作者:沈驰27 | 来源:互联网 | 2023-09-17 15:44
下载了“GoogleAdMobAdsSDK-4.0.2.jar”,最新版的admobsdk发现,最新版有如下变更。包括com.admob.android.ads.AdMan
下载了“GoogleAdMobAdsSDK-4.0.2.jar”,最新版的admob sdk 发现,最新版有如下变更。包括com.admob.android.ads.AdManager;android:name="com.google.ads.AdActivity"变更。
以下是摘自google code
AdMob Publisher Discuss
Hmm yes, you are right:
http://code.google.com/mobile/ads/kb/#whyupgrade
Coming from use of admob-sdk-android_20101109.zip, I now had to
replace
import com.admob.android.ads.AdManager;
import com.admob.android.ads.AdView;
by
import com.google.ads.*;
In the manifest I had to replace
android:name="com.admob.android.ads.AdMobActivity"
by
android:name="com.google.ads.AdActivity"
I had to replace instances of
adView = new AdView(this);
by
adView = new AdView(this, AdSize.BANNER, );
while from the manifest dropping the line
android:name="ADMOB_PUBLISHER_ID" />
I had to remove use of setPrimaryTextColor() and
setSecondaryTextColor(), but could keep setBackgroundColor().
I had to add new code like AdRequest adRequest = new AdRequest();
adView.loadAd(adRequest);
However, I cannot seem to find a good replacement for
AdManager.setTestDevices() to always exclude showing real ads on my
test phones without a need to recompile for a release version? I want
to make adRequest.setTesting(true) dependent on the phone that it is
running on. Using getDeviceId() and hard-coding my own IMEI numbers
does not seem proper. What is the proper way to handle this?
Interestingly, if I look at the LogCat output with the new SDK and
filtering for the LOGTAG "Ads" tag, I still see the exact same unique
test device identifiers, say , of my phones that I
used in the older SDK with AdManager.setTestDevices(), but now
appearing in LogCat lines like
INFO/Ads(28609): Received ad url: <"url": "http://r.admob.com:80/
ad_source.php?preqs=1& ... &isu=
So how do I now programmatically read this "isu" number to apply
adRequest.setTesting(true) only to my own devices? If this is no
longer possible then I would consider this an oversight in the new
SDK.
Thanks!
On Mar 20, 8:14 pm, Neil wrote: