How about a .apk option?


#1

First, compliments to the foundation for adding Android!

I’m a high school teacher and I’d love to give my students the option of creating Android apps.

But it is cumbersome for many high school students to have to modify the manifest file and the icons to be able to export to signed. Most also don’t have a website they can refer to in the package. It would also clutter the Google Play Store with trivial apps.

Would Processing consider just adding an ‘Export to .apk’ option that could create an android package file that could be directly transferred to the tablet/phone and then installed on the device?

This option works very well for AppInventor, however I would VASTLY prefer to have students use Processing to create Android apps.

Please consider this request for a future version of the Android option in Processing.

Thank you again for a fantastic programming environment!

Best wishes,

Gord Payne
Newmarket, Ontario


#2

If your students can connect their devices directly to the development computer then you don’t need to export at all. This is the workflow for which Android mode is designed - just connect the device through USB.

I do agree, however, that you should not have to change the package name in the manifest in order to export. Perhaps a better solution would be to merely warn the user and not prevent them from exporting, or to prompt for a new package name. You should open an issue on the Android repo.

This default package detection was added fairly recently (issue #327), in v4.0-beta8, so versions before that do not have this limitation. It is not an ideal solution, but you may consider using v4.0-beta7 instead.

Note also that your students don’t need an actual website to use as the package name. Just make something up that is unique.


#3

Thanks very much. I discovered that the .apk was created. I sent it to my tablet and it installed great!

I would say that the reference to the Google Play Store makes it sound like the build goes right to the store and that’s a possible misinterpretation.

Thanks for your reply. I’m all clear now!

I’m looking forward to offering this to my students!


#4

@gpteacher – if you have specific suggestions for revised reference / documentation, I’m sure those would be welcome as an issue or pull request on Github.