You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cordova.apache.org by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> on 2016/02/18 20:05:17 UTC
[Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
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
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>.
Might want to check with CrossWalk plugin, I think they generate multiple
APKs but is good to check if they depend on cordova for this or they handle
on their own.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:05 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@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
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
OK, because I'm paranoid about this one due to the backlash I think it
could get, here's a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/pull/270
Can people review it and let me know if this makes sense? Then we can merge
it in.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, Last call on this.
>
> I'm deleting a bunch of the code that's not related to Crosswalk. That
> said, it's going to make this obsolete:
>
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/xdk/articles/android-and-crosswalk-cordova-version-code-issues
>
> We're not going to do the stupid minSDK mapping anymore because it's
> counter to the philosophy of the Cordova project, and it should have never
> been done to begin with. However, we're keeping the modification to the
> version codes if you're using Crosswalk.
>
> So, if you're releasing without crosswalk, and you set your version code
> to 1, here's what's going to happen:
> android-release.apk = Version Code 1
>
> If you're releasing WITH CROSSWALK, here's what's going to happen:
> android-armv7-release.apk = Version Code 12
> android-x86-release.apk = Version Code 14
>
> If you add Crosswalk to a project somewhere along the line, know that
> you're going to have to multiply your version code by 10. I hope this
> doesn't go past maxInt, but it's the only way I can think of to give
> developers back the control they lost with the earlier version code issues.
>
> If this breaks your stuff, or causes you to have a massive problem (i.e.
> You're at version 12, and you somehow have a collision with your Crosswalk
> version because you didn't set your sdk version), please let me know now.
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What do you mean by a manual step to set the architecture?
>>>
>>> meaning that "cordova build" will build one apk by default
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, right now if I set the version code to 1 and do a crosswalk build, I
>> would get the following version codes and APKs:
>> android-armv6-release.apk - Version Code 12
>> android-x86-release.apk - Version Code 14
>>
>>
>>> But if they want a specific architecture or multiple built they can do
>>> via
>>> extra argument to "cordova build"
>>>
>>> Like cordova build -- --x86 --arm
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think we should do multiple at all. I think we should build just
>> one.
>>
>> So, if you do this cordova build release --arch=arm
>>
>> You get only
>>
>> android-armv6-release.apk - Version Code 1
>>
>> And then to get the other one you have change the version code to 2 and
>> do this:
>>
>> cordova build release --arch=x86
>>
>> android-x86-release.apk - Version Code 2
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is similar for windows platform where user control targets and build
>>> via extra flags to build command, or not even related?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, this issue is open because we're copying how Windows does things. I
>> don't know why we're doing a multiple APK build, except that Crosswalk is
>> an Intel thing, maybe?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:17 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Avoiding a large APK is kind of a good feature to have, to build
>>> small
>>> > apk
>>> > > targeted to specific architecture.
>>> > >
>>> > > What's your proposal ? Maybe I missed it
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > Step 1. Remove the code that changes version codes but has nothing to
>>> do
>>> > with architecture and get users to specify the Android Version Code in
>>> the
>>> > config.xml like so:
>>> > <widget android-versionCode="19" id="ca.dontflyhere.app"
>>> version="0.0.1"
>>> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets" xmlns:cdv="
>>> > http://cordova.apache.org/ns/1.0">
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > You said to remove multiple apk generation or have multiple apk
>>> > generation
>>> > > being don in a different way to handle the versionCode per
>>> architecture?
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > Yeah, for the short term, I think multiplying by 10, and reserving the
>>> last
>>> > spot to denote x86 or arm isn't an awful solution, but it's far from
>>> > ideal. If we can turn off multiple APK generation and add the ability
>>> to
>>> > set an architecture, then this would turn into a manual step for the
>>> > developer to take advantage of, and they can decide if version 11 is
>>> arm
>>> > and version 12 is x86, but I'm not sure if developers are able to
>>> handle
>>> > that or want it abstracted, which is why I'm asking.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > 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 <bo...@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
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
OK, Last call on this.
I'm deleting a bunch of the code that's not related to Crosswalk. That
said, it's going to make this obsolete:
https://software.intel.com/en-us/xdk/articles/android-and-crosswalk-cordova-version-code-issues
We're not going to do the stupid minSDK mapping anymore because it's
counter to the philosophy of the Cordova project, and it should have never
been done to begin with. However, we're keeping the modification to the
version codes if you're using Crosswalk.
So, if you're releasing without crosswalk, and you set your version code to
1, here's what's going to happen:
android-release.apk = Version Code 1
If you're releasing WITH CROSSWALK, here's what's going to happen:
android-armv7-release.apk = Version Code 12
android-x86-release.apk = Version Code 14
If you add Crosswalk to a project somewhere along the line, know that
you're going to have to multiply your version code by 10. I hope this
doesn't go past maxInt, but it's the only way I can think of to give
developers back the control they lost with the earlier version code issues.
If this breaks your stuff, or causes you to have a massive problem (i.e.
You're at version 12, and you somehow have a collision with your Crosswalk
version because you didn't set your sdk version), please let me know now.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by a manual step to set the architecture?
>>
>> meaning that "cordova build" will build one apk by default
>>
>>
> Yes, right now if I set the version code to 1 and do a crosswalk build, I
> would get the following version codes and APKs:
> android-armv6-release.apk - Version Code 12
> android-x86-release.apk - Version Code 14
>
>
>> But if they want a specific architecture or multiple built they can do via
>> extra argument to "cordova build"
>>
>> Like cordova build -- --x86 --arm
>>
>>
> I don't think we should do multiple at all. I think we should build just
> one.
>
> So, if you do this cordova build release --arch=arm
>
> You get only
>
> android-armv6-release.apk - Version Code 1
>
> And then to get the other one you have change the version code to 2 and do
> this:
>
> cordova build release --arch=x86
>
> android-x86-release.apk - Version Code 2
>
>
>
>> This is similar for windows platform where user control targets and build
>> via extra flags to build command, or not even related?
>>
>>
> Yes, this issue is open because we're copying how Windows does things. I
> don't know why we're doing a multiple APK build, except that Crosswalk is
> an Intel thing, maybe?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:17 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Avoiding a large APK is kind of a good feature to have, to build small
>> > apk
>> > > targeted to specific architecture.
>> > >
>> > > What's your proposal ? Maybe I missed it
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Step 1. Remove the code that changes version codes but has nothing to do
>> > with architecture and get users to specify the Android Version Code in
>> the
>> > config.xml like so:
>> > <widget android-versionCode="19" id="ca.dontflyhere.app" version="0.0.1"
>> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets" xmlns:cdv="
>> > http://cordova.apache.org/ns/1.0">
>> >
>> >
>> > > You said to remove multiple apk generation or have multiple apk
>> > generation
>> > > being don in a different way to handle the versionCode per
>> architecture?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Yeah, for the short term, I think multiplying by 10, and reserving the
>> last
>> > spot to denote x86 or arm isn't an awful solution, but it's far from
>> > ideal. If we can turn off multiple APK generation and add the ability
>> to
>> > set an architecture, then this would turn into a manual step for the
>> > developer to take advantage of, and they can decide if version 11 is arm
>> > and version 12 is x86, but I'm not sure if developers are able to handle
>> > that or want it abstracted, which is why I'm asking.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > 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 <bo...@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 <bo...@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
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you mean by a manual step to set the architecture?
>
> meaning that "cordova build" will build one apk by default
>
>
Yes, right now if I set the version code to 1 and do a crosswalk build, I
would get the following version codes and APKs:
android-armv6-release.apk - Version Code 12
android-x86-release.apk - Version Code 14
> But if they want a specific architecture or multiple built they can do via
> extra argument to "cordova build"
>
> Like cordova build -- --x86 --arm
>
>
I don't think we should do multiple at all. I think we should build just
one.
So, if you do this cordova build release --arch=arm
You get only
android-armv6-release.apk - Version Code 1
And then to get the other one you have change the version code to 2 and do
this:
cordova build release --arch=x86
android-x86-release.apk - Version Code 2
> This is similar for windows platform where user control targets and build
> via extra flags to build command, or not even related?
>
>
Yes, this issue is open because we're copying how Windows does things. I
don't know why we're doing a multiple APK build, except that Crosswalk is
an Intel thing, maybe?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:17 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Avoiding a large APK is kind of a good feature to have, to build small
> > apk
> > > targeted to specific architecture.
> > >
> > > What's your proposal ? Maybe I missed it
> > >
> > >
> > Step 1. Remove the code that changes version codes but has nothing to do
> > with architecture and get users to specify the Android Version Code in
> the
> > config.xml like so:
> > <widget android-versionCode="19" id="ca.dontflyhere.app" version="0.0.1"
> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets" xmlns:cdv="
> > http://cordova.apache.org/ns/1.0">
> >
> >
> > > You said to remove multiple apk generation or have multiple apk
> > generation
> > > being don in a different way to handle the versionCode per
> architecture?
> > >
> > >
> > Yeah, for the short term, I think multiplying by 10, and reserving the
> last
> > spot to denote x86 or arm isn't an awful solution, but it's far from
> > ideal. If we can turn off multiple APK generation and add the ability to
> > set an architecture, then this would turn into a manual step for the
> > developer to take advantage of, and they can decide if version 11 is arm
> > and version 12 is x86, but I'm not sure if developers are able to handle
> > that or want it abstracted, which is why I'm asking.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 <bo...@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 <bo...@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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>.
What do you mean by a manual step to set the architecture?
meaning that "cordova build" will build one apk by default
But if they want a specific architecture or multiple built they can do via
extra argument to "cordova build"
Like cordova build -- --x86 --arm
This is similar for windows platform where user control targets and build
via extra flags to build command, or not even related?
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:17 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Avoiding a large APK is kind of a good feature to have, to build small
> apk
> > targeted to specific architecture.
> >
> > What's your proposal ? Maybe I missed it
> >
> >
> Step 1. Remove the code that changes version codes but has nothing to do
> with architecture and get users to specify the Android Version Code in the
> config.xml like so:
> <widget android-versionCode="19" id="ca.dontflyhere.app" version="0.0.1"
> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets" xmlns:cdv="
> http://cordova.apache.org/ns/1.0">
>
>
> > You said to remove multiple apk generation or have multiple apk
> generation
> > being don in a different way to handle the versionCode per architecture?
> >
> >
> Yeah, for the short term, I think multiplying by 10, and reserving the last
> spot to denote x86 or arm isn't an awful solution, but it's far from
> ideal. If we can turn off multiple APK generation and add the ability to
> set an architecture, then this would turn into a manual step for the
> developer to take advantage of, and they can decide if version 11 is arm
> and version 12 is x86, but I'm not sure if developers are able to handle
> that or want it abstracted, which is why I'm asking.
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@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 <bo...@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 <bo...@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 <bo...@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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Avoiding a large APK is kind of a good feature to have, to build small apk
> targeted to specific architecture.
>
> What's your proposal ? Maybe I missed it
>
>
Step 1. Remove the code that changes version codes but has nothing to do
with architecture and get users to specify the Android Version Code in the
config.xml like so:
<widget android-versionCode="19" id="ca.dontflyhere.app" version="0.0.1"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets" xmlns:cdv="
http://cordova.apache.org/ns/1.0">
> You said to remove multiple apk generation or have multiple apk generation
> being don in a different way to handle the versionCode per architecture?
>
>
Yeah, for the short term, I think multiplying by 10, and reserving the last
spot to denote x86 or arm isn't an awful solution, but it's far from
ideal. If we can turn off multiple APK generation and add the ability to
set an architecture, then this would turn into a manual step for the
developer to take advantage of, and they can decide if version 11 is arm
and version 12 is x86, but I'm not sure if developers are able to handle
that or want it abstracted, which is why I'm asking.
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@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 <bo...@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 <bo...@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 <bo...@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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>.
Avoiding a large APK is kind of a good feature to have, to build small apk
targeted to specific architecture.
What's your proposal ? Maybe I missed it
You said to remove multiple apk generation or have multiple apk generation
being don in a different way to handle the versionCode per architecture?
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@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 <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@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 <bo...@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 <da...@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 <bo...@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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@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 <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@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 <bo...@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 <da...@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 <bo...@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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>.
If it's not well documented how this multiple APKs suppose to work and use.
then I would say the impact is low
If it's not part of the build.json in --buildConfig spec [1] then also low
impact.
If I was to weight on braking people, client runtime is more critical than
tooling, so it's less bad :-) is tooling breaks because it's easier to
detect and work around, than client runtime (running on phone on multiple
versions of android)
It would be good to get some of those answers to the questions you have
about apk requiring different version code on store
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 <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@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 <bo...@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 <da...@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 <bo...@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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@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 <bo...@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 <da...@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 <bo...@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
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>.
First sorry for my stupid questions :-)
Why do we need to mess with this versionCode?
How a native developer creating a new Android App today using Android
Studio and gradle handle this?
Should that help us determined how it should work for Cordova Apps?
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.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:58 PM Joe Bowser <bo...@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 <da...@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 <bo...@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
> >
> >
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>.
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 <da...@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 <bo...@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
>
>
Re: [Android] CB-8976, CB-8453 and is there anyone building multiple APKs
Posted by Darryl Pogue <da...@dpogue.ca>.
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 <bo...@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