[Spice-devel] Try to port spicec into Android
Shuxiang Lim
shohyanglim at gmail.com
Wed Mar 9 02:18:50 PST 2011
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 *
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 <shohyanglim at gmail.com> 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 <shohyanglim at gmail.com>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 <alevy at redhat.com> 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 <alevy at redhat.com> 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 <alevy at redhat.com>
>>> 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
>>> > > > > > Spice-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> > > > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > Spice-devel mailing list
>>> > > > Spice-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Spice-devel mailing list
>>> > Spice-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/attachments/20110309/4c6645ed/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Spice-devel
mailing list