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.
Related
My goal is to build a swift iOS framework which uses two other frameworks (included as separate projects) and which shouldn't reveal the source code after built.
Is there some text/guide/documentation which would explain and navigate me through the process of building such a framework properly and correctly?
I built framework with aggregate target adding and linking frameworks on which my custom framework is dependent using run script as indicated here. I was able to add built of my custom framework to my custom app, together with other two dependencies (again as a separate projects), and run it on the device. However, I am not convinced by the correctness of my custom framework built.
Moreover, I was not able to upload the archive to the Appstore due to the various errors of "Unsupported architectures...", "CFBundleIdentifier Collision...", "Invalid Bundle...", "Invalid Binary" and so on. After sorting these errors out according to the various stackoverflow answers and installing the app from the TestFlight, the app crashed after launch and wasn't working at all.
I was checking various blog posts, stackoverflow questions/answers and Apple Framework Programming Guide but nothing gave me comprehensive understanding on building custom framework under conditions described above.
Everything I did was just following step-by-step tutorials without explanation of the purpose of the steps. I am sure I am missing the basics. Could you please help me and give me some guides?
I can understand you frustration. I, a while ago too searched probably for many documents on how to write a framework correctly but like you I also didn't find anything really that satisfying. From my own experiences I can give a couple of advices.
NO External Libraries
In my opinion DO NOT use external libraries in your own framework. I don't really know what your frameworks purpose is but most of the stuff you want to do can be done without using external libraries. Depending on other libraries is not a good idea especially if its a framework you are working on. Anytime these libraries get updated or even worse if they don't you will have to wait for them to be updated or find another library.So rather than this happening later on I think its better if you do it from the start. So loose the external libraries.
Universal Framework Binary
Second one is pretty easy. Generating a universal framework. I suggest you don't use a script. Most of the scripts I found were either outdated or they didn't work at all. Later on I found out that actually it was pretty easy to generate one on your own. You can do this by building your project once for a real device and one for the simulator.Then you can generate a universal binary by using the command lipo -create "Your simulator executable path" "your iOS device executable path" -output "your framework name". What this does is that it combines your two executable files and generates a universal one. Then you can just go and copy your simulator documents from the modules file and paste them in you iphoneos modules file. I am going to share a link were you can go through the walkthrough yourself. https://medium.com/wireless-registry-engineering/create-a-universal-fat-swift-framework-b7409bbfa18f
Use Objective-C(If you can)
This one is bit of a tricky one unless you know objective-c. What I would recommend is that you implement your framework using Objective-C and writing a swift wrapper around it. I would not have said this if you were creating an iOS app but in case of a framework I still think you should go for objective-c. This is because Objective-c has been around for over 30 years and most of the very old apps are in objective-c. If you want your framework to easily be used by older apps coded in objective-c I recommend you go with it. I have read tons of posts on how people have problems trying to use frameworks written in swift in their objective-c apps. Swift will be the first and probably only choice in the near future but not just yet. On the plus side if you still haven't you will have learnt Objective-C which will give definitely give you a better understanding on how things work. It will be challenging but I promise you it will be worth your while .I have a good read on this which you can checkout yourself. https://academy.realm.io/posts/altconf-conrad-kramer-writing-iOS-sdk/
Naming Conventions
This is a pretty straight forward one. I suggest you stick to apples naming conventions. This is because you will be sharing your code this time and people will look for familiarity when trying to integrate your framework. This will make your code easier to understand. You can check out these two links for more info.https://github.com/raywenderlich/objective-c-style-guide (obj-c) https://github.com/raywenderlich/swift-style-guide (swift)
Access Control
This in my opinion is an important one. When working on you framework think before you implement a class or a function. Consider if you would like someone else to be able to use that part of your code. You may want to limit the user while they use your framework and correct access control is the way to do it. You can easily guide the users so the users do exactly what you want them to do with your framework.
Document Your Code
This is a must if you want your framework be a professional one. You should be documenting every function and variable the user will use. Documenting and explaining what your code does makes a lot of peoples lives easy. You don't one anyone trying to understand what your code does for half an hour while you could have easily written a small explanation for what the parameters do and one that function or variable should be used for.
Test Your Code
Last but not least do write tests for your code. This does take some time but it assures you that your code works the way it should.
Look at other good frameworks
You should definitely checkout other open source libraries and look at what they have done. Usually there is no point in reinventing the wheel unless you are doing something absolutely different but even then there are very familiar ways to do things. I can suggest you check out the mantle sdk(https://github.com/Mantle/Mantle). Another one is the very popular Alamofire sdk(https://github.com/Alamofire/Alamofire) and also the Realm sdk(https://github.com/realm/realm-cocoa). These are good examples of frameworks. Take a look at them. Look how they have done things. It will give you an insight on how your framework should look like.
I know all of these points may also be valid if you were writing an app but what makes these a must is the fact that you will be sharing your code with others. You may manage by not doing some of these while implementing an app but for a framework things do change a little bit. It is always a pleasure to work with easy to use frameworks which make coding a pleasure. These types of small things will make your framework preferable. Happy coding.
I'm very interested in using GStreamer's iOS framework http://docs.gstreamer.com/display/GstSDK/Installing+for+iOS+development for video streaming, but when I add the framework to a blank project and add a few lines of code to take advantage of its powerful features, the final IPA is 27MB. This is just way to big to be adding to my project, what is the best way to go about stripping this down the the bare necessities as I'm sure I'm only using a small percent of the code that is included in the SDK.
Here's a pic showing the package contents of the IPA:
Thanks!
In the gst_ios_main.h you can disable all the plugins that you don't need (make sure to enable linker optimizations so that unused code is removed). If that's not enough, you can build your own stripped down version of the iOS binaries with http://cgit.freedesktop.org/gstreamer/cerbero/ (you need to remove things from the .package and .recipe files to only build what you need). Just disabling things from gst_ios_main.h should be enough in 99% of the cases though.
Note that by default you'll build applications for multiple architectures, as such the resulting application will be rather large. Depending on your use case you can drop some architectures.
On another note, gstreamer.com is providing an completely outdated version of GStreamer and is in no way related to the GStreamer project. The official website is http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org .
SDKs have their source code encapsulated away from you, the user. You get access only to header files. Thus you just can't extract some class from it because you don't have access to the implementation file.
Of course if this library is opensource you can attempt to isolate one class, but sometimes everything is so deeply connected, that it is close to impossible.
Using iOS 8, Xcode 6.
Let's say I have 2 dynamic frameworks, frameworkA and frameworkB and they are both dependent on libC. In addition, I have an app that uses both frameworkA and frameworkB. My original thought was to make frameworkA and frameworkB umbrella frameworks and libC a subframework. However, Apple advises against umbrella framework and this post describes why umbrella framework is a bad idea due to potential linker conflict issue.
My second option is to use cocoapods (still new to this so a bit fuzzy on details) to use libC as a pod which then gets compiled into frameworkA and frameworkB. However, it occurred to me that both frameworks still has its own copy of the libC. Since the app uses both frameworks, will this result in a linker conflict issue as well? Is there a better way to solve this problem?
UPDATE
#Rob The projects I work on do require complex dependency management but I kept the problem domain simple in the question to try to better understand how and if using cocoapods can help solve the linker conflict issue with umbrella frameworks. I work with a team of developers who write libraries and can depend on each other's base libraries that provide versioned common APIs. We are required to package and deliver as few libraries as possible to a different organization that is building an app with our libraries and one of their key requirement is that we deliver a dynamic framework.
The best way to solve most problems is to put all the code in a project and compile it. When you have specialized problems that make that problematic, then you should look at other solutions, such as static libraries, and finally frameworks.
Static libraries can make sense if you have a code base that has pieces which require different build requirements. If all the pieces have the same build settings, then just "add files" them into your project from a "common" directory and build your project. Static libraries can be attractive if your build times are very significant and some pieces never change and you want to be able to "clean" without rebuilding those parts. But wait until you start having that problem before you go making complicated multi-package projects.
If you sell closed-source libraries, then frameworks are very attractive. You should strongly avoid adding third-party dependencies for the reasons you note. If you must, the best way is to help your customers package all the pieces as frameworks and have them link everything at the end. But that adds a lot of annoyance; so make sure you really need that third-party piece.
You might also consider frameworks if you have a very large piece of reusable code that has its own lifecycle separate from the main products. But again, keep it simple. Avoid third party stuff inside of it, and if you must have third party stuff, then have the consumers link it at the end.
(This isn't a new solution, BTW. When you use curl, if you want SSL, you need to also download and build OpenSSL and link them together yourself. Curl doesn't come with OpenSSL built in.)
But in the vast majority of cases, this is all overkill. Don't jump to frameworks. Don't jump to libraries. Just put all the code in the project and compile it. 90% of your problems will evaporate. iOS projects in particular just aren't that big usually. What problem is a framework solving?
If you have a lot of code that your organization uses repeatedly in lots of products, then I have heard many teams have good luck using internal CocoaPods to manage that. But that's just to simplify checking the code out. It still all goes into a project and you compile it together into one binary; no frameworks needed. Dynamic frameworks are a nice feature in for certain kinds of problems that were really painful before. But, for most situations, they're just complexity looking for a problem.
(If you have one of those specialized problems, edit your question and I'm happy to discuss further how you might approach it.)
EDIT: (You fall into that "specialized problem," so let's talk about it. I did, too, for many years inside of a large multi-team Mac and iOS dev environment. And we tried just about every different solution, including Frameworks. They're only new on iOS.)
Within an org like you describe, I would strongly recommend packaging each dependency as its own framework (AFNetworking, JSONKit, etc) and each of your pieces as a framework, and then have the app devs link all of them together at the end. In this way, it is identical to other dynamic libraries (libcurl, openssl, etc.) which require the app dev to link everything together.
In no case should dynamic frameworks include other frameworks that could otherwise be required (i.e. frameworks should never package "third party" stuff). That will explode. You cannot make that not explode. You'll either have bloat, build conflicts, or runtime conflicts. It's like merge conflicts. There's a point at which a developer has to make a choice. App-level linking is making that choice.
Making components over-dependent on other components is the source of decades of trouble, from Windows DLL Hell to iOS apps with competing crash handlers. All the best component systems look like Legos, where the end user assembles small pieces that have minimal dependencies. As much as possible, make your internal frameworks rely on nothing but Cocoa. This has some tangible design influences:
Avoid directly requiring logging or analytic engines. Provide a delegate interface that can be adapted to the engines of the caller.
Avoid trivial categories (methods that save just a few lines of code). Just write the code directly.
Avoid adding framework dependencies that aren't buying you a lot. Don't add AFNetworking just to save a few lines of code over NSURLConnection. Of course if you're heavily relying on the features of another framework, that's different. But as a framework developer your threshold should be quite high before requiring another framework.
Strongly avoid being clever in the build or version control. I've seen too many cases where people want to make everything "automatic" for the app-level developer, and so make the system really complicated. Just say "you need to link this and import this and put this in your app delegate startup." Don't create complicated build and version control systems to save 2 minutes on the first build or two lines of initialization logic. These things blow up and waste hours to work around. Don't get clever with +load magic. Just make it clear and consistent.
And of course, good luck. Supporting other devs is always an interesting challenge.
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.
If you're building a commercial iOS SDK that will be included in other people's code and you have third party libraries that you have a license to, is there an effective way to simplify the library / framework structure by not exporting those 3rd party symbols in a static lib?
I appreciate I could instruct developers to check for overlapping symbols, but I'd like to minimize instructions. Ie, just want them to drop the lib into their project and off they go. I also do not want to export my third party symbols as they may change in later projects.
Unfortunately, there isn't a lot to be done here very easily. A static library is just a bunch of .o files glued together. There is no linker step to determine what pieces are actually needed between .o's. That's not done until the final link step (by your customer).
That said, there are some things you can think about:
First, whenever possible, avoid including sub-libraries inside of a static library. This is really dangerous if it's possible for the customer to have other copies of the same sub-library. Your situation seems to be difference since your sub-library is licensed, so the customer is unlikely to have multiple copies, but for example, you should never include a static copy of libcurl in your static library. You must ask the customer to link libcurl themselves, or else things will explode quite badly for them. (See Linking static libraries, that share another static library.) Again, this sounds like it may not apply to you, but keep it in mind if you have common open-source libraries in the mix.
An old-school solution for dealing with visibility is to glue together your compile units. This is a fancy way of saying "concatenate all your .c/.m files into one massive file and compile that." Any function you mark "static" will not be visible outside this compile unit, and so shouldn't be exported. This also happens to increase the possibility of compiler inlining and other optimizations (particularly without fancy link-time optimization) inside of your library.
See Symbol Exporting Strategies. You have several options:
marking symbols as static (probably not possible in this case since they come from a 3rd party)
Use an exported symbols list or an unexported symbols list
Set the visibility attribute of the symbol directly (again, probably not possible in this case)
Use -fvisibility command line option when compiling (probably your best bet here)
Use weak imports
Use a weak library
These are explained at the link above.