Mobile between the platforms in question. This

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mobile Platform Architecture
Review:

 

Android, iPhone

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

Usman khaliq

VU ID:
Ms170401201

 

 

Abstract. The rapid increase  of mobile
platforms in now days where context aware application is an  emerging field, makes it very di?cult for developers to find the best platform fo. A review of  key concepts on Android, iPhone  points out important similarities and di?erences
that will help to better understand the target platform characteristics. As
mobil-ity is an important aspect of such phones, the ability to access
mobile-specific functionality is investigated. Implications at every concept
visited will then point out things to keep in mind as a developer.

 

1  Motivation

 

The last couple of years have seen smartphone sales take o?. While
this hype mainly started out with the introduction of the first iPhone in 2007,
more mobile platforms have been introduced since, and competition is
intensifying. Due to this fragmentation, targeting an application for multiple
markets, devices or operators has become increasingly di?cult. As
cross-platform development tools are rare yet, developers have to face a
decision on which platforms their native application should be supported first,
or ported to later on. Market share, ease of development, popularity, an active
developer community, usability and target group are all factors for
consideration when favoring one platform over the other.

 

Developers on the other hand would
prefer to implement an application once, and deploy it for many platforms with
minimal e?ort. To enable such a scenario, programmers must know the very di?erences
between the platforms in question. This work will try to compare popular mobile
platforms in terms of capabilities and point out the most significant di?erences
in platform concepts (which sub-sequently make it di?cult to enable write-once,
deploy-anywhere applications). Such an analysis will help the developer to
understand which parts of a system may be more suitable for reuse, and which
may not—the conclusion will also try to address these questions. The work will
also be beneficial for somebody trying to raise an application’s abstraction
level to support multiple platforms—one such project, though targeted at
low-cost mobile platforms, is introduced in 5.

 

2  Methodology

 

The
comparison focuses on three platforms: the underlying platform of the iPhone
2, Android 1, and Qt 3,4.

 

R. Moreno-D´?az et al.
(Eds.): EUROCAST 2011, Part II, LNCS 6928, pp. 545–552, 2011. c Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg 2011

 

 

 

 

546      M. Lettner, M. Tschernuth,
and R. Mayrhofer

 

The first one is the one that started the recent hype, the second one
is gain-ing more and more momentum and becoming increasingly popular, while Qt
is increasingly used for Symbian development, an operating system (OS) that has
been around for a much longer time, and must be taken into account not least
due to its status of the system with the most widespread use. Despite the
recent announcement by Nokia1 to use Microsoft’s Windows Phone OS on Nokia’s devices to create a
new global mobile ecosystem, Qt will still play a key role on Nokia’s expected
150 million units2
that will ship with Symbian in the years to come, and is the development
environment of choice for Intel’s MeeGo platform—a platform not only targeted
at mobile phones or netbooks, but intended to be used in TV sets, set-top boxes
or In-Vehicle Infotainment systems.

 

After a basic introduction to all of
the beforementioned platforms, their archi-tecture will be analyzed, and
commonalities and di?erences in terms of platform capabilites will be pointed
out.

 

 

3  Platform Introduction

 

Android:
is an open-source software stack created for
mobile phones and other devices
that includes an OS, middleware and key applications 1. It is based on Linux
kernel version 2.6 to provide core system services such as security, memory
management, process management, network stack, and driver model. The Dalvik
virtual machine (VM)—optimized for minimal memory footprint— executes Android
applications usually written in Java that were first converted into Dalvik Executable
format. From a developer’s perspective, it is the Android SDK that provides the
tools and APIs required for developing applications.

 

iPhone:
iOS is the mobile OS of Apple’s iPhone series.
It is based on the same technologies
used by Mac OS X, namely the Mach kernel and BSD interfaces, thus making it a
UNIX-based system 2. Applications are primarily developed using Objective-C—a
superset of ANSI C extended with syntactical and seman-tic features (derived
from Smalltalk) to support object-oriented programming. Cocoa Touch is the
application environment to build applications for iOS and consists of a suite
of object-oriented libraries, a runtime, and an integrated de-velopment
environment (e.g., XCode or Interface Builder). Two core frameworks are
essential to application development: the Foundation and the UIKit.

 

Qt:
Opposed to the previously discussed platforms,
Qt is not limited to one specific
OS. Instead, Qt is a cross-platform application and UI framework, in-cluding
desktop and mobile target platforms such as Windows, Linux, Symbian or MeeGo.
Qt comes with a C++ class library and integrated development tools. Bindings
for a wide range of other languages exist, e.g. Java, C# or Ruby.

1  http://press.nokia.com/2011/02/11/nokia-and-microsoft-announce-plans-for-a-broad-strategic-partnership-to-build-a-new-global-ecosystem/

2  http://qt.nokia.com/products/qt-for-mobile-platforms/

 

 

 

 

Mobile
Platform Architecture Review: Android, iPhone, Qt

547

 

4  Platform Comparison

 

Important concepts such as memory management, user interface
realization or communication, just to name a few, are provided by all platforms
in one way or the other. This section will outline these basic concepts and
find di?er-ences/commonalities between the platforms in question.

 

4.1        
OS/Platform-specific

 

Memory
Management. Proper memory management is essential
to all com-puter systems, but due to the memory-constrained nature of
smartphones it is especially important on mobile platforms. Therefore, it is
indispensable to deal-locate objects that are no longer needed—which could
either be taken care of by the system, or be an important necessity to be
carried out by the developer.

 

Android:
Android applications rely on automatic memory
management han-dled by Dalvik’s garbage collector (GC), which, as Google
states, can sometimes cause performance issues if you are not careful with
memory allocations 1. Each process uses a separate GC instance—thus, the
collectors don’t interfere with instances of other applications. The type
employed by Dalvik is known as tracing GC and utilizes a mark-and-sweep approach 6: In a first step, the col-lector instance keeps mark
bits to indicate that a particular object is “reachable” and therefore should
not be garbage collected 7. In a second phase all objects are collected that
are marked as such. The biggest advantage of the mark-and-sweep algorithm is
its ability to correctly identify and collect garbage even in the presence of
reference cycles 8, whereas the major disadvantage is the fact that program
execution must be halted to run the algorithm.

 

iPhone: Objective-C
supports two concepts for memory management: automatic garbage
collection and reference counting 2.

 

– Garbage collection:
although introduced in Objective-C 2.0, an
automatic
memory management mechanism is not available on
iOS (i.e., it is only supported by Mac OS X version 10.5 and higher). It would
allow to pass re-sponsibility for determining the lifetime of objects to an automatic
collector.

– Reference counting:
denotes a technique of memory management on iOS,
where an object carries a numerical value
reflecting the current claims on the object. When this value reaches zero, the
object is deallocated 2. It is the developer’s responsibility to determine
the lifetime of objects by balancing each call that claims object ownership
(object allocation/copying, or a retain message) with a call that removes that
claim (i.e., release or autorelease).

 

Qt:
Qt follows an approach that is a certain
variation of object ownership 4: As most classes are derived from QObject, instances of all such classes
are placed in a hierarchy of QObject instances. Then, when a parent object is
deleted, its children are deleted, too. To mimic automatic memory management,
one could allocate the parent on the stack, which would automatically destruct
all dynamically allocated child objects when the parent element goes out of
scope.

 

 

 

 

548      M.
Lettner, M. Tschernuth, and R. Mayrhofer

 

Implications:
The platforms di?er in the ways they handle
memory—the biggest di?erence
being in whether a GC is provided or not. Having one, as on Android, is not an
insurance against memory leaks though3, since references can still be held that prevent the GC from
collecting certain objects. If performance is a crucial criterion in an
application, the overhead of a GC might adversely a?ect the runtime behavior.
Android’s mark-and-sweep algorithm required to suspend normal program
execution, disallowing any runtime predictability. Applying de-sign principles4 is one way to workaround performance issues. In addition, there is
the possibility to develop performance-critical portions in native code. On
An-droid, starting with Native Development Kit release r55, entire applications (i.e., including the whole application
lifecycle) can be developed this way in C++.

 

When a code generator is used to
generate the platform code from an abstract model (as in 5), for languages
not supporting automated garbage collection memory management design patterns
9 can be incorporated into generation rules—e.g., static or pool allocation
patterns might be used internally while the implementation complexity is hidden
from the programmer.

 

Communication
between Components. This section deals with
ways of
communication between objects or components
inside applications, from a de-veloper’s perspective. It is not meant to be
understood as communication in the meaning of telecommunication and/or
messaging between end users.

 

Android:
To pass information from one screen to another,
Android uses Intents—
an asynchronous way to communicate between
components (in Android terms, these are Activities, Services, Broadcast
receivers and Content providers). All but the last of the beforementioned
components can be activated using asynchronous messages, so-called Intents,
which are objects holding the content of the message.

 

iPhone:
On iPhone, there is not a single comparable
concept of how to pass infor-mation between objects. Instead, the programmer
can use the built-in capabilites of Objective C, such as Delegates,
Notifications or Target/Action mechanism to pass information along screens.

 

Qt:
Qt utilizes a concept known as
Signals and Slots to enable communication
between components—another asynchronous way of
message passing between objects. Qt Widgets have either predefined signals, or
can be customized with own signals. On occurrence of a specified event, a
certain signal is being emitted. At the receiving end, other objects can define
slots (or make use of predefined ones), which are normal C++ methods that match
a signal’s signature. When signals and slots are connected, code defined in
slots is executed on emission of events. A strength of this scheme is that
signals can be connected to multi-ple slots, while each slot can receive
signals from multiple source objects. The execution order is not defined if
multiple slots are connected to the same signal.

3  http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/01/avoiding-memory-leaks.html

 

4  
http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/design/performance.html

 

5  
http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html

 

 

 

 

Mobile
Platform Architecture Review: Android, iPhone, Qt

549

 

Implications:
As the mentioned communication patterns are very platform-specific,
it is hard to compare them:

 

Commonalities:

 

– All three platforms have a truly asynchronous communication system in
place where (multiple) events can be bound to
(multiple) operations. The internal implementation is substantially di?erent
though.

 

– The mechanisms can be utilized to register for any notifications that
report
system changes to one’s application (e.g., the
battery level changes).

– Intents/Notifications/Signals
can all be used to trigger lifecycle state changes.

 

Di?erences:

 


Granularity level

•  
Intents are used to pass information between
Activities, Services or Broadcast receivers. They operate on a “whole screen”
or service.

 

•   Notifications and Signals can be used to pass information between any
kind of objects, be it either fine-granular to notify somebody when a single
GUI element changes, or coarse-granular, e.g. on application level to react
when certain system events arrive.

 

– Inter-process
Communication (IPC)

•   Intents
can be used for inter-application communication (implicit In-tents, no
receiving component specified, late-binding), or intra-app com-munication
(explicit Intents, receiving component specified, early-binding).

 

•   Notifications are limited to intra-application communication on iOS.

 

Security

 

Android: Security
mechanisms incorporated in Android span di?erent levels 10:

 

– Operating system /
VM level: First, every application runs in its
own Linux
process, where each process has its own VM: Code
runs isolated from all other applications’ code. As each application is
associated with a unique Linux user ID, permissions are set so that all
application files are only visible to that user and application itself by
default 1. Together, these mechanisms create a sandbox that prevents one
application from interfering with another.

 

– Application level:
By explicitly declaring permissions, an
application could get access
to additional capabilites not provided by the basic sandbox. The user has to
grant those permissions at installation time, as they have been statically
declared in Android’s manifest file.

 

iPhone: Similar to Android, iPhone applications are put in a sandbox that
restricts the application to using only its own
files and preferences, and limits the system resources to which the application
has access. Unlike Android, there are no explicit permissions to grant on
application level—all applications are equal and can use many of the provided
phone capabilities (e.g., getting Internet access) without the user knowing.
Due to the sandbox, they do not have direct access to the underlying
communications or networking hardware though.

 

 

 

 

550      M.
Lettner, M. Tschernuth, and R. Mayrhofer

 

Qt:
As Qt just comprises a cross-platform library,
the security concepts inher-ent to the platform depend on the target OS in
question. Qt itself doesn’t have built-in security on a comparable level. As
the focus of this review is on Qt for mo-bile platforms, relevant mechanisms
have been discussed for Symbian 11, 12. MeeGo will have its own security
concept—still subject to definition though.

 

Implications

 

– Open-source vs.
closed-source: Di?erent implications of
openness have been discussed.
While some6 suggest
that iOS software is more secure since An-droid’s open-source software stack
can be investigated and understood by hackers, this circumstance is
double-edged. It might be seen as advantage7, since security issues can be detected and fixed faster by a bigger
community. Thus, security can improve faster over time than on closed systems.

 

– Approval process:
Another yet not discussed big di?erence on
Android vs. iPhone is their
strategy of application approval in their respective application stores. While
Google doesn’t vet applications at all, Apple is very restrictive on what is
getting approved—which also adversely a?ects the approval time, making Android
more suitable for quick prototyping, timely bugfixing or research work. Still,
these measures cannot prevent somebody to publish malicious software—e.g., by
activating the malicious part after a certain time period, the screening
process during approval can be circumvented and tricked easily. However, what
Apple could prevent is certain identity fraud— publishing an application as
another author, e.g. by falsely providing the name of a big company, would most
certainly be denied.

 

– Sandboxing: It should be noted that Android’s and iPhone’s sandbox mech-anism is
no means to prevent attacks, but rather a way of limiting the dam-age attackers
could cause. Consequently, good programming practices such as carefully
validating user input still apply.

 

 

4.2        
Mobile-Specific

 

Access to
Mobile-specific APIs. Functions such as telephony, texting or SIM access
are at the core of each mobile phone. Their accessibility and abstraction
levels are being discussed (e.g., can a call be set-up using a top-level API?).

 

Android:
As Android was specifically designed with mobile
devices in mind, the
Application Framework layer in Android exports all required functionality to
utilize mobile-specific services. Examples are the classes TelephonyManager for call- or sim-related functions (such as setting up a call, or
retrieving the operator’s name), the SmsManager (to send/receive text messages), or the Lo-cationManager
(e.g., to retrieve the current location).

6  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-11/google-android-more-vulnerable-than-iphone-antivirus-maker-says.html

7  http://tech.shantanugoel.com/2010/06/26/android-vs-iphone-security-models.html

 

 

 

 

Mobile
Platform Architecture Review: Android, iPhone, Qt

551

 

iPhone:
On iPhone, accessing core phone functionalities
programmatically is more
limited. For example, SMS can only be sent via the default SMS applica-tion,
not from within an app (exception: iOS4 introduced some way of in-app form to
prepopulate SMS form, but still, user must explicitly choose to send SMS).
Another example is the limited access to network information—e.g., re-trieving
the signal strength is not o?cially supported (there are private frame-works
that enable that—but it is not sure that Apple will approve apps that uti-lize
such features). For access to other phone-relevant functionalities secondary
frameworks exist, such as Core Location, Address Book or Map Kit.

 

Qt:
Since Qt traditionally targets non-mobile
operating systems such as Win-dows or Linux, too, it has not been designed
specifically for mobile-specific use cases. To access specific features
intrinsic to mobility, the Qt Mobility APIs have been introduced. These APIs
grant access to the most commonly needed mo-bility features in a cross-platform
fashion, i.e. without forcing the developer to implement platform-dependent
native code like Symbian C++ 4.However, for not exposed functionality
developers have to use platform-specific solutions. In Symbian, this could
either be achieved by directly integrating Symbian C++ na-tive code, or by
using wrappers that expose those mobile extensions in a Qt-like API 4—with
the advantage of reducing native Symbian’s steep learning curve.

 

Core Phone
Functionality. The following section investigates how using
cer-tain phone functionality di?ers on the various platforms. A concrete
example is used to illustrate this: placing a simple call from one’s
application.

 

Android: Uses
Intent mechanism to notify other activities:

 

Intent
i = new Intent(Intent.ACTION_CALL, Uri.parse(“tel:+12345”));
i.addFlags(Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_NEW_TASK);

 

i.setClassName(mApp,
PhoneApp.getCallScreenClassName()); mApp.startActivity(i);

 

Additionally, proper
permissions must be granted in Manifest.xml:

 

 

iPhone: Uses Phone Link concept
(= URL scheme) to place a call (or SMS/email):

 

NSURL
*phoneNumber = NSURL alloc initWithString: @”tel:+12345″;
UIApplication sharedApplication openURL: phoneNumber;

 

Qt:
With the current version of Qt Mobility APIs
1.1, placing a telephone call is not yet supported (precisely speaking, the Telephony Events API from
beta ver-sion has been removed/discontinued). Instead, one has to use
platform-specific extensions. For Symbian, the easiest way is to utilize Qt
Mobile Extensions:

 

XQTelephony
*telephony = new XQTelephony(this); telephony->call(“+12345”);

 

 

 

 

552      M. Lettner, M. Tschernuth,
and R. Mayrhofer

 

Implications:
All platforms allow to incorporate basic phone
functionality— although,
despite Qt’s claims to provide a cross-platform library, certain features could
only be tapped into using platform-specific extensions. Another possible
consequence was the possible exclusion from an application store if ino?cial
APIs were used for a certain functionality. It was pointed out that some
features are not accessible on certain platforms at all—for example, an
Emergency Service application on iPhone would not be able to send automated SMS
notifications.

 

5  Conclusion

 

After a short introduction of the basic concepts on all three
platforms key areas have been investigated in more detail. Due to certain
limitations, it was pointed out that not every type of application is suited to
be implemented on every platform. An unpredictable execution time resulting from
Android’s memory management concept suggested that the standard SDK might not
be the library of choice for performance-critical applications such as games or
applications with real-time constraints. Likewise, not obeying the application
store rules of Apple, Google and the likes could lead to applications not being
allowed or removed from the respective stores—a criterion that is better
investigated thoroughly before chosing a platform. The APIs exposed to access
mobile-specific functionality di?er on the various platforms—it should be
doublechecked whether the desired feature/information (e.g., reading phone
signal strength) is accessible.

 

References

 

1.  Android Developers
Guide, http://developer.android.com

 

2.  iOS Dev Center, http://developer.apple.com/devcenter/ios

 

3.  Qt Developer Network,
http://developer.qt.nokia.com/

 

4.  Fitzek,
F.H.P., Mikkonen, T., Torp, T.: Qt for Symbian. Wiley & Sons Ltd, United
Kingdom (2010)

 

5.  Lettner,
M., Tschernuth, M.: Applied MDA for Embedded Devices: Software De-sign and Code
Generation for a Low-Cost Mobile Phone. In: 34th Annual IEEE Computer Software
and Applications Conference Workshops, pp. 63–68 (2010)

 

6.  Android,
D.: Source Code, http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/ dalvik.git;a=blob
plain;f=vm/alloc/MarkSweep.c

 

7.  Ehringer, D.: The
Dalvik Virtual Machine Architecture, Techn. report (March 2010)

 

8.  Preiss,
B.R.: Data Structures and Algorithms with Object-Oriented Design Pat-terns in
Java. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester (1999)

 

9.  Douglass,
B.P.: Real-Time Design Patterns: Robust Scalable Architecture for Real-Time
Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)

 

10.  IEEE Security and
Privacy 8(2), 35–44 (2010)

 

11.  Heath, C.: Symbian OS
Platform Security. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2006)

 

12.  Badura,
T., Becher, M.: Testing the Symbian OS Platform Security Architecture. In:
Advanced Information Networking and Applications, AINA 2009, pp. 838–844 (2009)