You're writing a GUI app using Tkinter or PySide or your favorite GUI library, and testing it in-place, everything works.

Then you build a .app bundle out of it, double-click it in Finder, and it can't read your environment variables. (In fact, the "open" command, AppleScript, LaunchAgents… anything but directly running the program in the shell has the same problem.)

You check to make sure you've added them in your ~/.bash_profile. You open a new shell in Terminal, and there they are. So why can't your app see them?

Quick fix

If you're familiar with linux or other Unix systems, and are just looking for a fix, and don't care about how and why it works, do this:
  • Instead of typing "export FOO=bar", do "launchctl setenv FOO bar".
  • Instead of adding "export FOO=bar" to ~/.bash_profile, do "/usr/libexec/PlistBuddy -c 'add FOO string bar' -x ~/.MacOSX/environment.plist".
  • Instead of adding "FOO=bar; export FOO" to /etc/profile, add "setenv FOO bar" to /etc/launchd.conf.

What's going on?

On most other Unix desktops, like a typical linux GNOME setup, your file manager is a child of your X11 session, which is a child of your login shell, so it's inherited all the settings from that login shell. 

When you double-click an app, it either uses the shell to launch the app, or spawns it directly as a child process. So, your app is going to inherit the environment of either your original login shell, or a new shell; either way, it's going to get all the settings in your ~/.bash_profile, /etc/profile, etc. (assuming your shell is bash).

On OS X, Finder.app is a child of your launchd session, which is a child of the root launchd session, which is process 0. There's no shell anywhere. And when you double-click an app, it asks LaunchServices to run the app. So, your app doesn't inherit anything from Finder, and even if it did, Finder hasn't inherited anything from your login shell.

So, instead of configuring your login shell, you need to configure launchd.

The way to configure launchd is with the launchctl command.

As the manpage explains, launchctl talks to the current launchd process, so any changes it makes aren't going to be persistent to new sessions, but "These commands can be stored in $HOME/.launchd.conf or /etc/launchd.conf to be read at the time launchd starts."

Except, as the launchd.conf manpage mentions, $HOME/.launchd.conf is "currently unsupported". So, how do you add user environment variables?

There's an older mechanism for specifying environment variables for a user session in an environment.plist file, and for backward compatibility reasons, launchd reads that file at startup. So, until user launchd.conf files are supported, you have to use that mechanism instead. You probably don't have a .MacOSX directory, so you'll need to create that, and create the plist file. And, if you do have them, they may be in binary plist form rather than XML. So you probably want to use PlistBuddy.

How do I do app-specific environment variables?

On most Unix systems, if you want a program to run with app-specific environment variables, you rename the program to "_foo" (or, more likely, hide it somewhere like /usr/lib), then create a wrapper shell script "foo" that just does a few exports and runs the real program.

This won't work on OS X. If you want to actually launch an app as an app (so it does the right thing with the Dock, menubar, etc.), you have to launch if via the "open" tool, or some other LaunchServices-based tool, which means it won't inherit your shell environment.

Fortunately, you don't have to do this on OS X in the first place. The Info.plist file inside every .app bundle has a key named LSEnvironment. When LaunchServices launches the app, it first sets all of the environment variables from the dict under that key.

What about plain Unix executables?

Plain Unix executables, like "ls" and "grep", aren't normally launched by LaunchServices; you just run them from the shell, so of course they inherit your shell's environment.

And if you do something like double-click /bin/ls in Finder, LaunchServices doesn't launch ls, it launches Terminal.app (by default; you can actually change it to iTerm.app or anything else you want, the same way you can change what app handles text files or HTML files), which will open a new window and fire up a new shell running "/bin/ls". So, it will inherit your profile environment.

Why so crazy?

Given the distinction between app bundles and executable files, this design makes perfect sense. Of course not every Unix fan likes the idea of app bundles, or bundles in general. But once you accept that idea, you can't run a bundle from the shell, so why should LaunchServices fake a shell when running a bundle? If you want something you can run from a shell, write a bare executable rather than an app bundle. Or just run the bare executable out of your app, e.g., "/Applications/Foo.app/Contents/MacOS/foo" instead of "open /Applications/Foo.app".

Of course there are limitations to what bare executables can do with the GUI and other parts of the Cocoa environment. But those limitations are directly caused by the fact that they're not launched by LaunchServices and don't have a bundle.

Anyway, this design allows Apple to unify almost everything into launchd: init scripts, rc.d scripts, cronjobs, inetd, the NeXT-style SystemStarter, watchdogs, loginwindow, all the stuff buried in LaunchServices that you couldn't access directly… it's all done by one pretty simple program.

Historical note

Before launchd, OS X used a variety of different methods to launch apps, inherited from NeXTStep, Classic Mac OS, and *BSD. Most ways you'd launch a program inherited their settings from the loginwindow process. When loginwindow logged in a user, it read environment settings out of a file called ~/.MacOSX/environment.plist. Earlier versions of launchd would also read that file for backward compatibility reasons, but that's no longer true in 10.8 and later.
0

Add a comment

It's been more than a decade since Typical Programmer Greg Jorgensen taught the word about Abject-Oriented Programming.

Much of what he said still applies, but other things have changed. Languages in the Abject-Oriented space have been borrowing ideas from another paradigm entirely—and then everyone realized that languages like Python, Ruby, and JavaScript had been doing it for years and just hadn't noticed (because these languages do not require you to declare what you're doing, or even to know what you're doing). Meanwhile, new hybrid languages borrow freely from both paradigms.

This other paradigm—which is actually older, but was largely constrained to university basements until recent years—is called Functional Addiction.

A Functional Addict is someone who regularly gets higher-order—sometimes they may even exhibit dependent types—but still manages to retain a job.

Retaining a job is of course the goal of all programming. This is why some of these new hybrid languages, like Rust, check all borrowing, from both paradigms, so extensively that you can make regular progress for months without ever successfully compiling your code, and your managers will appreciate that progress. After all, once it does compile, it will definitely work.

Closures

It's long been known that Closures are dual to Encapsulation.

As Abject-Oriented Programming explained, Encapsulation involves making all of your variables public, and ideally global, to let the rest of the code decide what should and shouldn't be private.

Closures, by contrast, are a way of referring to variables from outer scopes. And there is no scope more outer than global.

Immutability

One of the reasons Functional Addiction has become popular in recent years is that to truly take advantage of multi-core systems, you need immutable data, sometimes also called persistent data.

Instead of mutating a function to fix a bug, you should always make a new copy of that function. For example:

function getCustName(custID)
{
    custRec = readFromDB("customer", custID);
    fullname = custRec[1] + ' ' + custRec[2];
    return fullname;
}

When you discover that you actually wanted fields 2 and 3 rather than 1 and 2, it might be tempting to mutate the state of this function. But doing so is dangerous. The right answer is to make a copy, and then try to remember to use the copy instead of the original:

function getCustName(custID)
{
    custRec = readFromDB("customer", custID);
    fullname = custRec[1] + ' ' + custRec[2];
    return fullname;
}

function getCustName2(custID)
{
    custRec = readFromDB("customer", custID);
    fullname = custRec[2] + ' ' + custRec[3];
    return fullname;
}

This means anyone still using the original function can continue to reference the old code, but as soon as it's no longer needed, it will be automatically garbage collected. (Automatic garbage collection isn't free, but it can be outsourced cheaply.)

Higher-Order Functions

In traditional Abject-Oriented Programming, you are required to give each function a name. But over time, the name of the function may drift away from what it actually does, making it as misleading as comments. Experience has shown that people will only keep once copy of their information up to date, and the CHANGES.TXT file is the right place for that.

Higher-Order Functions can solve this problem:

function []Functions = [
    lambda(custID) {
        custRec = readFromDB("customer", custID);
        fullname = custRec[1] + ' ' + custRec[2];
        return fullname;
    },
    lambda(custID) {
        custRec = readFromDB("customer", custID);
        fullname = custRec[2] + ' ' + custRec[3];
        return fullname;
    },
]

Now you can refer to this functions by order, so there's no need for names.

Parametric Polymorphism

Traditional languages offer Abject-Oriented Polymorphism and Ad-Hoc Polymorphism (also known as Overloading), but better languages also offer Parametric Polymorphism.

The key to Parametric Polymorphism is that the type of the output can be determined from the type of the inputs via Algebra. For example:

function getCustData(custId, x)
{
    if (x == int(x)) {
        custRec = readFromDB("customer", custId);
        fullname = custRec[1] + ' ' + custRec[2];
        return int(fullname);
    } else if (x.real == 0) {
        custRec = readFromDB("customer", custId);
        fullname = custRec[1] + ' ' + custRec[2];
        return double(fullname);
    } else {
        custRec = readFromDB("customer", custId);
        fullname = custRec[1] + ' ' + custRec[2];
        return complex(fullname);
    }
}

Notice that we've called the variable x. This is how you know you're using Algebraic Data Types. The names y, z, and sometimes w are also Algebraic.

Type Inference

Languages that enable Functional Addiction often feature Type Inference. This means that the compiler can infer your typing without you having to be explicit:


function getCustName(custID)
{
    // WARNING: Make sure the DB is locked here or
    custRec = readFromDB("customer", custID);
    fullname = custRec[1] + ' ' + custRec[2];
    return fullname;
}

We didn't specify what will happen if the DB is not locked. And that's fine, because the compiler will figure it out and insert code that corrupts the data, without us needing to tell it to!

By contrast, most Abject-Oriented languages are either nominally typed—meaning that you give names to all of your types instead of meanings—or dynamically typed—meaning that your variables are all unique individuals that can accomplish anything if they try.

Memoization

Memoization means caching the results of a function call:

function getCustName(custID)
{
    if (custID == 3) { return "John Smith"; }
    custRec = readFromDB("customer", custID);
    fullname = custRec[1] + ' ' + custRec[2];
    return fullname;
}

Non-Strictness

Non-Strictness is often confused with Laziness, but in fact Laziness is just one kind of Non-Strictness. Here's an example that compares two different forms of Non-Strictness:

/****************************************
*
* TO DO:
*
* get tax rate for the customer state
* eventually from some table
*
****************************************/
// function lazyTaxRate(custId) {}

function callByNameTextRate(custId)
{
    /****************************************
    *
    * TO DO:
    *
    * get tax rate for the customer state
    * eventually from some table
    *
    ****************************************/
}

Both are Non-Strict, but the second one forces the compiler to actually compile the function just so we can Call it By Name. This causes code bloat. The Lazy version will be smaller and faster. Plus, Lazy programming allows us to create infinite recursion without making the program hang:

/****************************************
*
* TO DO:
*
* get tax rate for the customer state
* eventually from some table
*
****************************************/
// function lazyTaxRateRecursive(custId) { lazyTaxRateRecursive(custId); }

Laziness is often combined with Memoization:

function getCustName(custID)
{
    // if (custID == 3) { return "John Smith"; }
    custRec = readFromDB("customer", custID);
    fullname = custRec[1] + ' ' + custRec[2];
    return fullname;
}

Outside the world of Functional Addicts, this same technique is often called Test-Driven Development. If enough tests can be embedded in the code to achieve 100% coverage, or at least a decent amount, your code is guaranteed to be safe. But because the tests are not compiled and executed in the normal run, or indeed ever, they don't affect performance or correctness.

Conclusion

Many people claim that the days of Abject-Oriented Programming are over. But this is pure hype. Functional Addiction and Abject Orientation are not actually at odds with each other, but instead complement each other.
5

View comments

Blog Archive
About Me
About Me
Loading
Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger. Report Abuse.