Sprite-kit game lifecycle, properties and global variable? - ios

In my sprite-Kit game, my game goes through the various scenes, across which I want certain variables to be available. See the following diagram:
So the title screen loads the main game screen. When the 'wave' is finished (all objective complete or all lives lost), the end scene is presented with some stats. Then if the player has lives left the main game is loaded again, if not the title screen is presented again.
I want the player's score and number of lives left to be available across the main game scene and the end scene; the high score should be kept across all scenes.
I'm using global variables for these, whereas most of my variables are properties defined under the class.
The first time I had to do this (for my score property before I added a high score or multiple lives) I used a score property on every scene and passed it between scenes when I did the presentScene for the next scene, but that seemed clumsy, especially when I had to add more variables.
Is there a best practice for this i.e. should global variables be used/not be used and if not, is there a correct way to handle properties, perhaps controlled by where you initialise them e.g. in init compared to didMoveToView, which determines if they are re-initiialised when the scene is shown again?
EDIT:
Am I doing something 'wrong' when I go from the End Wave Scene back into the Main Game Screen that is causing the main screen to be re-initialised again? Is there a way to preserve it (with all it's properties) so it isn't fully re-initialied but it's didMoveToView is called again?

I know that many people work with generalized rules like "Don't use globals" or "Singletons are evil". These words of wisdom may be applicable at times, however another way of looking at them would be as tools to make you more efficient in getting your game finished.
There are times when globals/singletons are useful. Games and embedded systems play by different rules than conventional applications. These are typically resource constrained "applications" coupled with performance requirements. Globals are more common than you think in each. Singletons are also commonly in use. I've worked on both embedded systems and games and can say that on every project I've worked on, they've employed either globals, singletons, or both.
In practice, I use singletons over globals. Mainly because I don't have to worry about where to shove the global and what header file it belongs in. Note, the basis as to the why will differ from all you Swifties. For me this stuff is done in primarly in C++ with some Obj-C and a smattering here and there of Swift.
The need to manage game lifecycle is independent of SpriteKit. Many of the SpriteKit posts I see on SO have the devs embedding game state into the scene or VC. They are usually faced with some dilemma on how to move state to the next scene. While this approach may be good for what I will call "local state" (ie. state for the current screen, stage, etc), it is not good for global game state. For example, if you transition from a main screen to an option screen then back to main and then in the game, how are you tracking the changes to those options (eg. changing game difficulty)? Yes you certainly can pass around dictionaries, structs, or what have you around. But at some point of time, you are going to discover that having one common and convenient dumping ground for it all is more convenient. This "dumping ground" would be globals/singletons.
Now before ya'll start yelling at me, there is a catch to all this crazy talk of globals and singletons. I'm not saying create alot of globals/singletons. Rather, be controlled aboutwhen/if you employ globals/singletons.
I'm not talking a gazillion if 'em. I'm talking like one (although I usually have a handful in use). Enter our ficticious friend, the GameManager.
Let's walk down a very simple scenario of a space shooter. Say I have multiple screens such as the title screen, main screen, the in game screen, and the end wave screen. There are certain bits of information that are useful to be passed to the different screens. For example high score or even current score. Those may be values that you want to display on various screens/scenes. So where do you store the score? How do I pass the score between them? For example, if the last high score is displayed on all screens, where do I keep that value?
class GameManager : NSObject {
// Overall game state, GameState is probably some enum
var state:GameState
var lastState:GameState
// Sometimes tracking scenes is useful
var currentScene:SKScene?
var nextScene:SKScene? // Sometimes helpful if you need to construct the next scene and it takes a non-trivial amount of time
// These are the globals we need to share to different "parts" of the game
var score: UInt
var highscore: UInt
var lives: Uint
var stage: Uint
var highscores:[Uint] // A list of all the high score for the user. You would probably want HS based on other users too
// Egads a singleton!
static let sharedInstance = GameManager()
}
If this was a global, it would have some global definition of the instance outside any scope. Like:
var theGameManager : GameManager
So if you want to udpate the score, you'd do
theGameManager.score += 100
If it was a singleton updating the score would look something like:
GameManager.sharedInstance.score += 100
Okay the singleton syntax is a little longer, but perhaps a little less cryptic than the global as to where/what this is.
But now here is where you can have a little more power in things. Let's say when you add a score, every multiple of 100000 scores you an extra life. I can now easily leverage the setter and use that setter to also reward the extra life.
For example this:
GameManager.sharedInstance.score += 100 // the magic of the 100000 for extra life happens automagically in the setter
versus something potentially like this:
myScore += 100
// Do logic to find out if we get an extra life.
// Is this done in a method and if so where does this method live?
// Or is it straight up code which will be duplicated?
Code like this which helps manage global game state is all neatly contained within the GameManager. In other words, the GameManager doesn't just maintain values, but it also provides a way of encapsulating functionality around those values.
Hmm, it seems the currentScene is also here? Why would that be? The GameManager would also be an excellent way to manage the changing of the scenes. More likely done through the game state. Maybe something like:
GameManager.sharedInstance.gameState = GameOverState
Behind the scenes, the gameState setter can then do the magic of swapping out scenes.
These are but a few examples of the practical nature of this approach.
Regarding the talk of loading/storing, this is can also be done through the GameManager if desired. Although for myself, I typically treat it independently based on some data within the GameManager. And this brings up another distinction. I would typically encapsulate ideas within the GameManager. For example, I would probably have a Player and that would make GameManager look like this:
class GameManager : NSObject {
// Overall game state, GameState is probably some enum
var state:GameState
var lastState:GameState
// Sometimes tracking scenes is useful
var currentScene:SKScene?
var nextScene:SKScene? // Sometimes helpful if you need to construct the next scene and it takes a non-trivial amount of time
// These are the globals we need to share to different "parts" of the game
// Note player state is done through this object. This way I can pass around only player when needed.
var player: Player
var stage: Uint
var highscores:[Uint] // A list of all the high score for the user. You would probably want HS based on other users too
// Egads a singleton!
static let sharedInstance = GameManager()
}
Wait you say; "But I don't like this global/singleton jazz. Why don't I just pass this object through to everyone that needs it." The answer is "you can". But in practice, you'll start to find this becomes tedious. You also may find that you discover you need the GameManager, but the caller never had the GameManager passed to it. This means now you're reworking a few methods to pass this object through.
Soooo are globals/singletons evil? You can be your own judge for it. Everyone will have there solution of choice. And if it works for you, use it. For me, it's a no brainer. The benefits of using it for consistent ease of use in accessing/managing global game state across your implementation make it an obvious choice.
So I'm adding a little more info here for an already long answer to
try clarify a few things.
My choice of singleton or global would be on usage, platform, and language. It is also dependent upon the game code base as well. It is not meant to be a dumping ground of just any data. If utilized, the contents should be carefully considered and when possible, use other containers for the contents (ie. wrap them in classes). So while my first example had player information dangling out (done to more easily convey the idea), in reality I would have PlayerState contain player data. Note this may not be the player in it's entirety, but perhaps some shared info that needs to live beyond the in-game life of the player.
class PlayerState {
var score:Uint
var highscore:Uint
var lives:Uint
}
// Simplified GameManager
class GameManager {
var state:GameState
var lastState:GameState
var player:PlayerState
// Egads a singleton!
static let sharedInstance = GameManager()
}
Additionally, I would end up passing around the PlayerState instance versus expecting code to always grab it through the global/singleton.
So for example I would do this:
func doSomething(playerState:PlayerState) {
var score = playerState.score
// Blah blah blah
}
verus
func doSomething() {
// Whee I have singleton
var score = GameManager.player.score
// Blah blah blah
}
Effectively what I'm doing is using the singleton as anchor points to access data objects more easily and then if needed, pass it around. In other words, While they are being employed, I also do not want my code riddled with GameManager.sharedInstance.
As mentioned, there are certainly a bunch of cons to this approach. One of which is concurrency. However, I will point out that concurrency still can occur with data even if it is not in a global/singleton.
My point of this addition is that game dev (and coding in general) involves a degree of practicality. Not only are you doing a balancing act with the system resources to present your game, but presumably you're making the game for people to play it. And for that to happen you need to get it done. Everyone wants to make a perfect snowflake, but what is the timecost for that perfection? At the start of the answer I indicated this technique is a tool. Globals/singletons won't be for everyone. At the same time, one should also not just blindly follow design mantras. If it can be an effective tool for you and help you finish your game faster, then its worthwhile doing. There will always be another game to write and you can then decide based on experience what worked and what did not.

General rule of thumb: If you can avoid global variables, do so.
Now every node has a mutable dictionary called userData. This is designed to be used to save data to a node.
Upon creation of your new scene, transfer whatever data you need from the old scene.
let scene = SKScene(fileNamed:....)
scene.userData["highscore"] = self.highscore
view.presentScene(scene)
Now in the new scenes didMove(view:) method, you read from said userData
As 0x141E has pointed out, remember you need to initialize userData, since chances are you have a custom class, you could do this in your init methods, just remember to override all designated inits so that you have access to the convenience methods.
Also, as mentioned in the comments between Whirlwind and myself, SKNode is NSCoding compliant, so when you go and save your information, you can save the SKNode as a whole and userData will go along with it.
This means all you would have to do is write an extension for SKNode to save/load the node, and this avoids having to worry about managing another class.

During the execution of a game many things could happen, a game have a crash, the player close the app, internet stops, a node could be paused from a parent (so it will be skipped when a scene processes actions). For this reason I agree with Simone Pistecchia comments: you could prepare a "storage manager" class to load and save to file your player stats, use NSCoding to declare and initialize them, use a Shared Instance class to handle them across the project. With this way you could load and save your vars when you need and show them also out of the game (to your main menu for a "High Scores" scene for example of wherever you want)

Related

How can I organize my code to optionally provide a backing view for my logic layer?

I'm a bit sceptic wether this belongs to stackoverflow or not, please let me know if I should post to codereview or programmers instead.
I want to write a reusable component for iOS that does something like this:
Accepts a number as an input, let's call it inputNumber
Records audio for 10 seconds or until the user stops recording
During recording shows live metering
After the recording, checks the recording using the provided inputNumber (we don't really care about this part at the moment)
Allows the user to play the recorded audio
Returns a path to the recorded file
Returns YES or NO based on the check of step 4
The GUI is pretty simple, just two buttons (play/pause and record/stop) together with a view for showing the audio metering during recording.
Something like this:
Now, I have implemented all the logic I need in a singleton "manager" class and what I want to do is also provide the GUI. That means that the consumers will not care about enabling/disabling buttons, showing/hiding the meter etc.
I would like for others to be able to keep using this "manager" (and probably it will be refactored to stop being a singleton), but at the same time I would like to give the option to use it as a "drop in" view.
So, this is a question of how can I setup the whole architecture.
Right now my manager has only one method:
typedef void(^CompletionBlock)(BOOL isValid, NSString* filePath, NSError *error);
-(void)evaluateRecordingForInputNumber:(NSNumber *)inputNumber completion:(CompletionBlock)completionBlock;
and this works as I want.
But if I introduce a view, how should my API look? It doesn't seem correct to me to write a custom UIView -init that will take the role of the aforementioned method, since ideally I would like to reuse this view for different model classes (providing the inputNumber) that need to be evaluated.
How can I choose between subclassing NSObject, UIControl or UIView in my case? Is there a nice way to use both my "engine" as a standalone component and also optionally provide a backing view layer?
I think this coupling is largely dependent on how you envision the custom view/manager being used.
Will it be a lot of logic that people can use without the view, and the view is just an optional feature? If so it likely makes sense to subclass NSObject and prove the view as a property of the manager itself. That way people can use your manager class as a standalone, and in UIView's where it's needed they can do something like the following:
[self.view addSubview:myCustomManager.audioView];
On the other hand if the manager class has no value to your user without the UIView itself then I think it makes a lot of sense to subclass UIView, and hide your manager class behind that UIView. One example of a widget that uses this style of implementation is stripe: Stripe iOS Widget. Everything is based off of their 'STPView', like retrieving a charge token:
[self.stripeView createToken:^(STPToken *token, NSError *error) {
if (error) {
// Handle error
// [self handleError:error];
} else {
// Send off token to your server
// [self handleToken:token];
}
}];}
One can imagine a private 'manager' class behind the scenes of the stripeView doing all the work (this method is in addition to their delegate callback).
In your case this might be a fairly good pattern. You can add a property to the custom view for the number to be evaluated, add the view to the hierarchy, and then create a custom delegate that calls back automatically after it processes things; which would take the place of your manager class callback.
The final answer is that it depends a lot on how much of split between business logic and UIView treats this will provide. As long as the code is readable, maintainable, and you have some reasonable pattern to follow I don't think anyone is going to nail you to a cross in iOS land.

Understanding ReactiveCocoa and MVVM in my ReactiveCocoa test project

I've written a very simple ReactiveCocoa test application to try my hand at coding in RAC (rather than just reading about it endlessly). It's on Github, and I wanted to get some specific questions about it answered. I'll link to the code components as I go along.
First, a brief explanation of the application: it's a timer-driven iteration counter that can be paused by the user. (Its purpose is to count how many seconds have elapsed, eliding the ones where the user paused it.) Once a second, a timer increments a variable iff the user hasn't paused the incrementing behaviour.
There are three classes I'm concerned about hearing feedback for:
MPSTicker (.m), which performs "accumulate since initialization unless paused" and provides that result on a signal. It has a public BOOL property to control whether or not accumulation is running.
MPSViewModel (.m), which provides a ViewModel wrapping from MPSTicker to the view controller. It provides read-only strings which show the number of ticks and show the text for the action which, if taken, "pauses" or "resumes" ticks. It also has a read-write BOOL for pausing/unpausing ticks.
MPSViewController (.m), which consumes strings from MPSViewModel by binding a label to the ViewModel's tick string, binding a button's text to the "tick action" string, and mapping a button's press into the ViewModel's paused property.
My questions:
I don't like the BOOL property on MPSTicker for enabling/disabling its accumulation, but I didn't know how to do it more Reactive-ly. (This also runs downstream to the ViewModel and ViewController: how can I run a string through all three of these to control whether or not the ticker is running?)
The ViewModel exposes tickString and tickStateString as very traditional properties, but the ViewController which consumes these immediately maps them back into text on a label and button text with RACObserve. This feels wrong, but I don't know how to expose a signal from the ViewModel that's easy for the ViewController to consume for these two attributes.
The ViewController suffers an indignity when flipping the paused BOOL on the ViewModel. I think this is another downstream effect of #1, "This shouldn't be a BOOL property", but I'm not sure
(Notes: I think I shied away from a signal for the BOOL of paused on MPSTicker because I didn't know how to consume it in the ViewModel to derive two strings (one for the current tick count, and one for the action text), nor how to push UI-driven value changes when the user pushes the "pause" or "resume" button. This is my core concern in questions 1 and 3.)
Some screenshots to help you visualize this gorgeous design:
Ticking:
Paused:
This is such an awesome write-up!
I don't like the BOOL property on MPSTicker for enabling/disabling its accumulation, but I didn't know how to do it more Reactive-ly. (This also runs downstream to the ViewModel and ViewController: how can I run a string through all three of these to control whether or not the ticker is running?)
Broadly, there's nothing wrong or non-Reactive about using properties. KVO-able properties can be thought of as behaviors in the academic FRP sense: they're signals which have a value at all points in their lifetime. In fact, in Objective-C properties can be even better than signals because they preserve type information that we'd otherwise lose by wrapping it in a RACSignal.
So there's nothing wrong with using KVO-able properties if it's the right tool for the job. Just tilt your head, squint a bit, and they look like signals.
Whether something should be a property or RACSignal is more about the semantics you're trying to capture. Do you need the properties (ha!) of a property, or do you care more about the general idea of a value changing over time?
In the specific case of MPSTicker, I'd argue the transitions of accumulateEnabled are really the thing you care about.
So if MPSTicker had a accumulationEnabledSignal property, we'd do something like:
_accumulateSignal = [[[[RACSignal
combineLatest:#[ _tickSignal, self.accumulationEnabledSignal ]]
filter:^(RACTuple *t) {
NSNumber *enabled = t[1];
return enabled.boolValue;
}]
reduceEach:^(NSNumber *tick, NSNumber *enabled) {
return tick;
}]
scanWithStart:#(0) reduce:^id(NSNumber *previous, id next) {
// On each tick, we add one to the previous value of the accumulate signal.
return #(previous.unsignedIntegerValue + 1);
}];
We're combining both the tick and the enabledness, since it's the transitions of both that drive our logic.
(FWIW, RACCommand is similar and uses an enabled signal: https://github.com/ReactiveCocoa/ReactiveCocoa/blob/9503c6ef7f2f327f4db6440ddfbc4ee09b86857f/ReactiveCocoaFramework/ReactiveCocoa/RACCommand.h#L95.)
The ViewModel exposes tickString and tickStateString as very traditional properties, but the ViewController which consumes these immediately maps them back into text on a label and button text with RACObserve. This feels wrong, but I don't know how to expose a signal from the ViewModel that's easy for the ViewController to consume for these two attributes.
I may be missing your point here, but I think what you've described is fine. This goes back to the above point about the relationship between properties and signals.
With RAC and MVVM, a lot of the code is simply threading data through to other parts of the app, transforming it as needed in its particular context. It's about the flow of data through the app. It's boring—almost mechanical—but that's kinda the point. The less we have to re-invent or handle in an ah hoc way, the better.
FWIW, I'd change the implementation slightly:
RAC(self, tickString) = [[[[_ticker
accumulateSignal]
deliverOn:[RACScheduler mainThreadScheduler]]
// Start with 0.
startWith:#(0)]
map:^(NSNumber *tick) {
// Unpack the value and format our string for the UI.
NSUInteger count = tick.unsignedIntegerValue;
return [NSString stringWithFormat:#"%i tick%# since launch", count, (count != 1 ? #"s" : #"")];
}];
That way we're more explicitly defining the relationship of tickString to some transformation of ticker (and we can avoid doing the strong/weak self dance).
The ViewController suffers an indignity when flipping the paused BOOL on the ViewModel. I think this is another downstream effect of #1, "This shouldn't be a BOOL property", but I'm not sure
I'm probably just missing it due to tiredness, but what's the indignity you have in mind here?

Clean JavaFX property listeners and bindings (memory leaks)

I haven't found a simple answer for these two questions:
do I have to remove a listener before deleting the property instance (the listener is not used anywhere else)?
BooleanProperty bool = new SimpleBooleanProperty();
bool.addListener(myListener);
bool.removeListener(myListener); // is it necessary to do this?
bool = null;
do I have to unbind a uni-directional bounded property before deleting the property instance?
BooleanProperty bool = new SimpleBooleanProperty();
bool.bind(otherBool);
bool.unbind(); // is it necessary to do this?
bool = null;
Case 1
Given that myListener "is not used anywhere else" and therefore I assume, a [method-] local variable, the answer is no. In the general case though, the answer is mostly a no but can sometimes be a yes.
As long as myListener is strongly reachable, then it will never become eligible for finalization and it will continue to consume memory. For example, this would be the case if myListener is a "normally" declared static variable (*all "normal" references in Java are strong references*). However, if myListener is a local variable, then the object will not be reachable anymore after the return of the current method call and bool.removeListener(myListener) is a bit meaningless over-engineering. Both the observer and the Observable goes out of scope and will eventually be finalized. A quote from my own blog post about this answer might paint a better picture:
It doesn’t matter if the box know about the cat inside of it, if you
throw the box into the ocean. If the box isn't reachable, nor is the
cat.
Theory
To fully understand the situation here, we have to remind ourselves of the life-cycle of a Java object (source):
An object is strongly reachable if it can be reached by some thread
without traversing any reference objects. A newly-created object is
strongly reachable by the thread that created it. [..] An object is
weakly reachable if it is [not] strongly [..] reachable but can be
reached by traversing a weak reference. When the weak references to a
weakly-reachable object are cleared, the object becomes eligible for
finalization.
In the case of static variables, these will always be accessible as long as the class is loaded, thus reachable. If we didn't want a static reference to be the one that hinder the garbage collector to do his job, then we could declare the variable to use a WeakReference instead. JavaDoc says:
Weak reference objects [..] do not prevent their referents from being
made finalizable, finalized, and then reclaimed. [..] Suppose that the
garbage collector determines at a certain point in time that an object
is weakly reachable. At that time it will atomically clear all weak
references to that object [..]. At the same time it will declare all
of the formerly weakly-reachable objects to be finalizable.
Explicit management
For illustration, let's assume that we write a JavaFX space simulation game. Whenever an Observable planet moves into the view of a spaceship observer, the game engine register the spaceship with the planet. It is quite apparent that whenever the planet goes out of view, the game engine should also remove the spaceship as an observer of the planet by using Observable.removeListener(). Otherwise, as the spaceship continues to fly through space, memory will leak. Eventually, the game cannot handle five billion observed planets and it will crash with an OutOfMemoryError.
Do note that for the vast majority of JavaFX listeners and event handlers, their life-cycle is parallel to that of their Observable so the application developer has nothing to worry about. For example, we might construct a TextField and register with the text field's textProperty a listener that validate user input. As long as the text field sticks around, we want the listener to stick around. Sooner or later, the text field is not used anymore and when he is garbage collected, the validation listener is also garbage collected.
Automatic management
To continue on the space simulation example, assume that our game has limited multiplayer support and all the players need to observe each other. Perhaps each player keep a local score board of kill metrics or perhaps they need to observe broadcasted chat messages. The reason is not the important point here. What would happen when a player quit the game? Clearly, if the listeners are not explicitly managed (removed), then the player who quit will not become eligible for finalization. The other player's will keep a strong reference to the offline player. Explicit removal of the listeners would still be a valid option and probably the most preferred choice for our game, but let's say that it feels a bit obtrusive and we want to find a more slick solution.
We know that the game engine keep strong references to all players online, for as long as they are online. So we want the spaceships to listen for changes or events of each other only for as long as the game engine keep the strong references. If you read the "theory" section, then surely a WeakReference sounds like a solution.
However, just wrapping something in a WeakReference is not the entire solution. It seldom is. It is true that when the last strong reference to the "referent" is set to null or otherwise become unreachable, the referent will be eligible for garbage collection (assuming that the referent cannot be reached using a SoftReference). But the WeakReference is still hanging around. The application developer need to add some plumbing so that the WeakReference itself is removed from the data structure he was put in. If not, then we might have reduced the severity of the memory leak but a memory leak will still be present because dynamically added weak references consume memory too.
Lucky for us, JavaFX added interface WeakListener and class WeakEventHandler as a mechanism for "automatic removal". The constructors of all related classes accept the real listener/handler as provided by client code, but they store the listener/handler using a weak reference.
If you look at the JavaDoc of WeakEventHandler, you'll notice that the class implement EventHandler, so the WeakEventHandler can be used wherever an EventHandler is expected. Likewise, a known implementation of a WeakListener can be used wherever an InvalidationListener or a ChangeListener is expected.
If you look into the source code of WeakEventHandler, you'll notice that the class is basically only a wrapper. When his referent (the real event handler) is garbage collected, the WeakEventHandler "stop working" by not doing anything at all when WeakEventHandler.handle() is called. The WeakEventHandler doesn't know about which object he has been hooked up with, and even if he did, the removal of an event handler is not homogeneous. All known implementing classes of WeakListener has a competitive advantage though. When their callbacks are invoked, they are implicitly or explicitly provided a reference to the Observable they are registered with. So when the referent of a WeakListener is garbage collected, eventually the WeakListener implementation will make sure that the WeakListener itself is removed from the Observable.
If it is isn't already clear, the solution for our space simulation game would be to let the game engine use strong references to all online spaceships. When a spaceship goes online, all other online spaceships are registered with the new player using a weak listener such as WeakInvalidationListener. When a player goes offline, the game engine remove his strong reference to the player and the player will become eligible for garbage collection. The game engine doesn't have to bother about explicit removal of the offline player as a listener of the other players.
Case 2
No. To better understand what I'll say next, please read my case 1 answer first.
BooleanPropertyBase store a strong reference to otherBool. This in itself does not cause otherBool to always be reachable and thus potentially cause a memory leak. When bool becomes unreachable, then so do all its stored references (assuming they are not stored anywhere else).
BooleanPropertyBase also works by adding itself as an Observer of the property you bind it to. However, it does so by wrapping itself in a class that works almost exactly like the WeakListeners described in my case 1 answer. So once you nullify bool, it will be only a matter of time before it is removed from otherBool.
I completely agree with the case 1 answer, but the case 2 is a bit more tricky. The bool.unbind() call is necessary. If ommitted, it does cause a small memory leak.
If you run the following loop, the application will eventually run out of memory.
BooleanProperty p1 = new SimpleBooleanProperty();
while(true) {
BooleanProperty p2 = new SimpleBooleanProperty();
p2.bind(p1)
}
The BooleanPropertyBase, intenally, does not use a real WeakListener (an implementation of the WeakListener interface), it is using a half-baked solution. All the "p2" instances get eventually garbage-collected, but a listener holding an empty WeakReference remains in the memory forever for each "p2". The same holds for all properties, not only BooleanPropertyBase. It's explained here in detail, and they say it is fixed in Java 9.
In most cases, you do not notice this memory leak, because it leaves only a few dozen bytes for every binding that has not been unbound. But in some cases it caused me real trouble. An good example are table cells of a table that gets frequently updated. The cells then re-bind to different properties all the time, and these left-overs in the memory accumulate quickly.

Need some advice on object oriented design for an iOS project

I have a few questions about code design. This might be long. I'll shorten it whereever possible.
Q1) Dependant or Independant?
Creating a class and adding required functionality so as to allow the object to change its own state vs state being changed by a controller (aka viewcontroller)
I find code examples are best when trying to communicate:
Note: I reduced some lines of code. Original code from http://www.techotopia.com/index.php/An_Overview_of_Objective-C_Object_Oriented_Programming.
Anyways if I had to set the Account balance for an account it is suggesting I do this:
#interface BankAccount: NSObject
{
double accountBalance;
long accountNumber;
}
-(double) getAccountBalance;
-(void) setAccountBalance: (double) x;
#end
// Implementation Section Starts Here
#implementation BankAccount
-(void) setAccountBalance: (double) x
{
accountBalance = x;
}
-(double) getAccountBalance
{
return accountBalance;
}
#end
//usage
BankAccount *account1 = [BankAccount alloc] init];
[account1 setAccountBalance: 1500.53];
----HOWEVER I believe I would have wrote it in a controller like this:------
#interface BankAccount: NSObject
{
double accountBalance;
long accountNumber;
}
import "BankAccount.h"
#interface MeViewController : UIViewController
-(void)setAccountBalance:(double)x toAccount:(BankAccount *)tempBankAcc;
#end
#implementation myViewController
-(void) setAccountBalance:(double)x toAccount:(BankAccount *)tempBankAcc
{
tempBankAcc.accountBalance = x;
}
//USAGE
BankAccount *account1 = [BankAccount alloc] init];
[self setAccountBalance(Account1,1500.53)]
#end
because I believe it is Me (meViewController) setting the AccountBalance, not the account itself as an account is just an account.
Is this a very bad idea? I can see with their example that the object can look after itself (independent) meaning changing its own state whereas my approach says that the BankAccount can only be modified through/with the controller (dependant)
???
Q2) What should/should not be in a controller?
I have also read somewhere that code written inside the controller should be only for:
Responding to user interaction & Updating the views
so does this means I should never do the following in the controllers:
READ or WRITE to and from NSUserDefaults. Since its a singleton, I thought it would be easier to write to it regardless of which controller is currently active? bad idea?
I understand that I should save data (includes NSUserDefaults) in applicationDidEnterBackground and in applicationWillTerminate so does that its a bad idea to save elsewhere (eg. in another controller).
Q3) Which design patterns do you most commonly use and which ones do you abuse wrongly?
Singletons:
My understanding is that [UIApplication sharedApplication],[NSNotification defaultCenter] and other singletons are accessible via all controllers, how about NSObject subclasses? or UIView subclasses?
And apparently you can use NSNotification to notify other controllers when the model has been updated.
Can someone tell me an example of when to use and how to use that?
Maybe when you import some data, that has different attributes, than was originally intended, then the observers could be notified of an upgraded data model, is that an example of when you would within your data model notify a controller?
Thats enough questions for now.
Sorry but I had to get them all out of my head:-)
Ben
First things first: don't use this
#interface BankAccount: NSObject
{
double accountBalance;
long accountNumber;
}
-(double) getAccountBalance;
-(void) setAccountBalance: (double) x;
#end
Here, the accountBalance ivar is public, while it should be private.
Instead, use a #property:
#interface BankAccount: NSObject
#property (assign, nonatomic) double accountBalance;
#end
That'll define a setter:
- (void)setAccountBalance:(double)accountBalance { ... }
and a getter:
- (double)accountBalance { ... }
and a private instance variable (ivar) named _accountBalance.
You can then, in your implementation, use:
#synthesize accountBalance;
which will automatically create the setter/getter like this:
- (void)setAccountBalance:(double)accountBalance {
_accountBalance = accountBalance;
}
- (double)accountBalance {
return _accountBalance;
}
Q1
If you take away all the business logic from the object itself, it's nothing more than a shallow container object. Further more, you need to replicate that logic in every controller you use. Business logic goes into business objects.
To your concrete example, the method of the controller does nothing but delegates the call down to the very object itself (infact, calling the same method if you use properties here). So you gained nothing at all. It may be fine to have that method in the controller, if the controller does more than just calling down on the object, maybe update some more data. One of the good hints here is that the controller does not use any of its own instance variables. It could easily be a class method. It's a code smell.
Q2
Basically, you have three choices for accessing NSUserDefaults: application level, view controller level, or view level.
Worst case is view level - a view should work in any context and should be configurable any way you like, and it certainly should not depend on some magic outside things. This would make reusability (not only for other apps, but also within the same app) a pain.
Accessing the defaults on the view controller level is often ok, especially if they take some singleton role. I.e. if you only ever have one playing screen and one setting screen, each of them might easily talk to the defaults. If there's the chance that you may have several instances of the same class differently configured, this gets a pain and bad smelling work arounds to "individualize" those.
This is where you want to place the access of the defaults outside of the view controllers, which is the most elegant and flexible approcach, but sometimes just not necessary.
Reusability may come earlier than expected, i.e. opening up a second text editor window (which might or might not show a different font), a second settings screen (i.e. a popover), a second playing screen for board games, etc.
Q3
I don't think Singletons are bad per se. They do come with a hefty price tag, though. They come convenient at early stages, just like global variables do.
They get very expensive, soon. There's no ownership, everything is shared, no chance to change a single bit without effecting the other users of that object. Reusability for objects depending on singletons is poor, as you always need those singletons as well. I tend to avoid them most of the time. And whenever I had one of them in my code, getting rid of them was a good decision.
As for the notifications: they are really designed for communicating on a system level. They shouldn't be abused for normal application logic and communication. It's a broadcast for system level events. If you use them as a substitute for object communication, this is a sure way to hell. This takes every logic out of the code, and there's no way build up responsible code.
Q1) Model-layer objects, especially ones that will be interacted with and mutated, should be responsible for their own internal representation as well as representing the knowledge of the rules of the interactions. For a bank account, I think both the approaches you present are wrong. The second in particular because it is actually taking even the responsibility of updating the state away from the account. But the first also because it only provides a setBalance method, which doesn't make sense in the real world. Whoever uses that account has to now handle all the logic of transfers, withdrawals, deposits, interest, and so on. Really, a bank account should have the methods deposit withdraw balance and so on, that way it can represent the rules and logic by which these interactions happen. In this case drawing from how this would work in real life can be helpful.
Q2) A lot of this depends on how your app is set up. A simple app's model layer may be just a plist or NSUserDefaults and some NSDictionary instances. In that case you might not want to have a view controller interact with it, but maybe a data controller object. But you can probably get away with having view controllers talk to that kind of model. When things get more complex though, you definitely need to separate concerns, and have controller objects closer to the data model or have more sophisticated models providing the rules of their interactions. Personally I'd avoid having all the view controllers loading NSUserDefaults, you could just make a single data controller class that could handle that and instantiate it as needed.
Q3) I see two questions here. Not sure what you mean by "accessible to all controllers". But NSNotification is incredibly useful when used right. Say you have 3 view controllers, all coordinating a different view of the bank account - one is a ledger, one is a pie chart, one is a budget calculator. When the app makes a request to refresh the bank account's information from the internet, when that request comes back it can notify all three of these view controllers at once and they can refresh their views accordingly. It's really used any time you have more than one object interested in knowing that something happened.
Hope this helps and let me know if you have any questions.
Read Stanford's lecture about MVC. I think you will find many answers there http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs193p/cgi-bin/drupal/node/205

nextLevel Method

How do I make a method that switches levels for me? I'm using cocos2d btw. I'm not talking about the simple replaceScene, I want a method that, when called, will change from say level 10 to level 11. I'm not sure how to achieve this, but my levels are simply named LevelOne, LevelTwo, LevelThree, etc. I thought about doing
-(void)nextLevel:(ccTime)dt {
if (currentLevel += 1) { //CURRENT LEVEL + ONE LEVEL
}
}
but of course, just adding one to currentLevel (an int I have that has the current level the user is at) would just make the number +1.
I don't want a method that detects the level, I want a method that takes currentLevel and goes to the nextLevel.
One nice way would be to store your data in a linked list. Here's a nice article on how to implement one in Core Data. I'm actually using this in my app currently; while the setup is a little complex, the extreme benefit comes with lines of code like this:
IPhoneGameScene *nextScene = [IPhoneGameScene sceneWithPuzzle:[self.puzzle next]];
[[CCDirector sharedDirector] replaceScene:nextScene];
So clean!

Resources