jni/Android.mk - Issue 6606493159784448: New JNI bindings

Delta Between Two Patch Sets: jni/Android.mk

Issue 6606493159784448: New JNI bindings (Closed)

Left Patch Set: Reuploaded full diff Created March 28, 2014, 3:56 p.m.

Right Patch Set: Removed TODO from AppInfo. Created April 11, 2014, 1:28 p.m.

Left:
Right:

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments.

Jump to:

Left: Side by side diff | Download
Right: Side by side diff | Download

LEFT	RIGHT
1 LOCAL_PATH := $(call my-dir)	1 LOCAL_PATH := $(call my-dir)

2	2

3 include $(CLEAR_VARS)	3 include $(CLEAR_VARS)

4	4

5 LOCAL_MODULE := libadblockplus	5 LOCAL_MODULE := libadblockplus

6 LOCAL_SRC_FILES := ./libadblockplus-binaries/android_arm/libadblockplus.a	6 LOCAL_SRC_FILES := ./libadblockplus-binaries/android_arm/libadblockplus.a

7	7

8 include $(PREBUILT_STATIC_LIBRARY)	8 include $(PREBUILT_STATIC_LIBRARY)

9	9

10 include $(CLEAR_VARS)	10 include $(CLEAR_VARS)

11	11

12 LOCAL_MODULE := v8-base	12 LOCAL_MODULE := v8-base

13 LOCAL_SRC_FILES := ./libadblockplus-binaries/android_arm/libv8_base.a	13 LOCAL_SRC_FILES := ./libadblockplus-binaries/android_arm/libv8_base.a

14	14

15 include $(PREBUILT_STATIC_LIBRARY)	15 include $(PREBUILT_STATIC_LIBRARY)

16	16

17 include $(CLEAR_VARS)	17 include $(CLEAR_VARS)

18	18

19 LOCAL_MODULE := v8-snapshot	19 LOCAL_MODULE := v8-snapshot

20 LOCAL_SRC_FILES := ./libadblockplus-binaries/android_arm/libv8_snapshot.a	20 LOCAL_SRC_FILES := ./libadblockplus-binaries/android_arm/libv8_snapshot.a

21	21

22 include $(PREBUILT_STATIC_LIBRARY)	22 include $(PREBUILT_STATIC_LIBRARY)

23	23

24 include $(CLEAR_VARS)	24 include $(CLEAR_VARS)

25	25

26 LOCAL_MODULE := abpEngine	26 LOCAL_MODULE := libadblockplus-jni
Felix Dahlke 2014/03/28 17:36:23 Me being pedantic, but I don't think "abpEngine" m Me being pedantic, but I don't think "abpEngine" makes a lot of sense once we got rid of AbpEngine.cpp et. al. Let's keep it like this for now, but doesn't hurt to think of a suitable name. I was thinking of something along the lines of "libadblockplusWrappers", but I'm not sure if that's any good. What do you think? René Jeschke 2014/03/31 09:10:38 I think we should just call it 'libadblockplus' as Show quoted text On 2014/03/28 17:36:23, Felix H. Dahlke wrote: > Me being pedantic, but I don't think "abpEngine" makes a lot of sense once we > got rid of AbpEngine.cpp et. al. > > Let's keep it like this for now, but doesn't hurt to think of a suitable name. I > was thinking of something along the lines of "libadblockplusWrappers", but I'm > not sure if that's any good. What do you think? I think we should just call it 'libadblockplus' as this is exactly what it is for Android/Java IMO (even if the wrapping part is quite heavy here). Felix Dahlke 2014/03/31 10:43:23 Trouble is, we actually have a module called "liba Show quoted text On 2014/03/31 09:10:38, René Jeschke wrote: > On 2014/03/28 17:36:23, Felix H. Dahlke wrote: > > Me being pedantic, but I don't think "abpEngine" makes a lot of sense once we > > got rid of AbpEngine.cpp et. al. > > > > Let's keep it like this for now, but doesn't hurt to think of a suitable name. > I > > was thinking of something along the lines of "libadblockplusWrappers", but I'm > > not sure if that's any good. What do you think? > > I think we should just call it 'libadblockplus' as this is exactly what it is > for Android/Java IMO (even if the wrapping part is quite heavy here). Trouble is, we actually have a module called "libadblockplus" (the actual libadblockplus), see above. The code in the abpEngine module is really just (going to be) the wrappers. René Jeschke 2014/04/11 12:25:53 Done. Show quoted text On 2014/03/31 10:43:23, Felix H. Dahlke wrote: > On 2014/03/31 09:10:38, René Jeschke wrote: > > On 2014/03/28 17:36:23, Felix H. Dahlke wrote: > > > Me being pedantic, but I don't think "abpEngine" makes a lot of sense once > we > > > got rid of AbpEngine.cpp et. al. > > > > > > Let's keep it like this for now, but doesn't hurt to think of a suitable > name. > > I > > > was thinking of something along the lines of "libadblockplusWrappers", but > I'm > > > not sure if that's any good. What do you think? > > > > I think we should just call it 'libadblockplus' as this is exactly what it is > > for Android/Java IMO (even if the wrapping part is quite heavy here). > > Trouble is, we actually have a module called "libadblockplus" (the actual > libadblockplus), see above. The code in the abpEngine module is really just > (going to be) the wrappers. Done.
27 LOCAL_SRC_FILES := AbpEngine.cpp Utils.cpp AndroidLogSystem.cpp AndroidWebReques t.cpp	27 LOCAL_SRC_FILES := AbpEngine.cpp Utils.cpp AndroidLogSystem.cpp AndroidWebReques t.cpp

28 LOCAL_SRC_FILES += JniJsEngine.cpp JniFilterEngine.cpp JniJsValue.cpp JniFilter. cpp	28 LOCAL_SRC_FILES += JniJsEngine.cpp JniFilterEngine.cpp JniJsValue.cpp JniFilter. cpp

29 LOCAL_SRC_FILES += JniSubscription.cpp JniEventCallback.cpp JniLogSystem.cpp	29 LOCAL_SRC_FILES += JniSubscription.cpp JniEventCallback.cpp JniLogSystem.cpp

30 LOCAL_SRC_FILES += JniWebRequest.cpp JniUpdaterCallback.cpp JniFilterChangeCallb ack.cpp	30 LOCAL_SRC_FILES += JniWebRequest.cpp JniUpdaterCallback.cpp JniFilterChangeCallb ack.cpp

31 LOCAL_SRC_FILES += JniCallbacks.cpp	31 LOCAL_SRC_FILES += JniCallbacks.cpp

32	32

33 LOCAL_CPP_FEATURES := rtti exceptions	33 LOCAL_CPP_FEATURES := rtti exceptions

34 LOCAL_CFLAGS += -std=gnu++0x	34 LOCAL_CFLAGS += -std=gnu++0x

35	35

36 LOCAL_C_INCLUDES := jni/libadblockplus-binaries/include/	36 LOCAL_C_INCLUDES := jni/libadblockplus-binaries/include/

37 LOCAL_STATIC_LIBRARIES := libadblockplus v8-base v8-snapshot	37 LOCAL_STATIC_LIBRARIES := libadblockplus v8-base v8-snapshot

38 LOCAL_LDLIBS := -llog	38 LOCAL_LDLIBS := -llog

39	39

40 include $(BUILD_SHARED_LIBRARY)	40 include $(BUILD_SHARED_LIBRARY)

LEFT	RIGHT