forcedotcom / SalesforceMobileSDK-iOS-Specs

BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
3 stars 20 forks source link

Using stock FMDB and SQLCipher (with FTS) #5

Closed wmathurin closed 8 years ago

bhariharan commented 8 years ago

:+1:

kchitalia commented 8 years ago

:+1:

khawkins commented 8 years ago

Have we tested this? Stock FMDB depends on sqlite3. Are there going to be symbol clashes when we effectively go against both?

khawkins commented 8 years ago

Also, FMDB is the spec that has to compile against DSQLITE_HAS_CODEC. That was the whole reason for splitting it out: the default FMDB spec does not set it.

khawkins commented 8 years ago

My recommendation would be to keep our FMDB spec, but swap out the vendored library for a dependency on SQLCipher/fts.

wmathurin commented 8 years ago

You are probably right, I'll make the change.

khawkins commented 8 years ago

Another question I have with regards to re-establishing our dependency on the SQLCipher spec: is there reason to have renewed faith that the spec won't simply fall into disrepair again? There's an argument for keeping our own version of SQLCipher, so that we can keep it maintained.

khawkins commented 8 years ago

But I suppose we can (re-)cross that bridge when we get to it.

wmathurin commented 8 years ago

Switching one way or the other is easy. I suggest we don't call our subspec fmdb so that one doesn't end up picking up the stock fmdb by having the sources in the wrong order. How about SalesforceFMDB?

khawkins commented 8 years ago

The problem with renaming the spec is that it filters all the way through to the header paths, with implications on non-modular header imports et al. So far I haven't been able to find the way to effectively "rename" the target internally to differentiate it from the named spec.

wmathurin commented 8 years ago

Ah ok, I'll keep the name then and make sure to have our specs repo source first in all the templates.

wmathurin commented 8 years ago

How does it look now?

khawkins commented 8 years ago

Looks good. I do like the idea of renaming the spec, if we can find a way. I wonder if spec.module_name (here) would do the trick in the pod spec?

wmathurin commented 8 years ago

I think it should (https://guides.cocoapods.org/syntax/podspec.html#module_name)

wmathurin commented 8 years ago

I can't get it to work as SalesforceFMDB with module_name - so I'll leave it as FMDB for now

khawkins commented 8 years ago

Sounds good. We can look into further. :+1: