively maintained (popular would be nice)
Basically, I can then develop faster.
We plan to develop a soft real-time TCP/IP client/server application where there are many iPhone/iPad clients (30+) connected to single server over LAN. The server most likely will run Windows (unless the framework does not support it).
I've been looking around and I see:
MonoTouch WCF (still looks quite raw ?)
RemObjects (Mono + Objective-C)
Cocoa Distributed Objects
ZeroC Ice Touch (Objective-C)
RakNet ( ? included because it mentions iPhone, but will need to use C++)
Of course, there's also the option of using the plain old MonoTouch System.Net.Sockets
Or, CFNetwork (I dont plan to use this one)
I'm still deciding whether to use Objective-C or MonoTouch, but leaning towards MonoTouch since we will get the .NET framework, and not be tied into just the Mac world.
Please feel free to comment if I added anything that's not related to my question---I'm new to iPhone/iPad world.
We've used WCF/Monotouch with great success - there are some areas of the f/work that arent 100% but for most cases you should find working with WCF on monotouch a breeze.
The ability to share all of our data sync, model, tests etc between monodroid and monotouch and wm7 is seriously cool (with some working - this is easilly possible - you'll need to manage multiple prj files).
Be careful to manage calls to wcf services correctly, keep them to a minimum, keep the archetecture simple. We ended up with a fairly complex dto to minimise the amount of calls to the wcf services to sync the data - this was well worth it as the time needed to sync a device from scratch is now a fraction of what it was.
Using SSL to communicate with the server is a PITA but I think that's more a case of the way apple have managed it.
You need to be a bit more explicit on your requirements. If you need only object serialization (dehydration/hydration) over REST API, then anything that supports POX or JSON will work just fine for you. However, if you need RPC-style method invocation, with authentication, encryption/digital signature, transactions, etc, then you need one of those frameworks you listed above.
If you need a framework, I personally would lean towards the MonoTouch WCF, as it gives you the ability to move your client to other platforms later as well (Windows Phone 7 for example). Then again, as you said, it's a bit rough right now, and if Mono team decides in the future that they don't have the resources to invest in maintaining it, you might end up with having to move to another framework. Of course, there's also the drawback that you need to use MonoTouch for your application, and can't use Objective-C. Granted, with the recent changes in the iOS Developer Agreement, that's not that much of an issue, but it is still something to keep in mind.
(Disclaimer: I used to work on Microsoft's WCF team, so I am biased towards the product itself)
The other option I would go for, would be Cocoa Distributed Objects. However, that would be my choice if the server is also running on OS X. I know there's Bonjour for Windows, but I doubt it's optimized for server scenarios, and I also don't know how rich is Apple's RPC implementation on top of it for the Windows platform. So I would stay with Apple's technology only if I am building exclusively for Apple's platform.
Note that WCF and Distributed Objects would give you RPC-style functionality, but they won't help you with any particular scenarios. If you need/want even higher level of abstraction, for example you need presence information or multi-user chat, you will still need to implement those yourself. It might be worth at this point to look at frameworks that provide those features for you. An example would be RakNet (which you listed above), which abstracts the remoting level and builds additional features on top of it.
You can use JSON Touch + Vitche PHP Emission Framework which provides all server-side you need. Also you can use that Framework to access existing SOAP (WCF, Axis, etc) services.
You can use Google protocol buffers to implement RPC though you will need to do some network programming for transporting your messages anyway. It supports interface generation for C++, Java, Python and Objective-C and .NET so you can create a single set of RPC messages and get code for working with them for almost any mobile platform. Transport layer on your mobile platforms you will have to implement yourself.
http:// code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/ - main Protobuf page (C++, Java, Python)
http:// code.google.com/p/protobuf-net/ - Protobuf .NET mentioned in one of the comments
http:// code.google.com/p/metasyntactic/wiki/ProtocolBuffers - Protobuf for Obj-C