Re: [aerogear-dev] Parallel support for a Cocoapods Swift/Obj-c library

On Jan 22, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: good info, i’d vote for the b approach so not to interfere with existing stuff. If someone wasn’t using cocoa pods, how would this affect them, wrt to the “import” since it wouldn’t be using he module_name pod spec directive?

> On Jan 22, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Christos Vasilakis <cvasilak(a)gmail.com <mailto:cvasilak@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi team, > > a little heads up on an issue that I‘ve been looking the last days, on how to proper support both an Obj-C and a Swift library (in-parallel) on Cocoapods. There was a discussion on the cocoapods issues tracker[1] basically around two ideas: > > a) being a separate project, with a new name plus utilising Swift specific language propers. > b) having one project, utilising cocoapods subspec mechanism to include specific files per spec requested. In a nutshell users will employ in their Podfile something of a form: > > — > pod “MyFooBarLibrary/Objc’ (objective-c) > or > pod “ MyFooBarLibrary/Swift’ (Swift) > — > > Solution (b) was intrigued and went on to discover more, since I haven’t used before the subspec mechanism and was a good opportunity to learn. The issue mentioned two projects, QueryKit[2] and ReactiveCocoa[3] (their Swift branch) that utilise this mechanism, so I dive in trying to see how it works. > > My realisations: > a) both projects are designed with ‘Swift first’ approach, employing _some_ 'Objective-C code’ to ease the interaction in a mixed project e.g Objective-C code calling the ‘Swift’ library, see [4] where the author describes more details on this. > b) since ‘Swift first’, both produce frameworks where they can be integrated either in objective-c or swift language projects, no ‘static-library’ targets. > c) both are designed for iOS >= 8.0 > > To make it short and from my understanding, the projects are _not_ designed around the idea of: take either the Objective-C or the Swift port in you project, but instead employ an Objective-C subspec to “ease” the interaction in a mixed environment, aka Objective-C code calling the Swift library. > > Regardless and to better understand, I did some testing with our push-sdk: > > a) having a single Swift Project employing both the objective-c code and Swift code > b) having a .workspace with a) Obj-c xcodeproj, b) Swift xcodeproj. > > In both cases, this mixed approaches, at the end caused issues and wasn’t able to generate a proper solution. Issues around a) cocoapods 'pod install’ steps, b) tests on the library are done with two different dependencies c) various other integration issues… > > It’s my sense, the most clean way is to go with separate libraries, that is solution (a) described above (a solution proposed also from @orta [5]) This has the added benefit of cleaner 'logistics’ that is: commit history, releases, static/framework library generations etc etc. > > But there is one issue if we go with separate approach: _cocoapods naming_, that is how to properly separate between the two. > > Currently searching for AeroGear-Push in cocoapods.org <http://cocoapods.org/> site we get the following: > > <Screenshot 2015-01-22 13.56.36.png> > > > In my cocoapods PR [6] I went with the approach to name the ‘Swift’ equivalent library as 'AeroGear-Push-Swift’, so the same searching above will reveal: > > — > AeroGear-Push > AeroGear-Push-Swift > — > > Some of you have already noticed, that the ‘hyphen’ character as a podspec name doesn’t work well with a Swift Project, cause the podspec name is used as the name of the final #import statement the user does. That is the following import statement doesn’t work: > > — > import AeroGear-Push-Swift > — > > Solving this, there are two approaches: > > a) rename both library podspecs : Objective-C to -> AeroGearPush and Swift to -> AeroGearPushSwift > b) continue the same naming, but use the new ‘module_name’ podspec directive in the Swift project(added in cocoapods [6]) to specify the final module name the user will use on the import. That is the approach I have taken in my PR[6] > > If we go with (b) the entries will look like this: > > —— > Obj-c: (no changes needed) > > Podfile: pod 'AeroGear-Push’ > > Class: #import <AeroGearPush/AeroGearPush.h> > > > Swift: > > Podfile: pod 'AeroGear-Push-Swift’ > > Class: import “AeroGearPush” (notice _no_ ‘Swift’ postfix is needed cause of the ‘module_name’ override) > > —— > > I am fine with both albeit more towards (b) mostly not to break existing ‘pod installs’ the users may use and since support with the ‘module_name’ directive is provided from cocoapods. Current PR[6] goes with this approach. > > Let me know your comments and suggestions > > Thanks > Christos > > [1] https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/3016 <https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/3016> > [2] https://github.com/QueryKit/QueryKit <https://github.com/QueryKit/QueryKit> > [3] https://github.com/ReactiveCocoa/ReactiveCocoa/tree/swift-development <https://github.com/ReactiveCocoa/ReactiveCocoa/tree/swift-development> > [4] https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/3016#issuecomment-69092100 <https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/3016#issuecomment-69092100> > [5] https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/3016#issuecomment-69073109 <https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/3016#issuecomment-69073109> > [6] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-ios-push/pull/41 <https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-ios-push/pull/41> > [7] http://blog.cocoapods.org/Pod-Authors-Guide-to-CocoaPods-Frameworks/ <http://blog.cocoapods.org/Pod-Authors-Guide-to-CocoaPods-Frameworks/>_... > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev