Often when debugging (and out of curiosity) I expand the object explorer at left and see lots of '_' prefixed fields of a UIKit object, say, UINavigationBar, as pictured below.
There's lots of fields like _titleView that must be deeply private, not even revealed when jumping to the class definition.
Furthermore the object explorer reveals classes like UINavigationItemView which the documentation doesn't even have, and which the lldb prompt denies knowing about.
(This is probably part of the issue: UINavigationItem.h has __attribute__((visibility("hidden")))
#interface UINavigationItemView : UIView { ... })
Again mostly out of curiosity but would like to shed light on the matter.
Those instances variables come from Objective-C runtime type information
The Objective-C runtime stores information about the iVars of classes, in the form of names and type encodings (https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjCRuntimeGuide/Articles/ocrtTypeEncodings.html)
The debugger knows how to poke at that runtime information, and produce a representation of the internal guts of your object from that information
That information is, however, not used by the language when making Objective-C types available to your Swift code
Part of the story is that this runtime information may be incorrect or incomplete, which would of course be solvable by blacklisting the erroneous cases (NSURL comes to mind as a typical example, and there are a few more caveats)
However, in general, the iVar information from the runtime is implementation detail and definitely not part of the public interface of a type. It is useful to see in the debugger, but it is not exposed as part of the type's interface in Swift. That explains the fact that, while you can see the data in the variables view, you can't actually evaluate expressions involving it
Related
I see this recommended in the dart style guide, and copied in tons of tutorials and flutter source.
final foo = config.foo;
I don't understand it, how is this considered best practice when the readability is so poor? I have no clue what foo is here, surely final String foo = config.foo is preferable if we really want to use final?
This seems the equivalent to using var, which many consider a bad practice because it prevents the compiler from spotting errors and is less readable.
Where am I wrong?
In a lot of cases is does not really matter what type you are using as long the specific type can be statically determined by the compiler. When you are using var/final in Dart it is not that Dart does not know the type, it will just figure it out automatically based on the context. But the type must still be defined when the program are compiled so the types will never be dynamic based on runtime behavior. If you want truly dynamic types, you can use the dynamic keyword where you tell Dart "trust me, I know what I am doing with this types".
So types should still be defined where it matter most. This is e.g. for return and argument types for methods and class variables. The common factor for this types is that they are used to define the interface for using the method or class.
But when you are writing code inside a method, you are often not that interested in the specific types of variables used inside the method. Instead the focus should be the logic itself and you can often make it even more clear by using good describing variable names. As long the Dart analyzer can figure out the type, you will get autocomplete from your IDE and you can even still see the specific type from your IDE by e.g. Ctrl+Q in IntelliJ on the variable if you ends up in a situation where you want to know the type.
This is in particular the case when we are talking about the use of generics where it can be really tiresome to write the full specific type. Especially if you are using multiple generics inside each other like e.g. Map<String, List<String>>.
In my experience, Dart is really good to figure out very specific types and will complain loudly if your code cannot be determined statically. In the coming future, Dart will introduce non-null by default, which will make the Dart compiler and analyzer even more powerful since it will make sure your variable cannot be null unless this is something you specifically want and will make sure you are going to test for null when using methods which are specified to not expecting null.
About "Where am I wrong?". Well, a lot of languages have similar feature of var/final like Dart with the same design principle about the type should still be statically determined by a compiler or runtime. And even Java has introducing this feature. As a experienced Java and Dart programmer I have come to the conclusion for myself that typing inside methods are really not that important in a lot of cases as long I can still easily figure out the specific type by using an IDE when it really matters.
But it does make it more important to name your variables so they are clearly defining the purpose. But I am hoping you already are doing that. :)
How can I access an attribute that's been hidden via:
__attribute__((visibility("hidden")))
I'm trying to access UINavigationItemButtonView, but it seems sometime recent (iOS 7.1?) they've added the above into the header file. Recursively printing the window no longer reveals UINavigationItemButtonView in the view stack either.
So, given a UINavigationBar, how can I access a UINavigationItemButtonView that has been hidden via the above flag?
Printing all the subviews in UINavigationBar doesn't reveal it.
The attribute keyword is simply a message to the compiler, and has nothing to do with the runtime. Using ((visibility("xxx")) only serves to tell the compiler if the given declaration should be "visible" or usable by clients in some other package. visibility("hidden") just means that, despite the public declaration, make this thing invisible to external packages, so that they will not be able to use it. Compiling will fail if you attempt to use this class or method.
If you don't see this class being used in a recursive description, it is likely that this class is no longer used; it certainly isn't because of the attribute statement.
Since it's a private class, you shouldn't. Anything you do to bypass that restriction may result in your application failing the review process. Not to mention that, in general, accessing private and/or hidden API's, classes, instance variables, properties or whatever else it is, is a really good way to make sure your application breaks in the (not too distant) future.
This question is specifically focused around static libraries / frameworks; in other words, code that other people will eventually touch.
I'm fairly well versed in properties, since I started iOS development when iOS 6 was released. I have used hidden properties declared in interface extensions to do all of my "private" property work, including using readonly on public facing properties I don't want others to modify and readwrite within interface extensions.
The important thing is that I do not want other people who are using these static libraries / frameworks to be accessing these properties if I don't allow it, nor writing these properties if I let them read it.
I've known for a while that they could theoretically create their own interface extension and make my readonly properties readwrite themselves, or guess the names of hidden properties.
If I want to prevent this, should I be using ivars with the #private tag with directly declared ivars? Are there potential downfalls to doing it this way? Does it actually get me an additional measure of security, or is it a red herring?
Under ARC the only mode supported by properties and not instance variables is copy - so if you need copy use a property.
If you declare your private instance variables in the #implementation section:
#implementation MyClass
{
// private instance vars
}
then it takes serious effort to access them from outside the class. As you say accessing a "private" property just takes guessing its name - or using the library calls which tell you.
Is it worth it for security? YMMV. But its a good coding practice regardless.
Addendum
As the comment trail shows there has been much discussion over my use of serious effort.
First let's be clear: Objective-C is in the C family of languages, they all allow the programmer to just about anything they choose while staying within the language[*] - these are not the languages of choice if you want strong typing, access restrictions, etc., etc. within your code.
Second, "effort" is not an absolute measure! So maybe I should have chosen the word "obvious" to qualify it rather than "serious". To access a private property just requires the use of a standard method call where the object has type id - there is little clue in the code that the method being called is hidden. To access a private variable requires either an API call (a runtime function or KVC call) or some pointer manipulation - the resultant code looks nothing like a standard variable assignment. So its more obvious.
That said, apart from uses requiring copy, under ARC there is no good reason to use a private property when a private instance variable will do. For a private variable fred compare:
self.fred = 42; // property access, may involve a call (if not optimised out)
_fred = 42; // common way to bypass the accessors and get at the underlying var
fred = 42; // direct access
Take your pick, there is no right answer, but there isn't a wrong one either - this is the realm of opinion (and that is of course an opinion ;-)). I would often pick the last one, private variable - clean & simple. However #RobNapier in his answer prefers the use of properties.
[*] Note: once you consider linking to external code, say written in assembler, all bets are of in any language. At that point you have to look at the "hardware" (real or virtual) and/or "OS" to provide protection.
You should use private ("hidden") properties here. There is no "security" risk. The "attacker" in this scenario is the caller. The caller has complete access to all memory in the process. She can access anything in your framework she wants and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop that (nor should you). This is true in any language. You can bypass "private:" designations in C++ as well if you know what you're doing. It's all just memory at the end of the day.
It is not your job to protect yourself or your framework from the caller. You both have the same goal: correct program behavior. Your goal is to protect callers from themselves. Make it difficult for them to use your framework incorrectly and easy to use it correctly.
So, you should use the tool that leads to the most correct code. And that tool is properties, and avoiding directly ivar access except in init and dealloc.
I've written a small COM Server in Delphi 2010 that acts as a plug-in into a retail application. The retail application looks for a "discover" interface which registers any number of additional interfaces calling TAutoObjectFactory.Create for each one. This is working just fine--all the plug-in interfaces function as designed.
But now I'd like to call a public method of one interface from another interface so I don't have to duplicate code. Seems simple enough, just call ComClassManager.ForEachFactory looking for the ClassID of the interface I need to use. Got that working, too!
But now that I found the class, I'm stumped by a seemingly trivial final step: how to use or cast the class (or class reference?) I've located to actually call one of its methods.
In the "FactoryProc" I've sent to ForEachFactory, I assume the ComClass property of TComObjectFactory is what I'm after, but it's of type TClass, a class reference to the actual class object to which it points (at least I hope I'm understanding this correctly). I'm a little fuzzy on class references and my attempts to cast or otherwise de-reference this property has resulted in access violations or compiler errors.
Any suggestions?
You're right in your comment, ComClassManager deals with classes, not instances. What you need is (your application-local implementation of) running object table (or something similar), so plugin instances can interact with each other.
How to actually implement it depends on what you really need, e.g. call methods on all running instances, or only on instances of specific classes.
I'd like to get a firmer grasp of how frequently the runtime in any language that requires one is being called. In this case, I'm specifically interested in knowing:
Of all the function calls getting executed on an OS X or iOS system in any given second (approximations are of course necessary) how many of those are Objective-C runtime functions (i.e. functions that are defined by the runtime)?
Of course it depends on your application, but in general the answer is "a whole lot". Like, a whole freaking lot.
If you really want to see numbers, I'd recommend using dtrace to log all runtime functions as they're called. This blog entry talks about how to do such a thing.
A lot. Here are just a few examples.
Every time you send a message, the actual message sending is done by a runtime function (this is in fact the most called runtime function in pretty much any objective C program).
NSObject class and protocol are not part of the standard library but part of the runtime, therefore any method that ends up executing to the default NSObject implementation is in fact executing runtime code.
Every time you execute a default property accessor (either read or write), that's part of the runtime.
If you use ARC, every time you access a weak reference (either for reading or writing it) that's a runtime function.
Objc runtime includes the C runtime, so anything that involves a C runtime function (for example passing a large structure by value or returning it) is in fact calling into the runtime.
and more.