• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Advice for Cocoa Plug-ins & Objective-C implementation uniquing
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Advice for Cocoa Plug-ins & Objective-C implementation uniquing


  • Subject: Re: Advice for Cocoa Plug-ins & Objective-C implementation uniquing
  • From: Jean-Daniel Dupas <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:01:23 +0100

Le 1 févr. 2010 à 19:13, Jonah Petri a écrit :

> Hello,
>
> We're working on getting our plugins converted to Cocoa, and I've come across a seemingly difficult issue.
>
> We ship multiple plugins based on common backend framework code.  Up to now, we've linked our entire stack into each plugin bundle.  Then, if the user loads 4 of our plugins into a host app, they end up with 4 (possibly different!) copies of our common code.  This keeps the implementations of our plugins completely separate, and keeps our testing matrix simple.
>
> Now, in order to make the cocoa & 64-bit transition, we have to introduce some objective-C into our code.  Then dyld gets involved, and (presumably as part of the objective-C contract?) uniques the implementations of any identically named classes at runtime.  This is seen from messages such as:
>
> objc[70421]: Class IZSupportClass is implemented in both [plugin 1] and [plugin 2]. One of the two will be used. Which one is undefined.
>
> This means trouble for us, as we can't be sure that the code that we wrote will actually be what's run!
>
> How do other folks deal with this?
>
> One way is to use a shared library (or framework) for common code.  Apple has ProKit.framework, which supports their pro-apps.  Then, you take on the extra burden of ensuring backwards compatibility of your library with old versions of your plugins.  This seems onerous for us.
>
> Another possibility is to create unique names of our classes for each build.  This seems to most closely emulate the solution we had before, and is appealing for that reason.
>
> Alternatively, if there were a way to ask dyld nicely for a specific implementation of a given class, that would also work.  I've not experimented with this yet, but it seems fraught with peril.
>

This is not a dyld limitation, but an objc runtime one. As the runtime cannot handle 2 classes with the same name, you cannot ask for a specific implementation.


-- Jean-Daniel




 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

References: 
 >Advice for Cocoa Plug-ins & Objective-C implementation uniquing (From: Jonah Petri <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Advice for Cocoa Plug-ins & Objective-C implementation uniquing
  • Next by Date: Re: Advice for Cocoa Plug-ins & Objective-C implementation uniquing
  • Previous by thread: Re: Advice for Cocoa Plug-ins & Objective-C implementation uniquing
  • Next by thread: Re: Advice for Cocoa Plug-ins & Objective-C implementation uniquing
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread