Consider supporting iOS 7

[irace]

It would just pass a single item through rather than providing any of the benefits, but at least would make it easier for apps that still support iOS 7 to simply drop XExtensionItem in.

[AriX]

I added basic iOS 7 compatibility in a547d68. There may well still be some other code lying around that could use iOS 8-only APIs, but this was all that was needed to get the NSExtensionItem demo working on iOS 7 for me.

[irace]

Great, thanks.

Do you think this is something we should do? I have mixed feelings.

On one hand, it’d be easy enough and might help adoption.

On the other hand, I'm not even sure how useful it is (in the Tumblr case, we have a code to create different Facebook/Twitter strings that include the URLs on iOS 7 where we can’t provide multiple attachments, so we probably wouldn't even use this ourselves). Not to mention I don’t really want to encourage supporting iOS 7.

[mbbischoff]

The more I think of it, the more I think we should do it. Not necessarily promote it anywhere, but just in order to make it easier to include this pod as a dependency of iOS 7+ projects.

[irace]

This is more work than I let on since it’d require redoing the Xcode project to work as a static library and not a framework 😕

Leaning towards “not for 1.0” as a result.

[AriX]

A few thoughts:

• I think it's a really good idea to support iOS 7. It's a responsible thing to do. Otherwise we could discourage adoption among developers who support iOS 7, which is a bunch of people especially since iOS 7 still has a pretty large userbase.
• People can easily just use git submodules and include the .h and .m files in their project rather than using CocoaPods or Xcode framework dependencies. I much prefer including code directly for small libraries like this one, and I don't think this should necessarily get in the way of testing the code itself to ensure iOS 7 compatibility.
• That said, I think having a static library target is a good idea anyway. I haven't looked at the project config but I assume you could just switch the current framework target to be a static library (and optionally, add a new dynamic framework target that just links against the static library).

[irace]

I agree with all of this just don’t have any time to work on it before heading off on vacation. I'll let it up to @mattbischoff to decide if we either hold 1.0.0 until one of us has time to rearrange things, or if we prioritize this for a subsequent point release.