Is there any way to limit Android NDK Library to the Specific JAVA Application ? I would like to prevent programmers from using my lib in another applications.
EDIT
I'm building a shared library that will be used in another application by user(another programmer).
EDIT 2
this library also include a java library that interact with the native library via JNI.
I would like to prevent programmers from using my lib in another applications.
... presumably for copy-protection of some sort.
You didn't say whether the "permitted" application is built by you or by someone else.
If the former, linking your library statically into the application will make it very hard to reuse that library elsewhere.
If the latter, you could use some techniques, such as looking in /proc/self/exe to find application name from within the library and exit if what you see there is not what you allow, but
such techniques will likely cause grief to your customers, and
will increase your support load (when they misfire under legitimate conditions), and
will be trivially bypassed by a moderately sophisticated adversary.
Which is to say that generally that's a waste of time.
Related
I'm developing a native application using C/C++.
I need to use name resolution service.
Making JNI calls is an option.
Using an external native library is another option.
However, I'm thinking about the probability of a third option.
As noted here, on devices running Android 10 and higher, this service is provided with a native library (libnetd_resolv.so).
This means, functions that I need rest in this library and I can confirm that.
My question is, can I use this library dynamically and get name resolution service?
I know that Android doesn't allow applications to use system libraries but what if I download this shared object and distribute with my application*, does it work?
If it doesn't, is there a future plan for this to work?
I'm asking because it is so weird to me that I need a function, it resides in my hands, but I have to make JNI calls in order to use it.
* When I embed the shared object in my application, there may be some compatibility problems when new updates are made to the shared object but that's not the point for me, if it works for one Android release it's ok.
Before attempting to add in a third-party library, do check if the existing Android NDK Networking APIs support your use case.
Do be aware of which versions of Android any particular API is supported.
For example, I want to create a simple application based on GPS, with making waypoints, showing them on map, etc.. So, is it possible to make such an app using C++ only, without any Java sources? Would it be more difficult than making the same on Java?
So, is it possible to make such an app using C++ only, without any
Java sources?
No. If you want to receive GPS coordinates, there is no way to do this without any Java code.
You could write an app in which Java is used as a thin wrapper around native code, using JNI to exchange data between Java and C++. However...
Would it be more difficult than making the same on Java?
Yes! In addition, the app would likely end up being:
Slower.
Buggier.
Harder to understand and maintain.
For Android development, Java is just the natural, normal, default language, and C++ is for exotic special tasks, typically those which involve really intensive calculations. You use it when you need it, not because you don't "want to" write in Java or because "Java is slow".
Writing correct JNI code is also not exactly trivial. For example, it's very easy to get local references and global references wrong if you don't read the documentation, as the compiler cannot detect their incorrect usage.
As the official documentation of the Android Native Development Kit says:
Before downloading the NDK, you should understand that the NDK will
not benefit most apps. As a developer, you need to balance its
benefits against its drawbacks. Notably, using native code on Android
generally does not result in a noticable performance improvement, but
it always increases your app complexity. In general, you should only
use the NDK if it is essential to your app—never because you simply
prefer to program in C/C++.
It also says:
You cannot access features such as Services and Content Providers
natively, so if you want to use them or any other framework API, you
can still write JNI code to do so.
Yes, search for Android NDK. Apparently it's a bit of a hassle, you'll be using SO a lot!
I've been working on a writing a game for Android. Until now I've been using Java instead of the NDK, but I've decided to port my code to C++ (for performance, memory management and industry standards reasons).
Porting my application shouldn't be a problem (I've written my fair share of C++ applications), but I've been using RoboGuice as a dependency injection framework because otherwise my object graph would become too complex rather quickly.
I've been looking around, but I haven't found any resources about using a dependency injection framework in combination with the Android NDK.
Can someone tell me if there any such franeworks available. If so, which one would you recommend?
If you have a C++11 compiler for Android you could use several frameworks (I wrote Infectorpp) but there are others available. You should note that DI is quite limited in C++ due to the lack of reflection so you should make some compromises as not everything you did in RoboGuice would still be possible.
By doing a quick search seems that C++11 is possible on Android. I don't have an Android device and still not needed to emulate it, but if you have any feedback it will be wellcome (private message here or support ticket on google code is enough), the library is headers only so no special build stuff is required for it, apart enabling c++11 on your compiler wich is just one extra option by command line. If that will works good on Android then it will be definitely good also for PC. (Do not misunderstand please, I'm using it heavily, but seems very few people is interested in DI in C++ and so I get very little feedback)
There was also a nice framework cpp-resolver: a little awkard to use because you explicitly register factory functions for injecting ALL parameters, but very scalable, especially for server applications.. (decouple object lifetime management and works with plain old C++).
The most complete framework is probably wallaroo
If you search something really easy to use Infectorpp is a good choice
If you need control over lifetime (mostly servers): Cpp-resolver is perfect
If you need exotic features and configuration files: wallaroo
As side note, run-time configuration is possible also with frameworks that do not explicitly support it:
You just need a Factory that istantiate a different type based on a configuration file you could read through a class that you add as dependency to factories (Probably you don't need to know that since you were already using DI frameworks, but still good to know for occasional readers)
There is a core ERP mobile application for Android. A customer has requested additional features that will require more screens (and Activities) and extra functionality.
Is there a way I can add sort of an extension to the core mobile application in order to intergrate the extra features or should I code on top of the code of the core application?
I am interested in finding a neat solution focused on extendability since different clients might ask for different additional features. How would you deal with such an issue? Any tips on the structure of such a project would also be welcome.
Would it make a difference if the extra features need to use the same db as the core application?
Thank you in advance for your help.
The answer to your question lies in the Open/Closed principle introduced by Bertrand Meyer. Open/Closed Principle is a very simple Object Oriented Design principle which states that
Software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification"
From your question its clear that you have identified the core functionalities in your application. So rather than Modifying this core functionalities and making it more specific, I would recommend, on the basis of the Open/Closed principle, that you should freeze your code features and write your customer specific functionalities over it without corrupting the core.
Now to answer your question on what kind of structure you may follow. I would recommend that you create a library project of your core functionalities and make different client specific projects that would include your core functionalities as a library project.
It won't make a difference if your application is using the same db as your core application provided all your applications uses it, else it should not be in your core application in the first place.
Hope this explanation help you.
Update:
My friend pointed out that I may not have understood the question right. So rather than correcting my old post(...which may be useful for others) I am updating it.
So if I understand it right, you have an ERP project which you may not have coded. The right approach, according to me,still would be that you build over this existing code. Rather than making changes on this project, include it as a library because if the project is downloaded from a reliable source, you will have the benefit of getting the updated version as and when it is available.
This is kind of a design philosophy question. Here are a couple choices that might give you ideas:
You could look into making your core application code/features into a custom library. Then your new core application is just a simple wrapper that includes the custom library. Your additional features for a specific customer could then be a different app that also references the core library but will include additional features. There are lots of tutorials on how to turn your app into a custom library. You would end up with different apps that target different a customers. (A tip that took a while for me to uncover is that if you have a resource name in your custom library you can "override" it by using the same name in the app that includes the library. Another tip is that you need to essentially duplicate the manifest of the library in the app by listing all the activities in the library that would be used by the app.) I haven't tried this but it might be that your additional features are each libraries that are included in different apps.
You could have an key the user inputs that will unlock certain features. You could save this as a shared preference so that they don't need to keep entering the key. This approach has the benefit that you can "reuse" features for other clients without any more implementation other than determining which client gets what feature. The majority of users just wouldn't have a key to unlock anything.
Both these solutions should use the same db since they would be calling the same core classes, etc.
Another possible solution is to create a Library Project. Put your core ERP app code inside the library Project, and then create different project for different customers. Each one of these projects will also use the same library project.
Your core library project could expose an api to dynamically register new features (Such as a menu that can expose new menu items).
Since it's popular to have both a free and a paid version in the android market of the same app, I had decided to do the same. Initially I just duplicated the complete codebase and adapted some code here and there (added ads, built in some limitations etc) since there was no option to do library projects at that time, but that left me with two projects that are horrific to manage fixes to bugs as I need to do those twice.
Since r14 we can use library projects with resources, so that would be a great solution to this particular problem as far as I can tell. Therefore I've read up on library projects and conciderations, and I'm curious to know what the minimum amount of files needed in the projects of the different versions are. My questions therefore are;
Could I have all of the code in the shared project, and have bare bone project with basically just a manifest?
If so, should I? is this the optimal way conceptually? (so apart from the fact that it depends on my code base)
How should I deal with library package naming, are there specific rules?
Are there tools about that can compare code from two different projects and perhaps merge them auto-magically or auto-manually, and which one is preferred?
If I understand your problem correctly, you want to create multiple Android apps that are similar to one another (i.e., have a lot of the same source code), but which are different in particular (minor) ways, and you want each of these apps to have a distinct package, so that it can be separately uploaded and distributed on an app store such as Google Play. A Project Library is an excellent facility for accomplishing those goals.
I'm assuming that the differences between your various versions are minor, involving things like resources and the app name and package, and a switch that turns on certain features for a paid version while leaving them off for a free version.
Even if that is not the case, by using polymorphism in the ways described below, your various apps could differ in significant ways and still share a common Project Library.
A Project Library can be defined in Eclipse in the same way as any Android project can be defined, but it is marked as a Project Library (by checking the "Is Library" box near the bottom of the Android page of the library's Project Properties dialog) and cannot be compiled and run on its own. Instead, it is intended to be included by reference in one or more other projects which are actual apps (by adding a reference to it on the Android page of each such app's Project Properties dialog). These apps will use the Project Library, and thus will share its code and capabilities.
Each such referencing app will have its own manifest file (where their respective, different packages can be declared), and they can also define their own classes (including classes derived from the Activity and/or Application classes of the Project Library), so that these classes can be specialized polymorphically for each app that uses the Project Library (e.g., by overriding methods or by providing definitions for methods that are defined as abstract within the Project Library's Activity- or Application-derived classes), although you can also use those Library classes without modification (provided that they are not abstract) by simply referencing them within the manifest file (e.g., in an activity or application tag) of each app that uses the Library, just as you would reference Activity or Application-derived classes defined within the app itself.
If you decided to use this approach, then you would put your main source files in a Project Library, and would create a separate project for each app you want to produce, each of which would reference the Project Library. The manifest file of the Project Library would be overridden by the manifest of whatever project is being created using that Library (actually, I think that the Project Library's own manifest is completely ignored, not just overridden, but nonetheless it is useful to create a manifest for the Library, so that you can manually template - copy and edit - the manifest of each project that uses it from the Library's own manifest).
I have used this approach to create multiple android apps that share some of the same capabilities, and it has worked very well for me.
Regarding package naming, any old package name will work for a library project, but of course it makes sense to use the same prefix for the Library Project's package as you use for your various individual (e.g., free vs. paid) apps that use it, with something like ".library" as the last part of the name, while the various apps could have endings like ".myappfree" and ".myapppaid". Naturally, you would want to use your reverse domain name convention for the library's package prefix to prevent conflicts, just as you would for a package name of a released app.
In Windows, a nice, open-source tool for comparing code bases is WinMerge:
http://winmerge.org/
If I were in your position, however, I would only use this tool to manually identify differences, and would not attempt to use it to automate the refactoring of your code into a Library Project. That would be best done under your own (manual) control.
Finally, as an alternative, you might consider using a single app that is free and that has your free app's capabilities by default, with an option to upgrade to your full app's capabilities (delivered within the same APK) via an in-app payment, rather than having separate free and paid apps. In-app payments have improved a great deal in the past several months (with the release of version 3 of IAB), and although there are still some glitches, they have become a more practical alternative to the free/full dichotomy than they were at first.
Yes, you can have a project that is basically just a manifest specifying app name, name space, icon etc, with all the actual code and 99% of the resources in the library project.
Yes, I think you should use this approach. It's very common to use library projects to deal with the Free/Paid app problem.
I've not had any problems with naming, though you should be careful with any resources in separate projects to avoid using the same names.
I'm not aware of any tools, and if it were me I'd want to do it manually to be sure I'm merging what needs merging and keeping separate what needs to be separate. you've one significant refactor to do, but once all the duplication is removed I'm sure it'll be much easier.