In my iOS app, many ViewControllers will need to send/receive data from a server based on user input and actions. I am going to use NSURLSession for all my networking activities. But I don't want to make every ViewController conform to the NSURLSession delegate
protocol and repeat all the methods.
I see two solutions
Create a class that conforms to the NSURLSession delegate
protocol. Other classes create an instance of this class and use its methods to send/receive data from the server. The reuse of the class handling all the networking will be done using singleton design pattern by overloading its init method so that only instance of it is created.
Disadvantage of this approach seems to be that having singletons make its tough to create unit tests that completely gets functionality of each class isolated form others. I.e.Suppose an error only happens because viewcontroler1 asked "shared class" to send a particular message followed viewcontroller 2 asked it send some other message. Then it is not possible to catch this using unit tests.
Subclass of the UIViewController that implements the methods and subclass my ViewControllers of of this.
One issue here is that if I have different kinds of views in app, then I need to create subclass for each type of ViewController with NSURL session delegate methods. And I have to carefully assign the delegate object from method to method. When I look at it, I think this approach also has the same unit-testing problem as approach 1.
I would appreciate any comments on
1. Approaches others have used in similar situation
2. Pros/cons of above approaches (including the 2 I have listed above). I realize this may be a bit subjective, but IMHO getting good advice on design patterns is as important as (or even more important than) answers to what is wrong with my code or which API to use to solve problem X
The way I've done this in the past is:
1) Created a class that contained a NSURLSession object
#interface CustomSession : NSURLSessionDelegate
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSURLSession *mySession;
2) In the CustomSession init method initialize mySession, set delegate to self.
3) Implemented desired NSURLSession delegate methods in CustomSession.
4) Use block methods (optional, but I prefer them)
5) Decide whether you want to use CustomSession as a singleton or instantiate it every time you need it. You can actually do both just define init methods accordingly.
+ (CustomSession *)session
{
//Singleton
}
+ (instancetype) newClient{
//normal init method}
6) As for unit testing, you could have a weak pointer in CustomSession to the parent VC (as you pointed out this would work if you're not using a Singleton).
Quick suggestion: Use AFNetworking, will simplify your life. For example I use AFHTTPSessionManager and the corresponding block methods provided:
[self GET:detailsURL parameters:parameters success:^(NSURLSessionDataTask *task, id responseObject)
Related
So I've read about delegate explanation and practices a lot, but I still seem to not get it, I have specific questions and I would love to have some insightful simple answers.
Why use delegate over instance method? In UIAlertView why not just make – alertView:clickedButtonAtIndex: an instance method that will be called on my UIAlertView instance?
What is the delegate property? why do I have to make delegate property and define it with that weird syntax #property (nonatomic, strong) id <ClassesDelegate> delegate
Is delegate and protocol are two faces for a coin?
When do I know I should implement delegate in my app instead of direct calling?
Is delegate used as much and as important in Swift?
What gets called first and why? The method in the class who made himself a delegate? or the delegate method itself in class where it is declared?
Thank you for taking the time to go through this, I am desperately looking for a clear and helpful answers to my questions, feel free to give example or cover some related topic!
The advantage of delegation is Dependency Inversion.
Usually code has a compile-time dependency in the same direction of the run-time calling dependency. If this was the case the UITableview class would have a compile-time dependence on our code since it calls our code. By using delegation this is inverted, our code has a compile-time dependency on the UITableview class but the UITableview class calls our code at run-time.
There is a cost involved: we need to set the delegate and UITableview has to check at run-time that the delegate method is implemented.
Note: When I say UITableview I am including UITableviewDelegate and UITableviewDatasource.
See: Dependency inversion principle and Clean Code, Episode 13.
Maybe a real life example can better describe what's different in the delegation design pattern.
Suppose you open a new business, and you have an accountant to take care of the bureaucratic stuffs.
Scenario #1
You go to his office, and give him the information he needs:
the company name
the company # number/id
the number of employees
the email address
the street address
etc.
Then the accountant will store the data somewhere, and will probably tell you "don't forget to call me if there's any change".
Tomorrow you hire a new employee, but forget to notify your accountant. He will still use the original outdated data you provided him.
Scenario #2
Using the delegation pattern, you go to your accountant, and you provide him your phone number (the delegate), and nothing else.
Later, he'll call you, asking: what's the business name?
Later, he'll call you, asking: how many employees do you have?
Later, he'll call you, asking: what's your company address?
The day after you hire a new employee.
2 days later, he'll call you asking: how many employee do you have?
In the delegation model (scenario #2), you see that your accountant will always have on demand up-to-date data, because he will call you every time he needs data. That's what "don't call me, I'll call you" means when talking of inversion of control (from the accountant perspective).
Transposing that in development, for example to populate a table you have 2 options:
instantiate a table control, pass all the data (list of items to display), then ask the table to render itself
instantiate a table control, give it a pointer to a delegate, and let it call the delegate when it needs to know:
the number of rows in the table
the data to display on row no. n
the height the row no. n should have
etc.
but also when:
the row no. n has been tapped
the header has been tapped
etc.
Firstly, don't feel bad that all if stuff isn't clear yet. This is a good example of something that seems tricky at first, but just takes time really click. That will happen before you know it :-). I'll try and answer each of your points above:
1) Think of it this way - the way UIAlertView works now, it allows Apple to “delegate” the implementation of the alertView:clickedButtonAtIndex: to you. If this was an instance method of UIAlertView, it would be the same implementation for everyone. To customize the implementation would then require subclassing - an often over relied upon design pattern. Apple tends to go with composition over inheritance in their frameworks and this is an example of that. You can read more on that concept here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance
2) The delegate property is a reference to the object which implements the delegation methods and whichs should be used to “delegate” those tasks to. The weird syntax just means this - a property that holds a reference to an object that adheres to the protocol.
3) Not quite - delegation leverages protocols as a means for it’s implementation. In the example above, the is this the name of a protocol that an object which can be considered a delegate for that class must adhere to. It is inside that protocol that the methods for which a delegate of that class must implement are defined. You can also have optional protocol methods but that’s a different topic.
4) If I understand the question correctly, I think a good sign that you may want a delegate to be implemented instead of simply adding instance methods to your object is when you think that you may want the implementation of those methods to be easily swapped out or changed. When the implementation of those methods changes considerably based on where/how the functionality your building is being used
5) Absolutely! Objective-C and Swift are programming languages and the delegation pattern is an example of a design pattern. In general design patterns are hoziontal concepts that transcend across the verticals of programming languages.
6) I’m not sure I understand you exactly but I think there’s a bit of misunderstanding in the question - the method does not get called twice. The method declared in the delegate protocol is called once - typically from the class that contains the delegate property. The class calls the delegates implementation of that property via something like:
[self.delegate someMethodThatMyDelegateImplemented];
I hope some of this helped!
Sometimes you want your UIAlertView to work different in different contexts. If you set your custom UIAlertView to be delegate of itself it has to provide all those contexts (a lot of if/else statements). You can also set seperate delegate for each context.
This way you say to your compiler that every class (id) which implements protocol ClassesDelegate can be set to this property. As a side note it should usually be weak instead of strong to not introduce reference cycle (class A holds B, and B holds A)
Protocol (interface in other languages) is used to define set of methods which should be implemented by class. If class conforms to the protocol you can call this methods without knowledge of the specific class. Delegate is pattern in which class A delegates some work to class B (e.g. abstract printer delegates his work real printer)
When you need few different behaviours which depends on context (e.g. ContactsViewController needs to refresh his list when download is finished, but SingleContactViewController needs to reload image, labels etc.)
It is one of the most fundamental patterns in programming, so yes.
It's the same method
You can't just add a method to UIAlertView, because you don't have the source code. You'd have to subclass UIAlertView. But since you have more than one use of UIAlertView, You'd need several subclasses. That's very inconvenient.
Now let's say you use a library that subclasses UIAlertView, giving more functionality. That's trouble, because now you need to subclass this subclass instead of UIAlertView.
Now let's say that library uses different subclasses of UIAlertview, depending on whether you run on iOS 7 or 8, and UIAlertview unchanged on iOS 6. You're in trouble. Your subclassing pattern breaks down.
Instead, you create a delegate doing all the things specific to one UIAlertview. That delegate will work with the library just fine. Instead of subclassing a huge and complicated class, you write a very simple class. Most likely the code using the UIAlertview knows exactly what the delegate should be doing, so you can keep that code together.
I have a theoretical-practical question. I can't understand how I must do. I have a class let's call them DataManager that manage all plist writing-reading things and I need to get access to plist (i.e. work with that DataManager class) from different UIViewControllers.
I also have one class, I call it ModelManager, that is work with all kind of "utilities classes", include my DataManager. ModelManager works only with one complex UIViewController right now, let's call it MainUIViewController for clearness. And for now, I thought that all calls from UIViewControllers will be comes to ModelManager and from it to end-call classes. But now I'm confused.
Here is an illustration of my architecture:
I'm see different approaches and don't know how to decide and if there is some rules or guides for that. So, here is my choices:
1) I add some interface to ModelManager and from my another UIViewController (not a MainUIViewController) allocate and initialise it.
2) I add some interface to ModelManager and create a property with reference to ModelManager in another UIViewController and when segues performs set this property from MainUIViewController.
3) Work with DataManager itself and allocate and initialise it from another UIViewController
4) Work with DataManager itself and create a property with reference to DataManager in another UIViewController and when segues performs set this property from MainUIViewController.
Which approach is correct?
I know that this is some kind of depends from developer which approach to choose, but I never read and didn't find any tutorial or guide of how to develop multi-class architecture.
Ask me about any circumstance that you want to know.
You can use a singleton or you can instantiate one instance of the class in your app delegate and pass it around to all your view controllers via #propertys on each controller. There's no right answer, it's mostly a matter of preference. I prefer to make my ModelManager/DataManager type classes singletons, but a lot of people are rabidly opposed to singletons. However, if you work with Cocoa for any length of time you'll find that it's full of them (NSUserDefaults, NSFileManager, UIDevice, probably some others I'm forgetting).
Here's a good example on how to create singletons: http://www.galloway.me.uk/tutorials/singleton-classes/
BTW: Once you have your singleton, learn how to use KVO to make your view controllers respond to changes in the model. It's pretty fantastic once you get the hang of it. http://nshipster.com/key-value-observing/
Whenever I wanted to inform something to parent class, I have used delegate instead of calling directly parent's functions. I have implemented like this...
eg:
CustomClass *custom = [[CustomClass alloc] init];
// assign delegate
custom.delegate = self; // Here we are giving parent instance like normal method call.
[custom helloDelegate];
In custom class, I have intimated parent like below....
-(void)helloDelegate
{
// send message the message to the delegate
[_delegate sayHello:self];
}
So my doubts , how does it differ from direct call?. Setting delegate variable with self is somewhat equal to giving the parent instance to child and let the child call the function whenever required, how does protocols help here or why do we need protocols? what is the advantage?
thanx
A working example of the advantage of using a delegate as opposed to using a direct relation.
Say you are writing a universal app. You have two view controllers in your code iPadViewController and iPhoneViewController and they both need to get data from a web service. So you create a class for you web service call webServiceDownloaderClass.
Now, both your view controllers need to be notified when the webServiceDownloaderClass has finished.
Your options here...
Option 1 strong coupling
In you iPadViewController you define a method - (void)webServiceDidGetArray:(NSArray *)array;. And in the iPhoneViewController you define the same method.
In order for the webServiceDownloaderClass to call these methods it now needs a reference to each of the controllers...
#property (nonatomic, strong) IPadViewController *iPadController;
#property (nonatomic, strong) IPhoneViewController *iPhoneController;
and then when it finishes it needs to determine which one to call...
if (iPadController) {
[iPadController webServiceDidGetArray];
}
etc....
The cons here are that the view controllers are sort of defining what the web service class does when it is finished. Also, if you add another controller you have another property and no actual guarantee that the controller you referenced actually has the method you are trying to call.
Option 2 delegation
In your we service class you define a protocol.
#protocol WebServiceDownloaderDelegate <NSObject>
- (void)webServiceDidGetArray:(NSArray *)array
#end
and a delegate...
#property (nonatomic, weak) id <WebServiceDownloaderDelegate> delegate;
Now you are defining the actions of the web service class in the web service class. And you only need one reference to any class wants to be the delegate. Also, any class can be the delegate. So now both the iPad and iPhone controller can be the delegate and by conforming the the protocol they are "promising" the web service class that they will implement the required method - (void)webServiceDidGetArray:(NSArray *)array;.
Of course, this is just one case where delegates can be useful.
There are also cases for when you should possibly use a direct relationship rather than delegation.
your question is really about the difference between subclassing rather than implementing protocols (or interfaces in other languages like java)..
with delegates, you are implementing a protocol.. (which is a contract between the class referencing the delegate and the delegate itself).. this gives you more flexibility than subclassing because with subclassing you are automatically inheriting all the methods in the superclass (which is far more restricting than simply using some of the methods of another class.. in other words: subclassing = is a relationship.. whereas as implementing a protocol (same as delegation) = has a relationship.
if you read any book about design patterns.. they will talk extensively about the advantages of loose coupling your code and writing code that prevents modification but allows extension etc etc.. basically using delegation rather than subclassing is one way of fulfilling those design best practices.
A delegate call is not different from an ordinary method call!
What is different is how things are used, and this has nothing to do with the call mechanism. Delegates are used to decouple the definition of the code providing the delegate service from the code "consuming" the delegate service, so that the "consumer" (which, oddly, is usually a service on behalf of the delegate provider) does not have to be coded to know about THAT SPECIFIC delegate provider.
In Objective C delegates are commonly implemented using "protocols", but this is far from the only use of protocols. Objective C uses them extensively in providing common interfaces among the various Cocoa classes.
And, in limited circumstances, one can legitimately implement a delegate using a common superclass rather than a protocol.
If you have two classes that are part of the same development effort and which would not be likely to ever be used apart from each other, there is no need to employ the delegate "pattern" to facilitate communication between them, even though they are is a service-consumer/service-provider relationship. The only reason to do so would be "on spec", in case the "service" were ever reused unchanged in a different project.
I have class called ViewController. How to make this class is a sub-class of "metaiosdkViewController" and "JWslideViewController". Help me with syntax.
i have written like this
#interface ViewController : MetaioSDKViewController,JWslideViewController
but this giving me error
objective-c doesn't support multiple inheritance,but if you want to add some extra behaviour you can achieve it through delegates..
yes objective-c doesnt support multiple inheritance but you can give one parent so
#interface ViewController : MetaioSDKViewController
and
#interface MetaioSDKViewController : JWslideViewController
this is just an idea I know you can implement well as per your need
What is it that you want to achieve with multiple inheritance?
Do you want to override methods from each of these super classes?
Note that objective c provides 2 mechanisms for extensibility:
1) Implementing a Protocol and make your object the delegate:
#interface ViewController : <MetaioSDKViewController,JWslideViewController>
This enforces ViewController to implement certain methods as defined in contract by 2 delegates, and at some point in processing, they get called. If you don't implement them, they may simply not be called but you may not get desired functionality.
Example: UITableViewDataSource protocol that defines many methods that UITableViewController subclass implements. cellForRowAtindexPath is very famous example of a delegate method that your own table view subclass must implement to draw your own custom cells.
Note that this is not the type of extensibility that subclasses provide in general sense. Your class does not extend any functionality here. Rather it becomes what it says - a delegate - someone who is assigned to do some task. Like you do:
yourTableView.delegate = self; //tell self to be the delegate of yourTableview
Library code does it's stuff and in some point in processing it calls [delegate someMethod]. If your own class implements it, it calls it, otherwise delegate will be nil, and it may just be NO-OP and you don't get desired functionality. Again, this is implementation-dependent. Maybe the protocol defines that the method is compulsory, in which case your class MUST implement this method in order to compile.
2) Implement a category:
This is sort of a shortcut way to extend library classes. They act like an extra stub which, when your code runs, attaches itself to the already existing memory layout of the library objects and provides extra functionality.
You can define a category on any of the in-built classes as well. In fact that is the primary objective it is used for. For example, here is an NSString category which provides HTML conversion. There are hundreds of categories implemented as open source and they provide enormous benefits where library code falls short. Discussing their suitability in entirety is however out of scope for this discussion.
One thing to note however is: You do not override anything using a category. Rather you are supplying something in extra. For example if you want some custom drawing across all your app views, you can define a category on UIView in your project and then all your views could simply include the category header file. You don't even have to inherit from this category, you simply inherit from the base type.
e.g. in the NSString category example above, you do not have to define your NSString to be of type NSString+HTML. Instead you just include the responsible NSString+HTML.h file wherever you want those extra methods like stringByConvertingHTMLToPlainText and so on. The changes remain limited to your project - to the files where you include this category.
Categories do not provide for extra data members - and that is something that only inheritance can provide. Yet, multiple inheritance among viewcontrollers is something you should definitely reconsider hundred times - you will see that what you are looking for is not multiple inheritance.
I understand what a delegate does in iOS, and I've looked at sample code, but I'm just wondering about the advantages of this type of encapsulation (as opposed to including delegate methods in the primary object).
The advantage of the delegate design pattern is loose coupling. It enables class A (the delegate) to depend on class B (the delegating class) without class B having to have any knowledge of class A. This ensures that the dependency relationship is one-way only, rather than being circular.
It also forms the foundation (lower case "f") of Apple's frameworks because it allows them to invoke your code as appropriate when functionality specific to your application is required. For example, responding to a button tap or telling a table view how many sections there should be.
Delegation is a design pattern not only used in iOS but many other languages. It enables you to hand values and messages over in your class hierarchy.
In iOS, delegation requires the "delegate" class to implement a protocol which contain methods that the "delegating" knows about. Still following?
The delegating class's implementation will call these protocol methods, but the delegate class will implement these methods in their class.
This keeps your Classes clean.
In reality, you don't really need delegation if you can add new methods to a single class. But for UIKIT's UIView class, Apple will not allow you to add new implementations to their class.
correct me if I'm wrong.
The most common use of a delegate in iOS is to establish communication within modules that are unrelated or partially related to each other. For example, passing data forward in a UINavigationController is very easy, we can just use segue. However, sending data backwards is little tricky. In this case, we can use delegate to send the data backward.
Let's call, the class, associated with the first Controller ClassA and the class, associated with the second Controller ClassB. The first Controller is connected to the second controller with a forward segue. We can pass data from ClassA to ClassB through this segue. Now, we need to pass some data to ClassA from ClassB for which we can use delegates.
The sender class(ClassB) needs to have a protocol in its header file(.h) and also a reference of it as delegate inside the block, #interface ClassB .... #end. This reference let's the ClassB know that it has a delegate. Any class that wants to use this ClassB will have to implement all of this protocol's required methods(if any). So, the receiver class,ClassA will implement the method but the call will be made by the sender class, ClassB.
This way, receiver class doesn't need to worry about the sender class' internal structure, and can receive the required information.
Delegation as I understand it is when an object will pass the responsibility of handeling an event to another object thus "delegating" the responsibility to that object.
For example if you have an NSButton in iOs you generally assign the Delegate to be the parent view controller. This means instead of handeling touchUp events in the definition of the button it is instead handled in the view controller.
The main advantage of delegation over simply implementing methods in the "primary object" (by which I assume you mean the object doing the delegating) is that delegation takes advantage of dynamic binding. At compile time, the class of the delegate object does not need to be known. For example, you might have a class that delegates the windowDidMove: method. In this class, you'd probably see some bit of code like
if([[self delegate] respondsToSelector:#selector(windowDidMove:)]) {
[[self delegate] windowDidMove:notification];
}
Here, the delegating class is checking at runtime whether its delegate responds to the given method selector. This illustrates a powerful concept: the delegating class doesn't need to know anything about the delegate other than whether it responds to certain methods. This is a powerful form of encapsulation, and it is arguably more flexible than the superclass-subclass relationship, since the delegator and the delegate are so loosely coupled. It is also preferable to simply implementing methods in the "primary object" (delegating object), since it allows runtime alteration of the method's implementation. It's also arguable that this dynamic runtime makes code inherently more dangerous.
Delegate is an important design pattern for iOS app.All apps directly or behind the hood use this delegate pattern.
Delegate design pattern allows an object to act on behalf of another.
If we are working with tableview then there are "tableViewDelegate" and "tableViewDataSource". But what this means
Suppose you have a tableview.
now some major concern for this.
1.what is the datasource(the data that will appear in table view) for this tableview?
2.How many row for table view etc.
delegate design pattern solve these question using another object as the provider or the solver of these question.
An object mark himself to the table view and ensure the table view that "Yes i am the man who can assist you" by marking himself as the delegate to the table view .Thanks
The class marked as delegate takes the responsibilities to handle the callbacks sent while some event occurs. For example, in case of UITextField, there are some methods called when some events occurs like editing started, editing ended, character typed etc. These methods will already be defined in the protocol. We will have to assign delegate for that i.e. which class is going to handle these events.
With the help of a delegate, two-way communication can be achieved. A delegate might be used to make an object reusable, to provide a flexible way to send messages, or to implement customization.
In iOS ecosystem especially UIKit Framework which consists of UIApplication, UITableView, UICollectionView, UITextfield & so on uses delegate & datasource design pattern intensively to communicate data to and fro.
Delegate design pattern is used to pass/communicate data from FirstVC(Delegator) to SecondVC(Delegate) to complete a task.
Here, SecondVC(Delegate) conforms to a protocol delegate & implements all its requirements like methods by providing body to complete that task given by FirstVC(Delegator).
Also, FirstVC(Delegator) object will be having a optional property of protocol delegate type i.e delegate which must be assigned by SecondVC(Delegate).
Now, FirstVC(Delegator) can call that method residing in SecondVC(Delegate) by passing data from its delegate property.
EX: CEO(FirstVC) which passes data i.e "confidential data" to Secretary(SecondVC) to do further processes using that data.
Datasource design pattern is part of Delegate pattern which is used to pass/communicate data from SecondVC(Delegate) to FirstVC(Delegator) when a task is assigned to SecondVC(Delegate).
Here, SecondVC(Delegate) conforms to a protocol datasource & implements all its requirements like methods with return type by providing body to talk back to FirstVC(Delegator) after the task is given by FirstVC(Delegator).
Also, FirstVC(Delegator) object will be having an optional property of protocol dataSource type i.e dataSource which must be assigned by SecondVC(Delegate).
Now, FirstVC(Delegator) can call that method with a return type residing in SecondVC(Delegate) by passing data from its dataSource property.
EX: Secretary(SecondVC) replies back with a data i.e "Sir, I am already having too much work to do. Please, can you assign that data to others" to CEO(FirstVC). Now, CEO(FirstVC) will analyse that data to do further processes.
Delegation means one object passes behaviour to another object..