Enable module stability. Now can't use with Swift 5.3.2. about mamba HOT 5 OPEN

This is a good idea. I'm not 100% sure of the consequences for users that are still using plain old frameworks. I'm sure we'll all be using xcframework soon, but not sure of adoption curves.

If you are a user with strong opinions on this or insight into building a framework with this option on, please comment in this thread.

from mamba.

I've began the work to update the project build settings and look further into what this build setting actually will do.

When set to YES, an additional file is created (.swiftInterface) which is a non binary description of the public API for the module. This is what will ensure ABI compatibility across swift versions. Verified that there is no impact on building regular frameworks via building a dummy library with mamba as a dependency (with this setting modified).

from mamba.

This issue should now be resolved in both the develop and develop_1.x branches.

from mamba.

Hi @jonnybach. My framework is a fat framework so can it have module stability enabled or i need to build it as xcframework?? Thanks!!

from mamba.

@hoangduoc0603 sorry for the delayed response. I have recently changed jobs so I was not active on GitHub with this account for a few weeks.

You may have already received your answer, but you don't have to build your framework as an xcframework b/c module stability has been enabled. However, I'd recommend you start supporting packaging any binaries of your frameworks as xcframeworks because:

1. this is required if you wish to make your framework available for use with Swift Package Manager but wish to distribute it as a binary (as opposed to allowing SPM to build from source)
2. you will never be able to provide a FAT framework that includes architectures for both Intel and ARM64 (M1/M2 chip) based Macs. This applies not only for frameworks for running on a Mac itself, but also for iOS simulators on Macs.

Hope this is helpful.

from mamba.