I have a large (thousands of files) product that I am porting to iOS. I have an existing build structure that constructs about 50 static libraries that can then be used by a platform-specific [G]UI. Some of the libraries are 3rd-party tools like zip, ICU, and Xerces. The portable build process is managed by GNU autotools, and I have created some shell scripting to build the code for i386 (simulator), armv6 and armv7. All of this is being done on Apple's Lion with the 5.1 iOS SDK and Xcode4.
The problem I have is that it's a pain to bring these libraries into an Xcode4 project. Drag&Dropping the libraries is tedious. I've been resisting creating a "project" for the libraries in Xcode because I already have a cross-platform build system that works. I'd like to have a "simple" way to type in the list of libraries and their location(s); my searches here show solutions for Xcode3, but they don't seem to apply to Xcode4.
I am able to build an iOS app that uses these libraries, but the thrust of my question is really: How do I avoid all the drag&dropping and retain my portable build structure so that others using my libraries aren't tearing their hair out? If this were an iOS-only app, I'd just use Xcode4 for everything, of course. But since it is multi-platform and "portable" I really want to keep the process simple, where "simple" applies to both the maintenance of the packaging and to the user/developer who is working with my libraries.
An alternate question might be: is there a safe way for me to generate Xcode4 meta-files so that the end result of my autotools-driven-build just looks like a native Xcode4 project?
Two thoughts:
1) It use to be the case that Xcode supported AppleScript pretty well - I use to do such tasks with AppleScripts. Early versions of Xcode 4 were quite lacking in this support though. Not sure if you can do it with 4.4 - you might ask on the AppleScript implementors list on Apple's listserv group.
2) If you put all the libraries (or perhaps links) into one folder, then in Xcode click on the Target, BuildPhase, Link Binary with Libraries, tap the + key, navigate to your folder, then select all libraries and tap OK, you're done. [Well, almost, then in the GUI pane on left you need to select them all again and move them into the Frameworks folder, which due to this annoying bug, I keep at the top of my projects.]
Related
I have an application Unity that uses the iOS static library. Then this application Unity is build in XCode. I found several utilities that allow you to obfuscate the library in the application. for example this - PPiOS-Rename.
I carefully read their documentation "Obfuscate Static Libraries", but at the time of building, the iOS static library are already "hidden in the root" of the Unity app, and XCode cannot obfuscate this.
So I need to first obfuscate the library and then add it to the application. or is it not possible?
In my understanding of the documentation PPiOS-Rename stays an external tool, just the files *.plist can be added into the releases, for being able to use the tool on the compiled releases.
I might be completely wrong about it, especially as without iOS I can't test it, but I'd check if my statement is right and if you can omit the step to include the library in your compiled releases.
About handling of *.plist files, follow the instructions on the linked page, I'm not sure if you have one or more in the end. As it doesn't seem relevant to the core of your question, I never verified it deeper.
I think I just must be stupid.
I'm having a lot trouble understanding very basic things concerning frameworks in Xcode/iOs/Swift. While I've certainly gotten some things to work, I've gotten more and more confused about what I'm actually doing. And the documentation on the web just confuses me more.
When I see discussions about how to import particular frameworks (e.g. https://github.com/danielgindi/Charts is the library I'm playing with, but I've seen this pattern repeated in other libraries) they seem to always tell me include the Xcode project file as a child project of my project, in addition to linking things as an embedded binary. This confuses me. Is it not possible to link an already compiled framework to my project without including all the source code of the project?
That is, can't I just take a library.framework file, and add it to my embedded libraries list and be done with it?
In the frameworks I've played with (again https://github.com/danielgindi/Charts is my primary example, but this is true in many others I've played with) I can't seem to use the framework without Carthage or CocoaPods. For me at this stage, that is just confusing... I accept that they are useful tools to automate a difficult process, but I'd really like to understand what that process actually is before I let a tool automate it for me. As I search the web I just seem to always be led back to these tools as being the correct way to do things.
So here are my questions.
If I find a framework library on the web... do I need its source code or can I somehow just link to a compiled version of the framework?
In my reading, it seems that libraries made with Swift are somehow second-class citizens because Swift is a newer thing. Is that still the case? (The articles I read about this seems to date from 2014-2015).
Is there are good place to understand how Apple expects me to add a framework to a project, without using CocoaPods or Carthage?
No need to add source code. Just add the framework to Target ->
General -> Linked Framework and Libraries -> Tap on + and select
your framework.
In my opinion, many new libraries are being written is Swift. So you won't be left behind for using swift.
Apple has documentation about adding frameworks to XCode. But I would suggest to use Cocoapods , as its easy to manage libraries.
Cheers :)
How can I add stuff like AdSupport.framework to a Unity project?
I don't want to add them (on the Xcode side) every single time I do a build for iOS...
Using Unity 4.6.
Update, related:
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/ios-plugin-how-to-link-ios-framework.156231/
http://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/frameworks-and-plist-on-ios-outp
https://github.com/AdColony/AdColony-Unity-SDK/wiki/Unity-and-Xcode-Project-Setup
http://answers.unity3d.com/questions/222478/how-do-i-automatically-include-a-framework-with-my.html
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/get-tired-in-dragging-frameworks-and-dependence-in-xcode-try-xuporter.190752/ - https://github.com/onevcat/XUPorter - https://github.com/josh-ruis/XUPorter
Until there is an official way of doing this within the Unity editor, I'll just answer like this:
There is no official way to do this. You have to do this every single time you build an iOS project. Does UT hate iOS?
Or you could check out some 3rd party plugins that try to address the issue. I haven't tried it myself yet but https://github.com/onevcat/XUPorter or one of its forks could do it. It appears 3rd party tools have a hard time keeping up with new Unity and Xcode versions.
Or this: https://github.com/openkit/openkit-unity
Also: Something that would work from day-to-day is to select "Append" at build time instead of replace. That way framework setup is maintained (however splash screens settings seem to be ignored, and possibly other stuff too). It won't work however of you checkout the project on another computer or similar.
The first thing I tried is to create a static library but later I found out that it's not supported yet. Apple Xcode Beta 4 Release Notes:
Xcode does not support building static libraries that include Swift
code. (17181019)
I was hoping that Apple will be able to add this in the next Beta release or the GA version but I read the following on their blog:
While your app’s runtime
compatibility is ensured, the Swift language itself will continue to
evolve, and the binary interface will also change. To be safe, all
components of your app should be built with the same version of Xcode
and the Swift compiler to ensure that they work together.
This means that frameworks need to be managed carefully. For instance,
if your project uses frameworks to share code with an embedded
extension, you will want to build the frameworks, app, and extensions
together. It would be dangerous to rely upon binary frameworks that
use Swift — especially from third parties. As Swift changes, those
frameworks will be incompatible with the rest of your app. When the
binary interface stabilizes in a year or two, the Swift runtime will
become part of the host OS and this limitation will no longer exist.
The news is really alarming for me a person who writes components for other developers to use and include in their apps. Is this means that I have to distribute the source code or wait for two years?. Is there any other way to distribute the library without exposing the code (company policy)?
Update:
Is Swift code obfuscation an option at this point ?
Swift is beta now, and even for 1.0 Apple has been pretty clear they're after a restricted feature set -- better to do a small number of things well than to try to do everything.
So for now, there's no way to distribute binary static libraries. Presumably that'll change sometime after Swift 1.0. For now, you can:
Distribute source
Ship a binary framework (instead of a library) if you're okay with the ABI being fragile
Use ObjC for library code
You can always combine approaches, too: e.g., implement the critical (secret) details of your library in ObjC, and ship Swift source that wraps it in a nice Swift API.
Obfuscating code written in a language that's very much subject to change sounds like a recipe for a maintenance nightmare.
I believe the whole approach is wrong. You cannot do something that is not (yet) doable by the technology you are trying to use.
Rationale: Swift is a new language, currently in Beta, and therefore changing. As I see it, this fact means not only that you are not able to ship static libraries, but that (real) developers will not be actually use third-party static libraries. What's the actual use of a library that may not work in the next release of the compiler? The issue gets bigger if you whant to use more than one library, because they might not be compatible! Therefore, even if you would be able to ship static libraries, they wouldn't be actually useful for production environment. So, what's the point?
Suggestion: write your static libraries in Objective-C (or C or whatever "non-beta"). Developers who need third-party libraries (e.g. yours) shouldn't expect them to be written in Swift until Swift is stable. You don't use experimental materials to build real bridges, right? You use well-tested, predictable ones.
From Xcode 9 beta 4, Xcode supports static library with Swift sources.
We have a fairly rich e-learning app, built mostly using cocos2d. Currently we are in alpha and want to setup our project structure so we can also build a Mac version to target the Mac App store. It is about 80% cocos2d with some intitial screens in UIKit which will have to be ported to Mac (re-written).
What is the recommended setup for targeting both the Mac and iOS app stores from a single code base? I assume the choices are:
Create 2 xCode projects in the same application source code root folder and use each project to build a single target. This would be: Project.xcodeproj and ProjectMac.xcodeproj
Add a new Mac target to our existing iPad application project and then fiddle with target membership to get the desired results. This would be just: Project.xcodeproj
Further complicating the situation is that we currently use cocos2d as a static library for the iOS app. We also have a library called CoreInfrastructure that has a lot of code we use across all our projects. Recently I have figured out that I can create a project to simultaneously build a framework targeting Mac and a library targeting iOS from the same code base. This is done by starting with a framework project and adding a target to build a static lib for iOS.
So just wanted to get everyone's opinion and insight. Anyone know of any caveats to watch out for in the above choices? Anyone who is building for Mac and iOS app stores simultaneously care to share their structure? Adding a target worked on our library code ... is that the way to go for the application as well?
Are there any issues doing archive and distribution builds for either choice?
Thanks in advance.
WWDC session "Sharing code between iOS and OS X" answers all the basic questions in this topic. iWork team presented how they have got away with creating Pages, Keynote and Numbers with shared code base for both iOS and OS X.
The key for their project was using:
separate Xcode targets for iOS and OS X
separate project for the shared code in a form of a .framework
target dependency on the framework from the point above
I encourage to watch the video or read the transcript from this session:
WWDC 2014 Sharing code between iOS and OS X
ASCIIWWDC transcript
I recently used kstenerud's iOS Universal Framework to build a shared framework codebase that works for both iOS and Mac apps. I just needed to manually add a target for a Cocoa framework after I had created a project for an iOS framework. That way I can develop the sharable code once in the framework and link it in both the iOS and Mac apps. You can even make the framework contain UIKit-specific code for your iOS app and AppKit-specific code for your Mac apps. I wrote about it in my blog if you are interested.
For the applications use two separate projects. Using multiple targets for iOS and Mac in one project is very useful if they are sharing a library or framework. However, in your top level application almost nothing is shared. The UIKit code will need to be totally rewritten to use AppKit, the dependencies will be different, and even most of the project settings will vary.
Of course if you really want to see everything at once you can put both platform specific application projects and all the shared dependent library/framework projects in a single workspace. This is more a question of work style. If you want to switch back and forth between the two frequently this makes the most sense. If you want to simplify what you are looking at you can put them in separate workspaces that share many of the same projects. Separate workspaces has the disadvantage that a project can only be open in one workspace at a time so you effectively can only work on one at a time.
I just use multi-platform static library targets for the shared sources. You will need to expand that to the dependencies, however. If you have platform dependent implementations, you may want to create supplemental export libraries for those symbols.
So your structure might take this form:
CoreInfrastructure - cross platform static library.
PlatShared - cross platform static library.
PlatSpecific-OS X - OS X static library (or framework).
PlatSpecific-iOS - iOS static library.
The OS X app links to CoreInfrastructure, PlatShared, PlatSpecific-OSX, Cocos for OS X, and system libs.
The iOS app links to CoreInfrastructure, PlatShared, PlatSpecific-iOS, Cocos for iOS, and sys libs.
Problem (I've found) is, there are a lot of people who have not had much/any experience developing and maintaining complex project structures in Xcode. It's a pain (IMO) to setup duplicate targets, and properly maintain them as they grow -- even when they all refer to the same source files. That's why i prefer minimal targets and proper dependency structure.