I've defined a global struct with static properties with values I use in many of my view controllers, like this:
public struct AppGlobal {
static var currentUser = UserModel()
static let someManager = SomeManager()
// Prevent others from initializing
private init() { }
}
Then in my UIViewController, I can do something like this:
class MyController: UIViewController {
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
AppGlobal.currentUser.prop1 = "abc123"
AppGlobal.someManager.startUpdating()
}
}
This is obviously very convenient, but smells really bad. I believe dependency injection would come in handy here, but not sure how. Is there a more elegant alternative to creating the AppGlobal singleton properties?
I can't see why you need to access userModel or someManager through a global state (and yes — Singletons are just that).
Why not just set it where you need it?
"Dependency Injection" is a 25-dollar term for a 5-cent concept.
That's not to say that it's a bad term…
[…]
Dependency injection means
giving an object its instance variables. Really. That's it.
– James Shore: Dependency Injection Demystified
Either do it during constructing
class C {
let currentUser: UserModel
let someManager: SomeManager
init(currentUser:UserModel, someManger:SomeManager) {
self.currentUser = currentUser
self.someManager = someManager
}
}
or through properties. If you need to make sure that all properties are set, do something like this:
class MyController: UIViewController {
var currentUser: UserModel? {
didSet{
self.configureIfPossible()
}
}
var someManager: SomeManager?{
didSet{
self.configureIfPossible()
}
}
func configureIfPossible(){
if let currentUser = self.currentUser, someManager = self.someManager {
// configure
}
}
}
In my current project we have the policy that every dependency must be visible and configurable from outside the class.
An example:
class LibrarySegmentViewController: BaseContentViewController {
var userDefaults: NSUserDefaults?
var previousSorting : LibrarySortingOrder = .AZ
var sorting : LibrarySortingOrder {
set{
self.previousSorting = sorting
if let filterMode = self.filterMode {
self.userDefaults?.setInteger(newValue.rawValue, forKey: "\(filterMode)_LibrarySorting")
}
self.setupIfReady()
}
get{
if let filterMode = self.filterMode {
if let s = LibrarySortingOrder(rawValue: self.userDefaults!.integerForKey("\(filterMode)_LibrarySorting")) {
return s
}
}
return .Date
}
}
}
So as you can see, we even use properties to reference NSUserDefaults.standardUserDefaults(). We do this as we can pass in fresh instances during testing, without bigger mocking hassle.
And this is the most importing reason why not to use singletons directly: The dependencies are hidden and might bite you during testing and refactoring. Another example would be an API client singleton that is hidden in the code and performs unwanted networking requests during testing. If it is set from outside of the tested class you can just pass in a mocked networking client that does not perform any requests but returns test data.
So even if you use singletons, you should pass it in as a dependencies.
If this question is about global or not, you should see this thread :
What is so bad about singletons?
But if you want a better design for your implementation of a singleton you can try something like this :
class SingletonExample: NSObject {
static let sharedInstance: SingletonExample()
}
class OtherSingletonExample: NSObject {
static let sharedInstance: OtherSingletonExample()
}
Then you can use SingletonExample.sharedInstance and OtherSingletonExample.sharedInstance anywhere in your code.
The idea is to isolate one singleton from another and access it as a class attribute instead of creating a big global struct for anything.
Related
I'm trying to create a way to build compassable objects in Swift. I feel like I'm almost there with what I have but it's still not 100% correct.
What I'm aiming for is to have a FlowController object that can create our UIViewControllers and then give them any of the dependencies that they need.
What I'd also like to do is make this work as loosely as possible.
I have a small example here that works but is not ideal. I'll explain...
Here are two objects that can be used as components... Wallet and User.
class Wallet {
func topUp(amount: Int) {
print("Top up wallet with £\(amount)")
}
}
class User {
func sayHello() {
Print("Hello, world!")
}
}
We then define a Component enum that has cases for each of these...
enum Component {
case Wallet
case User
}
... And a protocol that defines a method requiresComponents that returns an array of Components.
This is where the problem arises. In order for the "factory object" to put the components into a Composable object we need to define the user and wallet properties in the protocol also.
protocol Composable {
var user: User? {get set}
var wallet: Wallet? {get set}
func requiresComponents() -> [Component]
}
In an attempt to make these properties "optional" (not Optional) I have defined an extension to the Composable protocol that defines these vars as nil.
extension Composable {
var user: User? {
get {return nil}
set {}
}
var wallet: Wallet? {
get {return nil}
set {}
}
}
Now I declare the class that I want to make Composable. As you can see it requires the User component and declares the variable.
class SomeComposableClass: Composable {
var user: User?
func requiresComponents() -> [Component] {
return [.User]
}
}
Now the FlowController that will create these and add the components to them. You can see here that I have had to take the object, create a local var version of it and then return the updated object. I think this is because it doesn't know the type of objects that will be conforming to the protocol so the parameter can't be mutated.
class FlowController {
func addComponents<T: Composable>(toComposableObject object: T) -> T {
var localObject = object
for component in object.requiresComponents() {
switch component {
case .Wallet:
localObject.wallet = Wallet()
print("Wallet")
case .User:
localObject.user = User()
print("User")
}
}
return localObject
}
}
Here I create the objects.
let flowController = FlowController()
let composable = SomeComposableClass()
And here I add the components. In production this would be done all inside the FlowController.
flowController.addComponents(toComposableObject: composable) // prints "User" when adding the user component
compassable.user?.sayHello() // prints "Hello, world!"
As you can see, it works here. The user object is added.
However, as you can also see. Because I have declared the vars in the protocol the composable object also has a reference to a wallet component (although it will always be nil).
composable.wallet // nil
I feel like I'm about 95% of the way there with this but what I'd like to be able to do is improve how the properties are declared. What I'd like is for that last line... composable.wallet to be a compile error.
I could do this by moving the declaration of the properties out of the protocol but then I have the problem of not being able to add the properties to any object that conforms to the Composable protocol.
What would be awesome is for the factory object to be able to add the properties without relying on the declaration. Or even have some sort of guard that says "if this object has a property call user then add the user component to it". Or something like that.
If anyone knows how I could get the other 5% of this working it would be awesome. Like I said, this works, just not in an ideal way.
Thanks :D
Hacky Edit
Hmm... As a quick tacky, horrible, "no-one-should-do-this" edit. I have changed my protocol extension to be like this...
extension Composable {
var user: User? {
get {fatalError("Access user")}
set {fatalError("Set user")}
}
var wallet: Wallet? {
get {fatalError("Access wallet")}
set {fatalError("Set waller")}
}
}
Now at least the program will crash if I try to access a variable I have not defined. But it's still not ideal.
Edit after reading Daniel's blog
OK, I think I've done what I wanted. Just not sure that it's exactly Swifty. Although, I also think it might be. Looking for a second opinion :)
So, my components and protocols have become this...
// these are unchanged
class Wallet {
func topUp(amount: Int) {
print("Top up wallet with £\(amount)")
}
}
// each component gets a protocol
protocol WalletComposing {
var wallet: Wallet? {get set}
}
class User {
func sayHello() {
print("Hello, world!")
}
}
protocol UserComposing {
var user: User? {get set}
}
Now the factory method has changed...
// this is the bit I'm unsure about.
// I now have to check for conformance to each protocol
// and add the components accordingly.
// does this look OK?
func addComponents(toComposableObject object: AnyObject) {
if var localObject = object as? UserComposing {
localObject.user = User()
print("User")
}
if var localObject = object as? WalletComposing {
localObject.wallet = Wallet()
print("Wallet")
}
}
This allows me to do this...
class SomeComposableClass: UserComposing {
var user: User?
}
class OtherClass: UserComposing, WalletComposing {
var user: User?
var wallet: Wallet?
}
let flowController = FlowController()
let composable = SomeComposableClass()
flowController.addComponents(toComposableObject: composable)
composable.user?.sayHello()
composable.wallet?.topUp(amount: 20) // this is now a compile time error which is what I wanted :D
let other = OtherClass()
flowController.addComponents(toComposableObject: other)
other.user?.sayHello()
other.wallet?.topUp(amount: 10)
This seems like a good case for applying the Interface Segregation Principle
Specifically, rather than having a master Composable protocol, have many smaller protocols like UserComposing and WalletComposing. Then your concrete types that wish to compose those various traits, would just list their "requiredComponents" as protocols they conform to, i.e:
class FlowController : UserComposing, WalletComposing
I actually wrote a blog post that talks about this more extensively and gives more detailed examples at http://www.danielhall.io/a-swift-y-approach-to-dependency-injection
UPDATE:
Looking at the updated question and sample code, I would only suggest the following refinement:
Going back to your original design, it might make sense to define a base Composing protocol that requires any conforming class to create storage for composed traits as a dictionary. Something like this:
protocol Composing : class {
var traitDictionary:[String:Any] { get, set }
}
Then, use protocol extensions to add the actual composable trait as a computed property, which reduces the boilerplate of having to create those properties in every conforming class. This way any class can conform to any number of trait protocols without having to declare a specific var for each. Here's a more complete example implementation:
class FlowController {
static func userFor(instance:UserComposing) -> User {
return User()
}
static func walletFor(instance:WalletComposing) -> Wallet {
return Wallet()
}
}
protocol Composing : class {
var traitDictionary:[String:Any] { get, set }
}
protocol UserComposing : Composing {}
extension UserComposing {
var user:User {
get {
if let user = traitDictionary["user"] as? User {
return user
}
else {
let user = FlowController.userFor(self)
traitDictionary["user"] = user
return user
}
}
}
}
protocol WalletComposing {}
extension WalletComposing {
var wallet:Wallet {
get {
if let wallet = traitDictionary["wallet"] as? Wallet {
return wallet
}
else {
let wallet = FlowController.walletFor(self)
traitDictionary["wallet"] = wallet
return wallet
}
}
}
}
class AbstractComposing {
var traitDictionary = [String:Any]()
}
Not only does this get rid of those pesky optionals you have to unwrap everywhere, but it makes the injection of user and wallet implicit and automatic. That means that your classes will already have the right values for those traits even inside their own initializers, no need to explicitly pass each new instance to an instance of FlowController every time.
For example, your last code snippet would now become simply:
class SomeComposableClass: AbstractComposing, UserComposing {} // no need to declare var anymore
class OtherClass: AbstractComposing, UserComposing, WalletComposing {} //no vars here either!
let composable = SomeComposableClass() // No need to instantiate FlowController and pass in this instance
composable.user.sayHello() // No unwrapping the optional, this is guaranteed
composable.wallet.topUp(amount: 20) // this is still a compile time error which is what you wanted :D
let other = OtherClass() // No need to instantiate FlowController and pass in this instance
other.user.sayHello()
other.wallet.topUp(amount: 10) // It all "just works" ;)
I learned from Using Swift with Cocoa and Objective-C that a singleton can be created like this:
class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance = Singleton()
}
But as I learned, we should also prevent an instance created from the constructor. Creating an instance of the class Singleton outside the class scope, like the statement below, should be prevented:
let inst = Singleton()
So, could I do just like this:
class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance = Singleton()
private init() {}
}
Or, is there any better practice?
The way that you have suggested is the way that I always implemented it.
public class Singleton
{
static public let sharedInstance = Singleton();
private init()
{
}
}
It's the cleanest solution for a Singleton pattern that I've ever found. Now that in Swift 2 you can specify accessibility it does actually prevent you from calling something like:
var mySingleton = Singleton();
Doing so results in a compile time error:
'Singleton' cannot be constructed because it has no accessible initializers
private let singletonInstance = Singleton()
final class Singleton: NSObject {
static func getInstance() -> Singleton {
return singletonInstance
}
}
Try that. Nothing is wrong in using global object here, it is created lazily (on first call).
Please help me with Swift,
I need singleton with can inheritance.
I can do like this
class A {
var defaultPort: Int
required init() {
self.defaultPort = 404
}
class var defaultClient: A {
struct Static {
static var onceToken: dispatch_once_t = 0
static var instance: A? = nil
}
dispatch_once(&Static.onceToken) {
Static.instance = self.init()
}
return Static.instance!
}
}
but in swift 2.0 we can do like this
static let defaultClient = A() //self.init()
but it creates an instance of the class A any way.
How i can use like this self.init()
static let defaultClient = self.init()
in order to be able to inherit
UPD
best way for now
class A {
class func defaultClient() -> Self {
struct Static {
static var onceToken: dispatch_once_t = 0
static var instance: A? = nil
}
dispatch_once(&Static.onceToken) {
Static.instance = self.init()
}
return instance(Static.instance, asType: self)
}
}
here we need helper as
func instance<T>(instance: Any, asType type: T.Type) -> T {
let reurnValue = instance as! T
return reurnValue
}
because another way cast A to Self not exist, for now.
p.s. crazy swift way!
why i can not do instance as! Self
Your question isn't very clear. You're looking for something like the class constant solution posted in this answer, but which automatically uses "my own class" instead of explicitly creating an instance of a specific class... right?
That is, you want to turn this:
class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance = Singleton()
}
into this:
class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance = SomeMagicThing()
}
class SingletonSubclass {}
where SomeMagicThing automatically creates a Singleton instance when you call Singleton.sharedInstance, and a SingletonSubclass instance when you call SingletonSubclass.sharedInstance. Correct?
Sorry, that can't be done (as of Swift 2.1).
Part of your issue is that static and class mean two different things. The static modifier means that the declaration it modifies is associated only with a specific type declaration. So, the Singleton type owns a pointer to a specific object -- its subclasses don't inherit that pointer. (And if they did, would it point to the same object or a subclass-specific one?)
If you could create a class var or class let, that'd (in theory) give you the kind of dispatch/inheritance you want. But trying that gives you an error (emphasis mine):
class stored properties not yet supported in classes; did you mean static?
So it sounds like this sort of thing might show up someday.
Of course, the other side of the problem is finding a way to dynamically refer to the "current" type responsible for executing some statement. In the context of an instance method, you have self.dynamicType for such things... but there's no equivalent for classes. (Self is a type constraint, not an actual type.) This is a side effect of the type system in Swift being much more strict and static than that of Objective-C (for example, metatypes aren't just a special flavor of otherwise normal objects). File a bug if you'd like to see a change to that effect?
While trying and playing around with Typhoon DI, I realized that LazySingleton scope is not working as expected meaning lazy properties are injected even before they are used. Being more concrete I created a TyphoonAssembly as follow :
public class AppAssembly : TyphoonAssembly {
public dynamic func knight() -> AnyObject{
return TyphoonDefinition.withClass(Knight.self){
(definition) in
definition.injectProperty("name", with: "Dragon")
definition.injectProperty("horse")
definition.scope = TyphoonScope.LazySingleton
}
}
public dynamic func horse() -> AnyObject{
return TyphoonDefinition.withClass(Horse.self){
(definition) in
definition.injectProperty("color", with: "red")
definition.scope = TyphoonScope.LazySingleton
}
}
}
where Knight is NSObject and has validateProperties function
class Knight:NSObject {
var name:String?
var horse: Horse?
func validateProperties(){
if name != nil{
println("Name not nil")
}
if horse != nil{
println("Horse not nil")
}
}
}
After activating assembly and getting knight from it, calling validateProperties function always print Name not nil and Horse not nil even these properties are never used in my code. Am I missing something here or simply lazy injection does not work same as Swift lazy stored properties do?
Your interpretation of the term lazy singleton makes sense, but its not the correct one. TyphoonScopeLazySingleton means that Typhoon won't instantiate the whole object until its asked for. Once asked for all properties will be injected. There's no proxying to inject on demand - if you're interested in such a feature, would you mind raising an issue for us in Github?
You're right that such a feature would only work in Swift if the class extended NSObject and the properties were types compatible with Objective-C, as "pure" Swift uses C++ style static dispatch, and therefore runtime method interception/proxying is not possible.
Here's the user guide for Typhoon scopes.
I have the following class:
class FeedDataManager: URLManagerdelegate {
let TAG: String = "FeedDataManager"
weak var mDelegate: KeyboardViewController?
var mModelManager: ModelManager!
var mURLManager: UrlManager!
var mGetNewsTimer: NSTimer?
var mFeedsArray: Array<News>!
var mManagedObjectContext: NSManagedObjectContext!
var mPersistentStoreCoordinator: NSPersistentStoreCoordinator!
var mManagedObjectModel: NSManagedObjectModel!
class var sharedInstance: FeedDataManager {
struct Static {
static var onceToken: dispatch_once_t = 0
static var instance: FeedDataManager? = nil
}
dispatch_once(&Static.onceToken) {
Static.instance = FeedDataManager()
}
return Static.instance!
}
init (aDelegate: KeyboardViewController) {
self.mDelegate = aDelegate
}
}
The Problem: If you look at the init method you will see that it should receive as a parameter a delegate pointer that I want to store in the singleton, so basically I need to pass this parameter to this line:
Static.instance = FeedDataManager()
But I have no idea how it's done, Does any knows how this can be done?
BTW: I saw this link:
Singleton and init with parameter
But the singleton creation there is different.
We can show you how you can add parameter to declaration of singleton, but that's not really a good idea. The entire idea behind a singleton is that it doesn't matter where it is instantiated, you can use it anywhere. What does it mean if you invoked this singleton in two different places in your code, with different parameters? You have a race condition, where the behavior may change depending upon where and how the singleton was first encountered.
Unrelated, but the dispatch_once is redundant. The static variables are already employed with dispatch_once. See discussion at end of http://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=7 (this is primarily geared towards globals, but as they parenthetically point out, it applies to static variables, too). Also, in Swift 1.2, we can now have static class variables, eliminating the need for the struct, too