We have a very big iOS application with multiple features, each feature has their own flow, some feature depends on another feature and a common datasource class to divide between each feature. Since because of this much code project taking lots of time to compile.
Can i divide the project into multiple projects and add into a workspace and compile only those projects in which making change.
I am not able to find how i can create dependency between projects and how can i access files form one project to another.
I don't want to create static library and into another project.
Any suggestion would be helpful.
I'm actually working on a project in a similar manner.
I saw this blogpost from hubspot which has some insights on what you are trying to do. It talks about separating the application 'flows' into cocoapods which can be worked on separately.
http://product.hubspot.com/blog/architecting-a-large-ios-app-with-cocoapods
Lets say I have an iOS App for let's say, Football news, now I want to create an other version for Basketball news that will be based mostly on the Football App but with a freedom to create a different behaviour in some aspects of each app + adding more apps in the future for other news subjects.
An other condition is that they will have a separate CoreData model, assets, icon etc.
As I understand I have few options:
Manage the apps separately, place them in the same directory and point to the shared files in the first (Football app).
Create a different target for each app in the same project
Create a Workspace with one project that will hold the common code and a project for each project.
What are the pros / cons for each option and what are the best practices in this situation ?
Just to clarify - the apps I mention are an example, the App is not for news, and it must be a different app for each concept.
Thanks
I work in an enterprise environment, and we have a mobile app that's a product of the company I work for. We sell licenses of that software to our costumers, which are always huge companies. Our app doesn't go through the App Store.
Each of our clients have some sort of customization on the app, either by simply changing their logos or even adding some specific features for one of them. What I mean by this is: we have to deal everyday with a situation very close to what you are describing, and here's my two cents.
In advance: sorry if I'm too honest sometimes, I don't mean to offend anyone.
1. Manage the apps separately, place them in the same directory and point to the shared files in the first (Football app).
Well... That's a weird solution, but it sure could work. It might be hard to maintain locally and even harder when using SVN/Git (specially when working on a team).
I had some issues before related to symbolic links before, but I'm not sure if that's what you are referring to in this option. If you explain a little bit better, I can edit this and try to give you a better opinion.
2. Create a different target for each app in the same project
That's a better start, in my opinion.
We use this approach mostly to handle various possible backend servers. For example, one of our targets uses our development backend server, while another target uses the production server. This helps us ensure that we can use the development-targetted app without risking serious costs to our team (due to a mistakenly placed order, for instance).
In your case, you could for example configure preprocessor macros on the targets to enable/disable some target-specific feature that's called by code. You could also use different storyboards for each target.
The downside of this option is that the code will be messy, because every piece of code will be on the same project. This is the main reason why I'd go with option #3.
3. Create a Workspace with one project that will hold the common code and a project for each project.
Again, I'd go for this. To be honest, we're not using this at our company YET, but that's due to internal reasons. I'm trying to get this going for our projects as soon as possible.
I wouldn't call it easy to set up, but if done properly it can help you save some time because of maintenance reasons. You'll be able to reuse any code that's possible to reuse, and still be able to keep your target-specific images, classes and views to their own "container"(project).
This way you'll get a default project (the app itself), multiple targets for it, and a "framework" to keep the code for each one of the targets. In other words, you'll be able to share code between the multiple targets/apps, and at the same time you'll be able to separate what belongs to each one of them. No messy project :)
I'm not sure about how CoreData is compiled by Xcode, as we're not using it. But check out the answer I just did for another question. It's not Swift, but that shouldn't make much difference as almost all of the answer is about configuring the workspace to achieve this solution. Unfortunately I think it too big, that's the reason why I'm linking the answer instead of pasting it here.
If you need any help setting that up, let me know and I'll do my best to help you.
This may be overkill for you, but this solution is scalable. We had to build ~15 apps from one codebase
The problem we had to solve was branding. Application design and flow was basically the same, along with the structure of the data we received.
A lot of the heavy lifting was done by our CI server.
We had a core application with all of the UI and some common business logic. this was known as the White-app.
We then had a specific project (frameworks didn't exist then) for each of the different endpoints & data models and mappers into the White-app's view models. Those applications were private pods and managed by cocoa pods.
Our CI was configured in a way that it would compile all 'Branded' app's by copying, compiling, signing all the varying plist, assets, string files into each application along with each of the specific data models for each application. So when a end-to-end build was triggered, it would build all the different branded apps.
The advantage of this is the target layout within Xcode is not cluttered, we had a release, test and development target which applied to each application built. This meant our project was succinct with no risk of accidentally editing a branded apps build settings.
This solution will also provide you with an .xcworkspace (mostly utilised by cocoa pods) which contains reference to the the different model pod's
This solution because it is work to setup i.e when building in Xcode we created a special scheme which installed a pod and copied in all the correct assets (as CI would)
This is a question that many developers were thinking about many times, and they came up with different solutions specific to their needs. Here's my thoughts on this.
Putting the common parts, which you could see as the core, into something separate is a good thing. Besides supporting reusability, it often improves code quality by the clear separation and clean interfaces. From my experience, this makes testing also easier. How you package this is determined by what you put in there. A static library is a pretty good start for core business logic, but lacks support for Swift, and resources are painful to include. Frameworks are great, but raise the bar on the minimum iOS development target. Of course, if you're just using very few files, just adding the folder to your app projects might work as well - keeping the project structure up to date can be automated (the dropbox/djinni thing does this), but it's a non-trivial approach.
Then there are the actual products to build, which must include the core module, and the individual parts. This could be a project with several targets, or a workspace with several projects, or a mix of both. In the given context, I make my decision based on how close the apps relate. If one is just a minor change from the other, like changing a sports team, or configuring some features out as in light vs. pro, this would be different targets in the same project. On the other hand, I'd use different projects (maybe arranged within a common workspace) if the apps are clearly different, like a Facebook client and a Twitter client, a board game app for offline play and an online gaming app etc.
Of course, there are many more things to consider. For example, if you build your app for clients and ship the sources, separate projects are probably needed
.
It's better to create a framework that will contain the most shared code you need in all 3 options. Also, the first option is bad in any case. For better control it is better to have 2 or 3 option. The workspace is more preferable, imho, since it will not harm to other sub-projects if you, for example, will decide to use cocoapods. The workspace also allows you to have a different set of localizations in each project. Plus, only targets that related to a specific project will appear in targets list, which is better than a bunch of target in one pile (if you have, for example, a share extension in all products - it will be frustrating to find one you need). What you choose depends on your needs, but both second and third options are good enough.
I think that the best way to do that is something that encloses all the 3.
First I would create a configurable framework, that shares with all targets everything that they have in common, from UI (elements such as custom alerts etc) to business logic.
Then I will create different bundles or folders for each target checking the membership target (in these way you guarantee only to import the exact resources), then using preprocessor macro you can create a path builder specific to the right bundle or directory where your resources reside.
During the years I've collected some interesting links about best practice.
Here they are:
Use asset catalog with multiple targets
Use multiple tagets XCode 6
XCode groups vs Folders
Create libraries with resources
Create lite and pro version of an app
I know that in SWIFT they made some changes about preprocessor macros, so some article are still valid but little bit outdated.
We all face this kind of situation. But here are the things I do and maybe you can pick something here that can help you. (I hope).
have a project that contains the core features
have modular projects that can be used by other variants of the product
manage the project under version control or git flow that will help keep the main source / project under the main branch accessible through branches / features
create new branch / feature for the project variant if necessary or just enable / disable or use project modules needed for that variant (whatever is most appropriate on the current setup).
if the app has a web service that it connects to, provide a licensing stage where the mobile app will do it's first ever request to a common (to all variants or even all mobile apps) web service URL. This web service interprets the request and respond with the given information to what the app's settings will be (e.g. web service to connect to for the given license number, modules to be enabled, client's logo, etc).
the main projects and modules created can be converted to frameworks, libraries or even bundles for resources & assets depending on the level or frequency of changes done to these items. If these items are constantly changing or updated by others, then don't compress it; have a workspace with targets that link the whole project / module to the current project variant so that the changes to these modules reflect immediately (with consideration of version control of course).
This is a problem we have been living with for a while already. Suppose that I have three files:
a FxCop ruleset, containing our basic Code Analysis rules
a Resharper .DotSettings file, with company defined naming conventions, for instance
a StyleCop.Settings file, with some of the default style cop settings disabled
How do I share these kinds of company wide settings files across multiple TFS Team Projects?
At the moment, we have these replicated in a Resources folder in each project, but this is quite a maintenance nightmare, since when we decide to update a few rules on any of these files, we have to update them in a lot of different places.
One approach I've seen is to create a team project specifically to store these files on TFS, for instance $/Core, and by some means share the files this way, either using workspace mappings or branching the project into the other projects.
I don't like this primarily because it requires manual intervention and hardcoded paths. Ideally, I'd like an approach that was not intrusive, i.e. a developer gets the project from source control and compiles without any problems. No need for separate mappings into specific forlders, setting environment variables, anything like that.
At the same time, I'd like to keep the history on these files, so it would be nice if they could still be source controlled. Since they are central to the company, it would be ideal to have limited permissions on them, and that each change was documented appropriately (changesets provide that).
Another approach that crossed my mind was to share these settings via company internal nuget packages. Say for instance that I do have this $/Core project, but instead of using workspace mapping or branching it inside the other projects, I publish a nuget package (or more than one even) containing the configuration files, and add these packages to each project that needs it. I can then use relative paths to the package folder when referencing them, and it would require no manual intervention on the developers part.
Although using nuget would probably work fine, this solution seems weird to me, since nuget packages are meant to be project specific, but this would be "whole team project" specific instead. Again, using this approach, I'd probably have to add the package to one of the projects inside one of the solutions inside each team project. This is actually quite similar to how test adapters are shared now. For instance, NUnit already support this approach. I feel I'd have to do something very similar to that if I went with an internal nuget package: each solution would have to load the package at least once.
Is there some other way to share these kinds of things across the whole company, while still maintaining them on source control? What if I loosened this constraint, and accepted that they don't need to be source controlled? Would it open up other options to share them?
If you go down the NuGet route, you could create Packages for your FXCOP and Resharper files, and then store them in a local feed.
For Stylecop you could use the existing NuGet Package for StyleCop.MSBuild and then repackage it with your own settings file.
I am developing an iOS app. Right now it is one app and two targets (app and tests).
Getting closer to publishing I want to split this app into three apps with lots of shared code and shared tests. (Think of free version and full version for App Store and prototyping app that will not be published).
Would you set up multiple projects in Xcode (1 library project and 3 app projects) or keep all in one project and only set up multiple targets?
I think you have at least 3 options here:
Separate projects. It is more difficult to share code across projects, but with Xcode workspaces this is quite feasible. If you have a lot of customization for each project, this might make sense.
Same project, more targets. This is the usual way this is done. It is very easy because you have a very neat overview of what files go into which target. If you have around, say, a dozen or so targets, it is really quite easy to handle.
Separate git branches. I have worked with this in the past. The differences between the apps (Info.plist, configuration files, data files) are just swapped in the corresponding git branch. This is practical if you have a lot of data and don't need to have all of it available at all times. However, the complexity of git is considerable if you are not familiar with it. You can create git submodules to change the shared code parts in one go.
I would suggest you a hybrid approach depends on your needs
If you need several applications - create Target, that is exactly what they are for. You can handle sharing files using Target Membership[About]
If you have source code which can be separated into module - create additional Project (for shared source) inside Workspace. This technic is used by CocoaPods
[Xcode Workspace vs Project]
[Xcode components]
TFS 2008 and Common Libraries
I have created a Team Project called "Common Library" that will host code used in numerous different Team Projects throughout TFS. For sake of argument, lets say we have 2 distinct Librarys under the "Common Library" Team Projects, MailProject and LoggingProject. Other projects throughout TFS will be using the binary representation of these projects via branching and not the actual source code.
What is the best way to set up the folder structure for this Team Project? Do I add the project to the "Common Library" and simply "include" the bin/release folder as part of the project?
I have seen some examples of people creating a seperate "Deploy" folder. I assume this is synonamous with the bin/release folder?
We do not want the source code available in other solutions.
Currently, each project has the dll included in the project. Using a mailing module as an example, many projects need the ability to mail. The common module is very stable and mostly static.
However, what if there is a change in the mail module. It seems there would be a better way, than to check out each project and update the dll. Is it possible to allow TFS to grab the latest mail module any time a 'get latest' is called? Either explicitly or implicitly.
Unless you really require the source code for the libraries to be available in the other solutions my advice would be to include the binaries for the libraries in the projects that would use them not really having any explicit link between the two in TFS. Custom labelling of the library builds could be helpful to easily return and rebuild any chosen version of the shared libraries.
If the shared libraries require different versions for different projects then the obvious solution would to create a separate branch for every version of the libraries that need to be customised to a particular project.
TFS does not have a concept similar to SVN's 'externals' though - so if you include a branch from the shared libraries in a project and than branch that project it is very difficult to propagate changes correctly.
I suppose you could also use the Get task in the build and get the latest version of DDLs into the current project from another one, but verify if you can point of Workspace of another project (I have not tired it and MSDN is somewhat vague here). You might need to have a separate workspace for the shared project.
Yet another alternative would be to publish the DLLs for common components to a known location on every build of the shared libs and for individual builds to get whatever version is available from that common location (network share) even via the Copy task. This is simplistic and may cause problems with versioning of the common components but should work well enough in simple case.