New JNI bindings

src/org/adblockplus/android/api/AppInfo.java

+/*
+ * This file is part of Adblock Plus <http://adblockplus.org/>,
+ * Copyright (C) 2006-2014 Eyeo GmbH
+ *
+ * Adblock Plus is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ *
+ * Adblock Plus is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
+ *
+ * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+ * along with Adblock Plus.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+ */
+package org.adblockplus.android.api;

[Felix Dahlke, 2014/03/28 17:28:41]

How about org.adblockplus.libadblockplus for the package name? How I see it,
nothing in here should have anything to do with Android.

+
+public class AppInfo
+{
+  public final String id;
+  public final String version;
+  public final String name;
+  public final String application;
+  public final String applicationVersion;
+  public final String locale;
+  public final boolean developmentBuild;
+
+  // TODO: Builder or not?

[Felix Dahlke, 2014/03/28 17:28:41]

IMHO this should mirror the C++ API, that is: Just the default constructor and
non-final public members.

[René Jeschke, 2014/03/31 09:10:38]

Why do we want to have the object non-final? We only initialize it once, then we
pass it onto some JNI methods. I might provide a builder if this suits you more,
but public, non-final is no good and also not needed/wanted here.

[Felix Dahlke, 2014/03/31 10:43:23]

All I'm saying is that the Java API should mirror the C++ API as closely as
possible for simplicity's sake.

We could change both the C++ AppInfo object and this though.

[René Jeschke, 2014/04/11 12:25:53]

I don't think it's a good idea to change the C++ API here, still I think that an
immutable object is the best pattern on the Java side, so I would prefer leaving
this "as is".

[Felix Dahlke, 2014/04/11 13:01:29]

Discussed this on IRC. I agree now, an immutable object is better for stuff like
this, since Java doesn't support const values. I'd find this much more readable
as a builder, but feel free to do that in a follow-up, the TODO is there.

[René Jeschke, 2014/04/11 13:28:40]

Done.

+  public AppInfo(final String id, final String version, final String name, final String application, final String applicationVersion,
+      final String locale, final boolean developmentBuild)
+  {
+    this.id = id;
+    this.version = version;
+    this.name = name;
+    this.application = application;
+    this.applicationVersion = applicationVersion;
+    this.locale = locale;
+    this.developmentBuild = developmentBuild;
+  }
+}