Qigsaw

Pros of Atlas

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Broader scope, supporting full component-based architecture
• Active development and maintenance by Alibaba

Cons of Atlas

• Steeper learning curve due to complexity
• Heavier runtime overhead compared to Qigsaw
• Less focused on specific dynamic delivery use cases

Code Comparison

Atlas:

Atlas.getInstance().installBundleTransitively(bundleFile);
Bundle bundle = Atlas.getInstance().getBundle(bundleName);
bundle.start();

Qigsaw:

SplitInstallRequest request = SplitInstallRequest.newBuilder()
    .addModule("dynamic_feature")
    .build();
splitInstallManager.startInstall(request);

Key Differences

• Atlas provides a more comprehensive framework for modularization, while Qigsaw focuses specifically on dynamic feature delivery
• Qigsaw offers a simpler API and integration process, making it easier to adopt for specific use cases
• Atlas has a larger community and more extensive documentation, but may be overkill for projects that only need dynamic feature delivery

Use Cases

• Choose Atlas for large-scale applications requiring full modularization and component-based architecture
• Opt for Qigsaw when focusing primarily on dynamic feature delivery with minimal overhead and simpler integration

Pros of VirtualAPK

• More comprehensive plugin framework, supporting full Android components
• Better performance due to optimized class loading mechanism
• Wider adoption and community support

Cons of VirtualAPK

• More complex implementation and setup process
• Larger plugin size due to full component support
• Potential security concerns with dynamic code loading

Code Comparison

VirtualAPK:

PluginManager pluginManager = PluginManager.getInstance(context);
pluginManager.loadPlugin(pluginPath);
Intent intent = new Intent();
intent.setClassName("com.example.plugin", "com.example.plugin.MainActivity");
startActivity(intent);

Qigsaw:

SplitInstallRequest request = SplitInstallRequest.newBuilder()
    .addModule("feature_module")
    .build();
splitInstallManager.startInstall(request);

Key Differences

• VirtualAPK focuses on full app virtualization, while Qigsaw emphasizes modular app development
• Qigsaw integrates more seamlessly with Android App Bundles and dynamic feature modules
• VirtualAPK offers more flexibility in plugin management, but Qigsaw provides a simpler API for module loading

Both projects aim to solve similar problems in Android app development, but they take different approaches. VirtualAPK is better suited for complex plugin scenarios, while Qigsaw excels in modular app development with a focus on reducing app size and improving distribution.

Pros of Small

• More mature project with longer development history
• Supports multiple programming languages (Java, Kotlin, Groovy)
• Offers a plugin system for extending functionality

Cons of Small

• Less active development and maintenance
• Fewer recent updates and releases
• Smaller community and fewer contributors

Code Comparison

Small:

public class MainActivity extends Activity {
    @Override
    protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
        setContentView(R.layout.activity_main);
        Small.setBaseUri("http://example.com/");
        Small.setUp(this, new Small.OnCompleteListener() {
            @Override
            public void onComplete() {
                // Load plugins
            }
        });
    }
}

Qigsaw:

public class MyApplication extends Application {
    @Override
    public void onCreate() {
        super.onCreate();
        Qigsaw.install(this);
    }
}

public class MainActivity extends AppCompatActivity {
    @Override
    protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
        setContentView(R.layout.activity_main);
        QigsawInstaller.getInstance().startInstall(SPLIT_FEATURE_NAME);
    }
}

Both Small and Qigsaw aim to provide modular app development solutions for Android. Small offers a more established ecosystem with multi-language support, while Qigsaw focuses on a simpler setup process and more recent development activity. The code comparison shows that Small requires more configuration upfront, while Qigsaw has a more straightforward installation process.

Pros of WMRouter

• More comprehensive routing solution, supporting both page and component-level routing
• Better integration with existing Android development practices
• More active development and community support

Cons of WMRouter

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex architecture
• Potentially higher overhead for simpler applications
• Less focus on dynamic feature module support compared to Qigsaw

Code Comparison

WMRouter:

@RouterUri("http://page.example.com/home")
public class HomeActivity extends Activity {
    // Activity implementation
}

Qigsaw:

@QigsawInstaller
public class MyApplication extends Application {
    @Override
    public void onCreate() {
        super.onCreate();
        Qigsaw.install(this);
    }
}

Key Differences

• WMRouter focuses on general routing and navigation, while Qigsaw specializes in dynamic feature module management
• WMRouter uses URI-based routing, whereas Qigsaw employs a more modular approach
• Qigsaw provides built-in support for dynamic loading and unloading of modules, which is not a primary focus of WMRouter

Use Cases

• Choose WMRouter for complex navigation requirements in large-scale applications
• Opt for Qigsaw when prioritizing dynamic feature module support and app size optimization

Community and Support

• WMRouter has more recent updates and a larger community
• Qigsaw has fewer contributors but offers specialized support for dynamic feature modules

Pros of Amigo

• More active development with recent updates and contributions
• Broader scope, supporting multiple features beyond just dynamic loading
• Better documentation and examples for easier integration

Cons of Amigo

• Higher complexity due to its broader feature set
• Potentially larger overhead and impact on app size
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to the project

Code Comparison

Qigsaw (Java):

QigsawInstaller.install(this, new QigsawConfig.Builder()
    .setDownloadMode(QigsawConfig.DOWNLOAD_MODE_WIFI_ONLY)
    .build());

Amigo (Java):

Amigo.init(this);
Amigo.setDebugEnabled(true);
Amigo.setWorkDir(Environment.getExternalStorageDirectory().getAbsolutePath());
Amigo.setLoadPatchInfoThreshold(30 * 1000);
Amigo.setPatchLoadStatusNotifier(new PatchLoadStatusNotifier() {
    // Implementation details
});

Both projects aim to improve Android app development, but Amigo offers a more comprehensive solution with additional features beyond dynamic loading. Qigsaw focuses specifically on dynamic component loading, which may be preferable for projects with simpler requirements. Amigo's code example demonstrates its broader scope and configuration options, while Qigsaw's example shows a more straightforward setup process for dynamic loading.

Pros of Shadow

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Broader plugin ecosystem and community support
• Advanced features like dynamic loading and hot-fixing

Cons of Shadow

• Steeper learning curve due to complexity
• Heavier resource usage and larger APK size
• Potentially slower build times for large projects

Code Comparison

Shadow:

@ContainerFragment
class PluginFragment : Fragment() {
    override fun onCreateView(inflater: LayoutInflater, container: ViewGroup?, savedInstanceState: Bundle?): View? {
        return inflater.inflate(R.layout.fragment_plugin, container, false)
    }
}

Qigsaw:

public class PluginFragment extends Fragment {
    @Override
    public View onCreateView(LayoutInflater inflater, ViewGroup container, Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        return inflater.inflate(R.layout.fragment_plugin, container, false);
    }
}

Both frameworks use similar approaches for creating plugin fragments, but Shadow uses Kotlin and annotations for a more concise syntax.

Shadow offers more advanced features and a larger ecosystem, making it suitable for complex projects. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity and resource usage. Qigsaw, while simpler, may be more appropriate for smaller projects or teams new to plugin frameworks.

The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and performance considerations. Shadow's extensive documentation and community support can be beneficial for long-term development, while Qigsaw's simplicity might lead to faster initial implementation.