If delegates were designed for one-to-one relationships between objects and NSNotifications were designed for one-to-potentially-many relationships, is there a best practice for one-to-few?
I've seen a lot of custom multicasting delegates in iOS where an object can cast to multiple subscribers (i.e. Swift Language Multicast Delegate), but the implementations are often very involved and seem overkill. One such problem is safely storing an array of weak references (the delegates) (How do I declare an array of weak references in Swift?).
I've seen a lot of recommendations (like this one multiple listeners for delegate iOS) that suggest this is what NotificationCenter was made for. But the idea of broadcasting out into the ether for a one-to-few relationship itself seems overkill.
Is there a best practice for Apple's frameworks and the Swift language? I never see them write about this. Is NotificationCenter a suitable use for a one-to-few relationship where a multicasting delegate would otherwise be needed?
I would not use NotificationCenter because the type of the message and the data between the sender and receiver (observer) becomes lost. Using Notification Center will make your code to rely on Notification object where you need to use the userInfo dictionary of the notification to add the data which makes it harder to understand what exactly keeps the notification (will need to see how exactly the data is populated when the notification is send).
The delegate is a better solution and having more than 1 delegate in a weak list of delegates is ok. I have used such composition in many places where I need to register more then 1 listener to a particular event and works just fine.
You can create the delegates collection once and reuse it very easily across the code. Here is my solution:
class WeakContainer {
private weak var value: AnyObject?
public init(value: AnyObject) {
self.value = value
}
func get() -> AnyObject? {
return self.value
}
}
class DelegatesCollection<T>: Sequence {
private lazy var weakDelegates = [WeakContainer]()
var delegates: [T] {
return self.weakDelegates.map() { $0.get() as! T }
}
var hasDelegates: Bool {
return !self.weakDelegates.isEmpty
}
init() { }
func add(delegate: T) {
var exists = false
for currentDelegate in self.weakDelegates {
if(currentDelegate.get() === (delegate as AnyObject)) {
exists = true
break
}
}
if(!exists) {
self.weakDelegates.append(WeakContainer(value: delegate as AnyObject))
}
}
func remove(delegate: T) {
var i = 0
for currentDelegate in self.weakDelegates {
if(currentDelegate.get() == nil || currentDelegate.get() === (delegate as AnyObject)) {
self.weakDelegates.remove(at: i)
break
}
i += 1
}
}
func makeIterator() -> IndexingIterator<[T]> {
return self.delegates.makeIterator()
}
}
I can speculate that Apple frameworks use only single delegate because it is a business logic what actions to perform when delegate is called. From Apple's point of view it is enough to delegate that some event has happened and to leave the application to decide what to do next so there is no point to support multiple delegates on framework level.
Related
I am trying to use factory pattern in swift, and give is my code
I have two protocols
protocol MyProtocol1{
func callLoginAPI()
}
protocol MyProtocol2{
func callPaymentAPI()
}
I have two structures which conform to these protocols
struct MyManager1: MyProtocol1{
func callLoginAPI()
{
debugPrint("Inisde--MyManager1 and ready to call an Login API")
}
}
struct MyManager2: MyProtocol2{
func callPaymentAPI()
{
debugPrint("Inisde--MyManager2 and ready to call Payment API")
}
}
I want to use the factory pattern to create the instance of Manager by passing the Protocol and returning a concrete object of the struct that conforms to that protocol
Example: ManagerFactory.create(MyProtocol1) --> should give me instance of MyManager1 and doing ManagerFactory.create(MyProtocol2) --> should give me instance of MyManager2
I assume that this may not work as I am asking for a concrete type at runtime, so I ended up doing something like this
protocol IManagerFactory{
func getMyManager1() -> MyProtocol1
func getMyManager2() -> MyProtocol2
}
struct ManagerFactory: IManagerFactory
{
func getMyManager1() -> MyProtocol1 {
return MyManager1()
}
func getMyManager2() -> MyProtocol2 {
return MyManager2()
}
}
But I am curious if what I am trying to do in the example is achievable, I am using swift 4.2.
I have seen other examples but all of them have the same protocol which they conform to like rectangle, square and circle conform to same protocol shape.
In my case, I have two separate protocols which do completely different things so is that even possible what I am trying to do in the example? OR the way I ended up with is the only way to go about it.
Please suggest what is the best possible approach.
First, I'm very suspicious of a "manager" that is a value (a struct) rather than an instance (a class). Do you really mean to be using structs and protocols here at all? Structs have no identity; two structs with the same properties must be completely interchangeable for each other, and things like that don't usually get named "manager."
What you're describing is certainly writeable. It's just kind of useless. Here's how you write it:
struct ManagerFactory {
static func create(_ type: MyProtocol1.Protocol) -> MyProtocol1 {
return MyManager1()
}
static func create(_ type: MyProtocol2.Protocol) -> MyProtocol2 {
return MyManager2()
}
}
let mgr1 = ManagerFactory.create(MyProtocol1.self)
let mgr2 = ManagerFactory.create(MyProtocol2.self)
But this is just an elaborate way to use method overloading to replace names.
What you seem to want is a single method, but what would its return type be? Even in C#, I don't think this is writable without adding nasty downcasts. (This is the point you and paulw11 discuss in the comments.) This isn't a limitation of Swift; it's a fundamental characteristic of types. Even in JavaScript, you'd need to know what you expect to get back or else you won't know what methods you can call on it (it's just you track that expectation in your head and docs rather than in the compiler and code).
You seem to have created a lot of protocols here, and I'm betting they mostly have exactly one implementation. That's bad Swift. Don't create protocols until you have a specific need for one. Don't create attractions for fun. They will burn you very quickly.
If your protocols really look like this, and you really have different implementations of these methods (i.e. don't do this if there is only one implementation of MyProtocol1 "just in case"), what you really want are functions:
struct API {
let login: () -> Void
let payment: () -> Void
}
let myAPI = API(login: myLoginFunction, payment: myPaymentFunction)
This will let you create different APIs if you need them. But again, only if you need this flexibility. If not, just use classes for instances, and structs for values, and avoid protocols until you have at least 2, and better 3, implementations in your program.
Suggest a swifty option:
protocol Manager {
// a generic protocol for all managers
}
protocol BadManager: Manager {
// properties and behaviour of BadManager
mutating func noBonus()
}
protocol GoodManager: Manager {
// properties and behaviour of GoodManager
mutating func bigBonus()
}
protocol ManagerFactory {
associatedtype Manager
mutating func createManager() -> Manager
}
struct gm: GoodManager {
mutating func bigBonus() {
print("tons of cookies & coffee")
}
}
struct bm: BadManager {
mutating func noBonus() {
print("all fired")
}
}
enum ManagerCreator<Manager>: ManagerFactory {
func createManager() -> Manager {
switch self {
case .goodManager:
return gm() as! Manager
case .badManager:
return bm() as! Manager
}
}
case goodManager
case badManager
}
This is a very specific and long question, but I'm not smart enough to figure it out by myself..
I was very intrigued by this YouTube-video from raywenderlich.com, which uses the "boxing" method to observe a value.
Their Box looks like this:
class Box<T> {
typealias Listener = T -> Void
var listener: Listener?
var value: T {
didSet {
listener?(value)
}
init(_ value: T) {
self.value = value
}
func bind(listener: Listener?) {
self.listener = listener
listener?(value)
}
}
It's apparent that only one listener is allowed per "box".
let bindable:Box<String> = Box("Some text")
bindable.bind { (text) in
//This will only be called once (from initial setup)
}
bindable.bind { (text) in
// - because this listener has replaced it. This one will be called when value changes.
}
Whenever a bind like this is set up, the previous binds would be disposed, because Box replaces the listener with the new listener.
I need to be able to observe the same value from different places. I have reworked the Box like this:
class Box<T> {
typealias Listener = (T) -> Void
var listeners:[Listener?] = []
var value:T{
didSet{
listeners.forEach({$0?(value)})
}
}
init(_ value:T){
self.value = value
}
func bind(listener:Listener?){
self.listeners.append(listener)
listener?(value)
}
}
However - this is also giving me trouble, obviously.. There are places where I want the new binding to remove the old binding. For example, if I observe a value in an object from a reusable UITableViewCell, it will be bound several times when scrolling. I now need a controlled way to dispose specific bindings.
I attempted to solve this by adding this function to Box:
func freshBind(listener:Listener?){
self.listeners.removeAll()
self.bind(listener)
}
This worked in a way, I could now use freshBind({}) whenever I wanted to remove the old listeners, but this isn't exactly what I want either. I'd have to use this when observing a value from UITableViewCells, but I also need to observe the same value from elsewhere. As soon as a cell was reused, I removed the old observers as well as the other observers I needed.
I am now confident that I need a way to retain a disposable object wherever I would later want to dispose them.
I'm not smart enough to solve this on my own, so I need help.
I've barely used some of the reactive-programming frameworks out there (like ReactiveCocoa), and I now understand why their subscriptions return Disposable objects which I have to retain and dispose of when I need. I need this functionality.
What I want is this: func bind(listener:Listener?)->Disposable{}
My plan was to create a class named Disposable which contained the (optional) listener, and turn listeners:[Listener?] into listeners:[Disposable], but I ran into problems with <T>..
Cannot convert value of type 'Box<String?>.Disposable' to expected argument type 'Box<Any>.Disposable'
Any smart suggestions?
The way I like to solve this problem is to give each observer a unique identifier (like a UUID) and use that to allow the Disposable to remove the observer when it's time. For example:
import Foundation
// A Disposable holds a `dispose` closure and calls it when it is released
class Disposable {
let dispose: () -> Void
init(_ dispose: #escaping () -> Void) { self.dispose = dispose }
deinit { dispose() }
}
class Box<T> {
typealias Listener = (T) -> Void
// Replace your array with a dictionary mapping
// I also made the Observer method mandatory. I don't believe it makes
// sense for it to be optional. I also made it private.
private var listeners: [UUID: Listener] = [:]
var value: T {
didSet {
listeners.values.forEach { $0(value) }
}
}
init(_ value: T){
self.value = value
}
// Now return a Disposable. You'll get a warning if you fail
// to retain it (and it will immediately be destroyed)
func bind(listener: #escaping Listener) -> Disposable {
// UUID is a nice way to create a unique identifier; that's what it's for
let identifier = UUID()
// Keep track of it
self.listeners[identifier] = listener
listener(value)
// And create a Disposable to clean it up later. The Disposable
// doesn't have to know anything about T.
// Note that Disposable has a strong referene to the Box
// This means the Box can't go away until the last observer has been removed
return Disposable { self.listeners.removeValue(forKey: identifier) }
}
}
let b = Box(10)
var disposer: Disposable? = b.bind(listener: { x in print(x)})
b.value = 5
disposer = nil
b.value = 1
// Prints:
// 10
// 5
// (Doesn't print 1)
This can be nicely expanded to concepts like DisposeBag:
// Nothing but an array of Disposables.
class DisposeBag {
private var disposables: [Disposable] = []
func append(_ disposable: Disposable) { disposables.append(disposable) }
}
extension Disposable {
func disposed(by bag: DisposeBag) {
bag.append(self)
}
}
var disposeBag: DisposeBag? = DisposeBag()
b.bind { x in print("bag: \(x)") }
.disposed(by: disposeBag!)
b.value = 100
disposeBag = nil
b.value = 500
// Prints:
// bag: 1
// bag: 100
// (Doesn't print "bag: 500")
It's nice to build some of these things yourself so you get how they work, but for serious projects this often is not really sufficient. The main problem is that it isn't thread-safe, so if something disposes on a background thread, you may corrupt the entire system. You can of course make it thread-safe, and it's not that difficult.
But then you realize you really want to compose listeners. You want a listener that watches another listener and transforms it. So you build map. And then you realize you want to filter cases where the value was set to its old value, so you build a "only send me distinct values" and then you realize you want filter to help you there, and then....
you realize you're rebuilding RxSwift.
This isn't a reason to avoid writing your own at all, and RxSwift includes a ton of features (probably too many features) that many projects never need, but as you go along you should keep asking yourself "should I just switch to RxSwift now?"
I have a complicated view class,
class Snap:UIViewController, UIScrollViewDelegate
{
}
and the end result is the user can, let's say, pick a color...
protocol SnapProtocol:class
{
func colorPicked(i:Int)
}
class Snap:UIViewController, UIScrollViewDelegate
{
someDelegate.colorPicked(blah)
}
So who's going to handle it.
Let's say that you know for sure there is something up the responder chain, even walking through container views, which is a SnapProtocol. If so you can use this lovely code to call it
var r : UIResponder = self
repeat { r = r.nextResponder()! } while !(r is SnapProtocol)
(r as! SnapProtocol).colorPicked(x)
If you prefer, you can use this superlative extension
public extension UIResponder // walk up responder chain
{
public func next<T>() -> T?
{
guard let responder = self.nextResponder()
else { return nil }
return (responder as? T) ?? responder.next()
}
}
courtesy these guys and safely find any SnapProtocol above you,
(next() as SnapProtocol?)?.colorPicked(x)
That's great.
But. What if the object that wants to get the colorPicked is a knight-move away from you, down some complicated side chain, and/or you don't even know which object wants it.
My current solution is this, I have a singleton "game manager" -like class,
public class .. a singleton
{
// anyone who wants a SnapProtocol:
var useSnap:SnapProtocol! = nil
}
Some freaky class, anywhere, wants to eat SnapProtocol ...
class Dinosaur:NSObject, SnapProtocol
{
....
func colorPicked(index: Int)
{...}
... so, to set that as the desired delegate, use the singleton
thatSingleton.useSnap = dinosaur
Obviously enough, this works fine.
Note too that I could easily write a little system in the singleton, so that any number of users of the protocol could dynamically register/deregister there and get the calls.
But it has obvious problems, it's not very "pattern" and seem violently non-idiomatic.
So. Am I really, doing this the right way in the Swift milieu?
Have I indeed confused myself, and there is some entirely different pattern I should be using in today's iOS, to send out such "messages to anyone who wants them?" ... maybe I shouldn't even be using a protocol?
"Send out messages to anyone who wants them" is pretty much the description of NSNotificationCenter.
True, it's not an API that's designed from the beginning for Swift patterns like closures, strong typing, and protocol-oriented programming. (As noted in other comments/answers, the open source SwiftNotificationCenter is a good alternative if you really want such features.)
However, NSNotificationCenter is robust and battle-hardened — it's the basis for thousands of messages that get sent around between hundreds of objects on each pass through the run loop.
Here's a very concise how-to for using NSNotificationCenter in Swift:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/24756761/294884
There is no "protocol based" notification mechanism in the Swift standard
libraries or runtime. A nice implementation can be found here https://github.com/100mango/SwiftNotificationCenter. From the README:
A Protocol-Oriented NotificationCenter which is type safe, thread safe
and with memory safety.
Type Safe
No more userInfo dictionary and Downcasting, just deliver the concrete
type value to the observer.
Thread Safe
You can register, notify, unregister in any thread without crash and
data corruption.
Memory Safety
SwiftNotificationCenter store the observer as a zeroing-weak
reference. No crash and no need to unregister manually.
It's simple, safe, lightweight and easy to use for one-to-many
communication.
Using SwiftNotificationCenter, a (instance of a) conforming class could register itself for example like this:
class MyObserver: SnapProtocol {
func colorPicked(i: Int) {
print("color picked:", i)
}
init() {
NotificationCenter.register(SnapProtocol.self, observer: self)
}
}
and a broadcast notification to all conforming registered observers is
done as
NotificationCenter.notify(SnapProtocol.self) {
$0.colorPicked(x)
}
TDLR; I have three classes, when Class A object is updated, it's calling on its delegate (Class B) which is calling on its delegate (Class C) without doing anything else. Class C will use Class B in different ways depending on the values in Class A. Class B need to know of its Class A at touch events. Is this acceptable?
classA { var information: String }
classB { var thing: ClassA thing.delegate = self }
classC { var things: [ClassB] for thing in things { thing.delegate = self } }
My real example
I have three classes: A mapViewController, a mapMarker and a place (model). The map holds multiple mapMarkers, and every mapMarker has a property place, which contains information of what the marker should look like (like place type, "bar", "restaurant" etc). The place might receive new information via a silent push notification, and hence being updated. When the place is updated, I need to notify the mapViewController that the marker needs to be redrawn (I'm using MapBox and their annotations doesn't support redrawing in any way but removing and adding the marker again, since the imageForAnnotation method is a delegate one.)
My first thought was to make two protocols placeDelegate and mapMarkerDelegate.
Place:
protocol PlaceDelegate: class
{
func placeUpdated()
}
class Place {
weak var delegate: PlaceDelegate?
var propertyThatCanBeUpdate: String {
didSet {
//Checking if the newValue == oldValue
delegate.placeUpdated()
}
}
MapMarker
protocol MapMarkerDelegate: class
{
markerShouldReDraw(mapMarker: MapMarker)
}
class MapMarker: PlaceDelegate {
var place: Place!
weak var delegate: MapMarkerDelegate?
init(place: Place) {
self.place = place
place.delegate = place
}
func placeUpdate()
{
delegate.markerShouldReDraw(self)
}
}
MapViewController
class MapViewController {
//I could easily set the marker.delegate = self when adding the markers
func markerShouldReDraw(mapMarker: MapMarker)
functionForRedrawingMarker()
}
This feels a bit ugly, and a bit weird that the MapMarker is just passing the "my place has been updated" information forward. Is this acceptable as far as performance goes? Should I use some kind of NSNotification instead? Should I make the MapViewController the delegate of place and search my array of mapMarker for the one holding the correct place?
A WWDC 2015 session video describes the idea of Protocol-Oriented Programming, and I want to adopt this technique in my future apps. I've been playing around with Swift 2.0 for the last couple of days in order to understand this new approach, and am stuck at trying to make it work with the Delegate Pattern.
I have two protocols that define the basic structure of the interesting part of my project (the example code is nonsense but describes the problem):
1) A delegation protocol that makes accessible some information, similar to UITableViewController's dataSource protocol:
protocol ValueProvider {
var value: Int { get }
}
2) An interface protocol of the entity that does something with the information from above (here's where the idea of a "Protocol-First" approach comes into play):
protocol DataProcessor {
var provider: ValueProvider { get }
func process() -> Int
}
Regarding the actual implementation of the data processor, I can now choose between enums, structs, and classes. There are several different abstraction levels of how I want to process the information, therefore classes appear to fit best (however I don't want to make this an ultimate decision, as it might change in future use cases). I can define a base processor class, on top of which I can build several case-specific processors (not possible with structs and enums):
class BaseDataProcessor: DataProcessor {
let provider: ValueProvider
init(provider: ValueProvider) {
self.provider = provider
}
func process() -> Int {
return provider.value + 100
}
}
class SpecificDataProcessor: BaseDataProcessor {
override func process() -> Int {
return super.process() + 200
}
}
Up to here everything works like a charm. However, in reality the specific data processors are tightly bound to the values that are processed (as opposed to the base processor, for which this is not true), such that I want to integrate the ValueProvider directly into the subclass (for comparison: often, UITableViewControllers are their own dataSource and delegate).
First I thought of adding a protocol extension with a default implementation:
extension DataProcessor where Self: ValueProvider {
var provider: ValueProvider { return self }
}
This would probably work if I did not have the BaseDataProcessor class that I don't want to make value-bound. However, subclasses that inherit from BaseDataProcessor and adopt ValueProvider seem to override that implementation internally, so this is not an option.
I continued experimenting and ended up with this:
class BaseDataProcessor: DataProcessor {
// Yes, that's ugly, but I need this 'var' construct so I can override it later
private var _provider: ValueProvider!
var provider: ValueProvider { return _provider }
func process() -> Int {
return provider.value + 10
}
}
class SpecificDataProcessor: BaseDataProcessor, ValueProvider {
let value = 1234
override var provider: ValueProvider { return self }
override func process() -> Int {
return super.process() + 100
}
}
Which compiles and at first glance appears to do what I want. However, this is not a solution as it produces a reference cycle, which can be seen in a Swift playground:
weak var p: SpecificDataProcessor!
autoreleasepool {
p = SpecificDataProcessor()
p.process()
}
p // <-- not nil, hence reference cycle!
Another option might be to add class constraints to the protocol definitions. However, this would break the POP approach as I understand it.
Concluding, I think my question boils down to the following: How do you make Protocol Oriented Programming and the Delegate Pattern work together without restricting yourself to class constraints during protocol design?
It turns out that using autoreleasepool in Playgrounds is not suited to proof reference cycles. In fact, there is no reference cycle in the code, as can be seen when the code is run as a CommandLine app. The question still stands whether this is the best approach. It works but looks slightly hacky.
Also, I'm not too happy with the initialization of BaseDataProcessors and SpecificDataProcessors. BaseDataProcessors should not know any implementation detail of the sub classes w.r.t. valueProvider, and subclasses should be discreet about themselves being the valueProvider.
For now, I have solved the initialization problem as follows:
class BaseDataProcessor: DataProcessor {
private var provider_: ValueProvider! // Not great but necessary for the 'var' construct
var provider: ValueProvider { return provider_ }
init(provider: ValueProvider!) {
provider_ = provider
}
func process() -> Int {
return provider.value + 10
}
}
class SpecificDataProcessor: BaseDataProcessor, ValueProvider {
override var provider: ValueProvider { return self } // provider_ is not needed any longer
// Hide the init method that takes a ValueProvider
private init(_: ValueProvider!) {
super.init(provider: nil)
}
// Provide a clean init method
init() {
super.init(provider: nil)
// I cannot set provider_ = self, because provider_ is strong. Can't make it weak either
// because in BaseDataProcessor it's not clear whether it is of reference or value type
}
let value = 1234
}
If you have a better idea, please let me know :)