Mats,

Yes, you are correct in your assessment.

This something that will be addressing in master know that 1.3 IoTivity been 
released.

It is on my list of item we need to discuss in the OSWG and come to agreement.

We will make proposal on what we think needs to be done.

The Validation Team will need to test everything...

1.       NDK 10d

2.       Toolchain   4.8 vs 4.9

3.       'Android API 21'

4.       Android SDK Build-tools 20 or 21


Below are issues that we will be addressing, one them you filed.
T

Key

Summary

Assignee

Reporter

P

Status

Resolution

Created

Updated

Due

[Bug]<https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-2207>

IOT-2207<https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-2207>


uplift Android NDK<https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-2207>

George Nash<https://jira.iotivity.org/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=georgen>

Mats Wichmann<https://jira.iotivity.org/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=mwichmann>

[Undecided]

Open

Unresolved

04/May/17

08/May/17



Actions 
<https://jira.iotivity.org/rest/api/1.0/issues/13487/ActionsAndOperations?atl_token=B8S4-2L5V-Z2MD-F2GZ|fd59a17d5c2cde8b5ea93426d8a25d55f326474a|lin>

[Bug]<https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-1863>

IOT-1863<https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-1863>


android build fails with "wchar.h no such file" on latest stable ndk 
version(r13b)<https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-1863>

George Nash<https://jira.iotivity.org/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=georgen>

byonggon 
chun<https://jira.iotivity.org/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=Byonggon_Chun>

[Undecided]

Open

Unresolved

26/Feb/17

08/May/17



Actions 
<https://jira.iotivity.org/rest/api/1.0/issues/13100/ActionsAndOperations?atl_token=B8S4-2L5V-Z2MD-F2GZ|fd59a17d5c2cde8b5ea93426d8a25d55f326474a|lin>

[Bug]<https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-582>

IOT-582<https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-582>


Iotivity's Android build process does not follow proper Gradle implementation 
standards.<https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-582>

George Nash<https://jira.iotivity.org/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=georgen>

Joseph Morrow<https://jira.iotivity.org/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=josephlm>

[P2]

In Progress

Unresolved

24/Jun/15

06/Apr/17






Thanks,

-Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mats Wichmann
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 6:42 AM
To: IoTivity Developer List <iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org>
Subject: [dev] small questions on iotivity java





As I'm fiddling with sconscripts...



The following appears in java/SConscript:



***************************************** Info

********************************

*   Either 'Android API 21' is not installed or 'Android SDK Build Tools

*   20.0.0' is not installed. The Android SDK Manager will now open. Please

*   be sure to deselect all options, then select the following 2 packages:

*       1. Under "Tools" select "Android SDK Build-tools" Revision 20.

*       2. Under "Android 5.0.1 (API 21)" select "SDK Platform"





Leading to a couple of questions:



Q1. Is Android SDK build-tools 20 really the one we want to point to?



The build.gradle files in java examples actually hardcode it:



android {

    compileSdkVersion 21

    buildToolsVersion "20.0.0"

...





but at least according to upstream docs, build tools 21 is where support for 
API level 21 came in:



===

Build Tools, Revision 21.0.0 (October 2014)



General Notes:



        Added support for Android 5.0 (API level 21).

        RenderScript now supports seamless 32/64-bit operation for API

        level 21 and higher.

        Fixed issue with the Gradle build system when using the JaCoCo

        plugin. (Issue 69174)

        Added an input-list option for use with long command lines on

        Windows.



Build Tools, Revision 20.0.0 (June 2014)



General Notes:



        Added support for Android Wear.

===



(no mention of API 21 at all in the rev 20 section)



Current version in that line is build tools 21.1.2.



What should the comment actually say, and what should the files say, about 
build-tools versions?





Q2. When I actually did an android build, I got a "lint" report which opened in 
a browser, and had been generated in:



java/examples-android/simpleserver/build/outputs/lint-results.html



that makes some fairly vocal (rating it 6/10) complaints about the use of such 
an old API level... is API 21 the right one for today's world?

Without further comment on my part (because I'm just looking at this for the 
first time), here is the text of most of the complaint:



====================================

Correctness



OldTargetApi: Target SDK attribute is not targeting latest version

../../build.gradle:10: Not targeting the latest versions of Android; 
compatibility modes apply. Consider testing and updating this version.

Consult the android.os.Build.VERSION_CODES javadoc for details.



   7     defaultConfig {

   8         applicationId "org.iotivity.base.examples.simpleserver"

   9         minSdkVersion 21

  10         targetSdkVersion 21

  11         versionCode 1

  12         versionName "1.0"



Note: This issue has an associated quickfix operation in Android 
Studio/IntelliJ Fix

Priority: 6 / 10

Category: Correctness

Severity: Warning

Explanation: Target SDK attribute is not targeting latest version.

When your application runs on a version of Android that is more recent than 
your targetSdkVersion specifies that it has been tested with, various 
compatibility modes kick in.

_______________________________________________

iotivity-dev mailing list

iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org>

https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170602/028c0c62/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: 
<http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170602/028c0c62/attachment.png>

Reply via email to