My team is developing an iOS framework for the clients to use, and we came upon a bottleneck when we wanted to have some sort of crash reporting tool(such as Crashlytics, KSCrash, etc.) in our framework so we can track down the crashes when clients are using our framework in their app.
However, the problem was that these 3rd party crash reporting tools don't seem to work if both (framework and client) are using the same crash reporting tool. For example, if our framework and client app both depend on Crashlytics to report crashes, it wouldn't work because of restricted API. Most other open source projects almost all the time uses sharedInstance to initialize the class. So, this wouldn't work either.
My question is... I'm sure there are companies and software out there that use some sort of crash reporting tools to analyze crashes on their own frameworks that they distributed to many clients. How is this done? Any insights?
I'm a former maintainer of the Crashlytics SDKs for Apple platforms. I've been asked this a number of times, by some highly popular framework vendors in the past. And, I've devoted a significant amount of work into these areas - reporting tool interoperability and non-host app reporting.
I'd like to get into a little more detail as to why this is so difficult.
Problem 1: Crashes are inherently per-process
The problem you've noticed so far is related to the reporting frameworks' APIs, but the issues go way deeper. A crash brings down the entire process. The facilities that exist on iOS (macOS, tvOS) cannot be applied on a per-library basis. (I believe some can be per-thread, but I'm not sure that actually buys you anything.)
This is the core reason why interoperability, even with Apple's own ReportCrash, is so challenging. In-process reporting tools setup their machinery, and then expect their setup to remain unchanged when a crash actually occurs. Two copies of this machinery (ie, two Crashlytics) doesn't make sense. There can only be one, because the resources being used only exist on a per-process basis.
Often, a reporting tool needs to make trade-offs between the best possible reporting, and the best possible interoperability. On example, if I remember correctly, is that if you use both Crashlytics and KSCrash in the same process, Crashlytics' ability to correctly capture information about C++ exceptions is compromised.
Problem 2: Who owns the crash?
Ignoring problem 1, how should the reporter know that a crash is a library vs the app? This is broad topic, that basically gets down to the core issue of crash responsibility. A crash is an effect, but most developers don't immediately think of crashes this way. When you want to fix a crash, you need a cause. Determining that a library is the cause is not easy. Before you think "shouldn't it just give me the crashes with my library's frames in it?", imagine that was how it worked for UIKit or Foundation.
There are many ways to approach this issue. However, without digressing here too much, I believe a crash is always owned by a host application, but could also be interesting to third-parties. This brings up a whole other host of issues, including authenticating library owners and dealing with the privacy/security implications for the host app. It's a whole thing.
Regardless of how you approach this, I think the solution can only be done server-side, with the reporting service. They could, in theory, grab the report and do this analysis. Crashlytics' Insights system is a step in this direction. However, it currently does not offer a library vendor the ability to see these reports. Its focus is more on connecting the crash (an effect) with a well-known cause (or class of causes).
Summary
Trying to make your library as stable as possible is an excellent goal. Unfortunately, I just don't think it can be done with dedicated in-process reporting.
What you should actually do is help your client developers better understand what your library is doing. So, when it does crash, then can debug more easily and report it to you.
Name all of your queues/threads
Include some kind of logging facility
Be aggressive about checking for valid parameters/input
make errors you pass back from your APIs as descriptive and comprehensive as you can
Don't ever Assert in production (I feel the opposite about this for host applications)
Never throw ObjC and/or C++ exceptions
Never, ever #catch/catch in your code
check out the NSProcessInfo APIs, which can help better expose what your library is doing during debugging
I hope this is helpful, even though it doesn't really get you where you wanted.
Related
I'm looking at building a Cocoa application on the Mac with a back-end daemon process (really just a mostly-headless Cocoa app, probably), along with 0 or more "client" applications running locally (although if possible I'd like to support remote clients as well; the remote clients would only ever be other Macs or iPhone OS devices).
The data being communicated will be fairly trivial, mostly just text and commands (which I guess can be represented as text anyway), and maybe the occasional small file (an image possibly).
I've looked at a few methods for doing this but I'm not sure which is "best" for the task at hand. Things I've considered:
Reading and writing to a file (…yes), very basic but not very scalable.
Pure sockets (I have no experience with sockets but I seem to think I can use them to send data locally and over a network. Though it seems cumbersome if doing everything in Cocoa
Distributed Objects: seems rather inelegant for a task like this
NSConnection: I can't really figure out what this class even does, but I've read of it in some IPC search results
I'm sure there are things I'm missing, but I was surprised to find a lack of resources on this topic.
I am currently looking into the same questions. For me the possibility of adding Windows clients later makes the situation more complicated; in your case the answer seems to be simpler.
About the options you have considered:
Control files: While it is possible to communicate via control files, you have to keep in mind that the files need to be communicated via a network file system among the machines involved. So the network file system serves as an abstraction of the actual network infrastructure, but does not offer the full power and flexibility the network normally has. Implementation: Practically, you will need to have at least two files for each pair of client/servers: a file the server uses to send a request to the client(s) and a file for the responses. If each process can communicate both ways, you need to duplicate this. Furthermore, both the client(s) and the server(s) work on a "pull" basis, i.e., they need to revisit the control files frequently and see if something new has been delivered.
The advantage of this solution is that it minimizes the need for learning new techniques. The big disadvantage is that it has huge demands on the program logic; a lot of things need to be taken care of by you (Will the files be written in one piece or can it happen that any party picks up inconsistent files? How frequently should checks be implemented? Do I need to worry about the file system, like caching, etc? Can I add encryption later without toying around with things outside of my program code? ...)
If portability was an issue (which, as far as I understood from your question is not the case) then this solution would be easy to port to different systems and even different programming languages. However, I don't know of any network files ystem for iPhone OS, but I am not familiar with this.
Sockets: The programming interface is certainly different; depending on your experience with socket programming it may mean that you have more work learning it first and debugging it later. Implementation: Practically, you will need a similar logic as before, i.e., client(s) and server(s) communicating via the network. A definite plus of this approach is that the processes can work on a "push" basis, i.e., they can listen on a socket until a message arrives which is superior to checking control files regularly. Network corruption and inconsistencies are also not your concern. Furthermore, you (may) have more control over the way the connections are established rather than relying on things outside of your program's control (again, this is important if you decide to add encryption later on).
The advantage is that a lot of things are taken off your shoulders that would bother an implementation in 1. The disadvantage is that you still need to change your program logic substantially in order to make sure that you send and receive the correct information (file types etc.).
In my experience portability (i.e., ease of transitioning to different systems and even programming languages) is very good since anything even remotely compatible to POSIX works.
[EDIT: In particular, as soon as you communicate binary numbers endianess becomes an issue and you have to take care of this problem manually - this is a common (!) special case of the "correct information" issue I mentioned above. It will bite you e.g. when you have a PowerPC talking to an Intel Mac. This special case disappears with the solution 3.+4. together will all of the other "correct information" issues.]
+4. Distributed objects: The NSProxy class cluster is used to implement distributed objects. NSConnection is responsible for setting up remote connections as a prerequisite for sending information around, so once you understand how to use this system, you also understand distributed objects. ;^)
The idea is that your high-level program logic does not need to be changed (i.e., your objects communicate via messages and receive results and the messages together with the return types are identical to what you are used to from your local implementation) without having to bother about the particulars of the network infrastructure. Well, at least in theory. Implementation: I am also working on this right now, so my understanding is still limited. As far as I understand, you do need to setup a certain structure, i.e., you still have to decide which processes (local and/or remote) can receive which messages; this is what NSConnection does. At this point, you implicitly define a client/server architecture, but you do not need to worry about the problems mentioned in 2.
There is an introduction with two explicit examples at the Gnustep project server; it illustrates how the technology works and is a good starting point for experimenting:
http://www.gnustep.org/resources/documentation/Developer/Base/ProgrammingManual/manual_7.html
Unfortunately, the disadvantages are a total loss of compatibility (although you will still do fine with the setup you mentioned of Macs and iPhone/iPad only) with other systems and loss of portability to other languages. Gnustep with Objective-C is at best code-compatible, but there is no way to communicate between Gnustep and Cocoa, see my edit to question number 2 here: CORBA on Mac OS X (Cocoa)
[EDIT: I just came across another piece of information that I was unaware of. While I have checked that NSProxy is available on the iPhone, I did not check whether the other parts of the distributed objects mechanism are. According to this link: http://www.cocoabuilder.com/archive/cocoa/224358-big-picture-relationships-between-nsconnection-nsinputstream-nsoutputstream-etc.html (search the page for the phrase "iPhone OS") they are not. This would exclude this solution if you demand to use iPhone/iPad at this moment.]
So to conclude, there is a trade-off between effort of learning (and implementing and debugging) new technologies on the one hand and hand-coding lower-level communication logic on the other. While the distributed object approach takes most load of your shoulders and incurs the smallest changes in program logic, it is the hardest to learn and also (unfortunately) the least portable.
Disclaimer: Distributed Objects are not available on iPhone.
Why do you find distributed objects inelegant? They sounds like a good match here:
transparent marshalling of fundamental types and Objective-C classes
it doesn't really matter wether clients are local or remote
not much additional work for Cocoa-based applications
The documentation might make it sound like more work then it actually is, but all you basically have to do is to use protocols cleanly and export, or respectively connect to, the servers root object.
The rest should happen automagically behind the scenes for you in the given scenario.
We are using ThoMoNetworking and it works fine and is fast to setup. Basically it allows you to send NSCoding compliant objects in the local network, but of course also works if client and server are on he same machine. As a wrapper around the foundation classes it takes care of pairing, reconnections, etc..
I know this sounds a little bizarre, but there is a very simple application I want to write, a sort of unique image viewer, which requires some interactivity with the host system at the user level. Simplicity when developing is a must as this is a very small side project. The project does require some amount of graphical work and quite a bit of mouse based interactivity (as well as some keyboard shortcuts), but quite frankly, I don't want to dig my hands into OGL for something this small. I looked at the available options, and I think I've narrowed it down to two main choices: Webkit (through either QtWebkit or WebkitGtk), and the language Processing.
Since I haven't actually used Processing but I do have some amount of HTML5 canvas and Javascript experience, I am somewhat tempted to using a Webkit based solution. There are however, several concerns I have.
How is Webkit's support for canvas, specifically for more graphically intensive processes?
I've heard that bridging is handled better in QtWebkit than WebkitGtk. Is this still true?
To what degree can bridging actually do? Can a Webkit based application do everything that an application which interacts with the files on the system needs?
Looking at Processing, there are similarly, a couple things I'm wondering.
Processing is known for its graphical capabilities, but how capable is it for writing a general everyday desktop application?
There are many sources that link Processing to Java, both in lineage as well as in distributing applications over the web (ie: JApplets). Is the "Application Export" similarly closely integrated with Java?
As for directly comparing the two, the main concern I do have is the overhead of each. I want the application to start up as snappy as possible, and I know that Java has a bit of an overhead regarding start up because it first has to start up the interpreter. How do Processing and QtWebkit/WebkitGtk compare for start up?
Note that I am targeting the Linux platform only.
Thanks!
It's difficult to give a specific answer, because you're actually asking a few different kind of questions - and some of them you could be more precise.
Processing is a subset or child of java - it's really "just" a java framework with an free ide that hides the messy setup work of building an applet, so that a user can dive in and write something quickly without getting bogged down in widgets and ui, etc. So processing can exist by itself and the end user needs to know nothing of Java (except syntax - processing is java, so the user must learn java syntax).
But a programmer who already knows java can exploit the fun quick nature of processing and then leverage their normal java experience for whatever else is needed - everything of java is in processing, just a maybe slightly hidden (but only at first) It's also possible to import the processing.jars into an existing java program and use them there. See http://processing.org/learning/eclipse/ form more information.
"how capable is it for writing a general everyday desktop application?" - Not particularly on it's own (it's not made to be), but some things are possible and easy (i.e. file saving & loading, non-standard gui, etc.), and in some ways it's similar to old school actionscript or lingo. There is a library called controlP5 that makes gui stuff a bit easier.
Webkit is another kettle of fish, especially if you aren't making a web-based thing (it sounds like you're thinking on using the webkit libraries as part of a larger program. I'll admit I don't have the dev expertise with those specific libraries to give you the answer you really want, but I'm pretty certain that unless you have programming experience beyond html5/javascript you'll probably get going much faster with processing.
Good luck with whichever path you choose!
Now that Microsoft has revamped their workflow framework in Windows Workflow Foundation 4, what are your thoughts and experiences with this new framework?
I have been working with WF4 for a few months now, and I have run into a few pitfalls:
There's no way to enforce an interface with Workflow Services (Xamlx).
When an error occurs in the workflow, whether it is with communication, correlation, persistence, or some unhandled exception in the workflow, it's almost impossible to tell what went wrong because the trace logs tell you nothing relevant. For example, I had an Entity Framework object as a workflow variable and the workflow persistence had some trouble serializing it. Unfortunately, non of the errors in the trace files indicated that this was the problem. I went through many hours of trial and error before I figured out what went wrong.
Some of the provided activities are insufficient. For example, I had to extend the Send activity to support dynamic endpoints. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make it completely dynamic, for example, the interface name cannot be dynamic.
If a workflow gets too big, the designer becomes very slow. One workflow that's over 100KB in size took more than a minute to load! And forget about debugging a workflow of this size.
No persistence provider for Oracle.
Despite the pitfalls, I'm very impressed with the persistence capabilities to the database, the ease of snapping activities together in the designer, and the ease of setting up WCF services as workflow services.
I'm curious about the experiences of the other developers using Workflow Foundation 4.
Edit:
I was able to solve the problem of the extremely slow designer for large workflows. It turned out that there were unresolvable Imports, which apparently causes the designer a lot of stress.
I posted on the MSDN forums about this issue.
Update
There are a slew of problems that we are facing with AppFabric, now that we're running in production. It is clear to me that AppFabric Workflow Services, as of now, are not ready for use. I would stay away from this until new versions are released.
I think you did a pretty good summary of the WF4 issues.
My main pain point is the inability to change the definition of in process workflows. That is being fixed in the next version though but for now a big problem.
I also had difficulties with exceptions in workflows - mostly determining why they occurred, the source, and a description or message. I got better at this as I gained more experience, and if I began another workflow project I'd be able to debug it far more efficiently. It's just a different paradigm and so can't be approached the same way as straight code.
Another issue I had with WF 4.0 was unit testing with WorkflowInvoker; the specifics escape me but mocking dependencies and parent/child workflows was a real headache.
Generally I really like WF 4.0, a massive improvement over 3.5. Running in debug mode can be very slow, debugging in the designer is more trouble than it's worth, but the framework is great and very usable.
I'm trying to understand if it is worth the pain to learn XUL more thoroughly.
If you have experience with a moderately complex project (like an independent application rather than a Firefox extension), can you tell me what your experience has been like?
I am particularly worried for feature which are not supported by the XUL framework natively. There are two possibilities: either create more XPCOM components, or using external tools. The latter approach is not completely satisfactory, as interprocess communication seems somehow lacking in XUL.
On the other hand, I have no knowledge of C++. How difficult would it be for a first time learner to wrap an existing library in XPCOM dressing?
I have not written any XPCOM in my three years of developing XUL applications. It does seem intimidating. So far, though, I haven't had a good reason to create any XPCOM. I do use some external tools - for reporting, working with mobile devices, etc. I eventually figured out that you can at least get the STDOUT return value from a process that runs (at least on Windows, it seems that this particular feature might not be consistent across platforms). That allowed me to have at least a single return value, which allowed me to implement error handling.
I think that you will find that you can do quite a bit without touching XPCOM. However, everything is not polished and easy, and there is not a large, helpful, developer community/ not much developer support, so it can be a frustrating learning experience.
If this is a large application, or an application that you might be adding other developers too, you may wish to consider choosing a more supported development platform.
as opposed to writing your own library.
We're working on a project here that will be a self-dividing server pool, if one section grows too heavy, the manager would divide it and put it on another machine as a separate process. It would also alert all connected clients this affects to connect to the new server.
I am curious about using ZeroMQ for inter-server and inter-process communication. My partner would prefer to roll his own. I'm looking to the community to answer this question.
I'm a fairly novice programmer myself and just learned about messaging queues. As i've googled and read, it seems everyone is using messaging queues for all sorts of things, but why? What makes them better than writing your own library? Why are they so common and why are there so many?
what makes them better than writing your own library?
When rolling out the first version of your app, probably nothing: your needs are well defined and you will develop a messaging system that will fit your needs: small feature list, small source code etc.
Those tools are very useful after the first release, when you actually have to extend your application and add more features to it.
Let me give you a few use cases:
your app will have to talk to a big endian machine (sparc/powerpc) from a little endian machine (x86, intel/amd). Your messaging system had some endian ordering assumption: go and fix it
you designed your app so it is not a binary protocol/messaging system and now it is very slow because you spend most of your time parsing it (the number of messages increased and parsing became a bottleneck): adapt it so it can transport binary/fixed encoding
at the beginning you had 3 machine inside a lan, no noticeable delays everything gets to every machine. your client/boss/pointy-haired-devil-boss shows up and tell you that you will install the app on WAN you do not manage - and then you start having connection failures, bad latency etc. you need to store message and retry sending them later on: go back to the code and plug this stuff in (and enjoy)
messages sent need to have replies, but not all of them: you send some parameters in and expect a spreadsheet as a result instead of just sending and acknowledges, go back to code and plug this stuff in (and enjoy.)
some messages are critical and there reception/sending needs proper backup/persistence/. Why you ask ? auditing purposes
And many other use cases that I forgot ...
You can implement it yourself, but do not spend much time doing so: you will probably replace it later on anyway.
That's very much like asking: why use a database when you can write your own?
The answer is that using a tool that has been around for a while and is well understood in lots of different use cases, pays off more and more over time and as your requirements evolve. This is especially true if more than one developer is involved in a project. Do you want to become support staff for a queueing system if you change to a new project? Using a tool prevents that from happening. It becomes someone else's problem.
Case in point: persistence. Writing a tool to store one message on disk is easy. Writing a persistor that scales and performs well and stably, in many different use cases, and is manageable, and cheap to support, is hard. If you want to see someone complaining about how hard it is then look at this: http://www.lshift.net/blog/2009/12/07/rabbitmq-at-the-skills-matter-functional-programming-exchange
Anyway, I hope this helps. By all means write your own tool. Many many people have done so. Whatever solves your problem, is good.
I'm considering using ZeroMQ myself - hence I stumbled across this question.
Let's assume for the moment that you have the ability to implement a message queuing system that meets all of your requirements. Why would you adopt ZeroMQ (or other third party library) over the roll-your-own approach? Simple - cost.
Let's assume for a moment that ZeroMQ already meets all of your requirements. All that needs to be done is integrating it into your build, read some doco and then start using it. That's got to be far less effort than rolling your own. Plus, the maintenance burden has been shifted to another company. Since ZeroMQ is free, it's like you've just grown your development team to include (part of) the ZeroMQ team.
If you ran a Software Development business, then I think that you would balance the cost/risk of using third party libraries against rolling your own, and in this case, using ZeroMQ would win hands down.
Perhaps you (or rather, your partner) suffer, as so many developers do, from the "Not Invented Here" syndrome? If so, adjust your attitude and reassess the use of ZeroMQ. Personally, I much prefer the benefits of Proudly Found Elsewhere attitude. I'm hoping I can proud of finding ZeroMQ... time will tell.
EDIT: I came across this video from the ZeroMQ developers that talks about why you should use ZeroMQ.
what makes them better than writing your own library?
Message queuing systems are transactional, which is conceptually easy to use as a client, but hard to get right as an implementor, especially considering persistent queues. You might think you can get away with writing a quick messaging library, but without transactions and persistence, you'd not have the full benefits of a messaging system.
Persistence in this context means that the messaging middleware keeps unhandled messages in permanent storage (on disk) in case the server goes down; after a restart, the messages can be handled and no retransmit is necessary (the sender does not even know there was a problem). Transactional means that you can read messages from different queues and write messages to different queues in a transactional manner, meaning that either all reads and writes succeed or (if one or more fail) none succeeds. This is not really much different from the transactionality known from interfacing with databases and has the same benefits (it simplifies error handling; without transactions, you would have to assure that each individual read/write succeeds, and if one or more fail, you have to roll back those changes that did succeed).
Before writing your own library, read the 0MQ Guide here: http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all
Chances are that you will either decide to install RabbitMQ, or else you will make your library on top of ZeroMQ since they have already done all the hard parts.
If you have a little time give it a try and roll out your own implemntation! The learnings of this excercise will convince you about the wisdom of using an already tested library.