The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20200906102607/https://github.com/jwt/ruby-jwt/issues/324/
Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

eval() used in Forwardable limits usage in iOS App Store #324

Closed
jtara opened this issue Jun 21, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed

eval() used in Forwardable limits usage in iOS App Store #324

jtara opened this issue Jun 21, 2019 · 1 comment
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@jtara
Copy link

@jtara jtara commented Jun 21, 2019

I notice that Forwardable uses eval().

This makes the resulting product not eligible for inclusion in the iOS App Store, when building a native app using Rhodes, RubyMotion/DragonRuby, or other Ruby-based mobile app platforms. (FWIW, my use case is Rhodes platform.)

The iOS App Store does not permit the use of eval() by interpretive languages. (Ruby-based mobile app frameworks compile to Ruby Bytecode at build time.)

I wonder if it is possible to eliminate this dependency?

ruby-jwt is an attractive solution for such environments, because of it's relative simplicity and lack of extensive dependencies vs e.g. https://github.com/nov/json-jwt (I use json-jwt in API server code, but use ruby-jwt in a mobile app because it is easier to deploy there.)

For my own case, I don't need RSA support, which is the only place where Forwardable is used, so I will comment-out require for RSA.

@anakinj
Copy link
Member

@anakinj anakinj commented Jun 28, 2019

Thanks for the detailed description. There is no point of using the convenience of Forwardable if there are these kind of downsides.

Made a PR for removing the dependency.

@excpt excpt added this to the Version 2.2.2 milestone Sep 16, 2019
@excpt excpt added the refactoring label Sep 16, 2019
@excpt excpt closed this in #325 Sep 16, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.