Yes,my said spicec is the spicec-gtk because I changed to for it's safer than the C++ spicec.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Alon Levy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:18:50PM +0800, Shuxiang Lim wrote: > > Yep, I walked around this but to face more chored and nasty troubles in > > porting Pulseaudio lib, time limited, so I decided to DISABLE the > > audio(playback/record) channels first. Thus the porting of > libspicec_glib.so > > is finished(along with all its dependences) and androidVNCViewer(whose UI > > will be peeled to become spicec's) proj. has been built: > > *#file libspicec_glib.so * > > libspicec_glib.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, ARM, version 1 (SYSV), > > dynamically linked, not stripped > > *#arm-eabi-readelf -d libspicec_glib.so * > > Cool. > > Just one thing - you keep saying spicec, the spicec is the name of the > executable > and package for the old-and-planned-to-be-phased-out-non-glib-client, so > you are > actually working with the spice-gtk repo now, right? git:// > gitorious.org/spice-gtk/spice-gtk.git? > > > Dynamic section at offset 0x774a4 contains 27 entries: > > Tag Type Name/Value > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libc.so] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libm.so] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: > [libpixman-1.so.0] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: > [libssl.so.1.0.0] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: > > [libcrypto.so.1.0.0] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libjpeg.so.62] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libz.so] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: > [libglib-2.0.so.0] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: > [libgio-2.0.so.0] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: > > [libgobject-2.0.so.0] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: > > [libgmodule-2.0.so.0] > > 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: > > [libgthread-2.0.so.0] > > 0x00000010 (SYMBOLIC) 0x0 > > .... > > Now comes the last adventure of Native interfaces exposing and UI > building! > > Regards. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Shuxiang Lim <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Well, I think I may try the "--with-coroutine=gthread" in spice-gtk > > > configuring to walk around that... > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Shuxiang Lim <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > >> Hi,I need help! > > >> Now I've managed to divided spicec-gtk into two parts > libspicec.so(based > > >> on libpixman.so,libglib-2.0.so...No relation to X11 at all) and > spicec(based > > >> on libspicec.so and libgtk.so...). And the glib2.0 porting to Android > is > > >> also completed. But I'm blocked in compiling libspicec onto Android at > the > > >> begining for the continuation.c uses the functions in <ucontext.h> > > >> :setcontext(),getcontext()..., which are some thread-related funcs as > I > > >> know,and, definitely unsuprisingly, Android libc doesn't have them! Is > there > > >> a way to drop or replace the use of such funcs? Or should I manually > write > > >> setcontext from scratch? > > >> RGRDs. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Alon Levy <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 09:08:28AM +0800, Shuxiang Lim wrote: > > >>> > Option 1: use spice-gtk with a gtk android backend > > >>> > a) compiling gtk for it would be possible. > > >>> > b) write a partial gtk backend, good enough for spice-gtk. > > >>> > c) no changes to spice-gtk. > > >>> > Yep,that's really a good hope,but it's another project(too huge > and > > >>> far > > >>> > away for me now): > > >>> > Project:"GTK for Android.". So now I can use only the Android SDK > to > > >>> finish > > >>> > the UI(the new native UI APIs in NDK is not reliable in versions). > > >>> > > >>> Yeah, I think you're right, I can't find anyone already working on > this > > >>> by > > >>> simple web search. Maybe spice-gtk's non ui objects are dependent > only on > > >>> gobject / stuff that is easy to just drop in (ugly, but still more > > >>> maintainable > > >>> then basing your work on spicec, long term). > > >>> > > >>> > And also you've referred that "spicec is already platform > > >>> independent", > > >>> > that's true to Linux and Windows,but not to Android,for such > > >>> independence is > > >>> > based on the C++ independence over the os which cannot stand > through > > >>> the > > >>> > JAVA UIed android.So there is no way to just add a subdir ./android > > >>> under > > >>> > spice/client along with ./x11 and ./windows. It should be a > combined > > >>> proj. > > >>> > of C/C++ and Java. (That's why I hate Android and yearn for > > >>> Maemo/Meego.) > > >>> > > >>> Definitely easier to port to Maemo :) > > >>> > > >>> > Regards. > > >>> > > > >>> > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Alon Levy <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 06:21:19PM +0800, Shuxiang Lim wrote: > > >>> > > > Hi, friends, > > >>> > > > Thanks for your replies. It's definitely right till now > I've > > >>> been > > >>> > > > working a tougher way compared to spice-gtk.And actually I've > > >>> considered > > >>> > > to > > >>> > > > steer my way to the latter in fear of the troublesome and > crippled > > >>> C++ > > >>> > > > support in Android NDK:C is more "simple and safe" in Android > than > > >>> C++. > > >>> > > > But,AFAIK,there is no gtk port for Android yet. And the biggest > > >>> obstacle > > >>> > > is > > >>> > > > the framework of Android:in its design,all UI should be done in > > >>> JAVA > > >>> > > powered > > >>> > > > by SKIA libs.Therefore the port of UI libs(GTK,etc) will be > choked > > >>> by the > > >>> > > > I/O level because Android don't completely expose them at > all!(I > > >>> once > > >>> > > > managed to port Xfbdev onto it,but that's not commercially > > >>> practical at > > >>> > > all, > > >>> > > > it's just a geeky trick maybe,an app in Android SHOULD NOT do > > >>> this.) Only > > >>> > > > the algorithm/data computing-related C/C++ libs are welcomed to > be > > >>> the > > >>> > > JNI > > >>> > > > servants to JAVA UI apps in Android. > > >>> > > > You see, in such aspect, there is not too much diff between > the > > >>> C++ > > >>> > > way > > >>> > > > and gtk way in the porting of UI part. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I'm going to try to prove that wrong by grepping hoping it makes > > >>> sense, I > > >>> > > never > > >>> > > actually coded in gtk: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > $ git grep GObjectClass > > >>> > > gtk/channel-cursor.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > > >>> > > G_OBJECT_CLASS(klass); > > >>> > > gtk/channel-display.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > > >>> > > G_OBJECT_CLASS(klass); > > >>> > > gtk/channel-inputs.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > > >>> > > G_OBJECT_CLASS(klass); > > >>> > > gtk/channel-main.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > > >>> G_OBJECT_CLASS(klass); > > >>> > > gtk/channel-playback.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > > >>> > > G_OBJECT_CLASS(klass); > > >>> > > gtk/channel-record.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > > >>> > > G_OBJECT_CLASS(klass); > > >>> > > gtk/spice-audio.h: GObjectClass parent_class; > > >>> > > gtk/spice-channel.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > G_OBJECT_CLASS > > >>> > > (klass); > > >>> > > gtk/spice-channel.h: GObjectClass parent_class; > > >>> > > gtk/spice-gstaudio.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > > >>> > > G_OBJECT_CLASS(klass); > > >>> > > gtk/spice-pulse.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > > >>> G_OBJECT_CLASS(klass); > > >>> > > gtk/spice-session.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > > >>> > > G_OBJECT_CLASS(klass); > > >>> > > gtk/spice-session.h: GObjectClass parent_class; > > >>> > > gtk/spice-widget.c: GObjectClass *gobject_class = > > >>> G_OBJECT_CLASS(klass); > > >>> > > > > >>> > > otoh: > > >>> > > U playa:spice-gtk alon (master)$ git grep --name-only GdkWindow > > >>> > > gtk/spice-widget-cairo.c > > >>> > > gtk/spice-widget.c > > >>> > > > > >>> > > (if you grep Window you get false negatives because of the > > >>> compression > > >>> > > window). > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Anyway, this is a lame attempt to prove the gtk stuff that does > ui > > >>> (read: > > >>> > > uses X) > > >>> > > is separated in the code/architecture level :) > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > So for me the shining light of spicec-gtk is not in "GTK" > but in > > >>> "C". > > >>> > > I > > >>> > > > dare not to say I'm clear about every nook in spicec at all. My > > >>> best hope > > >>> > > is > > >>> > > > that the IO in spicec shall be straight and succinct ,the inner > > >>> > > > graphic/sound computing(decompress,etc) shall have NO relation > with > > >>> upper > > >>> > > UI > > >>> > > > libs at all, so I can pipe the Finished image flow into UI > through > > >>> JNI > > >>> > > > interfaces and direct the user input backward. (That's why I > can > > >>> borrow > > >>> > > the > > >>> > > > UI from AndroidVNCViewer) > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Yeah, I think it is generally so, but again, it's so in spice-gtk > > >>> too, and > > >>> > > that's > > >>> > > our only future supported client (*). > > >>> > > > > >>> > > (*) plans do change. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > libspicec.so(do most jobs) > > >>> > > > <==finishedimages/audio>>===<<inputs==>spicec.java.ui(only UI) > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Am I right? Is there any design that will frustrate this in > spicec > > >>> or > > >>> > > > spice-gtk? > > >>> > > > > >>> > > spicec is already separated at the platform level, since it uses > low > > >>> level > > >>> > > libraries directly, unlike spice-gtk (X and GDI). So you would > > >>> basically > > >>> > > be adding a platform/android. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > In gtk I really haven't done android development, ever, at least > not > > >>> in the > > >>> > > C level, but I was hoping: > > >>> > > Option 1: use spice-gtk with a gtk android backend > > >>> > > a) compiling gtk for it would be possible. > > >>> > > b) write a partial gtk backend, good enough for spice-gtk. > > >>> > > c) no changes to spice-gtk. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Option 2 is of course to make spice-gtk also have platform > > >>> separation, > > >>> > > while > > >>> > > still using gtk/gobject for all stuff that would Just Work when > doing > > >>> 1.a > > >>> > > (the > > >>> > > data structures, the signals, the macros, the introspection?). > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Regards. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Alon Levy <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:38:51PM +0800, Shuxiang Lim wrote: > > >>> > > > > > Hi all, > > >>> > > > > > I'm trying these days to port spicec into Android.But > it's a > > >>> > > rather > > >>> > > > > TOUGH > > >>> > > > > > way to go because the structure of spicec and android are > > >>> desperately > > >>> > > > > > inappropriate:the linux version of spicec is based on the > > >>> X11,which > > >>> > > is > > >>> > > > > not > > >>> > > > > > available in Android,thus the UI of spicec should be > rewritten > > >>> from > > >>> > > > > > scratch...More troublesome is that the UI part and data > part in > > >>> > > current > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > Haven't looked at your proposal below yet, but did you check > the > > >>> > > spice-gtk > > >>> > > > > work? maybe it is easier to start from that? are gtk > libraries > > >>> > > available on > > >>> > > > > android? not talking about X. spice-gtk has objects for > > >>> connection and > > >>> > > > > channels > > >>> > > > > that afaik don't do any output, that's separate from the > actual > > >>> widget > > >>> > > that > > >>> > > > > uses X. Also, gtk 3 has backends - did anyone do a backend > for > > >>> android? > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > Since going forward we plan to ditch the spicec client, that > > >>> would be > > >>> > > > > really > > >>> > > > > preffered. Now that I see what you have planned it sounds > good, > > >>> but > > >>> > > better > > >>> > > > > to use spice-gtk. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > of course that's not to say we won't love to see this working > > >>> anyway :) > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > spicec is entangled in the hierarchical system in C++! So > my > > >>> plan is > > >>> > > > > this: > > >>> > > > > > first split the spicec into two parts,data and UI,transform > the > > >>> data > > >>> > > part > > >>> > > > > > into libspicec.so;then rewrite the UI part in JAVA. > Besides, I > > >>> should > > >>> > > > > also > > >>> > > > > > tinker some problems caused by the Crippled NDK C++ support > and > > >>> the > > >>> > > Lamed > > >>> > > > > > bionic c lib in android . > > >>> > > > > > And now the first step is roughly done,hence the change > of > > >>> the > > >>> > > spicec > > >>> > > > > > structure: > > >>> > > > > > From > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > |-->playback > > >>> > > > > > thread > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > |-->cursor > > >>> > > > > > thread > > >>> > > > > > spicec:spicec process（application process）-->main > > >>> thread->|-->*record > > >>> > > > > thread > > >>> > > > > > * > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > |-->inputs > > >>> > > > > > thread > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > |-->display > > >>> > > > > > thread > > >>> > > > > > To: > > >>> > > > > > ===========================> > > >>> > > > > > |-->libspicec.so:application > > >>> thread-->main > > >>> > > > > > thread------>| > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > | |<--display > thread<--| > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > | |--->|<--cursor > > >>> > > > > > thread<---|<------------------| > > >>> > > > > > | | |<--inputs > thread<---| > > >>> > > > > > spicec:spicec process--->| | |<--playback > thread<-| > > >>> > > > > > | | > > >>> > > > > > | | > > >>> > > > > > | | > > >>> > > > > > <---------------------------------------------| > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > |-->spicec:platform > > >>> > > > > > thread------------------------------>| > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > The hierarchical relationship has been unleashed with one > > >>> > > thread(record > > >>> > > > > > channel) deleted and two new threads (app and platform) > > >>> created. The > > >>> > > > > first > > >>> > > > > > as the "data thread",the other as the "work thread" which > is > > >>> driven > > >>> > > by > > >>> > > > > the > > >>> > > > > > signals from the first thread as well as its sub threads > and > > >>> > > requested to > > >>> > > > > do > > >>> > > > > > the UI-related work: > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > platform thread：------------>blocked and waiting:-->job > > >>> > > > > > request-<--------------| > > >>> > > > > > | | > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > ^ | > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > | | > > >>> > > > > > |<----------|-<-| > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > | | > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > platform thread over<----------if(job==die)<--| > send > > >>> req. > > >>> > > blocked > > >>> > > > > > and waiting > > >>> > > > > > | ^ > | > > >>> > > > > > | > > >>> > > > > > | | > | > > >>> > > > > > ^ > > >>> > > > > > | | > | > > >>> > > > > > _________|_________ > > >>> > > > > > | | > | > > >>> > > > > > | app/plbk/cusor > > >>> > > > > > thd > > >>> > > > > > |<---job done----dojob()<--else--| | > > >>> |->go > > >>> > > on->| > > >>> > > > > > __________________ > > >>> > > > > > | | > > >>> > > > > > |------------------------------->feed back-->| > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > So the next work is to expose the native JNI interface in > > >>> platform > > >>> > > thread > > >>> > > > > to > > >>> > > > > > the UI written in Android SDK. I try to use the UI > > >>> > > > > > frame of AndroidVNCViewer in > > >>> > > > > > code.google.com/p/*android*-*vnc*-viewer/,then the work of > > >>> platform > > >>> > > > > > thread will be replaced by UI but the msg > > >>> > > > > > communication to libspicec will be remained. That's the > easiest > > >>> way I > > >>> > > can > > >>> > > > > > envisage except rewriting all parts in spicec from scratch. > > >>> > > > > > It's tough too, for I have poor experiance in Java... > > >>> > > > > > Anyway, is there any other guy working on this? Is my > way > > >>> > > > > feasible??Any > > >>> > > > > > Ideas or help is appreciated. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > See above for ideas, don't read them as a criticism, I think > this > > >>> is > > >>> > > > > fantastic > > >>> > > > > what you've done so far. I remember someone posting "we are > > >>> working on > > >>> > > > > andriod > > >>> > > > > in our spare time" post to spice-devel, please grep the > archive. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > Alon > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Best regards. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > > > > > Spice-devel mailing list > > >>> > > > > > [email protected] > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > > > Spice-devel mailing list > > >>> > > > [email protected] > > >>> > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > Spice-devel mailing list > > >>> > [email protected] > > >>> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Spice-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel > >
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
