My company creates multiple BlackBerry apps that all use a few shared Java projects. Recently we've been chasing a bug that we theorize may be caused by an app using an old version of one of the projects. My question is, do two apps downloaded separately from App World share the projects they have in common, or does each app use its own copy of the project?
For example, say I have two apps, Foo and Bar, which each use the project Baz. I first download:
Foo 1.0
with Baz 1.0
Then I download:
Bar 2.0
with Baz 2.0
Will Bar use version 1.0 or 2.0 of Baz when I launch it?
Normally, the last-installed application's library will overwrite the existing library, which is often not what you want. This has been a longstanding problem with the BlackBerry platform, as seen here.
What I and others do is either:
include the source code for the library within the app itself, or
include the version number in the library
Essentially you're doing away with the concept of a shared library, which is unfortuante, but at least your app works independently of any other changes.
Sorry, I guess there's a third option: package the library as a separate download. But that has its own issues.
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.
Building Modern Frameworks addresses versioning and the importance of getting the API right the first time. Then, it says every app has its own copy of the framework. So then, can't I change my framework carelessly, i.e., without worrying about breaking other apps that are using older versions of my framework?
If we're talking about your own app on iOS, you can do whatever you like. The "framework" is merely a module like any other module; it is included in the app and is simply part of the app's code, so if you revise it, the next update gets the revision and the new code that uses it and there's no problem.
On OS X, however, there's an ability to install a framework into the library where the app will see it. Clearly in that case the code that uses the framework must be careful about versioning. Similarly, even on iOS, if you are using your framework as a way to convey a module to other developers, you must try not to break heedlessly their existing code that uses your framework.
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.
I've seen project such as ios-universal-framework, but I want to know why XCode iOS does not natively support having a framework. Is it some kind of legal issue. The static library option is not good enough because I want to be able to use .dylib files in my framework.
A little background on what I want to do with a framework. I have a project that is generated from Unity3D, and when we update, we have to manually add back all of our project changes.
What I want is to use a framework that can store most of those external libraries and resources to make it easier to upgrade our project when updates are released.
From a security perspective no code is allowed to be dynamically loaded, thus only static libraries are allowed.
It is possible to create static psudo-frameworks. Take a look at GitHub iOS-Universal-Framework.
What you need is a PosprocessBuilder as described in the build pipeline described in the Unity3d Documentation.
You can manage the Xcode configurations in this pipeline using scripts like the Xcode Zerg.
I've used one python script written by a guy called Calvin Rien that worked really well, if you want to know more about this script this blog post should give you a hint.
What you really need to look for to you automate the these steps is to look for posts of Continuous Integration using Unity 3d and iOS like this one:
Unity3d: from commit to deployment onto tester devices in 20 min using Jenkins
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.