I have been writing iOS applications and completed a project with a lot of frameworks. Now I am using it as a template to start a new project that requires less functionality and hence I should be able to reduce the frameworks required, and hopefully reduce build time and size of project.
Question:
Is there a quick way to check which frameworks are no longer required within the project?
I don't think there is a better way than removing the framework, building, and seeing if there are link errors. You might be able to write a bash script but it's probably more work than it's worth.
Sadly not. The quick way is to remove all the frameworks, look for build errors and add back in the necessary frameworks.
search in the project files(cmd+shift+F).i.e whether you are imported any files related to the frameworks.
Related
I read this article about Whole Module Optimization (WMO). I am curious if I fully benefit from the optimizations if I place all the swift files from Cocoapods directly in my main project, since then, WMO sees all the swift files as a whole and can make optimizations like function inlining and generic specialization across my whole project, instead of per module (pod).
How does WMO works for multiple pods? Does it do WMO per module/pod? If so, I think a project can benefit even more from WMO if all the swift files are in the same project, since then WHO can optimize everything as a whole, instead of per module/pod. Or am I missing something?
So before going in production, remove all the pods, place the .swift files directly in the project and run WMO looks to me like I will benefit more from WMO than not doing it.
Yes.
Whether it's worth the trouble is another question, but yes to all of it.
(I've done it this way for years, and still do in some projects, but on newer projects I've given up and accepted that frameworks are life and just let CocoaPods be CocoaPods. It's just too much work to do it by hand. But that's opinion. The answer is "yes.")
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 :)
I know, there are so many same questions but I didn't get answer for my requirement.
First time I am creating framework. I have created test framework using Raywenderlich example. But my requirement is little bit different. I used so many different frameworks and also used SQLCipher in my project. Now, I want to convert this project into framework. I followed all the steps but the problem is occur when I am trying to build. Getting an error for SQLCypher because I didn’t add to my framework to avoid conflicts. Finally, I have added SQLCypher library to create build without error and it worked but now I am getting linker error when I am using that framework to test in testProject. I didn’t find any example with third parties. Please help me to solve this issue.
I had the same issue.
One solution is to change all method names of other frameworks or libs, but some lib is not open source.
Another solution is work for me which is to use cocoapods. But the user
who wants to use your framework will be forced using cocoapods, depending iOS 8.0 or above, depending the same version of 3rd libs. I have nothing to do with this restriction.
Seems the best way is do not depend 3rd libs in a framework.
I am developing an app for IOS,and I have to use some framework.
as you know Cocoa pods and Carthage are dependancy manager for iOS and mac OS
my question is "why we have to use dependancy manager?, instead of using dependancy manager just clone that project[was written by other programmer and can be used as framework] and drag and drop to your project ??"
Thanks for your answers
Few things that you need to think about is:
Updating your dependencies when new versions came out.
Updating dependencies for multiple platforms.
Interdependent frameworks and different framework versions for dependant frameworks.
Basically, time that you will spend on maintaining dependancies for your project will grow as your project grows. Dependancy managers allow you to avoid all this unnecessary and boring work.
There are a lot of other reasons to use DM instead of just importing frameworks. More about you can find here. And here.
At some point you might want to use 3rd party code to get extra features or something, you can copy the source code but how you will update it in the future? keep coping it again!!
Also some of your 3rd party code might depend on other 3rd part code, and if you copied it twice, you will get duplicate symbols.
Dependency managers handle all this for you.
My advice is to use Carthage or submodules, but do not use CocoPods, anything that touches the project file is not a good practice with Apple.
Why Libraries are Your Friend
While you aren’t strictly required to use third-party libraries or
frameworks, they can definitely save you a lot of time and let you
focus on polishing your app instead of typing out countless lines of
code that you simply don’t need to write.
You can use third-party frameworks and libraries without a dependency
manager too, and you can get hands-on tutorials about them right here
on this site. For example, there’s our Alamofire tutorial, and our
SwiftyJSON tutorial.
Without a dependency manager, you simply add each library’s code to
your project manually. However, this approach has several
disadvantages:
Updating a library to a new version can be difficult, especially if several libraries must be updated together because one depends on
another.
Including a library in your project makes it tempting to make local changes to the code, making it harder to update to a newer version
later.
Determining the current versions of libraries used in your app can be hard to do, especially if you don’t proactively keep track of them.
Finding new libraries can be difficult without a central location to see all the available libraries.
CocoaPods helps you overcome all of these issues and more. It fetches library code, resolves dependencies between libraries, helps
you search for and discover new libraries, and even sets up the right
environment to build your project with minimum hassle.
Courtesy
https://www.raywenderlich.com/97014/use-cocoapods-with-swift
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.