Yes,my said spicec is the spicec-gtk because I changed to for it's safer than the C++ spicec. <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Alon Levy <<a href="mailto:alevy@redhat.com">alevy@redhat.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">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 </div>> *#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://<a href="http://gitorious.org/spice-gtk/spice-gtk.git" target="_blank">gitorious.org/spice-gtk/spice-gtk.git</a>? <div><div></div><div class="h5"> > 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 <<a href="mailto:shohyanglim@gmail.com">shohyanglim@gmail.com</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:shohyanglim@gmail.com">shohyanglim@gmail.com</a>>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 <<a href="mailto:alevy@redhat.com">alevy@redhat.com</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:alevy@redhat.com">alevy@redhat.com</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:alevy@redhat.com">alevy@redhat.com</a>> > >>> 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 > >>> > > > > > <a href="http://code.google.com/p/*android*-*vnc*-viewer/,then" target="_blank">code.google.com/p/*android*-*vnc*-viewer/,then</a> 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 > >>> > > > > > <a href="mailto:Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > >>> > > > > > <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel</a> > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > >>> > > > Spice-devel mailing list > >>> > > > <a href="mailto:Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > >>> > > > <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel</a> > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > Spice-devel mailing list > >>> > <a href="mailto:Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > >>> > <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel</a> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > <a href="mailto:Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel</a> </div></div></blockquote></div>