Updating your app package installer to use the new Service Management API

At a glance

Project structure

Source bundle/
├── SMAppServiceSampleCode/
│   ├── main.swift
│   ├── Commands.swift
│   └── SMAppServiceSampleCode.entitlements
├── SampleLaunchAgent/
│   ├── main.swift
│   └── com.xpc.example.agent.plist
├── Configuration/
│   └── SampleCode.xcconfig
└── SMAppServiceSampleCode.xcodeproj/
    ├── .xcodesamplecode.plist
    └── project.pbxproj

Structure observations

• Architecturally prominent files are ranked from entry points and role-named declarations; resource-only paths are omitted.
• Primary languages: Swift.
• The verified tree contains 5 project/configuration file(s) and 1 source declaration(s).

Overall architecture

flowchart LR
    N1["Commands"]
    N2["ServiceManagement APIs"]
    N1 --> N2

Reference code

SMAppServiceSampleCode/Commands.swift:12 — architecture anchor

class Commands {
    // ...
}

Interpretation

The arrows summarize the source-visible entry, role-named types or folders, and framework direction; when nodes come from structural folders, the sequence is a high-level interpretation rather than proof that every adjacent node calls the next. Ownership is claimed only where the next section cites a stored property or assignment. The diagram is intentionally limited to the dominant path into Service Management.

Ownership and state

classDiagram
    main o-- Listener : listener
    main *-- String : encodedMessage

Ownership evidence

SampleLaunchAgent/main.swift:10 — stored dependency or nearest verified ownership anchor

let listener = xpc_connection_create_mach_service("com.xpc.example.agent.hello", nil, UInt64(XPC_CONNECTION_MACH_SERVICE_LISTENER))

Composition arrows indicate a source-visible construction expression or locally owned value state; aggregation means the owner stores or receives a dependency without proving exclusive lifetime ownership.

Class and protocol design

SMAppServiceSampleCode/Commands.swift:12 — representative type boundary

class Commands {
    // ...
}

No local protocol conformance is claimed as protocol-oriented design; external framework conformances are listed only as dependencies.

Access control

Reference code

SMAppServiceSampleCode/Commands.swift:12 — representative boundary

class Commands {
    // ...
}

Swift declarations without a modifier are internal; explicit private, fileprivate, private(set), public, or open entries above are interpreted by language semantics. Objective-C/C samples instead rely on header and implementation boundaries, which are not equivalent to Swift lexical privacy.

Logic ownership and placement

Design patterns

Naming conventions

• Types: feature-specific names rather than reusable layer suffixes.
• Protocols: no local protocol declaration in the scanned source.
• Methods: register, unregister, status, test.
• Files: SMAppServiceSampleCode/Commands.swift.

Architecture takeaways

• Commands is the main source-visible entry or composition anchor for this sample.
• Framework work reaches ServiceManagement, XPCOverlay through a deliberately small high-level chain; the detailed API graph remains inside the cited implementation files.
• Stored-property evidence identifies lifecycle collaboration; it does not by itself prove exclusive object ownership.
• Access-control conclusions separate verified language visibility from the likely design rationale.
• The source does not justify labeling the design protocol-oriented.

Source map

• Official Apple documentation