Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 17, 2023. It is now read-only.

Add framework support - #2552

Closed
Rupert-RR wants to merge 2 commits into
AFNetworking:masterfrom
Rupert-RR:add-framework-support
Closed

Add framework support#2552
Rupert-RR wants to merge 2 commits into
AFNetworking:masterfrom
Rupert-RR:add-framework-support

Conversation

@Rupert-RR

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Added a new project to provide targets for building AFNetworking as a dynamic framework.
Should facilitate using Carthage.

@mattt

mattt commented Feb 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

CocoaPods is the only supported means of integrating AFNetworking into projects. There are no current plans to integrate support for Carthage.

@mattt mattt closed this Feb 9, 2015
@Rupert-RR

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Fair enough, but Carthage is simply a use case. Surely having AFNetworking as a dynamic framework makes sense...

@mattt

mattt commented Feb 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

It's a question of support burden. CocoaPods guarantees that things work as expected. Dynamic Frameworks do not. Officially supporting them would increase the overall volume of issues and questions on Stack Overflow significantly.

@Rupert-RR

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I appreciate the overhead that would bring, and will use my fork for dynamic frameworks. But given where iOS development is headed (which would seem to be Swift and dynamic frameworks) and the fact that Cocoapods is currently building in support for dynamic frameworks I would have thought that this would be something that will be highly desirable in the long term.

@robb

robb commented Feb 26, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

It would be really nice to have framework support, with or without Carthage support.

@kyledecot

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I agree with those above. +1 for carthage/dynamic support

@fsosa

fsosa commented Mar 21, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Framework support via Carthage or something similar would be greatly appreciated. +1 for this.

@krunk4ever

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👍 Would also love to see AFNetworking supported as a dynamic framework in the near future!

@robb

robb commented Mar 21, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Having a framework target wouldn't affect the CocoaPods integration at all, it could remain the official way to install AFNetworking while making life a little easier for people who use submodules.

@Igor-Khomich

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1 for carthage

@andreyz

andreyz commented May 5, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I'd add a +1 vote for Carthage support

@csjones

csjones commented May 17, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1 for Carthage

1 similar comment
@istx25

istx25 commented Jun 7, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1 for Carthage

@istx25

istx25 commented Jun 7, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Oh, I just read the more long winded responses.

@istx25

istx25 commented Jun 7, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I feel like CocoaPods is starting to become outdated as new and better technologies are released. Carthage is an awesome alternative to CocoaPods and I don't really think there would be any reason not to support it. It won't get in the way of CocoaPods, just let the people who have adopted the new technology to embrace it in everything they use.

@bruceflowers

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1 for Carthage and +1 for what he ^^^ says about CocoaPods.

@ekimia

ekimia commented Sep 2, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1

@SilentChris

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1 for Carthage support - I would be totally fine if the answer to any odd issue arising from using it as a dynamic framework was "install it using CocoaPods instead"

@danielphillips

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I would like to also put forward my +1 for framework support.

@lilyball

lilyball commented Sep 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1. CocoaPods is a nightmare.

@andreyz

andreyz commented Sep 10, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

For anyone who's tired (fruitlessly) banging their keys in this thread, point your Cartfiles to https://github.com/Automatic/AFNetworking. It's a Carthage supported fork.

@kcharwood

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

We'll be looking into adding Carthage support in a future release. It's going to happen 🍻

@andreyz

andreyz commented Sep 10, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Thanks @kcharwood for good news :)

@istx25

istx25 commented Sep 10, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

\o/ yay! 👍 🎊

@kcharwood

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

It won't happen overnight, but its on the roadmap.

If anyone wants to start putting together a PR that makes it manageable, I'll be happy to dig into it.

@istx25

istx25 commented Sep 10, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@kcharwood If I remember correctly, It is very easy to support Carthage. Just share the target's scheme and voilà.

@redfearnk

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👍 Carthage

@kcharwood

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I remember it being slightly more complicated for this project, just don't have details off the top of my head

@jeryRazakarison

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1 for Carthage ^^

@bluemarble

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1 for Carthage! Thanks for putting it on the roadmap!

@kcharwood

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

It is currently in the 3.0.0 branch.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.