So, that's that then, the first ever NSConference is over. But what a conference! Every session was informative, edumacational and above all enjoyable, including the final session where (and I hate to crow about this) the "American" team, who had a working and well-constructed Core Data based app, were soundly thrashed by the "European" team who had a nob joke and a flashlight app. Seriously, we finally found a reason for doing an iPhone flashlight! Top banana. I met loads of cool people, got to present with some top Cocoa developers (why Scotty got me in from the second division I'll never know, but I'm very grateful) and really did have a good time talking with everyone and learning new Cocoa skills.
It seems that my presentation and my Xcode top tip[*] went down really well, so thanks to all the attendees for being a great audience, asking thoughtful and challenging questions and being really supportive. It's been a couple of years since I've spoken to a sizable conference crowd, and I felt like everyone was on my side and wanted the talk - and indeed the whole conference - to be a success.
So yes, thanks to Scotty and Tim, Dave and Ben, and to all the speakers and attendees for such a fantastic conference. I'm already looking forward to next year's conference, and slightly saddened by having to come back to the real world over the weekend. I'll annotate my Keynote presentation and upload it when I can.
[*] Xcode "Run Shell Script" build phases get stored on one line in the project.pbxproj file, with all the line breaks replaced by \n. That sucks for version control because any changes by two devs result in a conflict over the whole script. So, have your build phase call an external .sh file where you really keep the shell script. Environment variables will still be available, and now you can work with SCM too :-).
Friday, April 17, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
Controlling opportunity
In Code Complete, McConnell outlines the idea of having a change control procedure, to stop the customers from changing the requirements whenever they see fit. In fact one feature of the process is to be heavy enough to dissuade customers from registering changes.
The Rational Unified Process goes for the slightly more neutral term Change Request Management, but the documentation seems to imply the same opinion, that it is the ability to make change requests which must be limited. The issue is that many requests for change in software projects are beneficial, and accepting the change request is not symptomatic of project failure. The most straightforward example is a bug report - this is a change request (please fix this defect) which converts broken software into working software. Similarly, larger changes such as new requirements could convert a broken business case into a working business case; ultimately turning a failed project into a revenue-generator.
In my opinion the various agile methodologies don't address this issue, either assuming that with the customer involved throughout, no large change would ever be necessary, or that the iterations are short enough for changes to be automatically catered for. I'm not convinced; perhaps after the sixth sprint of your content publishing app the customer decides to open a pet store instead.
I humbly suggest that project managers replace the word "control" in their change documentation with "opportunity" - let's accept that we're looking for ways to make better products, not that we need excuses never to edit existing Word files. OMG baseline be damned!
The Rational Unified Process goes for the slightly more neutral term Change Request Management, but the documentation seems to imply the same opinion, that it is the ability to make change requests which must be limited. The issue is that many requests for change in software projects are beneficial, and accepting the change request is not symptomatic of project failure. The most straightforward example is a bug report - this is a change request (please fix this defect) which converts broken software into working software. Similarly, larger changes such as new requirements could convert a broken business case into a working business case; ultimately turning a failed project into a revenue-generator.
In my opinion the various agile methodologies don't address this issue, either assuming that with the customer involved throughout, no large change would ever be necessary, or that the iterations are short enough for changes to be automatically catered for. I'm not convinced; perhaps after the sixth sprint of your content publishing app the customer decides to open a pet store instead.
I humbly suggest that project managers replace the word "control" in their change documentation with "opportunity" - let's accept that we're looking for ways to make better products, not that we need excuses never to edit existing Word files. OMG baseline be damned!
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
On noodles
It's usually considered a good idea to keep a blog focused on exactly one subject. Sod that for a game of soldiers! This one's all about music.
Steph, who is a very good musician and knows what she's talking about, wrote that there are two ways to play a harp, a "get the music right" recitation style and a "get the rhythm right and everything else follows" style more suited to improvisation, noodling or folk playing.
That's not only true of the harp, it seems to hold for many instruments. For instance, in a moment of crazed, um, craziness this weekend I bought what's commonly referred to as a lute. In fact, a lute with much in common with this lute. Now I've been playing it for all of about two hours in total since Saturday, and can barely remember what note each course plays, and do a poor rendition of about four different tunes from a book of trivially simple lute tunes. But today marked an interesting transition, as it was the first day that I could make music up on the instrument without either knowing or concentrating on what I was doing. Only a couple of things (the song "Wooden Heart" made famous by Elvis Presley, and that banging dance-floor filler "Parson's Farewell") but this represented the point where I could make music on the lute - a different skill than remembering where and when to stick fingers on some bits of nylon, steel and wood.
And I think that's where the root of Steph's distinction of playing techniques really comes from; the unprepared style relies on having some music that needs to occur, and the ability for your hands (or nose or whatever your instrument is played with) to move around in some way which causes that music to exist. Whereas the prepared style relies on having some performance in mind that must be repeated, and requires that you think about moving $appendage in such-and-such way to recreate that performance. I find the distinction in conscious application to be an important one when playing the fiddle, an instrument I'm marginally better at than the lute. If I'm reading some music, playing solo or otherwise engaged in trying to play music, then I can only play whatever notes the music contained and in a fairly uninteresting manner. It's only if I'm able to relax and not think about the music that I can harmonise, ornament and otherwise play more interesting things than what was written on the page - even if not necessarily particularly well :-).
Steph, who is a very good musician and knows what she's talking about, wrote that there are two ways to play a harp, a "get the music right" recitation style and a "get the rhythm right and everything else follows" style more suited to improvisation, noodling or folk playing.
That's not only true of the harp, it seems to hold for many instruments. For instance, in a moment of crazed, um, craziness this weekend I bought what's commonly referred to as a lute. In fact, a lute with much in common with this lute. Now I've been playing it for all of about two hours in total since Saturday, and can barely remember what note each course plays, and do a poor rendition of about four different tunes from a book of trivially simple lute tunes. But today marked an interesting transition, as it was the first day that I could make music up on the instrument without either knowing or concentrating on what I was doing. Only a couple of things (the song "Wooden Heart" made famous by Elvis Presley, and that banging dance-floor filler "Parson's Farewell") but this represented the point where I could make music on the lute - a different skill than remembering where and when to stick fingers on some bits of nylon, steel and wood.
And I think that's where the root of Steph's distinction of playing techniques really comes from; the unprepared style relies on having some music that needs to occur, and the ability for your hands (or nose or whatever your instrument is played with) to move around in some way which causes that music to exist. Whereas the prepared style relies on having some performance in mind that must be repeated, and requires that you think about moving $appendage in such-and-such way to recreate that performance. I find the distinction in conscious application to be an important one when playing the fiddle, an instrument I'm marginally better at than the lute. If I'm reading some music, playing solo or otherwise engaged in trying to play music, then I can only play whatever notes the music contained and in a fairly uninteresting manner. It's only if I'm able to relax and not think about the music that I can harmonise, ornament and otherwise play more interesting things than what was written on the page - even if not necessarily particularly well :-).
Monday, February 23, 2009
Cocoa: Model, View, Chuvmey
Chuvmey is a Klingon word meaning "leftovers" - it was the only way I could think of to keep the MVC abbreviation while impressing upon you, my gentle reader, the idea that what is often considered the Controller layer actually becomes a "Stuff" layer. Before explaining this idea, I'll point out that my thought processes were set in motion by listening to the latest Mac Developer Roundtable (iTunes link) podcast on code re-use.
My thesis is that the View layer contains Controller-ey stuff, and so does the Model layer, so the bit in between becomes full of multiple things; the traditional OpenStep-style "glue" or "shuttle" code which is what the NeXT documentation meant by Controller, dynamic aspects of the model which could be part of the Model layer, view customisation which could really be part of the View layer, and anything which either doesn't or we don't notice could fit elsewhere. Let me explain.
The traditional source for the MVC paradigm is Smalltalk, and indeed How to use Model-View-Controller is a somewhat legendary paper in the use of MVC in the Smalltalk environment. What we notice here is that the Controller is defined as:
The controller interprets the mouse and keyboard inputs from the user, commanding the model and/or the view to change as appropriate.
We can throw this view out straight away when talking about Cocoa, as keyboard and mouse events are handled by NSResponder, which is the superclass of NSView. That's right, the Smalltalk Controller and View are really wrapped together in the AppKit, both being part of the View. Many NSView subclasses handle events in some reasonable manner, allowing delegates to decorate this at key points in the interaction; some of the handlers are fairly complex like NSText. Often those decorators are written as Controller code (though not always; the Core Animation -animator proxies are really controller decorators, but all of the custom animations are implemented in NSView subclasses). Then there's the target-action mechanism for triggering events; those events typically exist in the Controller. But should they?
Going back to that Smalltalk paper, let's look at the Model:
The model manages the behavior and data of the application domain, responds to requests for information about its state (usually from the view), and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the controller).
If the behaviour - i.e. the use cases - are implemented in the Model, well where does that leave the Controller? Incidentally, I agree with and try to use this behavior-and-data definition of the Model, unlike paradigms such as Presentation-Abstraction-Control where the Abstraction layer really only deals with entities, with the dynamic behaviour being in services encapsulated in the Control layer. All of the user interaction is in the View, and all of the user workflow is in the Model. So what's left?
There are basically two things left for our application to do, but they're both implementations of the same pattern - Adaptor. On the one hand, there's preparing the Model objects to be suitable for presentation by the View. In Cocoa Bindings, Apple even use the class names - NSObjectController and so on - as a hint as to which layer this belongs in. I include in this "presentation adaptor" part of the Controller all those traditional data preparation schemes such as UITableView data sources. The other is adapting the actions etc. of the View onto the Model - i.e. isolating the Model from the AppKit, UIKit, WebObjects or whatever environment it happens to be running in. Even if you're only writing Mac applications, that can be a useful isolation; let's say I'm writing a Recipe application (for whatever reason - I'm not, BTW, for any managers who read this drivel). Views such as NSButton or NSTextField are suitable for any old Cocoa application, and Models such as GLRecipe are suitable for any old Recipe application. But as soon as they need to know about each other, the classes are restricted to the intersection of that set - Cocoa Recipe applications. The question of whether I write a WebObjects Recipes app in the future depends on business drivers, so I could presumably come up with some likelihood that I'm going to need to cross that bridge (actually, the bridge has been deprecated, chortle). But other environments for the Model to exist in don't need to be new products - the unit test framework counts. And isn't AppleScript really a View which drives the Model through some form of Adaptor? What about Automator…?
So let me finish by re-capping on what I think the Controller layer is. It's definitely an adaptor between Views and Models. But depending on who you ask and what software you're looking at, it could also be a decorator for some custom view behaviour, and maybe a service for managing the dynamic state of some model entities. To what extent that matters depends on whether it gets in the way of effectively writing the software you need to write.
Monday, February 09, 2009
When techs collide
If you've ever seen the film Ghostbusters, you'll know that each of the proton packs was, on its own, very powerful and capable of performing its function. Combine two, by crossing the streams, and rather than something twice as powerful you have a potentially Zuul-beating, potentially universe-destroying chaotic mess on your hands.
Such a combination I found today, when I mixed a little bit of Distributed Objects with a soupçon of Cocoa Bindings to create, um, Distributed Bindings (calling it Cocoa Objects would just be rude).
It's actually just as simple as you think it will be, so there's no point in any sample code. You can basically use the answer to the FAQ question on DO. Once you've got the proxy object in the client, use it as the observable controller in -bind:toObject:withKeyPath:options:. And that's it!
Well, not quite it. You'll notice that things are a wee bit crashy, which is why this is somewhat like crossing the streams. Both Bindings and DO use the Proxy pattern to achieve their magic, but because the two systems have no special knowledge of each other the proxy connections are not kept in sync. If your server object mutates after the DO connection disappears, then it tries to send a KVO notification to an object that's no longer there…boom. Having a client-server system where the client can crash the server is of, well, dubious utility. There are some things that you could do to mitigate this, for instance looking for NSConnectionDidDieNotification (in the server) or opening a heartbeat RPC for the client to "check in" with the server. These fixes will work perfectly, if the vended object is updated predictably enough that you can reliably take care of broken connections between KVO notifications. Without that you're SoL, as the server won't reliably get a DO exception - more often than not it'll segfault. But while this may be unstable, it still is damned cool.
Such a combination I found today, when I mixed a little bit of Distributed Objects with a soupçon of Cocoa Bindings to create, um, Distributed Bindings (calling it Cocoa Objects would just be rude).
It's actually just as simple as you think it will be, so there's no point in any sample code. You can basically use the answer to the FAQ question on DO. Once you've got the proxy object in the client, use it as the observable controller in -bind:toObject:withKeyPath:options:. And that's it!
Well, not quite it. You'll notice that things are a wee bit crashy, which is why this is somewhat like crossing the streams. Both Bindings and DO use the Proxy pattern to achieve their magic, but because the two systems have no special knowledge of each other the proxy connections are not kept in sync. If your server object mutates after the DO connection disappears, then it tries to send a KVO notification to an object that's no longer there…boom. Having a client-server system where the client can crash the server is of, well, dubious utility. There are some things that you could do to mitigate this, for instance looking for NSConnectionDidDieNotification (in the server) or opening a heartbeat RPC for the client to "check in" with the server. These fixes will work perfectly, if the vended object is updated predictably enough that you can reliably take care of broken connections between KVO notifications. Without that you're SoL, as the server won't reliably get a DO exception - more often than not it'll segfault. But while this may be unstable, it still is damned cool.
Monday, February 02, 2009
A lack of CocoaHeads
Apologies to anyone sat in the Glue Pot wondering where the nerds are. Due to a general feeling of bitter colditude we've postponed for a couple of weeks. But never fear, Scotty shall still wax forth on SearchKit on the 16th of the month.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Most favouritest and least favourite Macs
The current meme seems to be, given the 25th anniversary of the launch of the Mac (and I'm not going to let it slip by that it's the 20th anniversary of the NEXTSTEP 1.0 launch this year, either) to write an opinion on the best and worst Macs we've ever used. So here's mine.
Obviously my Mac use comes as a result of Mac OS X, so neither of my choices are particularly old machines. My favourite is a definite thing, and it's the first Mac I ever bought myself - a PowerMac G4 Sawtooth. I didn't own it from new; I bought it from a contractor who was writing a WebObjects app for us when I worked at the University. It was a "G4 Server" according to the sticker, which really just meant that it came with a SCSI adaptor fitted standard, and the pièce de resistance: Mac OS X Server 1.2 installed :-). The 1.x series of MOSES (Mac OS Enterprise Server) was a release of Rhapsody, a straight port of OPENSTEP to the PowerPC with a couple of changes. Most noticable were the configuration of startup items, the platinum UI and some changes to the Workspace to make it a little more similar to the Mac OS Finder. The 450MHz G4 I had was blazingly fast in this OS, and none too shabby when it came to more modern OS X too. When I finally sold it on it was running 10.4.
My least favourite is less clear-cut, I have a choice of two. But I think I'm going to give it to the Beige G3 Power Mac I borrowed long-term, I think from the University, when I was a student. This was really a slightly updated Power Mac 8600 with a faster CPU in, but the CPU's capabilities were significantly limited by the architecture (50MHz bus, 5MBPS SCSI) which really belonged to the older 603-alike processors. I seem to remember it having some weird amount of memory, like 208MB, because I'd scrounged different chips from different places, but even with that much RAM it couldn't do more than crawl in OS X 10.0-10.2. As with the G4 I installed Server 1.2, but many of the Java components really were staggeringly slow on this system.
Obviously my Mac use comes as a result of Mac OS X, so neither of my choices are particularly old machines. My favourite is a definite thing, and it's the first Mac I ever bought myself - a PowerMac G4 Sawtooth. I didn't own it from new; I bought it from a contractor who was writing a WebObjects app for us when I worked at the University. It was a "G4 Server" according to the sticker, which really just meant that it came with a SCSI adaptor fitted standard, and the pièce de resistance: Mac OS X Server 1.2 installed :-). The 1.x series of MOSES (Mac OS Enterprise Server) was a release of Rhapsody, a straight port of OPENSTEP to the PowerPC with a couple of changes. Most noticable were the configuration of startup items, the platinum UI and some changes to the Workspace to make it a little more similar to the Mac OS Finder. The 450MHz G4 I had was blazingly fast in this OS, and none too shabby when it came to more modern OS X too. When I finally sold it on it was running 10.4.
My least favourite is less clear-cut, I have a choice of two. But I think I'm going to give it to the Beige G3 Power Mac I borrowed long-term, I think from the University, when I was a student. This was really a slightly updated Power Mac 8600 with a faster CPU in, but the CPU's capabilities were significantly limited by the architecture (50MHz bus, 5MBPS SCSI) which really belonged to the older 603-alike processors. I seem to remember it having some weird amount of memory, like 208MB, because I'd scrounged different chips from different places, but even with that much RAM it couldn't do more than crawl in OS X 10.0-10.2. As with the G4 I installed Server 1.2, but many of the Java components really were staggeringly slow on this system.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Quote of the year (so far)
From David Thornley via StackOverflow:
I couldn't agree more. Oh, wait, I could. *thud* There it goes.
"Best practices" is the most impressive way to spell "mediocrity" I've ever seen.
I couldn't agree more. Oh, wait, I could. *thud* There it goes.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Tautology of the year (so far)
From iDefense, via DarkReading:
In other news, water has been found to be wet. (seriously considering a "my beloved language, you've killed it!" tag)
A recent wave of fatwas issued by radical Islamic religious leaders in that region authorizing these groups to use cyberattacks to defend Islam has opened the door for these groups to wage cyberattacks, according to iDefense.
In other news, water has been found to be wet. (seriously considering a "my beloved language, you've killed it!" tag)
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Quick antispam observation
One thing I've been doing recently is removing my membership of a load of websites that I don't seem to have used in a long time. One side effect of not using a website in a long time is that I forget the password I created for the account, so I get to see how the website handles failed login attempts. Often, quite a few times :-(.
Now, some of these sites - and I've been notifying the owners as I go - give you a different failure message if you get your password wrong or your e-mail address. This is, to quote the twitterverse, made of fail. It means these websites can be used to automatically generate lists of the members' e-mail addresses; useful to spammers, phishers (remember that the list is based on being a member of a particular site, so it's easy to target the phish at that site) and even for later trying to compromise accounts on that site. I'd really avoid being a member of any site whose login page worked like that, and try to get them to change their error messages.
Now, some of these sites - and I've been notifying the owners as I go - give you a different failure message if you get your password wrong or your e-mail address. This is, to quote the twitterverse, made of fail. It means these websites can be used to automatically generate lists of the members' e-mail addresses; useful to spammers, phishers (remember that the list is based on being a member of a particular site, so it's easy to target the phish at that site) and even for later trying to compromise accounts on that site. I'd really avoid being a member of any site whose login page worked like that, and try to get them to change their error messages.
What's new in 2009
Of course, it's a bit early for a retrospective of 2008, besides which I've already written 73 entries this year, my most prolific year to date on iamleeg. And that doesn't count numerous tweets, stack overflow contributions and of course the occasional piece of source code here or there for some security company. As the noise of fireworks and exploding media players sounds across the world, it's time to pre-emptively ditch 2008 and see what we can expect from 2009. Specifically, what you can expect from me.
It looks to me like the most popular pieces on this blog are the opinions and how-tos regarding Cocoa development, particularly my thoughts on properties and Cocoa memory management round-up. Don't worry, there's definitely more of this coming. As well as preparing for this Mac Developer Network conference talk I've been discussing recently, I've got another exciting - and unfortunately secret - project on the go now which should see plenty of collateral blog posting in the first half of the next year, all about Cocoa development. There'll also be a bit more of an iPhone mix-in; obviously for much of last year the SDK either didn't exist or was under non-disclosure, but now I've got more reasons to be using Cocoa Touch it will also be mentioned on here. I shall also be delving a bit deeper into Darwin and xnu than I have in previous times.
One example of Cocoa-related information is meetup announcements; I'm still involved in the local CocoaHeads chapter and I'll endeavour to post an advance warning for each meeting here. I know many of my readers are in the States but a few of you are local so please do come along! In fact, if you're not local (or "bissen't from rond theez partz", as we say here) then consider going to your nearest CocoaHeads or starting a new one. It's a great way to find out who's working on Mac or iPhone development in your area, share tips and stories and build up that professional contacts network.
Previously I've been concerned that readers here at iamleeg don't seem interesting in commenting on my posts, but these days I'm no longer worried. I can tell how many people are reading, and of those how many are regulars, and I have to say that the blog is doing pretty damn well. Of course, if you do feel inclined to join in the discussion (particularly if I've got something wrong, or missed an important point from a post) then you should feel perfectly at liberty to leave a comment.
Finally, have a happy new year!
It looks to me like the most popular pieces on this blog are the opinions and how-tos regarding Cocoa development, particularly my thoughts on properties and Cocoa memory management round-up. Don't worry, there's definitely more of this coming. As well as preparing for this Mac Developer Network conference talk I've been discussing recently, I've got another exciting - and unfortunately secret - project on the go now which should see plenty of collateral blog posting in the first half of the next year, all about Cocoa development. There'll also be a bit more of an iPhone mix-in; obviously for much of last year the SDK either didn't exist or was under non-disclosure, but now I've got more reasons to be using Cocoa Touch it will also be mentioned on here. I shall also be delving a bit deeper into Darwin and xnu than I have in previous times.
One example of Cocoa-related information is meetup announcements; I'm still involved in the local CocoaHeads chapter and I'll endeavour to post an advance warning for each meeting here. I know many of my readers are in the States but a few of you are local so please do come along! In fact, if you're not local (or "bissen't from rond theez partz", as we say here) then consider going to your nearest CocoaHeads or starting a new one. It's a great way to find out who's working on Mac or iPhone development in your area, share tips and stories and build up that professional contacts network.
Previously I've been concerned that readers here at iamleeg don't seem interesting in commenting on my posts, but these days I'm no longer worried. I can tell how many people are reading, and of those how many are regulars, and I have to say that the blog is doing pretty damn well. Of course, if you do feel inclined to join in the discussion (particularly if I've got something wrong, or missed an important point from a post) then you should feel perfectly at liberty to leave a comment.
Finally, have a happy new year!
Monday, December 22, 2008
Cocoa Memory Management
It becomes evident, thanks to the mass centralisation of the neverending september effect that is stackoverflow, that despite the large number of electrons expended on documenting the retain/release/autorelease reference counting mechanism for managing memory in Cocoa, Cocoa Touch, UIKit, AppKit, Foundation, GNUstep, Cocotron and Objective-C code, very few people are reading that. My purpose in this post is not to re-state anything which has already been said. My purpose is to aggregate information I've found on the topic of managing memory in Cocoa, so I can quote this post in answers to questions like these.
In fact, I've already answered this question myself, as How does reference counting work? As mentioned in the FAQ, I actually answered the question "how do I manage object lifecycles in (Cocoa|GNUstep|Cocotron)"? It's actually a very violently distilled discussion, so it's definitely worth checking out the references (sorry) below.
Apple have a very good, and complete, Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa. They also provide a Garbage Collection Programming Guide; remember that Objective-C garbage collection is opt-in on 10.5 and above (and unavailable on iPhone OS or earlier versions of Mac OS X). GNUsteppers reading along should remember that the garbage collector available with the GNU objc runtime is entirely unlike the collector documented in Apple's guide. GNUstep documentation contains a similar guide to memory management, as well as going into more depth about memory allocation and zones. Apple will also tell you how objects in NIBs are managed.
The article which gave me my personal eureka moment was Hold Me, Use Me, Free Me by Don Yacktman. Stepwise has another article, very simple rules for memory management in Cocoa by mmalc, which is a good introduction though with one caveat. While the table of memory management methods at the top of the article are indeed accurate, they might give you the impression that keeping track of the retain count is what you're supposed to be doing. It's not :). What you're supposed to be doing is balancing your own use of the methods for any given object, as described in rules 1 and 2 of "Retention Count rules" just below that table.
James Duncan Davidson's book "Learning Cocoa with Objective-C" has not been updated in donkey's years, but its section on memory management is quite good, especially the diagrams and the "rules of thumb" summary. Luckily, that section on memory management is the free sample on O'Reilly's website.
If reading the theoretical stuff is all a bit too dry, the Mac Developer Network have a rather comprehensive memory management training video which is $9.99 for non-MDN members and free for paid-up members.
Finally, Chris Hanson has written a good article on interactions between Cocoa memory management and objc-exceptions; if you're using exceptions this is a good discussion of the caveats you might meet.
In fact, I've already answered this question myself, as How does reference counting work? As mentioned in the FAQ, I actually answered the question "how do I manage object lifecycles in (Cocoa|GNUstep|Cocotron)"? It's actually a very violently distilled discussion, so it's definitely worth checking out the references (sorry) below.
Apple have a very good, and complete, Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa. They also provide a Garbage Collection Programming Guide; remember that Objective-C garbage collection is opt-in on 10.5 and above (and unavailable on iPhone OS or earlier versions of Mac OS X). GNUsteppers reading along should remember that the garbage collector available with the GNU objc runtime is entirely unlike the collector documented in Apple's guide. GNUstep documentation contains a similar guide to memory management, as well as going into more depth about memory allocation and zones. Apple will also tell you how objects in NIBs are managed.
The article which gave me my personal eureka moment was Hold Me, Use Me, Free Me by Don Yacktman. Stepwise has another article, very simple rules for memory management in Cocoa by mmalc, which is a good introduction though with one caveat. While the table of memory management methods at the top of the article are indeed accurate, they might give you the impression that keeping track of the retain count is what you're supposed to be doing. It's not :). What you're supposed to be doing is balancing your own use of the methods for any given object, as described in rules 1 and 2 of "Retention Count rules" just below that table.
James Duncan Davidson's book "Learning Cocoa with Objective-C" has not been updated in donkey's years, but its section on memory management is quite good, especially the diagrams and the "rules of thumb" summary. Luckily, that section on memory management is the free sample on O'Reilly's website.
If reading the theoretical stuff is all a bit too dry, the Mac Developer Network have a rather comprehensive memory management training video which is $9.99 for non-MDN members and free for paid-up members.
Finally, Chris Hanson has written a good article on interactions between Cocoa memory management and objc-exceptions; if you're using exceptions this is a good discussion of the caveats you might meet.
Wikipedia == fail
On the same day that fark announce the wikipedia irony, I would like to point out a similar situation I saw just today.
This is from the Susie Dent entry discussion page:
This is from the Susie Dent entry discussion page:
IMDb relies on the contributions of the public, so isn't an overly reliable source.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
better security, not always more security
Today's investigative investigations have taken me to the land of Distributed Objects, that somewhat famous implementation of the Proxy pattern used for intra-process, inter-process and inter-machine communication in Cocoa. Well, by people who measure whether it's a performance hog, rather than those who quote it; as a hint, it was indeed a significant overhead when your CPU was a 25MHz 68030 and your network link a 10BASE-2 coaxial wire. These days we can spend around those problems freely.
Specifically, I wondered whether I should add discussion of the authentication capabilities in PDO to the FAQ entry. Not that it's frequently asked - indeed, it's a NAQ - but because getting mentions of security into a Usenet FAQ is likely to cause newbies to be thinking about security, which is possibly a good thing (for the world, not so much my uniquely employable attributes). But I decided no, though the subject is interesting, it's not because of the technicality, but the philosophy.
Distributed Objects works by sending NSPortMessage messages over NSConnection connections. The connections and message-passing bumph are peer-to-peer, but DO adds some client-server distinction by having servers register their vended connections with name servers and clients look up the interesting vendors in said name servers. By default, anything goes; all connections are honoured and all clients serviced. There are two security features (both implemented as delegate methods) baked into DO, though. The most interesting of the two is the authentication.
The reason that the authentication feature is interesting is that it's implemented in such a way as to make non-security-conscious developers question the security. The end sending the NSPortMessage includes some data based on the constituent parts of the message, and the end receiving the message decides whether to accept it based on knowledge of the constituents and of the data. On the face of it, this looks like shared-secret encryption, with the shared secret being the algorithm used to hash the port message. It also appears to have added no security at all, because the message is still sent in plain text. In fact, what this gives us is more subtle.
All that we know is that given the source information and the sender's authentication data, the receiver gets to decide whether to accept the sender's message. We don't necessarily know the way that the receiver gets to that decision. Perhaps it hashes the information using the same algorithm as the sender. Perhaps it always returns YES. Perhaps it always expects the authentication data to be 42. On the other hand, perhaps it knows the public key of the sender, and the authentication data is a signature derived from the content and the sender's private key. Or perhaps the "authentication data" isn't used at all, but the source material gives the server a chance to filter malicious requests.
Now all of that is very interesting. We've gone from a system which looked to be based on a shared secret, to one which appears to be based on whichever authentication approach we decide is appropriate for the task at hand. Given a presumed-safe inter-process link, we don't need to be as heavyweight about security as to require PKI; whereas if the authentication were provided by a secure tunnel such as DO-over-SSL, we'd have no choice but to accept the cost of the PKI infrastructure. Given the expectation of a safe server talking to hostile clients, the server (or, with some amount of custom codery, a DO proxy server) can even sanitise or reject malicious messages. Or it could both filter requests based on authentication and on content. The DO authentication mechanism has baked in absolutely zero policy about how authentication should proceed, by letting us answer the simple question: should this message be processed? Yes or no? Choose an approach to answering this question based not on what you currently believe could never be circumvented, but on what you currently believe is sufficient for the environment in which your DO processes will live. If a shared secret is sufficient and adds little overhead, then do that, rather than 4096-bit asymmetric encryption.
By the way, the second security feature in DO is the ability to drop a connection when it's requested. This allows a DO server to survive a DoS, even from a concerted multitude of otherwise permissible clients.
Specifically, I wondered whether I should add discussion of the authentication capabilities in PDO to the FAQ entry. Not that it's frequently asked - indeed, it's a NAQ - but because getting mentions of security into a Usenet FAQ is likely to cause newbies to be thinking about security, which is possibly a good thing (for the world, not so much my uniquely employable attributes). But I decided no, though the subject is interesting, it's not because of the technicality, but the philosophy.
Distributed Objects works by sending NSPortMessage messages over NSConnection connections. The connections and message-passing bumph are peer-to-peer, but DO adds some client-server distinction by having servers register their vended connections with name servers and clients look up the interesting vendors in said name servers. By default, anything goes; all connections are honoured and all clients serviced. There are two security features (both implemented as delegate methods) baked into DO, though. The most interesting of the two is the authentication.
The reason that the authentication feature is interesting is that it's implemented in such a way as to make non-security-conscious developers question the security. The end sending the NSPortMessage includes some data based on the constituent parts of the message, and the end receiving the message decides whether to accept it based on knowledge of the constituents and of the data. On the face of it, this looks like shared-secret encryption, with the shared secret being the algorithm used to hash the port message. It also appears to have added no security at all, because the message is still sent in plain text. In fact, what this gives us is more subtle.
All that we know is that given the source information and the sender's authentication data, the receiver gets to decide whether to accept the sender's message. We don't necessarily know the way that the receiver gets to that decision. Perhaps it hashes the information using the same algorithm as the sender. Perhaps it always returns YES. Perhaps it always expects the authentication data to be 42. On the other hand, perhaps it knows the public key of the sender, and the authentication data is a signature derived from the content and the sender's private key. Or perhaps the "authentication data" isn't used at all, but the source material gives the server a chance to filter malicious requests.
Now all of that is very interesting. We've gone from a system which looked to be based on a shared secret, to one which appears to be based on whichever authentication approach we decide is appropriate for the task at hand. Given a presumed-safe inter-process link, we don't need to be as heavyweight about security as to require PKI; whereas if the authentication were provided by a secure tunnel such as DO-over-SSL, we'd have no choice but to accept the cost of the PKI infrastructure. Given the expectation of a safe server talking to hostile clients, the server (or, with some amount of custom codery, a DO proxy server) can even sanitise or reject malicious messages. Or it could both filter requests based on authentication and on content. The DO authentication mechanism has baked in absolutely zero policy about how authentication should proceed, by letting us answer the simple question: should this message be processed? Yes or no? Choose an approach to answering this question based not on what you currently believe could never be circumvented, but on what you currently believe is sufficient for the environment in which your DO processes will live. If a shared secret is sufficient and adds little overhead, then do that, rather than 4096-bit asymmetric encryption.
By the way, the second security feature in DO is the ability to drop a connection when it's requested. This allows a DO server to survive a DoS, even from a concerted multitude of otherwise permissible clients.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Whither the codesign interface?
One of the higher-signal-level Apple mailing lists with a manageable amount of traffic is apple-cdsa, the place for discussing the world's most popular Common Data Security Architecture deployment. There's currently an interesting thread about code signatures, which asks the important question: how do I make use of code signatures?
Well, actually, it's not so much about how I can use code signatures, but how the subset of Clapham Omnibus riders who own Macs (a very small subset, as the combination of overheating batteries in the old G4 PowerBooks and combustible bendy-busses means they don't stay around very long) can use code signatures. Unfortunately, the answer seems to currently be "not by much", with little impression of that changing. The code signing process and capability is actually pretty damned cool, and a nice security feature which I'll be talking about at MacDev 09. It's used to good effect in the iPhone, where it and FairPlay DRM are part of that platform's locked-down execution environment.
The only problem is, there's not much a user can do with it. It's pretty hard to find out who signed a particular app, in fact the only thing you can easily do is discover that the same entity signed two versions of the same app. And that's by lack of interface, not by any form of dialogue or confirmation. That means that when faced with the "Foobar app has changed. Are you sure you still want to allow it to [whatever]" prompt, many users will be unaware of the implications of the question. Those who are and (sensibly) want to find out why the change has occurred will quickly become frustrated. Therefore everyone's going to click "allow", which rather reduces the utility of the feature :-(.
Is that a problem yet? Well, I believe it is, even though there are few components yet using the code signature information in the operating system. And it's precisely that allow-happy training which I think is the issue. By the time the user interfaces and access control capabilities of the OS have developed to the point where code signing is a more useful feature (and believe me, I think it's quite a useful one right now), users will be in the habit of clicking 'allow'. You are coming to a sad realisation; allow or deny?
Well, actually, it's not so much about how I can use code signatures, but how the subset of Clapham Omnibus riders who own Macs (a very small subset, as the combination of overheating batteries in the old G4 PowerBooks and combustible bendy-busses means they don't stay around very long) can use code signatures. Unfortunately, the answer seems to currently be "not by much", with little impression of that changing. The code signing process and capability is actually pretty damned cool, and a nice security feature which I'll be talking about at MacDev 09. It's used to good effect in the iPhone, where it and FairPlay DRM are part of that platform's locked-down execution environment.
The only problem is, there's not much a user can do with it. It's pretty hard to find out who signed a particular app, in fact the only thing you can easily do is discover that the same entity signed two versions of the same app. And that's by lack of interface, not by any form of dialogue or confirmation. That means that when faced with the "Foobar app has changed. Are you sure you still want to allow it to [whatever]" prompt, many users will be unaware of the implications of the question. Those who are and (sensibly) want to find out why the change has occurred will quickly become frustrated. Therefore everyone's going to click "allow", which rather reduces the utility of the feature :-(.
Is that a problem yet? Well, I believe it is, even though there are few components yet using the code signature information in the operating system. And it's precisely that allow-happy training which I think is the issue. By the time the user interfaces and access control capabilities of the OS have developed to the point where code signing is a more useful feature (and believe me, I think it's quite a useful one right now), users will be in the habit of clicking 'allow'. You are coming to a sad realisation; allow or deny?
Monday, December 01, 2008
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In doing a little audience research for my spot at MacDev 2009, I've discovered that the word "security" to many developers has a particular meaning. It seems to be consistent with "hacker-proof", and as it could take most of my hour to set the record straight in a presentation context, here instead is my diatribe in written form. Also in condensed form; another benefit of the blog is that I tend to want to wrap things up quickly as the hour approaches midnight.
Security has a much wider scope than keeping bad people out. A system (any system, assume I'm talking software but I could equally be discussing a business process or a building or something) also needs to ensure that the "good" people can use it, and it might need to respond predictably, or to demonstrate or prove that the data are unchanged aside from the known actions of the users. These are all aspects of security that don't fit the usual forbiddance definition.
You may have noticed that these aspects can come into conflict, too. Imagine that with a new version of OS X, your iMac no longer merely takes a username and password to log a user in, but instead requires that an Apple-approved security guard - who, BTW, you're paying for - verifies your identity in an hour-long process before permitting you use of the computer. In the first, "hacker-proof" sense of security, this is a better system, right? We've now set a much higher bar for the bad guys to leap before they can use the computer, so it's More Secure™. Although, actually, it's likely that for most users this behaviour would just get on one's wick really quickly as they discover that checking Twitter becomes a slow, boring and expensive process. So in fact by over-investing in one aspect of security (the access control, also sometimes known as identification and authorisation) my solution reduces the availability of the computer, and therefore the security is actually counter-productive. Whether it's worse than nothing at all is debatable, but it's certainly a suboptimal solution.
And I haven't even begun to consider the extra vulnerabilities that are inherent in this new, ludicrous access control mechanism. It certainly looks to be more rigorous on the face of things, but exactly how does that guard identify the users? Can I impersonate the guard? Can I bribe her? If she's asleep or I attack her, can I use the system anyway? Come to that, if she's asleep then can the user gain access? Can I subvert the approval process at Apple to get my own agent employed as one of the guards? What looked to be a fairly simple case of a straw-man overzealous security solution actually turns out to be a nightmare of potential vulnerabilities and reduced effectiveness.
Now I've clearly shown that having a heavyweight identification and authorisation process with a manned guard post is useless overkill as far as security goes. This would seem like a convincing argument for removing the passport control booths at airports and replacing them with a simple and cheap username-and-password entry system, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?
What I hope that short discussion shows is that there is no such thing as a "most secure" applications; there are applications which are "secure enough" for the context in which they are used, and there are those which are not. But the same solution presented in different environments or for different uses will push the various trade-offs in desirable or undesirable directions, so that a system or process which is considered "secure" in one context could be entirely ineffective or unusable in another.
Security has a much wider scope than keeping bad people out. A system (any system, assume I'm talking software but I could equally be discussing a business process or a building or something) also needs to ensure that the "good" people can use it, and it might need to respond predictably, or to demonstrate or prove that the data are unchanged aside from the known actions of the users. These are all aspects of security that don't fit the usual forbiddance definition.
You may have noticed that these aspects can come into conflict, too. Imagine that with a new version of OS X, your iMac no longer merely takes a username and password to log a user in, but instead requires that an Apple-approved security guard - who, BTW, you're paying for - verifies your identity in an hour-long process before permitting you use of the computer. In the first, "hacker-proof" sense of security, this is a better system, right? We've now set a much higher bar for the bad guys to leap before they can use the computer, so it's More Secure™. Although, actually, it's likely that for most users this behaviour would just get on one's wick really quickly as they discover that checking Twitter becomes a slow, boring and expensive process. So in fact by over-investing in one aspect of security (the access control, also sometimes known as identification and authorisation) my solution reduces the availability of the computer, and therefore the security is actually counter-productive. Whether it's worse than nothing at all is debatable, but it's certainly a suboptimal solution.
And I haven't even begun to consider the extra vulnerabilities that are inherent in this new, ludicrous access control mechanism. It certainly looks to be more rigorous on the face of things, but exactly how does that guard identify the users? Can I impersonate the guard? Can I bribe her? If she's asleep or I attack her, can I use the system anyway? Come to that, if she's asleep then can the user gain access? Can I subvert the approval process at Apple to get my own agent employed as one of the guards? What looked to be a fairly simple case of a straw-man overzealous security solution actually turns out to be a nightmare of potential vulnerabilities and reduced effectiveness.
Now I've clearly shown that having a heavyweight identification and authorisation process with a manned guard post is useless overkill as far as security goes. This would seem like a convincing argument for removing the passport control booths at airports and replacing them with a simple and cheap username-and-password entry system, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?
What I hope that short discussion shows is that there is no such thing as a "most secure" applications; there are applications which are "secure enough" for the context in which they are used, and there are those which are not. But the same solution presented in different environments or for different uses will push the various trade-offs in desirable or undesirable directions, so that a system or process which is considered "secure" in one context could be entirely ineffective or unusable in another.
Free apps with macdev ticket
The Mac Developer network currently have a Special Offer running until christmas eve, get a free copy of Changes and Code Collector Pro with your ticket. Both are useful apps for any developer's arsenal.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Some bloody genius
Link to the image, because I know it's too wide for the Blogger template to display properly.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
More on MacDev
Today is the day I start preparing my talk for MacDev 2009. Over the coming weeks I'll likely write some full posts on the things I decide not to cover in the talk (it's only an hour, after all), and perhaps some teasers on things I will be covering (though the latter are more likely to be tweeted).
I'm already getting excited about the conference, not only because it'll be great to talk to so many fellow Mac developers but due to the wealth of other sessions which are going to be given. All of them look really interesting though I'm particularly looking forward to Bill Dudney's Core Animation talk and Drew McCormack's session on performance techniques. I'm also going to see if I can get the time to come early to the user interface pre-conference workshop run by Mike Lee; talking to everyone else at that workshop and learning from Mike should both be great ways to catch up on the latest thoughts on UI design.
By the way, if you're planning on going to the conference (and you may have guessed that I recommend doing so), register early because the tickets are currently a ton cheaper. Can't argue with that :-).
I'm already getting excited about the conference, not only because it'll be great to talk to so many fellow Mac developers but due to the wealth of other sessions which are going to be given. All of them look really interesting though I'm particularly looking forward to Bill Dudney's Core Animation talk and Drew McCormack's session on performance techniques. I'm also going to see if I can get the time to come early to the user interface pre-conference workshop run by Mike Lee; talking to everyone else at that workshop and learning from Mike should both be great ways to catch up on the latest thoughts on UI design.
By the way, if you're planning on going to the conference (and you may have guessed that I recommend doing so), register early because the tickets are currently a ton cheaper. Can't argue with that :-).
I'm sorry, I haven't a Clu
One of my many "repeat-until-funny" jokes, anyway here is what I have to say on Mr. Cluley's blog regarding iPh0wn.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Solaris iPhone Edition
Apple's one new feature in Snow Leopard is support for Exchange, which if not squarely an Enterprise lure is certainly bait for medium businesses. But here we hit Apple's perennial problem; they want to sell more into businesses (because that's where at least 2/3 of all PC money is to be made) but they want to design their systems for home users. When a system is designed to cover every possible potential use for a computer we end up with Windows, which is the kind of "few things to all people" solution that Apple are - rightly - keen to avoid. But as Tim Cook's "state of the Mac" segment in the recent laptop event showed, one of Apple's biggest growth areas is education which is organised along enterprisey lines.
Their solution thus far has been a partial one; we get Mac OS X which is basically a consumer OS, and then we get Mac OS X server which is the same OS with a few configuration changes and extra apps to support being used as a workgroup server. This is less distinct than the changes between Mac OS X and iPhone OS X, but the principle is the same; the same technology is used in different ways, so we get different interfaces to it. Note that these aren't really very divergent products - a UNIX expert could set up an Open Directory Master on a standard Mac OS X box were they so inclined. We get the Mac Pro and the XServe as nods to the existence of more powerful hardware than the iMac. While Apple do have a network of business development managers, enterprise sales people, sales engineers and so on who can support larger customers, their capabilities and freedom are restricted by working on a consumer product in a consumer organisation.
Assuming that Apple aren't going to retreat and consolidate all of their effort on the consumer/prosumer, the logical plan seems to be "the same only more so"; carry on the scheme of applying a common technology base to multiple markets, but with the product interfaces and configurations being specific to the role in which they'll be used. Empower those enterprise sales, support and development teams to make the changes required in both the shared technology base and the domain-specific parts in order to advance their own cause. Allow them to do so in such a way that the consumer focus of the standard products is not diluted. To do all this, what Apple would need is to clearly delineate their Core OS, Consumer OS and Server OS engineering groups, while adding staff, expertise and intellectual property to their Server OS, Server Hardware and Enterprise Support groups.
The bit about "adding staff, expertise and intellectual property to their Server OS, Server Hardware and Enterprise Support groups" can be easily achieved by using the Blue Peter principle. Here's one I prepared earlier. And no, I'm not going mad. Sun have plenty of experience in supporting larger customers and what marketing people like to call vertical markets, and have some good technology: hardware, operating systems software, enterprise services and applications. Their only problem is that they can't make any money on it. On the other hand with Apple it seems that the money is there to be made, and the problem is stepping up to that plate without compromising the consumer products. Consolidating Mac OS X [+ Server] and Solaris 10 would not be trivial but is not beyond the realms of fantasy. NeXTSTEP ran on SPARC hardware, and as we know that Mac OS X runs on PPC, two different Intel architectures and ARM it's likely that the effort to port Mac OS X to SPARC would not be great. But perhaps more useful in the short term is that OpenStep ran on Solaris before, and could do again. Even though Sun have switched Solaris to a SYSV-derived platform, due to Apple's recent push for standardisation with Leopard the two OS are likely more source-code compatible than NeXTSTEP and SunOS 4 ever were. Getting Cocoa up on Solaris would mean that application portability (for the sorts of apps that server admins will want - including Apple's own server admin tools, not for OmniDazzle) becomes viable while the combined company (Snapple?) concentrate on integrating the core tech. They could even get Jonathan Schwartz to do the coding.
Another factor in this proposition is that JAVA is cheap. Apple currently have about $20B in cash and Sun's shares are worth $3.6B, but taking into account that Sun have lost 98% of their dot-com-boom value without slowing their R&D projects, the value for money when you want them for their tech, smarts and goodwill rather than their user base is astounding.
Oh, and speaking of JAVA, what about Java? Java currently represents Sun's main income due to the licensing scheme, but Apple's investment in the platform has declined over time from the Rhapsody days of "everything is Java"; currently the available Java on Mac OS X lags behind Sun's version and isn't ppc64 compatible. The WebObjects team (and hence the Apple store and iTunes) have a heavy Java investment, while other teams have dropped Java (Cocoa) and still others eschew it completely. The iPhone has a very busy developer ecosystem - and absolutely no Java. Where the hypothetical Snapple would leave Java is entirely open, but the option of packaging up the combined company's Java assets and re-selling them would seem unnecessary, unless you thought that even $3.6B was too much to pay.
Their solution thus far has been a partial one; we get Mac OS X which is basically a consumer OS, and then we get Mac OS X server which is the same OS with a few configuration changes and extra apps to support being used as a workgroup server. This is less distinct than the changes between Mac OS X and iPhone OS X, but the principle is the same; the same technology is used in different ways, so we get different interfaces to it. Note that these aren't really very divergent products - a UNIX expert could set up an Open Directory Master on a standard Mac OS X box were they so inclined. We get the Mac Pro and the XServe as nods to the existence of more powerful hardware than the iMac. While Apple do have a network of business development managers, enterprise sales people, sales engineers and so on who can support larger customers, their capabilities and freedom are restricted by working on a consumer product in a consumer organisation.
Assuming that Apple aren't going to retreat and consolidate all of their effort on the consumer/prosumer, the logical plan seems to be "the same only more so"; carry on the scheme of applying a common technology base to multiple markets, but with the product interfaces and configurations being specific to the role in which they'll be used. Empower those enterprise sales, support and development teams to make the changes required in both the shared technology base and the domain-specific parts in order to advance their own cause. Allow them to do so in such a way that the consumer focus of the standard products is not diluted. To do all this, what Apple would need is to clearly delineate their Core OS, Consumer OS and Server OS engineering groups, while adding staff, expertise and intellectual property to their Server OS, Server Hardware and Enterprise Support groups.
The bit about "adding staff, expertise and intellectual property to their Server OS, Server Hardware and Enterprise Support groups" can be easily achieved by using the Blue Peter principle. Here's one I prepared earlier. And no, I'm not going mad. Sun have plenty of experience in supporting larger customers and what marketing people like to call vertical markets, and have some good technology: hardware, operating systems software, enterprise services and applications. Their only problem is that they can't make any money on it. On the other hand with Apple it seems that the money is there to be made, and the problem is stepping up to that plate without compromising the consumer products. Consolidating Mac OS X [+ Server] and Solaris 10 would not be trivial but is not beyond the realms of fantasy. NeXTSTEP ran on SPARC hardware, and as we know that Mac OS X runs on PPC, two different Intel architectures and ARM it's likely that the effort to port Mac OS X to SPARC would not be great. But perhaps more useful in the short term is that OpenStep ran on Solaris before, and could do again. Even though Sun have switched Solaris to a SYSV-derived platform, due to Apple's recent push for standardisation with Leopard the two OS are likely more source-code compatible than NeXTSTEP and SunOS 4 ever were. Getting Cocoa up on Solaris would mean that application portability (for the sorts of apps that server admins will want - including Apple's own server admin tools, not for OmniDazzle) becomes viable while the combined company (Snapple?) concentrate on integrating the core tech. They could even get Jonathan Schwartz to do the coding.
Another factor in this proposition is that JAVA is cheap. Apple currently have about $20B in cash and Sun's shares are worth $3.6B, but taking into account that Sun have lost 98% of their dot-com-boom value without slowing their R&D projects, the value for money when you want them for their tech, smarts and goodwill rather than their user base is astounding.
Oh, and speaking of JAVA, what about Java? Java currently represents Sun's main income due to the licensing scheme, but Apple's investment in the platform has declined over time from the Rhapsody days of "everything is Java"; currently the available Java on Mac OS X lags behind Sun's version and isn't ppc64 compatible. The WebObjects team (and hence the Apple store and iTunes) have a heavy Java investment, while other teams have dropped Java (Cocoa) and still others eschew it completely. The iPhone has a very busy developer ecosystem - and absolutely no Java. Where the hypothetical Snapple would leave Java is entirely open, but the option of packaging up the combined company's Java assets and re-selling them would seem unnecessary, unless you thought that even $3.6B was too much to pay.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
All you never wanted to know about temporary files and were too ambivalent to ask
In the beginning, there was mktemp. And it was good.
Actually, that's a load of rubbish, it wasn't good at all. By separating the "give me the name of a temporary file" and "open the file" stages, there's a chance for an attacker to create the temporary file with the name you've chosen between the stages, or create a symlink with the same name.
Next there came mkstemp. And that was better. But not by much. mkstemp opens the file for you as well as choosing a name, so the file was guaranteed to not exist beofre you tried to use it, and will definitely have the ownership and permissions you want.
There is yet another step which the über-paranoid application could take in order to ensure that no other process can see its temporary files, and that is to unlink the file as soon as you get it back. Unfortunately there's no "mkstempr" function (and it might get confused with the equally non-existent mkstemp_r), so this is still a two-stage operation. Unlinking a file which you have open removes it from the directory listing, but doesn't change the fact that you have it open; it's now exclusively yours.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
It was asked for: the "features" post
Someone anonymous once said:
Where said comment was:
So here, for your delectation, is that entire blog post.
When you're trying to decide what software people want, and indeed how to tell them that they want whatever software they're going to get instead, that's marketing (mainly - it's partly sales, and there's yet another tangential post on why I occasionally deliberately conflate marketing and sales). Marketing works in terms of features, which for the purposes of marketing means "properties or qualities of the software which we think might make people interested in that software".
When you're trying to decide what software to build, or trying to build the software, more specific terms are used. Initially people split requirements into two distinct groups, functional (what the system is capable of) and non-functional (how the system goes about its capabilities), but a more precise organisation is often needed. For instance, a requirement of system security might result in both functional and non-functional aspects of the system being specified.
Of course, some or all of the capabilities are also features, in fact it's generally true that the set of all features, the set of all known requirements and the set of things the customer wants are intersecting subsets of the set of all possible qualities of a software system. Companies without an intersection between any two of these sets tend to go out of business very quickly. But the sets rarely perfectly overlap.
For instance, it's a feature of Windows 7 that it's named differently from Windows Vista, because Microsoft's marketing requires that customers believe that they've put Vista behind them. However, it's also a feature of Windows 7 that it not be very distinct from Vista, because marketing require that application compatibility doesn't get broken. Hence we have the interesting situation that Windows 7 is also Windows 6.1. And if Microsoft think they're being innovative in that version numbering policy, they should try looking up the history of SunOS/Solaris version numbers. BTW, indeed I haven't switched my SUNW tag to JAVA, because I already use the java tag to mean the Java language and the Java platform. Marketing people can be funny sometimes.
Another example, less confusing though more contradictory, is Apple's Snow Leopard collateral. The fact that marketing are telling us there are no new features in Snow Leopard means that "no features" is something they believe we might want to buy, which in turn makes it a feature… confused?
So anyway, I try to avoid using the word "feature" when I'm talking about software, because I'm usually instead talking about a capability or property of a software system, and not about marketing that software system. For instance, in Properties about a year on I described properties as a capability of the Objective-C 2.0 language, which indeed they are. It happens that properties is also a feature of the language (don't believe that programming languages have marketing departments? What else do Apple's tech evangelists do, if it isn't marketing?), but in the case of that post I was talking about what can be done with properties, how properties can be used, and not how they can switch developers to Leopard from Tiger or .NET.
And in other news, it seems that badly-parked tech company founder Mercs are back in fashion.
I'm intrigued by your feature comment. Please publish said blog post!
Where said comment was:
The fact that I have stopped using the word 'feature' in many contexts is an entire blog post and a few therapy sessions in itself.
So here, for your delectation, is that entire blog post.
When you're trying to decide what software people want, and indeed how to tell them that they want whatever software they're going to get instead, that's marketing (mainly - it's partly sales, and there's yet another tangential post on why I occasionally deliberately conflate marketing and sales). Marketing works in terms of features, which for the purposes of marketing means "properties or qualities of the software which we think might make people interested in that software".
When you're trying to decide what software to build, or trying to build the software, more specific terms are used. Initially people split requirements into two distinct groups, functional (what the system is capable of) and non-functional (how the system goes about its capabilities), but a more precise organisation is often needed. For instance, a requirement of system security might result in both functional and non-functional aspects of the system being specified.
Of course, some or all of the capabilities are also features, in fact it's generally true that the set of all features, the set of all known requirements and the set of things the customer wants are intersecting subsets of the set of all possible qualities of a software system. Companies without an intersection between any two of these sets tend to go out of business very quickly. But the sets rarely perfectly overlap.
For instance, it's a feature of Windows 7 that it's named differently from Windows Vista, because Microsoft's marketing requires that customers believe that they've put Vista behind them. However, it's also a feature of Windows 7 that it not be very distinct from Vista, because marketing require that application compatibility doesn't get broken. Hence we have the interesting situation that Windows 7 is also Windows 6.1. And if Microsoft think they're being innovative in that version numbering policy, they should try looking up the history of SunOS/Solaris version numbers. BTW, indeed I haven't switched my SUNW tag to JAVA, because I already use the java tag to mean the Java language and the Java platform. Marketing people can be funny sometimes.
Another example, less confusing though more contradictory, is Apple's Snow Leopard collateral. The fact that marketing are telling us there are no new features in Snow Leopard means that "no features" is something they believe we might want to buy, which in turn makes it a feature… confused?
So anyway, I try to avoid using the word "feature" when I'm talking about software, because I'm usually instead talking about a capability or property of a software system, and not about marketing that software system. For instance, in Properties about a year on I described properties as a capability of the Objective-C 2.0 language, which indeed they are. It happens that properties is also a feature of the language (don't believe that programming languages have marketing departments? What else do Apple's tech evangelists do, if it isn't marketing?), but in the case of that post I was talking about what can be done with properties, how properties can be used, and not how they can switch developers to Leopard from Tiger or .NET.
And in other news, it seems that badly-parked tech company founder Mercs are back in fashion.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
The view(s) from the hotel
Which two buildings are across the street from my current location?
and
anyone might think it had been deliberately chosen for comedy purposes…
and
anyone might think it had been deliberately chosen for comedy purposes…
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Properties about a year on
Leopard has now been out for nearly a year, which means that (publicly) we've had Objective-C 2.0 for the same amount of time. At the release many developers were champing at the bit to talk about the new language capabilities[*], including properties. There were arguments on both sides of the divide, and even a little bit of discussion. But now that we've been using these things for a while, and because I'm bored awake grouchy vocal opinionated, let's have a look back at what they've given us.
There is a broken abstraction in traditional Objective-C, which is the accessor-method-as-property-declaration. Essentially an object can give you two things; work (i.e. it can do stuff) and state information (i.e. it can say stuff about itself and let you change it). In traditional object-oriented languages, because 'saying' and 'changing' are verbs which can be 'done', the two have both been expressed using the same method (heh) as the expression of work. This is not the case in much object-oriented design, for instance in UML a class always has separate "attributes" and "operations".
Properties fix up this abstraction by giving us orthogonal ways to express the two concepts. Work is done in methods; state is got/changed in properties. Now it may be that the state information is actually backed by a method (although it may bang on the ivar directly; more below), but we don't need to know that any more than we need to know in the interface that a property is synthesized or dynamic. All we do need to know is that it is there for us to use, and has certain attributes such as being read-only.
The "on more below" bit is that discussions of KVC-like mechanisms - such as KVC :-) - often involve someone pointing out that they break encapsulation, because it's possible to access an @private ivar with no accessors by retrieving it by key. That's really thinking about the design of a class in terms of the way it's executed rather than its interface contract with the developer, because the @private ought to tell the developer not to touch that particular ivar. Properties neither help nor hinder breakage from the execution side, but from the design side they do provide a stronger distinction between "properties I'm telling you about in the interface" and "things you shouldn't touch". Now we can all get back to using the class's interface to observe how to use it, and that C struct bit at the top to observe how to extend it, as nature intended. It's both a blessing and a curse that Objective-C allows things to appear in source files which don't make it into the executable code, but that doesn't stop such information being useful to the developer in the same way that code comments can be read but not executed.
One of the popular complaints about ObjC properties is the syntax for referring to them in methods (OK, or indeed in functions), where it is argued that myObject.someProperty = 4; doesn't readily tell you whether myObject is an ObjC object, a C struct or a C union. That seems to be at worst a straw man argument to me, and at best a hypothetical issue; in well-designed software it will be rare to mix code at various levels of abstraction except in limited circumstances such as adapter classes. Besides, if the code has been written such that it can be inspected or reviewed (i.e. to some agreed style and standard) and the reviewer is paying attention then it will be easy to distinguish use of the various types. At some conceptual level the C . and Objective-C . operator are doing the same thing anyway; they're both saying "this attribute of that thing".
[*]The fact that I have stopped using the word 'feature' in many contexts is an entire blog post and a few therapy sessions in itself.
There is a broken abstraction in traditional Objective-C, which is the accessor-method-as-property-declaration. Essentially an object can give you two things; work (i.e. it can do stuff) and state information (i.e. it can say stuff about itself and let you change it). In traditional object-oriented languages, because 'saying' and 'changing' are verbs which can be 'done', the two have both been expressed using the same method (heh) as the expression of work. This is not the case in much object-oriented design, for instance in UML a class always has separate "attributes" and "operations".
Properties fix up this abstraction by giving us orthogonal ways to express the two concepts. Work is done in methods; state is got/changed in properties. Now it may be that the state information is actually backed by a method (although it may bang on the ivar directly; more below), but we don't need to know that any more than we need to know in the interface that a property is synthesized or dynamic. All we do need to know is that it is there for us to use, and has certain attributes such as being read-only.
The "on more below" bit is that discussions of KVC-like mechanisms - such as KVC :-) - often involve someone pointing out that they break encapsulation, because it's possible to access an @private ivar with no accessors by retrieving it by key. That's really thinking about the design of a class in terms of the way it's executed rather than its interface contract with the developer, because the @private ought to tell the developer not to touch that particular ivar. Properties neither help nor hinder breakage from the execution side, but from the design side they do provide a stronger distinction between "properties I'm telling you about in the interface" and "things you shouldn't touch". Now we can all get back to using the class's interface to observe how to use it, and that C struct bit at the top to observe how to extend it, as nature intended. It's both a blessing and a curse that Objective-C allows things to appear in source files which don't make it into the executable code, but that doesn't stop such information being useful to the developer in the same way that code comments can be read but not executed.
One of the popular complaints about ObjC properties is the syntax for referring to them in methods (OK, or indeed in functions), where it is argued that myObject.someProperty = 4; doesn't readily tell you whether myObject is an ObjC object, a C struct or a C union. That seems to be at worst a straw man argument to me, and at best a hypothetical issue; in well-designed software it will be rare to mix code at various levels of abstraction except in limited circumstances such as adapter classes. Besides, if the code has been written such that it can be inspected or reviewed (i.e. to some agreed style and standard) and the reviewer is paying attention then it will be easy to distinguish use of the various types. At some conceptual level the C . and Objective-C . operator are doing the same thing anyway; they're both saying "this attribute of that thing".
[*]The fact that I have stopped using the word 'feature' in many contexts is an entire blog post and a few therapy sessions in itself.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
MacDev 2009!
It's a long way off, but now is a good time to start thinking about the MacDev '09 conference, organised by the inimitable Scotty of the Mac Developer Network. This looks like being Europe's closest answer to WWDC, but without all those annoying "we call this Interface Builder, and we call this Xcode" sessions. Oh, and a certain Sophist Mac engineer software will be talking about building a secure Cocoa application.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Rhetoric, smoothly outlined
Something I did a number of years ago (I could tell you how many, couldn't I? If I could remember; I think it must have been 7) was to study critical analysis. That's the application of linguistics and sociology to, well, basically to refusing to believe anything people say to you ever again. As an example of how it's useful to someone who isn't a professional rhetorician, here's a discussion of the things I read in The iPhone Store Impending Disaster Myth. Mainly because that article is fairly close to the top of my RSS feed reader.
The first thing to note is the use of loaded language in the title - the hyperbolic phrase "impending disaster" and its syzygy with the word "myth" clearly setting the author's stall out. This is reinforced by the first paragraph:
That first sentence fragment paints the subjects of the author's post as thoughtless machines, churning out page after page of text reinforcing their unchanging opinion. Ironically that is exactly what we are about to read for the next several paragraphs. It's a convenient amalgamation of two rhetorical techniques; most obviously it is an ad hominem (to the man) argument. Attention is diverted away from the discussion of Apple's app store and onto the people with which the author disagrees. This then is the beginning of a straw man which will be constructed toward the end of the piece, sowing the seed in the reader's mind that the author's opponent does not have a relevant argument.
The final sentence, "they're wrong, here's why", is a trademark of this particular author (or maybe that's an example of confirmation bias on my part) and actually renders the rest of the article meaningless for most people. It tells us that the rest of the article is a repudiation (for why it isn't a refutation, read on, but the point of this sentence is some verbal sleight of hand to make you believe that a refutation is to follow) of the position the author has defined for the "predictable opinion scribes", which is either going to make you believe that what's coming up will be an excellent riposte or a boring diatribe, depending on the opinion you've already formed about this author. All that the remaining part of the article needs to do is to fill up past the end of the page so that you believe the riposte/diatribe really exists, and it performs this task with aplomb.
What happens from here is actually rather subtle. The author outlines the position he intends to oppose, followed by "here’s[sic] the facts they’re missing". But the next few sections, from "Developers, Developers, Developers" to "Why Platforms Win" contain an opinionated retrospective on the computing industry, using links to the author's own articles as references. Opinionated? Well, count the number of times the phrase "third rate, old technology" appears. It's actually only four, but it moves from what "IBM, Microsoft, and the PC cloners [Oxford comma sic]" were doing to "the Microsoft strategy". There's enough filler (26 paragraphs and 10 linked articles in the same style by the same author) that it could be easy to forget that segue occurred. A fact which doesn't escape the author:
Too right we might have forgotten. What we haven't forgotten is that we were told "here's why" the app store naysayers were wrong, but have actually been told why Lotus 1-2-3 outsold Visicalc. The author's argument follows the pattern "B follows A. C. Therefore A." Loosely the argument could be described as a "red herring fallacy", although a word I prefer is that the intervening text underwent a process known as "contextomy".
Anyway, before we got here, our author let his façade slip a little:
Ooops! Now, do we think that the author is for or against people who disagree with Apple? Anyway, enough backtracking. Why don't we move forward from the end of my previous <q>?
Now read the rest of that section. There's a good amount of text to describe why these decisions aren't arbitrary. Whatever happened to unpredictable? Oh, and for bonus points, look for where the final paragraph contradicts the earlier thrust of the section and reinforces the notion that arbitrary rejections have occurred.
The rest of the article carries on in the same vein, and having seen the way in which I automatically parse the earlier part you can probably guess how my cynical mind interprets the rest of the text. Oh, and speaking of cynicism, if you're still wondering why this is a repudiation and not a refutation, then my evil little mind-play trick worked! You've read at least part of every paragraph in the hope to get information I promised at the beginning; if only I'd put some adverts in the post somewhere. So to refute means to prove to be false, whereas to repudiate means to reject. The article we've just looked at is an internally inconsistent expression of the author's opinion, no proof having occurred. It's also an example of the informal fallacy of suppressed correlative. Apple's practices can't be bad, because Microsoft's practices are bad and Apple's are better than Microsoft's.
Well, that was fun! The next time you're talking to your boss (or better, your marketing people), listen out for those rhetorical devices and remember to stay critical :-).
The first thing to note is the use of loaded language in the title - the hyperbolic phrase "impending disaster" and its syzygy with the word "myth" clearly setting the author's stall out. This is reinforced by the first paragraph:
According to the predictable opinion scribes [...]They’re wrong, here’s why.
That first sentence fragment paints the subjects of the author's post as thoughtless machines, churning out page after page of text reinforcing their unchanging opinion. Ironically that is exactly what we are about to read for the next several paragraphs. It's a convenient amalgamation of two rhetorical techniques; most obviously it is an ad hominem (to the man) argument. Attention is diverted away from the discussion of Apple's app store and onto the people with which the author disagrees. This then is the beginning of a straw man which will be constructed toward the end of the piece, sowing the seed in the reader's mind that the author's opponent does not have a relevant argument.
The final sentence, "they're wrong, here's why", is a trademark of this particular author (or maybe that's an example of confirmation bias on my part) and actually renders the rest of the article meaningless for most people. It tells us that the rest of the article is a repudiation (for why it isn't a refutation, read on, but the point of this sentence is some verbal sleight of hand to make you believe that a refutation is to follow) of the position the author has defined for the "predictable opinion scribes", which is either going to make you believe that what's coming up will be an excellent riposte or a boring diatribe, depending on the opinion you've already formed about this author. All that the remaining part of the article needs to do is to fill up past the end of the page so that you believe the riposte/diatribe really exists, and it performs this task with aplomb.
What happens from here is actually rather subtle. The author outlines the position he intends to oppose, followed by "here’s[sic] the facts they’re missing". But the next few sections, from "Developers, Developers, Developers" to "Why Platforms Win" contain an opinionated retrospective on the computing industry, using links to the author's own articles as references. Opinionated? Well, count the number of times the phrase "third rate, old technology" appears. It's actually only four, but it moves from what "IBM, Microsoft, and the PC cloners [Oxford comma sic]" were doing to "the Microsoft strategy". There's enough filler (26 paragraphs and 10 linked articles in the same style by the same author) that it could be easy to forget that segue occurred. A fact which doesn't escape the author:
If you made it this far, you may have forgotten that the first argument against Apple vetoing apps
Too right we might have forgotten. What we haven't forgotten is that we were told "here's why" the app store naysayers were wrong, but have actually been told why Lotus 1-2-3 outsold Visicalc. The author's argument follows the pattern "B follows A. C. Therefore A." Loosely the argument could be described as a "red herring fallacy", although a word I prefer is that the intervening text underwent a process known as "contextomy".
Anyway, before we got here, our author let his façade slip a little:
Now let’s hammer away at the sappy pleading on behalf of developers who want Apple to cater to their whims due to the attractive populist concept of fairness in doing so.
Ooops! Now, do we think that the author is for or against people who disagree with Apple? Anyway, enough backtracking. Why don't we move forward from the end of my previous <q>?
[...] is that its decisions are unpredictable and arbitrary.
Now read the rest of that section. There's a good amount of text to describe why these decisions aren't arbitrary. Whatever happened to unpredictable? Oh, and for bonus points, look for where the final paragraph contradicts the earlier thrust of the section and reinforces the notion that arbitrary rejections have occurred.
The rest of the article carries on in the same vein, and having seen the way in which I automatically parse the earlier part you can probably guess how my cynical mind interprets the rest of the text. Oh, and speaking of cynicism, if you're still wondering why this is a repudiation and not a refutation, then my evil little mind-play trick worked! You've read at least part of every paragraph in the hope to get information I promised at the beginning; if only I'd put some adverts in the post somewhere. So to refute means to prove to be false, whereas to repudiate means to reject. The article we've just looked at is an internally inconsistent expression of the author's opinion, no proof having occurred. It's also an example of the informal fallacy of suppressed correlative. Apple's practices can't be bad, because Microsoft's practices are bad and Apple's are better than Microsoft's.
Well, that was fun! The next time you're talking to your boss (or better, your marketing people), listen out for those rhetorical devices and remember to stay critical :-).
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
AppleScript, for once
AppleScript isn't something I write much about, in fact this is the first post I've ever created on the topic. But AppleScript, like the Services menu and Automator, provides that most useful of usability enhancements: the ability to use multiple applications together without fulfilling the marketing requirements of having to look at them all.
As an example, a folder action script might let me combine the Finder with any other application, such as, choosing completely at random, Sophos Anti-Virus:
on adding folder items to this_folder after receiving these_items
set theScript to "/usr/bin/sweep -nc"
repeat with i from 1 to number of items in these_items
set thePath to POSIX path of item i of these_items
set theScript to theScript & space & thePath
end repeat
set theScript to theScript & space & "--quarantine:mode=000"
do shell script theScript
end adding folder items to
that script then scans any file which appears in a particular folder and locks it if it contains a virus (up to a point). But that's not really the point, the point is that I haven't actually had to use any of the target apps in order to get this combined functionality. It's like I was able to summon the Megazord without having to actually talk to the individual Power Rangers. Erm, or something. And that, really, is how a computer should work; I didn't buy OmniFocus so that I could look at its icon, or a splash screen, I bought it because it can manage my lists of things to do. And I got iCal in order to manage events in time. If I have things to do at specific times, then I ought to be able to combine the two, and the computer can do the work involved. After all, that is why I bought the computer.
As an example, a folder action script might let me combine the Finder with any other application, such as, choosing completely at random, Sophos Anti-Virus:
set theScript to "/usr/bin/sweep -nc"
repeat with i from 1 to number of items in these_items
set thePath to POSIX path of item i of these_items
set theScript to theScript & space & thePath
end repeat
set theScript to theScript & space & "--quarantine:mode=000"
do shell script theScript
end adding folder items to
that script then scans any file which appears in a particular folder and locks it if it contains a virus (up to a point). But that's not really the point, the point is that I haven't actually had to use any of the target apps in order to get this combined functionality. It's like I was able to summon the Megazord without having to actually talk to the individual Power Rangers. Erm, or something. And that, really, is how a computer should work; I didn't buy OmniFocus so that I could look at its icon, or a splash screen, I bought it because it can manage my lists of things to do. And I got iCal in order to manage events in time. If I have things to do at specific times, then I ought to be able to combine the two, and the computer can do the work involved. After all, that is why I bought the computer.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Overdoing the risk management
I own a notebook. In fact, I own several notebooks. One in particular has an interesting feature (where I use "feature" in the "different from the competition, though we don't know whether anyone actually needs it" sense); inside the front cover is space to write your address, and a dollar value reward available to the person who returns the notebook.
Now the notebook itself is probably worth about $20, but on the face of it a used notebook is worth less than a pristine notebook, with a full notebook having no value. Presumably the value of the reward should be related to the value of the notes contained within it, and therefore can't be ascertained until I've filled the notebook up. But then if I were to lose it before filling in the pages, I would not have entered an interim value; and if I had then whenever I made new notes I would need to update the worth of the book.
And who should be footing the bill, anyway? Are my musings of any financial benefit to me, or if my employers get more worth from them should they be contributing to the reward fund? Could I possibly make the same notes again were I to lose this book? Could I pay someone with a lower salary than mine to have thoughts with a similar monetary value? Would someone else who came across my notebook be able to extract the same worth from the contents than me? If so, should I write in an encrypted fashion? How much more would that cost me? Should the reward factor in the costs of decrypting the contents, possibly reverse-engineering the method if I've forgotten it?
Do ideas depreciate? Clearly patentable ideas do, will my ideas be patentable? Will I be able to benefit from the patents? If someone finds the notebook and returns it, are the ideas still patentable? What about non-patentable thoughts, do they all depreciate at a constant rate? Should the reward value be a function of time?
Clearly the only people who can answer all of these questions upfront, and therefore the people who can use this reward feature with confidence, are the people whose ideas can be modelled with a waterfall development process. Take Terry Pratchett; he might know that the content of one notebook equates to roughly 50% of a novel, and that each novel is worth £200k, and therefore the value to him of the notebook is less than £100k. A thought process which eventually results in a cash value for a notebook. For those of us whose ideas are somewhat more iterative (read: chaotic), this seems like a complete misfeature.
Now the notebook itself is probably worth about $20, but on the face of it a used notebook is worth less than a pristine notebook, with a full notebook having no value. Presumably the value of the reward should be related to the value of the notes contained within it, and therefore can't be ascertained until I've filled the notebook up. But then if I were to lose it before filling in the pages, I would not have entered an interim value; and if I had then whenever I made new notes I would need to update the worth of the book.
And who should be footing the bill, anyway? Are my musings of any financial benefit to me, or if my employers get more worth from them should they be contributing to the reward fund? Could I possibly make the same notes again were I to lose this book? Could I pay someone with a lower salary than mine to have thoughts with a similar monetary value? Would someone else who came across my notebook be able to extract the same worth from the contents than me? If so, should I write in an encrypted fashion? How much more would that cost me? Should the reward factor in the costs of decrypting the contents, possibly reverse-engineering the method if I've forgotten it?
Do ideas depreciate? Clearly patentable ideas do, will my ideas be patentable? Will I be able to benefit from the patents? If someone finds the notebook and returns it, are the ideas still patentable? What about non-patentable thoughts, do they all depreciate at a constant rate? Should the reward value be a function of time?
Clearly the only people who can answer all of these questions upfront, and therefore the people who can use this reward feature with confidence, are the people whose ideas can be modelled with a waterfall development process. Take Terry Pratchett; he might know that the content of one notebook equates to roughly 50% of a novel, and that each novel is worth £200k, and therefore the value to him of the notebook is less than £100k. A thought process which eventually results in a cash value for a notebook. For those of us whose ideas are somewhat more iterative (read: chaotic), this seems like a complete misfeature.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Me.com. Your identity, everywhere.
Title linky goes to a Sophos blog post I wrote about the relative success of MobileMe phishing scams, and the insecurity of MobileMe web access.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Apple 2, iamleeg 0
So, my few-year-old iPod decided it had had enough, and with pay day having only just passed I thought maybe it would be nice to get a new one. What's happened today? Got the new one home, and it won't work at all (searching for "error 1434" isn't particularly useful, either). However, the one that previously broke, having now been taken apart, started working again. So my 20GB 4G iPod is now humming along nicely (running Podzilla), and my 160GB classic is b0rked :-(.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
The twitter sitter hit a bitter critter
Yup, more on the subject of a home-grown Twitter client. This time, posting and sorting out the UI somewhat have both been achieved:
Posting tweets is amazingly simple - just take the tweet and stuff it into the body of a POST NSURLRequest. The Twitter API even handily returns the posted tweet, so the same code which parses the friends timeline can also insert the new tweet.
So, where to go next? Well, I'm getting bored of typing my password in all the time so Keychain would be nice, @reply buttons and perhaps searching. I'm going to need cache management soon, too.
Posting tweets is amazingly simple - just take the tweet and stuff it into the body of a POST NSURLRequest. The Twitter API even handily returns the posted tweet, so the same code which parses the friends timeline can also insert the new tweet.
So, where to go next? Well, I'm getting bored of typing my password in all the time so Keychain would be nice, @reply buttons and perhaps searching. I'm going to need cache management soon, too.
Mac user Gmail account hack
I found today in Macintouch reader reports the news that a Mac user found his Gmail account had been taken over. He writes:
I woke up this morning and looked at my gmail and thought, gee that's weird, it won't accept my password. I figured it was a glitch and tried it on my iphone, same thing.
Then I asked for a password reset. When I got back into the account, found a bunch of sent emails from a Nigerian scammer. I also looked at the ip history in gmail and noticed the weird IP, which of course came from Nigeria.
This relates well to a point I've made repeatedly in podcasts and papers; namely that having information worth stealing is not a Windows-only situation. As more data is stored "in the cloud" then the security of the cloud and of the way we use it becomes as important what is going on in our own computers. Having a weak Facebook password compromised will work just as well if you're on Trusted Solaris as Windows.
In other news, yesterday's Twitter client is not really much further along, because a thunderstorm has meant I've unplugged all of my electronics (the laptop isn't plugged in to anything, obviously). I am now very grateful to MarsEdit for having offline editing capability, otherwise I'd have to try and remember all this stuff later ;-)
Monday, September 01, 2008
A better bit o' twitter than the bitter twitter Tommy Titter bought
Just because everyone these days writes a Twitter client:
This was actually a quick hack project to make up for the fact that I missed CocoaHeads tonight (due to a combination of an uninteresting phone call, and a decision to recover from the phone call by using the rest of my petrol tank). Really just an excuse to play with some APIs (the tweets are grabbed by the controller using NSURLConnection, then some NSXML/XPath extracts the useful information (or not, it is Twitter after all) and puts it into the model), there are many things which need to happen before this is at all a useful Twitter client; the ability to write back, nicer formatting are just the starters. Shiny Core Animation twitting ought to happen.
Still, not bad for two hours I think.
This was actually a quick hack project to make up for the fact that I missed CocoaHeads tonight (due to a combination of an uninteresting phone call, and a decision to recover from the phone call by using the rest of my petrol tank). Really just an excuse to play with some APIs (the tweets are grabbed by the controller using NSURLConnection, then some NSXML/XPath extracts the useful information (or not, it is Twitter after all) and puts it into the model), there are many things which need to happen before this is at all a useful Twitter client; the ability to write back, nicer formatting are just the starters. Shiny Core Animation twitting ought to happen.
Still, not bad for two hours I think.
Fuzzing as a security testing tool
Google have a new browser project, called chrome, and in their introduction they explain perfectly, through the medium of image, how fuzzing works.
Of course, as anyone could tell you, if you take a thousand monkeys and a thousand typewriters and put them all in a room for long enough, you will end up with a thousand broken typewriters, ten fat monkeys and 990 monkey skeletons.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Walking a mile dans ses chausseurs
The word 'translator' has an interesting history. In the Anglo-Saxon language, 'wealhstod' meant "learned in Welsh" more or less, and described someone who could parlay with the important members of the local British tribes. As is often the case with invasions the British started to use the word, so the Welsh title 'Gwalstawt' means "interpreter of tongues", i.e. the Welsh word for "can speak another language" originally meant "can speak Welsh" (there's another word more closely related to Breton treiñ or Cornish trélya in Welsh, too; trosi).
Anyway, to see what localisation people go through during the l10n process, I decided the best thing to do was to try it myself. To save the time it would have taken to write an internationalised app, I used someone else's; namely TextEdit. Here's the result after about 90 minutes of work:
The first thing to notice is that I haven't actually got much done yet. I've started working on the main menu NIB file (Edit.nib), and I'm about halfway through that. At this rate, it would take me at least a (working) day to finish - granted I'm no expert at the task, so I'm having to make a more heroic effort on otherwise "standard" translations than most localisers would. Although I do have a glossary to help. Even so, TextEdit is a fairly simple app; it's easy to see that even if the translation became a mechanical process, translating a complex program would take a long time.
The other thing you might have noticed is that Mac OS X doesn't actually support Old English, and yet that's the language of my translation. There's a simple trick here; convince Mac OS X that it does support Old English ;-). Type this command in the Terminal:
and Robert, as they say, is your father's brother. Apps will now look for localised resources in 'ang.lproj' when they start, so that's where your Old English resources live.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Next CocoaHeads Swindon meeting
1st September (that's this coming Monday), in the Glue Pot, Swindon. 8:00pm start. Chris Walters will talk about, well, something, and we'll be drinking beer, listening and occasionally chipping in. See you there!
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Back from holiday
I went on holiday to Stockholm this week. Of the ~1.5GB I downloaded from the camera, this was the photo I thought most apt to describe the experience on this blog:
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Cocoa#, Mono and Me
My great application:
Yeah, OK, not so great. But this Inverse Hoffman is the result of a couple of hours hacking in Mono, with Cocoa#. My app's largely based on the Stupid Word Counter tutorial, though it's a from-scratch implementation of the famous Apple/NeXT sample application in C#.
Firstly, a little history. My first encounter with .NET was back in about 2003 at a Microsoft Developer Roadshow in the car park (and later lecture theatre) in Oxford's comlab. I was particularly interested in their discussions of cross-platform capability, Project Rotor (I kept in touch with one of the Rotor developers) and so on, but really didn't see much exciting in .NET. Nonetheless, being a fair man, I took my beta CDs of Windows 2003 and Visual Studio .NET and gave them a whirl. Unfortunately, still not much interesting. Largely due to buggy betas and a lack of beta documentation.
Now accessing Cocoa from non-ObjC languages is nothing new, we've been doing it from Perl, Python, Ruby and Java for ages and partcularly old farts might even remember Objective-Tcl. Why should I care about Cocoa#? Well for a start, there are likely to be a lot Windows developers out there with some (language that boils down to MS IL eventually) skills who are wanting to produce Mac applications, and it'd be interesting to see what we'll end up with when they do. And it's always fun to learn a new language, anyway ;-)
Good points
- Real NIB files. No really, that interface is genuinely an IB 3.x NIB based on the Cocoa Application template. The objects inside it are Objective-C objects, and there are good old outlets and actions (I haven't yet investigated whether Cocoa Bindings would work).
- macpack. A command-line tool which takes your IL executable and wraps it up in a Cocoa application bundle, ready for drag-deployment.
- Good inline bridging information. Unlike, say, PyObjC the language bridge isn't completely dynamic, but unlike the Java bridge or JIGS you don't have to keep a separate manual mapping of real classes onto ObjC shams. For instance, here's the controller from Currency Converter.net, complete with class, ivar and method exports:
namespace info.thaesofereode.CurrencyConverter
{
[Cocoa.Register("CurrencyConverterController")]
public partial class CurrencyConverterController : Cocoa.Object
{
public CurrencyConverterController(System.IntPtr native_object) : base(native_object) {}
//Cocoa IBOutlets
[Cocoa.Connect]
private Cocoa.TextField inputCurrency;
[Cocoa.Connect]
private Cocoa.TextField outputCurrency;
[Cocoa.Connect]
private Cocoa.TextField conversionRate;
//Cocoa IBAction
[Cocoa.Export("calculate:")]
public void calculate(Cocoa.Object sender)
{
//get the rate from the view
System.String rate = conversionRate.Value;
CurrencyConverterModel.Rate = System.Convert.ToDouble(rate);
//get the currency
System.String input = inputCurrency.Value;
System.Double output = CurrencyConverterModel.convert(System.Convert.ToDouble(input));
//update the UI
outputCurrency.Value = System.Convert.ToString(output);
}
}
}
Bad points
- Not very Cocoa-like wrapper classes. I think this is deliberate; they've gone for making the Cocoa shim look like a .NET interface because after all, we're programming from .NET. This is a bit disappointing as I'm more familiar with PyObjC and the Perl-ObjC-Bridge where the APIs are left pointedly alone, but given the target audience of Cocoa# it's unsurprising.
- MonoDevelop. Luckily, using it isn't mandated.
So, overall, one more good point than bad (and a tentative two, if you overlook MonoDevelop); a pretty good initial evaluation and I might give this a deeper scrape.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Microblogging
For a long time, I deliberately avoided microblogs like twitter. I thought that they were simply an acknowledgement that people want to be published more than they want to have something to say. However, it would be rude of me to completely disavow the medium without actually giving it a go.
To that end, I may indeed be iamleeg on twitter, as soon as twitter actually finishes processing the signup form.
I'd like to point out that one problem I'm going to have is brevity - I have spent 650 characters telling you what my username is. Constraining myself to SMS-sized wibblings will indeed be tricksy.
To that end, I may indeed be iamleeg on twitter, as soon as twitter actually finishes processing the signup form.
I'd like to point out that one problem I'm going to have is brevity - I have spent 650 characters telling you what my username is. Constraining myself to SMS-sized wibblings will indeed be tricksy.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Common sense writ large
Looking at the bottom of Apple's Q3 results, as indeed with any similar publication from a US publicly-traded company, we see the following text.
Erm, like, duh. Stuff which we say might happen in the future, might not actually happen. Really? You've got to get out of the financial industry, there's a lucrative career ahead of you in construction.
This press release contains forward-looking statements including without limitation those about the Company’s estimated revenue and earnings per share. These statements involve risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ. Risks and uncertainties include without limitation potential litigation from the matters investigated by the special committee of the board of directors and the restatement of the Company’s consolidated financial statements; unfavorable results of other legal proceedings; the effect of competitive and economic factors, and the Company’s reaction to those factors, on consumer and business buying decisions with respect to the Company’s products; war, terrorism, public health issues, and other circumstances that could disrupt supply, delivery, or demand of products; continued competitive pressures in the marketplace; the Company’s reliance on sole service providers for iPhone in certain countries; the continued availability on acceptable terms of certain components and services essential to the Company’s business currently obtained by the Company from sole or limited sources; the ability of the Company to deliver to the marketplace and stimulate customer demand for new programs, products, and technological innovations on a timely basis; the effect that product transitions, changes in product pricing or mix, and/or increases in component costs could have on the Company’s gross margin; the effect that product quality problems could have on the Company’s sales and operating profits; the inventory risk associated with the Company’s need to order or commit to order product components in advance of customer orders; the effect that the Company’s dependency on manufacturing and logistics services provided by third parties may have on the quality, quantity or cost of products manufactured or services rendered; the Company’s dependency on the performance of distributors and other resellers of the Company’s products; the Company’s reliance on the availability of third-party digital content; and the potential impact of a finding that the Company has infringed on the intellectual property rights of others. More information on potential factors that could affect the Company’s financial results is included from time to time in the Company’s public reports filed with the SEC, including the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 29, 2007; its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended December 29, 2007 and March 29, 2008; and its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 28, 2008, to be filed with the SEC. The Company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements or information, which speak as of their respective dates.
Erm, like, duh. Stuff which we say might happen in the future, might not actually happen. Really? You've got to get out of the financial industry, there's a lucrative career ahead of you in construction.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Designing a secure Cocoa application
That's the title of next month's CocoaHeads Swindon, and I'll be leading the presentation/discussion. So if you want to learn a little about how to ensuring your Cocoa app doesn't give away the keys to the kingdom, or have some experiences to share with the rest of the group, come along! We'll be at the Glue Pot, which is nice and near the train station as well as reasonably close to a car park. We'll be congregating at 7:00 but will wait for everyone to be settled with a beer in their hand before starting ;-).
Monday, July 14, 2008
Ah, the sweet sound of my own voice
The title is a linky to the press release regarding the edition of Sophos Podcasts I recorded with Carole, and which has now (clearly) gone live. In it we mainly talk about the data theft and Macs technical paper I've already posted about. This is the first podcast I've ever been involved in, so any feedback you have (apart from telling me that I sound drunk in my first sentence, I'm not sure what that's all about) will be most welcome!
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
CocoaHeads Swindon
Just got back from the first meeting of Swindon CocoaHeads, featuring a bunch of people who live nowhere near Swindon, some good beer and the occasional discussion of Cocoa. Special mention to Scott who came all the way from sunny Warsaw to be with us!
Tonight's event was an informal, "what do we want from Swindon CocoaHeads?" event, but it looks like being successful enough that we'll be doing it again. The format will be a presentation or directed conversation, followed by general chit-chat about all things Cocoa. In fact, um, I may have volunteered to give the first presentation at the next meeting. The subject is: well, that would be telling, wouldn't it… ;-). You'll have to find out by coming along to the Glue Pot in Swindon at 8pm on Monday, August 4th. Look out for further announcements and a mailing list over at Scotty's place in the forthcoming month!
Tonight's event was an informal, "what do we want from Swindon CocoaHeads?" event, but it looks like being successful enough that we'll be doing it again. The format will be a presentation or directed conversation, followed by general chit-chat about all things Cocoa. In fact, um, I may have volunteered to give the first presentation at the next meeting. The subject is: well, that would be telling, wouldn't it… ;-). You'll have to find out by coming along to the Glue Pot in Swindon at 8pm on Monday, August 4th. Look out for further announcements and a mailing list over at Scotty's place in the forthcoming month!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Objective-C NAQs
Never-Asked Questions :-)
In Code Complete 2 §6.5, Steve McConnell presents a list of class-related design issues that "vary significantly depending on the language". So why don't we look at them for Objective-C? Especially as I can't find anyone else who's done so based on a couple of Google searches… N.B. as ever, I'm really considering Cocoa + Objective-C here, as the language itself doesn't provide enough policy for many of the issues to have an answer (only method resolution and the existence of isa are defined by the runtime and the compiler - ignoring details like static string instances, @protocol and so on).
Behaviour of overridden constructors and destructors in an inheritance tree. Constructors are simple. If you can initialise an object, return it. If you can't, return nil. The -[NSObject init] method is documented as simply returning self.
For destructors, we have to split the discussion into twain; half for garbage collection and half for not. In the world of the Apple GC, destruction is best done automatically, but if you need to do any explicit cleanup then your object implements -finalize. The two rules are that you don't know whether other objects have already been finalized or not, and that you must not resurrect your object. In the world of non-GC, an object is sent -dealloc when it has been released enough times not to stick around. The object should then free any memory claimed during its lifetime, and finally call [super dealloc]. Note that this means objects which use the voodoo cohesion of "OK, I'll clean up all my resources in -dealloc" probably aren't going to work too well if the garbage collection switch is flipped.
Behaviour of constructors and destructors under exception-handling conditions. Exceptions are a rarity in Cocoa code (we didn't have language-level exceptions for the first decade, and then there was a feeling that they're too expensive; C++ programmers like the Leopard 64-bit runtime because ObjC exceptions and C++ exceptions are compatible but that's not the case in the NeXT runtime) but obviously a constructor is an atomic operation. You can either initialise an object or you can't; there's no half-object. Therefore if an -init… method catches, the thing to do is unwind the initialisation and return nil. The only thing I can think to say for having exceptions around destruction time is "don't", but maybe a commenter will have better ideas.
Importance of default constructors. All classes implement -init, except those that don't ;-). Usually if there's a parameterised initialiser (-initWithFoo:) then that will be the designated initialiser, and -init will just return [self initWithFoo: someReasonableDefaultValueForFoo];. If there's no reasonable default, then there's no -init. And sometimes you just shouldn't use -init, for instance NSNull or NSWorkspace.
Time at which a destructor or finalizer is called. See How does reference counting work? for a discussion of when objects get dealloced. In the garbage-collected world, an object will be finalized at some time after it is no longer reachable in the object graph. When that is exactly really depends on the implementation of the collector and shouldn't be relied on. Temporal cohesion ("B happens after A, therefore A has been done before B") is usually bad.
Wisdom of overriding the language's built-in operators, including assignment and equality. This is such a brain-damaged idea that the language doesn't even let you do it.
How memory is handled as objects are created and destroyed or as they are declared and go out of scope. How does reference counting work? How do I start using the garbage collector?
In Code Complete 2 §6.5, Steve McConnell presents a list of class-related design issues that "vary significantly depending on the language". So why don't we look at them for Objective-C? Especially as I can't find anyone else who's done so based on a couple of Google searches… N.B. as ever, I'm really considering Cocoa + Objective-C here, as the language itself doesn't provide enough policy for many of the issues to have an answer (only method resolution and the existence of isa are defined by the runtime and the compiler - ignoring details like static string instances, @protocol and so on).
Behaviour of overridden constructors and destructors in an inheritance tree. Constructors are simple. If you can initialise an object, return it. If you can't, return nil. The -[NSObject init] method is documented as simply returning self.
For destructors, we have to split the discussion into twain; half for garbage collection and half for not. In the world of the Apple GC, destruction is best done automatically, but if you need to do any explicit cleanup then your object implements -finalize. The two rules are that you don't know whether other objects have already been finalized or not, and that you must not resurrect your object. In the world of non-GC, an object is sent -dealloc when it has been released enough times not to stick around. The object should then free any memory claimed during its lifetime, and finally call [super dealloc]. Note that this means objects which use the voodoo cohesion of "OK, I'll clean up all my resources in -dealloc" probably aren't going to work too well if the garbage collection switch is flipped.
Behaviour of constructors and destructors under exception-handling conditions. Exceptions are a rarity in Cocoa code (we didn't have language-level exceptions for the first decade, and then there was a feeling that they're too expensive; C++ programmers like the Leopard 64-bit runtime because ObjC exceptions and C++ exceptions are compatible but that's not the case in the NeXT runtime) but obviously a constructor is an atomic operation. You can either initialise an object or you can't; there's no half-object. Therefore if an -init… method catches, the thing to do is unwind the initialisation and return nil. The only thing I can think to say for having exceptions around destruction time is "don't", but maybe a commenter will have better ideas.
Importance of default constructors. All classes implement -init, except those that don't ;-). Usually if there's a parameterised initialiser (-initWithFoo:) then that will be the designated initialiser, and -init will just return [self initWithFoo: someReasonableDefaultValueForFoo];. If there's no reasonable default, then there's no -init. And sometimes you just shouldn't use -init, for instance NSNull or NSWorkspace.
Time at which a destructor or finalizer is called. See How does reference counting work? for a discussion of when objects get dealloced. In the garbage-collected world, an object will be finalized at some time after it is no longer reachable in the object graph. When that is exactly really depends on the implementation of the collector and shouldn't be relied on. Temporal cohesion ("B happens after A, therefore A has been done before B") is usually bad.
Wisdom of overriding the language's built-in operators, including assignment and equality. This is such a brain-damaged idea that the language doesn't even let you do it.
How memory is handled as objects are created and destroyed or as they are declared and go out of scope. How does reference counting work? How do I start using the garbage collector?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
WWDC day crosspost
WWDC summary on SophosLabs blog, written by yours truly. I wonder how many Sophos readers (I should probably avoid the term sophist, shouldn't I?) have an interest in Mac and iPhone stuff (and subequently how many comment via the e-mail address on the Labs blog).
Monday, June 16, 2008
Local KDC on Leopard
via Nigel Kersten, a great description of the operation of Leopard's built-in local KDC. I think the most exciting thing about the local KDC is the Bonjour support; could we see simple cross-system trust in the near future? Could there be someone in the world who can actually make Kerberos simple?
Friday, June 13, 2008
WWDC day 00000000000000000000000000000101
Technically day five isn't over yet, but with just one session and a taxi ride remaining I doubt I'm going to get anything prematurely wrong here. In fact, I'm no longer entirely sure that I'll remain awake through the rest of the day so even if something entirely different does happen (still haven't heard anything about IXKit this millennium) I expect I'd miss it.
Planning an east-bound flight is always difficult, because an 11-hour flight through eight time zones "takes" 19 hours. So if I sleep on the plane I'll wake up in the middle of the afternoon UK time, and going back to sleep at newly-local night-time might be complicated. Conversely if I don't sleep on the plane then I won't be going to sleep until at least 9am currently-local time, for a total of about 28 hours uptime. I was just talking to someone who recommended fasting, I'm not sure whether it's worth going through that hardship for an unverified theory (stuff all of that "in the name of science" crap). The other option would be to go into work 3pm-11pm for the beginning of the week, I'm not sure everyone else will appreciate having their meetings moved to the middle of the night and I don't think the canteen's open that late either ;-).
Still, of the three WWDCs I've been to this is definitely in the top ten list of interesting and exciting WWDCs. There definitely still are fellow NeXT fans in the woodwork (actually, *tap* *tap* I think it's gypsum board) who worm their way out during these events, I guess that most have no motivation not to be working on Cocoa. Actually, I don't recall having seen Andrew Stone this week, and I know of a couple of other guys who aren't here, but have definitely managed to gain some traction for the phrase "NeXTSTEP Mobile ;-)
Planning an east-bound flight is always difficult, because an 11-hour flight through eight time zones "takes" 19 hours. So if I sleep on the plane I'll wake up in the middle of the afternoon UK time, and going back to sleep at newly-local night-time might be complicated. Conversely if I don't sleep on the plane then I won't be going to sleep until at least 9am currently-local time, for a total of about 28 hours uptime. I was just talking to someone who recommended fasting, I'm not sure whether it's worth going through that hardship for an unverified theory (stuff all of that "in the name of science" crap). The other option would be to go into work 3pm-11pm for the beginning of the week, I'm not sure everyone else will appreciate having their meetings moved to the middle of the night and I don't think the canteen's open that late either ;-).
Still, of the three WWDCs I've been to this is definitely in the top ten list of interesting and exciting WWDCs. There definitely still are fellow NeXT fans in the woodwork (actually, *tap* *tap* I think it's gypsum board) who worm their way out during these events, I guess that most have no motivation not to be working on Cocoa. Actually, I don't recall having seen Andrew Stone this week, and I know of a couple of other guys who aren't here, but have definitely managed to gain some traction for the phrase "NeXTSTEP Mobile ;-)
WWDC day four
Not so many sessions attended today - partly because I've reached the limit of what the human physiology can achieve on a diet of coffee and doughnuts. But also due to ducking out of sessions to meet with ex-NeXT guys, ex-Lighthouse guys and ex-colleagues for most of the afternoon. Of course, this was followed by the beer bash, no longer the campus bash which we all know and fondly remember (or at least we all fondly remember queueing for a couple of hours at each end for the coach) but still a good event. Speaking of ex-Lighthouse guys, Wylie and I spent a bit of time putting Sun's world to rights (essentially, if they were to stop diluting the Java brand, stop pulling themselves in every which way and try to make some money, they might do OK).
So tomorrow is the NeXT meetup at the beginning of lunch, I have a lab appointment at exactly 12 which is a little annoying but I'll try to make it over. If the G4 cube is the right shape, wrong CPU and Real Men's Objects use the NX prefix, then come over to the front of the Moscone West after the second session.
So tomorrow is the NeXT meetup at the beginning of lunch, I have a lab appointment at exactly 12 which is a little annoying but I'll try to make it over. If the G4 cube is the right shape, wrong CPU and Real Men's Objects use the NX prefix, then come over to the front of the Moscone West after the second session.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
WWDC day three
Today was not quite a full day, so I managed to spend about an hour or so milling around Yerba Buena park, doing a little gift shopping and generally existing outside of the Mascarpone centre. Also put in another update to the c.l.o-c FAQ (though I didn't update the date! oops…) to better discuss retain/release memory management. There are still situations (GNUstep, Cocotron, and some particular OS X environments) where garbage collection is either unavailable or unsuitable, and it turns out that a lot of questions on either the group or cocoa-dev recently have been about the memory management system.
In the evening, after dinner at Chevy's with the u.c.s.m guys (and yet more discussion of the Sophos feature set), checked in to the Apple Design Awards for the first 30 mins or so. All of the winners (and runners-up) I saw were worthy applications, although it was interesting to note that while most of the "productivity" app winners were from small shops, both of the games (runner-up was Command and Conquer 3, winner was Guitar Hero 3) were from large studios, ports of Windows/console games and in existing long-running series. They're both great games, too, of course. Ian was, of course, rooting for Delicious Library 2, and sadly disappointed ;-).
This was all followed by the AFP548 beer bash over at Thirsty Bear. Yet more "oh, you're from Sophos? Yeah, let me say this one thing…", which I really enjoy because if something's either good or bad enough to be the subject of a beer-fuelled rant in a party, I should probably hear about it. Also submitted a couple of entries to Peter's "Leopard bug Venn diagram" contest; I'm not sure I could do a better job of describing the situation than that but for those who were there, I came up with: \Omega = "Closed/Duplicate" and \Omega = "NeXTSTEP 7.0".
In the evening, after dinner at Chevy's with the u.c.s.m guys (and yet more discussion of the Sophos feature set), checked in to the Apple Design Awards for the first 30 mins or so. All of the winners (and runners-up) I saw were worthy applications, although it was interesting to note that while most of the "productivity" app winners were from small shops, both of the games (runner-up was Command and Conquer 3, winner was Guitar Hero 3) were from large studios, ports of Windows/console games and in existing long-running series. They're both great games, too, of course. Ian was, of course, rooting for Delicious Library 2, and sadly disappointed ;-).
This was all followed by the AFP548 beer bash over at Thirsty Bear. Yet more "oh, you're from Sophos? Yeah, let me say this one thing…", which I really enjoy because if something's either good or bad enough to be the subject of a beer-fuelled rant in a party, I should probably hear about it. Also submitted a couple of entries to Peter's "Leopard bug Venn diagram" contest; I'm not sure I could do a better job of describing the situation than that but for those who were there, I came up with: \Omega = "Closed/Duplicate" and \Omega = "NeXTSTEP 7.0".
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
WWDC aside
None of Perl, Cocoa or some weird XML toolkit came up with the "simple things simple, complex things possible" quote.
WWDC day 2
Tuesday is typically associated with "starting to learn stuff" at WWDC, and today was definitely spent learning stuff. Learning, for instance, that doughnuts are considered adequate breakfast material, or that if you are prepared to pay the tiny wi-fi fee at Starbucks you can get faster INTARWEBS than all the people on the steps outside the Mascarpone. It was also a day of nice food; I've just got back from dinner with Alex at the Chevy's, having had lunch with Michael at the Ozuma sushi restaurant. More discussing Sophos-for-Mac with customers and potential customers ensued (apparently we've saved some people from the "hell that is Norton", and I point out for legal purposes that that's a direct quote and not my own opinion or words), and I got some pretty good photos of the Bay Bridge and treasure island which I'll upload as soon as I locate the USB cable.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
ObjC FAQ update
Added a question about the ObjC 2.0 garbage collector. Sorry it's been so long in coming! I'll try and add a few more ObjC 2.0 questions over the coming days.
WWDC - day one
The WWDC keynote is always an odd event to attend. It's put on for the benefit of the investors and the media, with the developers being invited purely to act as braying masses expressing their adulation for His Steveness. It's rare for any technical content to make it into the session, except in unavoidable cases such as the 2005 keynote. The focus of that was the Intel transition, so by necessity there had to be some technical justification of the switch.
With this in mind, it's not hard to see that the keynote can be a somewhat dull affair. Obviously as both an Apple customer and member of the "economic ecosystem" of the Mac, it's always good to be as informed as possible of the company's position and direction. That said, yesterday's keynote (no wi-fi in this hotel, so a late post) contained less of interest to me than usual.
As I mentioned I'm financially dependent on Apple (in an indirect sense of course; I'm paid to write Mac software for Sophos, therefore no Mac = no job at Sophos), though as I'm not an indie dev I have a bit more of a comfort buffer than many people. The enterprise iPhone video Steve showed was basically a backslap in front of the shareholders; look, there are people who really do use this stuff! Then the laundry list of every developer who's downloaded the SDK and managed to get something to compile; interesting to see the wealth of different domains into which the iPhone is entering, but seriously. Two demos, three tops. Not all four thousand of the known apps. Good to see TEH CHEAP being applied to the 3G iPhone, though; I may have to
have a discussion with Orange about a PAC when that's available.
Which left Mobile Me. This is actually a pretty cool reboot of iTools^W.Mac, OK it looks like there might be no more iCards but on the other hand the Mobile Me syncing is really beneficial. I can see that becoming more of a cash cow for Apple, though mainly because they opened it up to the PC; people who have an iPod and Windoze could buy MM to synchronise their contacts, mail and so on, as well as getting webmail access (and webmail access which doesn't suck balls as much as
Exchange's OWA, may I add). That then might make them more amenable to the Halo Effect and the purchase of a Mac down the line.
The rest of the day was interesting but obviously undisclosable, except for the evening I spent in a couple of bars down the financial district (the Golden%Braeburn event at 111 Minna, where I went with Steffi from BNR and a couple of Cocotron committers; then Dave's bar where I met Nigel and most of Apple UK). Conversation ranged from Sophos feature requests to the drinkability of American IPAs; all good stuff!
With this in mind, it's not hard to see that the keynote can be a somewhat dull affair. Obviously as both an Apple customer and member of the "economic ecosystem" of the Mac, it's always good to be as informed as possible of the company's position and direction. That said, yesterday's keynote (no wi-fi in this hotel, so a late post) contained less of interest to me than usual.
As I mentioned I'm financially dependent on Apple (in an indirect sense of course; I'm paid to write Mac software for Sophos, therefore no Mac = no job at Sophos), though as I'm not an indie dev I have a bit more of a comfort buffer than many people. The enterprise iPhone video Steve showed was basically a backslap in front of the shareholders; look, there are people who really do use this stuff! Then the laundry list of every developer who's downloaded the SDK and managed to get something to compile; interesting to see the wealth of different domains into which the iPhone is entering, but seriously. Two demos, three tops. Not all four thousand of the known apps. Good to see TEH CHEAP being applied to the 3G iPhone, though; I may have to
have a discussion with Orange about a PAC when that's available.
Which left Mobile Me. This is actually a pretty cool reboot of iTools^W.Mac, OK it looks like there might be no more iCards but on the other hand the Mobile Me syncing is really beneficial. I can see that becoming more of a cash cow for Apple, though mainly because they opened it up to the PC; people who have an iPod and Windoze could buy MM to synchronise their contacts, mail and so on, as well as getting webmail access (and webmail access which doesn't suck balls as much as
Exchange's OWA, may I add). That then might make them more amenable to the Halo Effect and the purchase of a Mac down the line.
The rest of the day was interesting but obviously undisclosable, except for the evening I spent in a couple of bars down the financial district (the Golden%Braeburn event at 111 Minna, where I went with Steffi from BNR and a couple of Cocotron committers; then Dave's bar where I met Nigel and most of Apple UK). Conversation ranged from Sophos feature requests to the drinkability of American IPAs; all good stuff!
Monday, June 09, 2008
WWDC part 0
well, here it is, the pre-WWDC "I'm jetlagged so you have to put up with my wittering" post. I'm just waiting for a softwareupdate to finish so that I can go out with my camera, taking some early-morning pictures before heading off to stand in line for the Stevenote. I was out for beers with Ian and Neil last night, we'd all heard rumours of a 5 a.m. start to the queue. On the two previous occasions that I've been, 9 a.m. has been sufficient; but with the sellout nature of the event it's likely that the room will fill up rather quickly so we've compromised on a 7 a.m. start. Actually, forget the 5 a.m. nonsense, there's a line of overnight campers - I can't decide whether they're deliberately trying to re-enact a Joy of Tech cartoon, or actually have nothing to do with their lives.
Friday, June 06, 2008
This means business
This is the design of the business card I'll be taking to WWDC. Let's look at some notable features.
- Photo in top left. I don't know about you, but I find it much easier to remember what someone looks like than who they are - this card is available so that people can combine the two.
- Plenty of blank space. The back is also entirely empty and can be written on. When people exchange business cards there'll usually be some context, it can help you remember what that is if you write it down. For instance, I've got cards from previous WWDCs with handwritten notes like "webobjects employer", "bindings", "parallels openstep" and "huge hat" (bonus points for identifying all four).
- Questionable source code snippit. This is a deliberate ploy to annoy fellow-developers with our compulsive attention to detail, thus helping to cement the meeting in their mind as well as providing an inoffensive conversation starter.
- Minimal contextual detail. I'm pretty sure I won't get through all 250 cards in one sitting, so they ought to remain relevant for as long as possible.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Little hack to help with testing
Want the ability to switch in different test drivers, mock objects, or other test-specific behaviour? Here's a pattern I came up with (about a year ago) to do that in a GNUstep test tool, which can readily be used in Cocoa:
NSString *driverClassName = [[NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults] stringForKey: @"Class"];
Class driverClass = NSClassFromString(driverClassName);
id myDriver = [[driverClass alloc] init];
With a healthy dose of no, seriously, don't do this in production code, you now have the ability to specify your test driver on the command-line like this:
$ ./myTestingTool -Class GLTestDriver
This uses the oft-neglected behaviour of NSUserDefaults, in which it parses the executable's command-line arguments to create a defaults domain, higher in priority than even the user's preferences file. You can use that behaviour in a graphical app too, where it comes in handy when working in Xcode. It then uses a combination of the runtime's duck typing and introspection capabilities to create an instance of the appropriate class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)