Simply I have a struct that stores the application constants as below:
struct Constant {
static let ParseApplicationId = "xxx"
static let ParseClientKey = "xxx"
static var AppGreenColor: UIColor {
return UIColor(hexString: "67B632")
}
}
These constants can be use in Swift code by calling Constant.ParseClientKey for example. But in my code, it also contains some Objective-C classes. So my question is how to use these constants in the Objective-C code?
If this way to declare constants is not good then what is the best way to create global constants to be used in both Swift and Objective-C code?
Sad to say, you can not expose struct, nor global variables to Objective-C. see the documentation, which states in part:
Use Classes When You Need Objective-C Interoperability
If you use an Objective-C API that needs to process your data, or you need to fit your data model into an existing class hierarchy defined in an Objective-C framework, you might need to use classes and class inheritance to model your data. For example, many Objective-C frameworks expose classes that you are expected to subclass.
As of now, IMHO, the best way is something like this:
let ParseApplicationId = "xxx"
let ParseClientKey = "xxx"
let AppGreenColor = UIColor(red: 0.2, green: 0.7, blue: 0.3 alpha: 1.0)
#objc class Constant: NSObject {
private init() {}
class func parseApplicationId() -> String { return ParseApplicationId }
class func parseClientKey() -> String { return ParseClientKey }
class func appGreenColor() -> UIColor { return AppGreenColor }
}
In Objective-C, you can use them like this:
NSString *appklicationId = [Constant parseApplicationId];
NSString *clientKey = [Constant parseClientKey];
UIColor *greenColor = [Constant appGreenColor];
Why not create a file with both a struct and an #objc class, something like this:
import UIKit
extension UIColor {
convenience init(hex: Int) {
let components = (
R: CGFloat((hex >> 16) & 0xff) / 255,
G: CGFloat((hex >> 08) & 0xff) / 255,
B: CGFloat((hex >> 00) & 0xff) / 255
)
self.init(red: components.R, green: components.G, blue: components.B, alpha: 1)
}
}
extension CGColor {
class func colorWithHex(hex: Int) -> CGColorRef {
return UIColor(hex: hex).CGColor
}
}
struct Constant {
static let kParseApplicationId = "5678"
static let kParseClientKey = "1234"
static var kAppGreenColor: UIColor { return UIColor(hex:0x67B632) }
static var kTextBlackColor: UIColor { return UIColor(hex:0x000000) }
static var kSomeBgBlueColor: UIColor { return UIColor(hex:0x0000FF) }
static var kLineGrayCGColor: CGColor { return CGColor.colorWithHex(0xCCCCCC) }
static var kLineRedCGColor: CGColor { return CGColor.colorWithHex(0xFF0000) }
}
#objc class Constants: NSObject {
private override init() {}
class func parseApplicationId() -> String { return Constant.kParseApplicationId }
class func parseClientKey() -> String { return Constant.kParseClientKey }
class func appGreenColor() -> UIColor { return Constant.kAppGreenColor }
class func textBlackColor() -> UIColor { return Constant.kTextBlackColor }
class func someBgBlueColor() -> UIColor { return Constant.kSomeBgBlueColor }
class func lineGrayCGColor() -> CGColor { return Constant.kLineGrayCGColor }
class func lineRedCGColor() -> CGColor { return Constant.kLineRedCGColor }
}
For use in Objective-C files add this when you need to use constants:
#import "ProjectModuleName-Swift.h"
Swift usage:
self.view.backgroundColor = Constant.kAppGreenColor
Objective-C usage:
self.view.backgroundColor = [Constants appGreenColor];
This way you can update colors, default text, web service urls for whole app in one place.
Though this might be late or redundant, I could make it work with the following code :
#objcMembers class Flags: NSObject {
static let abcEnabled = false
static let pqrEnabled = false
.
.
.
}
Obviously, to use in objc c code, you have to do #import "ProjectModuleName-Swift.h"
You should make the let statements private if you want to make other Swift types in your code to access these constants only via class:
private let AppGreenColor = UIColor(red: 0.2, green: 0.7, blue: 0.3 alpha: 1.0)
#objc class Constant {
class func appGreenColor() -> UIColor { return AppGreenColor }
}
In Swift, you can use them like this:
UIColor *greenColor = Constant.appGreenColor
The following line will not compile anymore now since the let statement is private:
UIColor *greenColor = appGreenColor
I am switching an application from Objective-C to Swift, which I have a couple of categories with stored properties, for example:
#interface UIView (MyCategory)
- (void)alignToView:(UIView *)view
alignment:(UIViewRelativeAlignment)alignment;
- (UIView *)clone;
#property (strong) PFObject *xo;
#property (nonatomic) BOOL isAnimating;
#end
As Swift extensions don't accept stored properties like these, I don't know how to maintain the same structure as the Objc code. Stored properties are really important for my app and I believe Apple must have created some solution for doing it in Swift.
As said by jou, what I was looking for was actually using associated objects, so I did (in another context):
import Foundation
import QuartzCore
import ObjectiveC
extension CALayer {
var shapeLayer: CAShapeLayer? {
get {
return objc_getAssociatedObject(self, "shapeLayer") as? CAShapeLayer
}
set(newValue) {
objc_setAssociatedObject(self, "shapeLayer", newValue, UInt(OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN))
}
}
var initialPath: CGPathRef! {
get {
return objc_getAssociatedObject(self, "initialPath") as CGPathRef
}
set {
objc_setAssociatedObject(self, "initialPath", newValue, UInt(OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN))
}
}
}
But I get an EXC_BAD_ACCESS when doing:
class UIBubble : UIView {
required init(coder aDecoder: NSCoder) {
...
self.layer.shapeLayer = CAShapeLayer()
...
}
}
Any ideas?
As in Objective-C, you can't add stored property to existing classes. If you're extending an Objective-C class (UIView is definitely one), you can still use Associated Objects to emulate stored properties:
for Swift 1
import ObjectiveC
private var xoAssociationKey: UInt8 = 0
extension UIView {
var xo: PFObject! {
get {
return objc_getAssociatedObject(self, &xoAssociationKey) as? PFObject
}
set(newValue) {
objc_setAssociatedObject(self, &xoAssociationKey, newValue, objc_AssociationPolicy(OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN))
}
}
}
The association key is a pointer that should be the unique for each association. For that, we create a private global variable and use it's memory address as the key with the & operator. See the Using Swift with Cocoa and Objective-C
on more details how pointers are handled in Swift.
UPDATED for Swift 2 and 3
import ObjectiveC
private var xoAssociationKey: UInt8 = 0
extension UIView {
var xo: PFObject! {
get {
return objc_getAssociatedObject(self, &xoAssociationKey) as? PFObject
}
set(newValue) {
objc_setAssociatedObject(self, &xoAssociationKey, newValue, objc_AssociationPolicy.OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN)
}
}
}
UPDATED for Swift 4
In Swift 4, it's much more simple. The Holder struct will contain the private value that our computed property will expose to the world, giving the illusion of a stored property behaviour instead.
Source
extension UIViewController {
struct Holder {
static var _myComputedProperty:Bool = false
}
var myComputedProperty:Bool {
get {
return Holder._myComputedProperty
}
set(newValue) {
Holder._myComputedProperty = newValue
}
}
}
Associated objects API is a bit cumbersome to use. You can remove most of the boilerplate with a helper class.
public final class ObjectAssociation<T: AnyObject> {
private let policy: objc_AssociationPolicy
/// - Parameter policy: An association policy that will be used when linking objects.
public init(policy: objc_AssociationPolicy = .OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC) {
self.policy = policy
}
/// Accesses associated object.
/// - Parameter index: An object whose associated object is to be accessed.
public subscript(index: AnyObject) -> T? {
get { return objc_getAssociatedObject(index, Unmanaged.passUnretained(self).toOpaque()) as! T? }
set { objc_setAssociatedObject(index, Unmanaged.passUnretained(self).toOpaque(), newValue, policy) }
}
}
Provided that you can "add" a property to objective-c class in a more readable manner:
extension SomeType {
private static let association = ObjectAssociation<NSObject>()
var simulatedProperty: NSObject? {
get { return SomeType.association[self] }
set { SomeType.association[self] = newValue }
}
}
As for the solution:
extension CALayer {
private static let initialPathAssociation = ObjectAssociation<CGPath>()
private static let shapeLayerAssociation = ObjectAssociation<CAShapeLayer>()
var initialPath: CGPath! {
get { return CALayer.initialPathAssociation[self] }
set { CALayer.initialPathAssociation[self] = newValue }
}
var shapeLayer: CAShapeLayer? {
get { return CALayer.shapeLayerAssociation[self] }
set { CALayer.shapeLayerAssociation[self] = newValue }
}
}
So I think I found a method that works cleaner than the ones above because it doesn't require any global variables. I got it from here:
http://nshipster.com/swift-objc-runtime/
The gist is that you use a struct like so:
extension UIViewController {
private struct AssociatedKeys {
static var DescriptiveName = "nsh_DescriptiveName"
}
var descriptiveName: String? {
get {
return objc_getAssociatedObject(self, &AssociatedKeys.DescriptiveName) as? String
}
set {
if let newValue = newValue {
objc_setAssociatedObject(
self,
&AssociatedKeys.DescriptiveName,
newValue as NSString?,
UInt(OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC)
)
}
}
}
}
UPDATE for Swift 2
private struct AssociatedKeys {
static var displayed = "displayed"
}
//this lets us check to see if the item is supposed to be displayed or not
var displayed : Bool {
get {
guard let number = objc_getAssociatedObject(self, &AssociatedKeys.displayed) as? NSNumber else {
return true
}
return number.boolValue
}
set(value) {
objc_setAssociatedObject(self,&AssociatedKeys.displayed,NSNumber(bool: value),objc_AssociationPolicy.OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC)
}
}
The solution pointed out by jou doesn't support value types,
this works fine with them as well
Wrappers
import ObjectiveC
final class Lifted<T> {
let value: T
init(_ x: T) {
value = x
}
}
private func lift<T>(x: T) -> Lifted<T> {
return Lifted(x)
}
func setAssociatedObject<T>(object: AnyObject, value: T, associativeKey: UnsafePointer<Void>, policy: objc_AssociationPolicy) {
if let v: AnyObject = value as? AnyObject {
objc_setAssociatedObject(object, associativeKey, v, policy)
}
else {
objc_setAssociatedObject(object, associativeKey, lift(value), policy)
}
}
func getAssociatedObject<T>(object: AnyObject, associativeKey: UnsafePointer<Void>) -> T? {
if let v = objc_getAssociatedObject(object, associativeKey) as? T {
return v
}
else if let v = objc_getAssociatedObject(object, associativeKey) as? Lifted<T> {
return v.value
}
else {
return nil
}
}
A possible
Class extension (Example of usage):
extension UIView {
private struct AssociatedKey {
static var viewExtension = "viewExtension"
}
var referenceTransform: CGAffineTransform? {
get {
return getAssociatedObject(self, associativeKey: &AssociatedKey.viewExtension)
}
set {
if let value = newValue {
setAssociatedObject(self, value: value, associativeKey: &AssociatedKey.viewExtension, policy: objc_AssociationPolicy.OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC)
}
}
}
}
This is really such a great solution, I wanted to add another usage example that included structs and values that are not optionals. Also, the AssociatedKey values can be simplified.
struct Crate {
var name: String
}
class Box {
var name: String
init(name: String) {
self.name = name
}
}
extension UIViewController {
private struct AssociatedKey {
static var displayed: UInt8 = 0
static var box: UInt8 = 0
static var crate: UInt8 = 0
}
var displayed: Bool? {
get {
return getAssociatedObject(self, associativeKey: &AssociatedKey.displayed)
}
set {
if let value = newValue {
setAssociatedObject(self, value: value, associativeKey: &AssociatedKey.displayed, policy: objc_AssociationPolicy.OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC)
}
}
}
var box: Box {
get {
if let result:Box = getAssociatedObject(self, associativeKey: &AssociatedKey.box) {
return result
} else {
let result = Box(name: "")
self.box = result
return result
}
}
set {
setAssociatedObject(self, value: newValue, associativeKey: &AssociatedKey.box, policy: objc_AssociationPolicy.OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC)
}
}
var crate: Crate {
get {
if let result:Crate = getAssociatedObject(self, associativeKey: &AssociatedKey.crate) {
return result
} else {
let result = Crate(name: "")
self.crate = result
return result
}
}
set {
setAssociatedObject(self, value: newValue, associativeKey: &AssociatedKey.crate, policy: objc_AssociationPolicy.OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC)
}
}
}
You can't define categories (Swift extensions) with new storage; any additional properties must be computed rather than stored. The syntax works for Objective C because #property in a category essentially means "I'll provide the getter and setter". In Swift, you'll need to define these yourself to get a computed property; something like:
extension String {
public var Foo : String {
get
{
return "Foo"
}
set
{
// What do you want to do here?
}
}
}
Should work fine. Remember, you can't store new values in the setter, only work with the existing available class state.
My $0.02. This code is written in Swift 2.0
extension CALayer {
private struct AssociatedKeys {
static var shapeLayer:CAShapeLayer?
}
var shapeLayer: CAShapeLayer? {
get {
return objc_getAssociatedObject(self, &AssociatedKeys.shapeLayer) as? CAShapeLayer
}
set {
if let newValue = newValue {
objc_setAssociatedObject(self, &AssociatedKeys.shapeLayer, newValue as CAShapeLayer?, objc_AssociationPolicy.OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC)
}
}
}
}
I have tried many solutions, and found this is the only way to actually extend a class with extra variable parameters.
Why relying on objc runtime? I don't get the point. By using something like the following you will achieve almost the identical behaviour of a stored property, by using only a pure Swift approach:
extension UIViewController {
private static var _myComputedProperty = [String:Bool]()
var myComputedProperty:Bool {
get {
let tmpAddress = String(format: "%p", unsafeBitCast(self, to: Int.self))
return UIViewController._myComputedProperty[tmpAddress] ?? false
}
set(newValue) {
let tmpAddress = String(format: "%p", unsafeBitCast(self, to: Int.self))
UIViewController._myComputedProperty[tmpAddress] = newValue
}
}
}
I prefer doing code in pure Swift and not rely on Objective-C heritage. Because of this I wrote pure Swift solution with two advantages and two disadvantages.
Advantages:
Pure Swift code
Works on classes and completions or more specifically on Any object
Disadvantages:
Code should call method willDeinit() to release objects linked to specific class instance to avoid memory leaks
You cannot make extension directly to UIView for this exact example because var frame is extension to UIView, not part of class.
EDIT:
import UIKit
var extensionPropertyStorage: [NSObject: [String: Any]] = [:]
var didSetFrame_ = "didSetFrame"
extension UILabel {
override public var frame: CGRect {
get {
return didSetFrame ?? CGRectNull
}
set {
didSetFrame = newValue
}
}
var didSetFrame: CGRect? {
get {
return extensionPropertyStorage[self]?[didSetFrame_] as? CGRect
}
set {
var selfDictionary = extensionPropertyStorage[self] ?? [String: Any]()
selfDictionary[didSetFrame_] = newValue
extensionPropertyStorage[self] = selfDictionary
}
}
func willDeinit() {
extensionPropertyStorage[self] = nil
}
}
With Obj-c Categories you can only add methods, not instance variables.
In you example you have used #property as a shortcut to adding getter and setter method declarations. You still need to implement those methods.
Similarly in Swift you can add use extensions to add instance methods, computed properties etc. but not stored properties.
Notice: after further analyzing, the code below works fine, but does not release the view object, so if I can find a way around it I'll edit the answer. meanwhile, read the comments.
How about storing static map to class that is extending like this :
extension UIView {
struct Holder {
static var _padding:[UIView:UIEdgeInsets] = [:]
}
var padding : UIEdgeInsets {
get{ return UIView.Holder._padding[self] ?? .zero}
set { UIView.Holder._padding[self] = newValue }
}
}
I also get an EXC_BAD_ACCESS problem.The value in objc_getAssociatedObject() and objc_setAssociatedObject() should be an Object. And the objc_AssociationPolicy should match the Object.
I tried using objc_setAssociatedObject as mentioned in a few of the answers here, but after failing with it a few times I stepped back and realized there is no reason I need that. Borrowing from a few of the ideas here, I came up with this code which simply stores an array of whatever my extra data is (MyClass in this example) indexed by the object I want to associate it with:
class MyClass {
var a = 1
init(a: Int)
{
self.a = a
}
}
extension UIView
{
static var extraData = [UIView: MyClass]()
var myClassData: MyClass? {
get {
return UIView.extraData[self]
}
set(value) {
UIView.extraData[self] = value
}
}
}
// Test Code: (Ran in a Swift Playground)
var view1 = UIView()
var view2 = UIView()
view1.myClassData = MyClass(a: 1)
view2.myClassData = MyClass(a: 2)
print(view1.myClassData?.a)
print(view2.myClassData?.a)
Here is simplified and more expressive solution. It works for both value and reference types. The approach of lifting is taken from #HepaKKes answer.
Association code:
import ObjectiveC
final class Lifted<T> {
let value: T
init(_ x: T) {
value = x
}
}
private func lift<T>(_ x: T) -> Lifted<T> {
return Lifted(x)
}
func associated<T>(to base: AnyObject,
key: UnsafePointer<UInt8>,
policy: objc_AssociationPolicy = .OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN,
initialiser: () -> T) -> T {
if let v = objc_getAssociatedObject(base, key) as? T {
return v
}
if let v = objc_getAssociatedObject(base, key) as? Lifted<T> {
return v.value
}
let lifted = Lifted(initialiser())
objc_setAssociatedObject(base, key, lifted, policy)
return lifted.value
}
func associate<T>(to base: AnyObject, key: UnsafePointer<UInt8>, value: T, policy: objc_AssociationPolicy = .OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN) {
if let v: AnyObject = value as AnyObject? {
objc_setAssociatedObject(base, key, v, policy)
}
else {
objc_setAssociatedObject(base, key, lift(value), policy)
}
}
Example of usage:
1) Create extension and associate properties to it. Let's use both value and reference type properties.
extension UIButton {
struct Keys {
static fileprivate var color: UInt8 = 0
static fileprivate var index: UInt8 = 0
}
var color: UIColor {
get {
return associated(to: self, key: &Keys.color) { .green }
}
set {
associate(to: self, key: &Keys.color, value: newValue)
}
}
var index: Int {
get {
return associated(to: self, key: &Keys.index) { -1 }
}
set {
associate(to: self, key: &Keys.index, value: newValue)
}
}
}
2) Now you can use just as regular properties:
let button = UIButton()
print(button.color) // UIExtendedSRGBColorSpace 0 1 0 1 == green
button.color = .black
print(button.color) // UIExtendedGrayColorSpace 0 1 == black
print(button.index) // -1
button.index = 3
print(button.index) // 3
More details:
Lifting is needed for wrapping value types.
Default associated object behavior is retain. If you want to learn more about associated objects, I'd recommend checking this article.
if you are looking to set a custom string attribute to a UIView, this is how I did it on Swift 4
Create a UIView extension
extension UIView {
func setStringValue(value: String, key: String) {
layer.setValue(value, forKey: key)
}
func stringValueFor(key: String) -> String? {
return layer.value(forKey: key) as? String
}
}
To use this extension
let key = "COLOR"
let redView = UIView()
// To set
redView.setStringAttribute(value: "Red", key: key)
// To read
print(redView.stringValueFor(key: key)) // Optional("Red")
In PURE SWIFT with WEAK reference handling
import Foundation
import UIKit
extension CustomView {
// can make private
static let storedProperties = WeakDictionary<UIView, Properties>()
struct Properties {
var url: String = ""
var status = false
var desc: String { "url: \(url), status: \(status)" }
}
var properties: Properties {
get {
return CustomView.storedProperties.get(forKey: self) ?? Properties()
}
set {
CustomView.storedProperties.set(forKey: self, object: newValue)
}
}
}
var view: CustomView? = CustomView()
print("1 print", view?.properties.desc ?? "nil")
view?.properties.url = "abc"
view?.properties.status = true
print("2 print", view?.properties.desc ?? "nil")
view = nil
WeakDictionary.swift
import Foundation
private class WeakHolder<T: AnyObject>: Hashable {
weak var object: T?
let hash: Int
init(object: T) {
self.object = object
hash = ObjectIdentifier(object).hashValue
}
func hash(into hasher: inout Hasher) {
hasher.combine(hash)
}
static func ==(lhs: WeakHolder, rhs: WeakHolder) -> Bool {
return lhs.hash == rhs.hash
}
}
class WeakDictionary<T1: AnyObject, T2> {
private var dictionary = [WeakHolder<T1>: T2]()
func set(forKey: T1, object: T2?) {
dictionary[WeakHolder(object: forKey)] = object
}
func get(forKey: T1) -> T2? {
let obj = dictionary[WeakHolder(object: forKey)]
return obj
}
func forEach(_ handler: ((key: T1, value: T2)) -> Void) {
dictionary.forEach {
if let object = $0.key.object, let value = dictionary[$0.key] {
handler((object, value))
}
}
}
func clean() {
var removeList = [WeakHolder<T1>]()
dictionary.forEach {
if $0.key.object == nil {
removeList.append($0.key)
}
}
removeList.forEach {
dictionary[$0] = nil
}
}
}
Another example with using Objective-C associated objects and computed properties for Swift 3 and Swift 4
import CoreLocation
extension CLLocation {
private struct AssociatedKeys {
static var originAddress = "originAddress"
static var destinationAddress = "destinationAddress"
}
var originAddress: String? {
get {
return objc_getAssociatedObject(self, &AssociatedKeys.originAddress) as? String
}
set {
if let newValue = newValue {
objc_setAssociatedObject(
self,
&AssociatedKeys.originAddress,
newValue as NSString?,
.OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC
)
}
}
}
var destinationAddress: String? {
get {
return objc_getAssociatedObject(self, &AssociatedKeys.destinationAddress) as? String
}
set {
if let newValue = newValue {
objc_setAssociatedObject(
self,
&AssociatedKeys.destinationAddress,
newValue as NSString?,
.OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC
)
}
}
}
}
First, Associated Objects should be the best right solution for the extended stored properties, because it comes from the Objective-C runtime, this is a great powerful feature that we should use before there are other native features of Swift language.
You should always aware that the associated objects will be released after there are no other objects to retain them, including swift objects, so don't use custom containers to retain the target values which won't be released automatically.
Second, for those additional associated key structure definitions, the core functions just need a UnsafeRawPointer for that, actually there is another best choice for that, #function is a static string which generated when compiling the source code, it also has its own address to use.
So, here is it:
var status: Bool? {
get { objc_getAssociatedObject(self, #function) as? Bool }
set { objc_setAssociatedObject(self, #function, newValue, .OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC)}
}
Build for swift 5.
Last, keep in mind the object type with the association policy.
I tried to store properties by using objc_getAssociatedObject, objc_setAssociatedObject, without any luck. My goal was create extension for UITextField, to validate text input characters length.
Following code works fine for me. Hope this will help someone.
private var _min: Int?
private var _max: Int?
extension UITextField {
#IBInspectable var minLength: Int {
get {
return _min ?? 0
}
set {
_min = newValue
}
}
#IBInspectable var maxLength: Int {
get {
return _max ?? 1000
}
set {
_max = newValue
}
}
func validation() -> (valid: Bool, error: String) {
var valid: Bool = true
var error: String = ""
guard let text = self.text else { return (true, "") }
if text.characters.count < minLength {
valid = false
error = "Textfield should contain at least \(minLength) characters"
}
if text.characters.count > maxLength {
valid = false
error = "Textfield should not contain more then \(maxLength) characters"
}
if (text.characters.count < minLength) && (text.characters.count > maxLength) {
valid = false
error = "Textfield should contain at least \(minLength) characters\n"
error = "Textfield should not contain more then \(maxLength) characters"
}
return (valid, error)
}
}
Why not just do something like this, i see other solutions are way out of the small need.
private var optionalID: String {
UUID().uuidString
}
Here is an alternative that works also
public final class Storage : AnyObject {
var object:Any?
public init(_ object:Any) {
self.object = object
}
}
extension Date {
private static let associationMap = NSMapTable<NSString, AnyObject>()
private struct Keys {
static var Locale:NSString = "locale"
}
public var locale:Locale? {
get {
if let storage = Date.associationMap.object(forKey: Keys.Locale) {
return (storage as! Storage).object as? Locale
}
return nil
}
set {
if newValue != nil {
Date.associationMap.setObject(Storage(newValue), forKey: Keys.Locale)
}
}
}
}
var date = Date()
date.locale = Locale(identifier: "pt_BR")
print( date.locale )
I found this solution more practical
UPDATED for Swift 3
extension UIColor {
static let graySpace = UIColor.init(red: 50/255, green: 50/255, blue: 50/255, alpha: 1.0)
static let redBlood = UIColor.init(red: 102/255, green: 0/255, blue: 0/255, alpha: 1.0)
static let redOrange = UIColor.init(red: 204/255, green: 17/255, blue: 0/255, alpha: 1.0)
func alpha(value : CGFloat) -> UIColor {
var r = CGFloat(0), g = CGFloat(0), b = CGFloat(0), a = CGFloat(0)
self.getRed(&r, green: &g, blue: &b, alpha: &a)
return UIColor(red: r, green: g, blue: b, alpha: value)
}
}
...then in your code
class gameController: UIViewController {
#IBOutlet var game: gameClass!
override func viewDidLoad() {
self.view.backgroundColor = UIColor.graySpace
}
}
This is a relatively common design pattern:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/17015041/743957
It allows you to return a subclass from your init calls.
I'm trying to figure out the best method of achieving the same thing using Swift.
I do know that it is very likely that there is a better method of achieving the same thing with Swift. However, my class is going to be initialized by an existing Obj-C library which I don't have control over. So it does need to work this way and be callable from Obj-C.
Any pointers would be very much appreciated.
I don't believe that this pattern can be directly supported in Swift, because initialisers do not return a value as they do in Objective C - so you do not get an opportunity to return an alternate object instance.
You can use a type method as an object factory - a fairly contrived example is -
class Vehicle
{
var wheels: Int? {
get {
return nil
}
}
class func vehicleFactory(wheels:Int) -> Vehicle
{
var retVal:Vehicle
if (wheels == 4) {
retVal=Car()
}
else if (wheels == 18) {
retVal=Truck()
}
else {
retVal=Vehicle()
}
return retVal
}
}
class Car:Vehicle
{
override var wheels: Int {
get {
return 4
}
}
}
class Truck:Vehicle
{
override var wheels: Int {
get {
return 18
}
}
}
main.swift
let c=Vehicle.vehicleFactory(4) // c is a Car
println(c.wheels) // outputs 4
let t=Vehicle.vehicleFactory(18) // t is a truck
println(t.wheels) // outputs 18
The "swifty" way of creating class clusters would actually be to expose a protocol instead of a base class.
Apparently the compiler forbids static functions on protocols or protocol extensions.
Until e.g. https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/247 (factory initializers) is accepted and implemented, the only way I could find to do this is the following:
import Foundation
protocol Building {
func numberOfFloors() -> Int
}
func createBuilding(numberOfFloors numFloors: Int) -> Building? {
switch numFloors {
case 1...4:
return SmallBuilding(numberOfFloors: numFloors)
case 5...20:
return BigBuilding(numberOfFloors: numFloors)
case 21...200:
return SkyScraper(numberOfFloors: numFloors)
default:
return nil
}
}
private class BaseBuilding: Building {
let numFloors: Int
init(numberOfFloors:Int) {
self.numFloors = numberOfFloors
}
func numberOfFloors() -> Int {
return self.numFloors
}
}
private class SmallBuilding: BaseBuilding {
}
private class BigBuilding: BaseBuilding {
}
private class SkyScraper: BaseBuilding {
}
.
// this sadly does not work as static functions are not allowed on protocols.
//let skyscraper = Building.create(numberOfFloors: 200)
//let bigBuilding = Building.create(numberOfFloors: 15)
//let smallBuilding = Building.create(numberOfFloors: 2)
// Workaround:
let skyscraper = createBuilding(numberOfFloors: 200)
let bigBuilding = createBuilding(numberOfFloors: 15)
let smallBuilding = createBuilding(numberOfFloors: 2)
Since init() doesn't return values like -init does in Objective C, using a factory method seems like the easiest option.
One trick is to mark your initializers as private, like this:
class Person : CustomStringConvertible {
static func person(age: UInt) -> Person {
if age < 18 {
return ChildPerson(age)
}
else {
return AdultPerson(age)
}
}
let age: UInt
var description: String { return "" }
private init(_ age: UInt) {
self.age = age
}
}
extension Person {
class ChildPerson : Person {
let toyCount: UInt
private override init(_ age: UInt) {
self.toyCount = 5
super.init(age)
}
override var description: String {
return "\(self.dynamicType): I'm \(age). I have \(toyCount) toys!"
}
}
class AdultPerson : Person {
let beerCount: UInt
private override init(_ age: UInt) {
self.beerCount = 99
super.init(age)
}
override var description: String {
return "\(self.dynamicType): I'm \(age). I have \(beerCount) beers!"
}
}
}
This results in the following behavior:
Person.person(10) // "ChildPerson: I'm 10. I have 5 toys!"
Person.person(35) // "AdultPerson: I'm 35. I have 99 beers!"
Person(35) // 'Person' cannot be constructed because it has no accessible initializers
Person.ChildPerson(35) // 'Person.ChildPerson' cannot be constructed because it has no accessible initializers
It's not quite as nice as Objective C, since private means all the subclasses need to be implemented in the same source file, and there's that the minor syntax difference Person.person(x) (or Person.create(x) or whatever) instead of simply Person(x), but practically speaking, it works the same.
To be able to instantiate literally as Person(x), you could turn Person into a proxy class which contains a private instance of the actual base class and forwards everything to it. Without message forwarding, this works for simple interfaces with few properties/methods but it gets unwieldy for anything more complex :P
I think actually the Cluster pattern can be implemented in Swift using runtime functions. The main point is to replace the class of your new object with a subclass when initializing. The code below works fine though I think more attention should be paid to subclass' initialization.
class MyClass
{
var name: String?
convenience init(type: Int)
{
self.init()
var subclass: AnyClass?
if type == 1
{
subclass = MySubclass1.self
}
else if type == 2
{
subclass = MySubclass2.self
}
object_setClass(self, subclass)
self.customInit()
}
func customInit()
{
// to be overridden
}
}
class MySubclass1 : MyClass
{
override func customInit()
{
self.name = "instance of MySubclass1"
}
}
class MySubclass2 : MyClass
{
override func customInit()
{
self.name = "instance of MySubclass2"
}
}
let myObject1 = MyClass(type: 1)
let myObject2 = MyClass(type: 2)
println(myObject1.name)
println(myObject2.name)
protocol SomeProtocol {
init(someData: Int)
func doSomething()
}
class SomeClass: SomeProtocol {
var instance: SomeProtocol
init(someData: Int) {
if someData == 0 {
instance = SomeOtherClass()
} else {
instance = SomethingElseClass()
}
}
func doSomething() {
instance.doSomething()
}
}
class SomeOtherClass: SomeProtocol {
func doSomething() {
print("something")
}
}
class SomethingElseClass: SomeProtocol {
func doSomething() {
print("something else")
}
}
Basically you create a protocol that your class cluster inherits from. You then wrap around an instance variable of the same type and choose which implementation to use.
For example, if you were writing an array class that switched between a LinkedList or a raw array then SomeOtherClass and SomethingElseClass might be named LinkedListImplementation or PlainArrayImplementation and you could decide which one to instantiate or switch to based on whatever is more efficient.
There is a way to achieve this. Whether it is good or bad practice is for another discussion.
I have personally used it to allow for extension of a component in plugins without exposing the rest of the code to knowledge of the extensions. This follows the aims of the Factory and AbstractFactory patterns in decoupling code from the details of instantiation and concrete implementation classes.
In the example case the switching is done on a typed constant to which you would add in extensions. This kinda contradicts the above aims a little technically - although not in terms of foreknowledge. But in your case the switch might be anything - the number of wheels for example.
I don’t remember if this approach was available in 2014 - but it is now.
import Foundation
struct InterfaceType {
let impl: Interface.Type
}
class Interface {
let someAttribute: String
convenience init(_ attribute: String, type: InterfaceType = .concrete) {
self.init(impl: type.impl, attribute: attribute)
}
// need to disambiguate here so you aren't calling the above in a loop
init(attribute: String) {
someAttribute = attribute
}
func someMethod() {}
}
protocol _Factory {}
extension Interface: _Factory {}
fileprivate extension _Factory {
// Protocol extension initializer - has the ability to assign to self, unlike class initializers.
init(impl: Interface.Type, attribute: String) {
self = impl.init(attribute: attribute) as! Self;
}
}
Then in a concrete implementation file ...
import Foundation
class Concrete: Interface {
override func someMethod() {
// concrete version of some method
}
}
extension InterfaceType {
static let concrete = InterfaceType(impl: Concrete.self)
}
For this example Concrete is the "factory" supplied default implementation.
I have used this, for example, to abstract the details of how modal dialogs were presented in an app where initially UIAlertController was being used and migrated to a custom presentation. None of the call sites needed changing.
Here is a simplified version that does not determine the implementation class at runtime. You can paste the following into a Playground to verify its operation ...
import Foundation
class Interface {
required init() {}
convenience init(_ discriminator: Int) {
let impl: Interface.Type
switch discriminator {
case 3:
impl = Concrete3.self
case 2:
impl = Concrete2.self
default:
impl = Concrete1.self
}
self.init(impl: impl)
}
func someMethod() {
print(NSStringFromClass(Self.self))
}
}
protocol _Factory {}
extension Interface: _Factory {}
fileprivate extension _Factory {
// Protocol extension initializer - has the ability to assign to self, unlike class initializers.
init(impl: Interface.Type) {
self = impl.init() as! Self;
}
}
class Concrete1: Interface {}
class Concrete2: Interface {}
class Concrete3: Interface {
override func someMethod() {
print("I do what I want")
}
}
Interface(2).someMethod()
Interface(1).someMethod()
Interface(3).someMethod()
Interface(0).someMethod()
Note that Interface must actually be a class - you can't collapse this down to a protocol avoiding the abstract class even if it had no need for member storage. This is because you cant invoke init on a protocol metatype and static member functions cannot be invoked on protocol metatypes. This is too bad as that solution would look a lot cleaner.
We can take advantage of a compiler quirk - self is allowed to be assigned in protocol extensions - https://forums.swift.org/t/assigning-to-self-in-protocol-extensions/4942.
Thus, we can have in place something like this:
/// The sole purpose of this protocol is to allow reassigning `self`
fileprivate protocol ClusterClassProtocol { }
extension ClusterClassProtocol {
init(reassigningSelfTo other: Self) {
self = other
}
}
/// This is the base class, the one that gets circulated in the public space
class ClusterClass: ClusterClassProtocol {
convenience init(_ intVal: Int) {
self.init(reassigningSelfTo: IntChild(intVal))
}
convenience init(_ stringVal: String) {
self.init(reassigningSelfTo: StringChild(stringVal))
}
}
/// Some private subclass part of the same cluster
fileprivate class IntChild: ClusterClass {
init(_ intVal: Int) { }
}
/// Another private subclass, part of the same cluster
fileprivate class StringChild: ClusterClass {
init(_ stringVal: String) { }
}
Now, let's give this a try:
print(ClusterClass(10)) // IntChild
print(ClusterClass("abc")) // StringChild
This works the same as in Objective-C, where some classes (e.g. NSString, NSArray, NSDictionary) return different subclasses based on the values given at initialization time.