I'm trying to find more information / explanation for the following scenario:
I'm writing a library in Swift and would like to use some open source library in it.
If I just integrate them into my library, is there a chance of namespace collision?
What would happen if the host app will use:
The exact same open source library
The same library but different version
Does using CocoaPods changes something here?
Consider a scenario where I import AFNetworking for example (via CocoaPods) in my library, and the host app will use it too.
Using the same library, you won't have any issues. Using different version will likely cause problems, but that is going to be dependent on the changes made in the different versions.
Namespace collisions in Swift are rare. As #mattt stated, each module acts as a namespace, so naming conflicts with classes or functions from another module won't exist as they do in Objective-C. If you have a naming conflict, the compiler will tell you. In that case, you can just prefix the conflicting signature with the module name.
I would highly recommend you use Cocoapods for dependency management. It handles version control and will make your life much easier.
Related
The Swift Package Manager (SPM) allows support for different platforms (e.g., iOS, macOS). I'm adapting a Swift library to use SPM, and the need is for some of the code for iOS and macOS to be shared, but to have some differences as well.
I've seen a similar example of this with the Facebook libraries:
https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-sdk/blob/master/Package.swift
In that case, they use multiple targets, each with its own (independent) code. This is not an example of platform dependency, rather of target dependency.
I see two paths forward:
1) Have separate library targets for iOS and macOS-- and use a similar approach to Facebook, but the bulk of the code would be shared across the targets. I'm not entirely sure if SPM allows code shared across targets. A downside here is purely in terms of syntactic sugar-- naming differences. It seems unfortunate that you'd have to import say "MyLibrary_iOS" on iOS and "MyLibrary_macOS" on macOS.
2) Have a single target for iOS and macOS, but embed conditional compilation within the source code to conditionally include/exclude specific files. This doesn't have the naming issue as above. But it seems unclean to have to do this conditional compilation.
Any other suggestions?
Thanks!
Wait for the upcoming release of Swift 5.3. This has been added via SE-0273.
I have a simple app which uses whirlyglobe framework (2.2). Otherwise, it is pretty basic program with Apple frameworks.
When I tried to validate the app (and during the distribution, Xcode complains that my app is using private API; specifically it calls "rootElement", and "attributeForFont:". I suspect these functions are part of WhilyGlobe component distribution.
What is the easiest way to remove those files from the framework? Do I need to have the source and compile the framework myself? Or is there a simpler way?
Solved. Here is what I did:
1) Searched in github repository of WhirlyGlobe and found the file that uses the functions which caused issue.
2) I did not need the functionality provided by the file that had the functions.
3) Removed the references (class instantiation) to the file from my project.
That's actually part of the KissXML framework and the implementation is in there. I suspect Apple's test is in error.
In any case, if you're not using the WMS functionality, you can probably drop it out just fine.
I'm working in a iOS project that includes a static library created by another company.
The library include an old version of AFNeworking and I don't have any source files.
Now i need to use a more recent (and less bugged) version of afneworking, but i cannot include the same class twice in the project (of course) because all the "duplicate symbols".
I understand that it's impossible replacing the version included in the library, but how can i include another version along the old one?
There is a (easy) way to refactor the entire framework before include in my project?
thanks
You'll have to repackage the static library to remove the embedded AFNetworking files.
Unpack the library with:
$ ar x libwhatever.a
And re-package it, including all files except the AFNetworking object files:
$ ar cr libwhatever.a file1.o ... fileN.o
You will then have to link your executable with the new AFNetworking static library and hope that there haven't been API changes which will break the code in libwhatever.a. If there are then I doubt there is much you can do.
I'm afraid this isn't easy to do. Very few environments allow you to link against two separate versions of the same framework at the same time, and Xcode / iOS is not one of them.
As I see it, you have three options:
1) Link against their library and use the same version of AFNetworking they use.
2) Link against their library, and manually load the newer version of AFNetworking and pull symbols from it. Be warned: this will get ugly fast and future maintainers will wonder what you were smoking.
3) Get them to update their library.
On a side note, I don't know the circumstances here, but in general they should be providing you with sources. It's a very backwards practice to provide only a static (static!) library and no way to know what it's doing inside. You'll have to sign a software license agreement and whatnot to protect their interests.
The best and most proper way of handling this would be to contact the the creator of the static library and get them to resolve the situation. They could resolve it either by updating the embedded version of AFNetworking, removing their dependence on AFNetworking, or adding a prefix for their embedded copy of AFNetworking. The last one is probably a good idea anyway when a third party library embeds a different library, because otherwise it would be impossible to use two libraries simultaneously that both include the same third party library.
You could also refactor the copy of AFNetworking that you include yourself to change the names of classes to have a prefix, although this should be unnecessary, as the static library vendor should have done this themselves already.
Lastly, you could find a different library that accomplishes the same thing as your current one but that doesn't embed AFNetworking.
I'm developing an iOS SDK that integrates other SDKs (Facebook SDK 3.5, for example).
To prevent collisions and allow my customers to import those SDKs as well, I want to rename all of the classes/enums in my code (for example, rename FBSession to RDFBSession, etc).
Is there an easy way to do this instead of going class-by-class and using Xcode's rename feature?
Apple provide a command-line tool called tops(1) that is designed for scripting large-scale code refactoring (renaming C functions, Objective-C methods, classes, and other tokens):
tops -verbose replace "FBSession" with "RDFBSession" Sources/*.[hm]
If you have a lot of replacements, you can put all of the replace... commands into a file that you pass with the -scriptfile option. The man page has more information on the more complex commands/options (and examples).
Xcode also offers textual Search and Replace. This will be faster than individual refactors, but it is ultimately less automated. You can make the step by step refactoring faster by first minimizing the project to the relevant dependencies/sources (if possible).
However, renaming the declarations in a library will not alter the symbol names of its associated binary. If it is distributed with a binary, then renaming will just result in linker errors or (in some cases) runtime errors.
The best idea if you need to use a 3rd party library which your clients might also use is to simply inform them they need to link the library with their app, then publish the version(s) the current release supports so they know they have some extra testing if they go too far ahead with some libraries.
I think that a better approach than simply renaming your classes would be to download Facebook's open source code, rename the classes there and compile a new static library with a set of renamed header files. Then you can be sure that no collisions occur and that you're using symbols that you named yourself.
I must warn you though - working like this may make updating the SDK a nightmare regardless of how you tackle this specific issue.
I am writing an iOS library which depends on some other open-source libraries. Apparently it is not possible to have two classes with the same name, so it is possible that the library compiles, and a project that potentially could use it compiles as well, but they do not work well together (at the linking phase).
The library is targeted at a large audience, so I can not make any assumptions on whether these developers will be importing the same libraries or not, or if they might be using a different, incompatible version of the same libraries.
I have been looking around but couldn't find any clear solution to my problem (maybe there isn't). So far I am thinking of these options:
Inform the users that X libraries are already included in the project, so they do not include them as well. This means they can not use a different version of X libraries.
As a refined version of the first one, use CocoaPods, so dependencies are resolved automatically. Still has the disadvantage that two versions of the library can not coexist.
Import and rename all classes my library depends on, prefixing them, so the names don't conflict with the original ones. This is tedious work, but more importantly, has the disadvantage that I would not be able to pull/push code from/to the original library, as the code would change too much. Still seems to me the best option from the user perspective.
Can you think of a better idea? I'm pretty new to library projects, so maybe there is something obvious I am missing.
We're still not decided whether to distribute in binary or source code form. If there is a reason to choose one or another I would also like to hear your opinion.
When I was faced with this problem I choose your third option and prefixed the dependent classes within my library. The reason you might want to consider doing this rather than relying on the user to import the others would be that you can guarantee compatibility and you don't have to worry about versions of who you depend on.
First point -
Inform the users that X libraries are already included in the project,
so they do not include them as well
so you have a static library Foolib.a, it has a 3rd party dependency Barlib.a, in order for Foolib to build, Foolib's HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS must be set to the path of Barlib's public headers. No more.
If you are distributing your source code you can use CocoaPods (this is a good way to go), or you can add Barlib's repository as a git submodule (or whatever for your choice of VCS) of your repository and hard code the HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS to that path, or you can require that your user grabs their own Barlib and manually edits HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS to the correct path (if you go the CocoaPods or submodule route the user can easily do this as well, so has more options).
Nothing from Barlib is 'in' your project.
On the other hand, if you are distributing a binary for your user to link into their app you must specify in your instructions that Foolib requires Barlib to be linked into the app. Instructions for how to get hold of Barlib would be nice.
Nothing from Barlib is 'in' your project or compiled into your library.
Second Point -
use CocoaPods, so dependencies are resolved automatically. Still has
the disadvantage that two versions of the library can not coexist
Two versions of the same library in one App is impossible, but the situation where the end user already requires Barlib 3.0, wants to use your Foolib, but Foolib requires Barlib 4.0 doesn't have to ever arise - It is up to you the developer. You can be generous and support multiple versions of Barlib (i.e. all Foolib needs to work is a Barlib1.0, Barlib2.0, Barlib3.0 OR Barlib4.0 linked into the app - similar to writing an app that supports iOS5 and iOS6) or, you can be opinionated and require a specific version, and if the user is already requiring a different version of Barlib, tough luck, they will have to change their code if they want to use your library.
Third point -
Import and rename all classes my library depends on, prefixing them,
so the names don't conflict with the original one
This is just too terrible for me to consider at the moment. Sorry.
Nothing from Barlib is ever 'in' your project or compiled into your library. You don't distribute any copy of Barlib - either linked into your binary or as source code.