I have a class called Attendee that inherits from PFObject. Below is its basic definition.
class Attendee: PFObject, PFSubclassing {
override class func initialize() {
var onceToken : dispatch_once_t = 0;
dispatch_once(&onceToken) {
self.registerSubclass()
}
}
class func parseClassName() -> String! {
return "Attendee"
}
}
I want to create a subclass of this object called Speaker such that Speaker inherits from Attendee, which in turn inherits from PFObject.
My question is, will I have to implement the same initialize() and parseClassName() functions for Speaker?
To Parse, Attendee and Speaker are two different class without inheritance. Maybe you should do something like:
You should implement initialize() and parseClassName() for every classes.
Your classes in code should duplicate the classes on the server to avoid confusion both for you and for the Parse SDK code. Any functionality you want to share between the classes should be moved out into another class that you can instantiate / run as required.
The only way it could reasonably work is if your subclass only contained methods, no data. But even then, Parse would either not return the correct class to you, or it would return it at different times than you might expect.
You can absolutely do this on the client-side. If you are trying to store them separately, just return a different value in parseClassName() on each object.
Related
I need to save some data with CoreData. Generally thats not a problem at all. The problem is, that the data is created with EVReflection an therefore inherits the class EVObject. To save the gathered data to CoreData they have to also inherit NSManagedObject. The problem is that swift does not allow you to inherit multiple classes. Would appreciate any tips.
class Device : EVObject
{
var channel : [Channel] = [Channel]()
var name : String = ""
var ise_id : Int = 0
var unreach : Bool = false
var sticky_unreach : Bool = false
var config_pending : Bool = false
override internal func propertyMapping() -> [(String?, String?)] {
return [("name", "_name"), ("ise_id", "_ise_id"), ("unreach", "_unreach"), ("sticky_unreach", "_sticky_unreach"), ("config_pending", "_config_pending")]
}
}
You don't have to inherit. You can extend them. Example:
class User : NSManagedObject{
#NSManaged .....
}
//Extension
import EVReflection
extension User : EVReflectable { }
https://github.com/evermeer/EVReflection#extending-existing-objects
Note I'm not aware of EVReflection but I think this answer can generally apply.
Don't use multiple inheritance. Have two separate classes and a mechanism for creating/loading/updating one object from the other. Protocols may allow it to be done in a way that minimises translation boilerplate (possibly using valueForKey(_:) and setValue(_:forKey) if you can know the key names in a safe manner.
It may not even be even be necessary to have an NSManagedObject subclass but just have an instance of NSManagedObject in all your classes that is loaded/created/saved as necessary.
It depends on what functionality you want to use from EVReflection. Since NSManagedObject also has NSObject as it's base class you could use most functions by just setting NSManagedObject as your base class instead of EVObject.
The only thing you have to do is instead of calling EVObject functions directly, you have to implement the code snippets that are in that EVObject method. Almost any function there is just a convenience method that will call the corresponding EVReflection function.
If you have any questions in the future, then please also report this as an issue on GitHub.
I have a framework where I have a singleton class, let's say Singleton. This class is used by other classes in the framework.
In the app project I want to subclass this singleton class, e.g. AppSingleton: Singleton. Is it possible? What is the right solution?
I provide a solution but it may be a little hacky.
Class A {
open class var shared: A {
return A.privateShared
}
private static let privateShared = A()
}
Class B {
open class var shared: B {
return A.privateShared
}
private static let privateShared = B()
}
I must clarify, this ways isn't perfect since it actually create 2 instance! So, it will technically not a singleton any more.
However, you can override the class B's property or method to call A.shared method or property instead. You must know what you are doing and consider use the other way to fix the problem you want to solve.
I learn the Swift Language and i need to create a manager like a Parse sdk.
For exemple when you initialize your Parse in app you write
Parse.setApplication("...", applicationId:"...")
And later you can write code like this
Parse.doSomething()
The method doSomething() use initial context.
Can you show me in my class should look like? I try some singleton exemple, but a have MyClass.sharedAttribute.doSomething() in case
What you have shown is no indication of singletons whatsoever, it sounds and looks more like a static class with static members and properties:
class MyStatic {
static var appIdA : String?
class func setApplicationId(a : String) {
appIdA = a
}
class func doSomething() {
print(appIdA)
}
}
MyStatic.setApplicationId("blabla")
MyStatic.doSomething() // prints Optional("blabla")
Of course there is the possibility that internally the class is a singleton, but Parse does not seem to be one, just looking at the functions it exposes.
The code comments even state
/*!
The `Parse` class contains static functions that handle global configuration
for the Parse framework.
*/
In swift I'm implementing two protocols, GADCustomEventInterstitial and GADCustomEventBanner.
Both of these protocols require a property called delegate. delegate is a different type in each protocol, and thus a conflict arises.
class ChartBoostAdapter : NSObject, GADCustomEventInterstitial, GADCustomEventBanner, ChartboostDelegate{
var delegate:GADCustomEventInterstitialDelegate?; // Name conflict
var delegate:GADCustomEventBannerDelegate?; // Name conflict
override init(){
}
...
}
They are libraries/frameworks it's not my definition
Then obviously you cannot make the same class adopt both protocols. But you don't really need to. Just separate this functionality into two different classes, as is evidently intended by the designer of these protocols. You are supposed to have one class that adopts GADCustomEventInterstitial and has its delegate, and another class that adopts GADCustomEventBanner and has its delegate. What reason do you have for trying to force these to be one and the same class? As in all things where you are using a framework, don't fight the framework, obey it.
It is actually possible, I just encountered same situation. I had two different but kind of related protocols. In some cases I needed both to be implemented by delegate and in other cases only one and I didn't want to have two properties eg... delegate1, delegate2.
What you need to do is create another combined protocol that inherits from both protocols:
protocol ChartBoostAdapterDelegate: GADCustomEventInterstitialDelegate, GADCustomEventBannerDelegate { }
class ChartBoostAdapter : NSObject, GADCustomEventInterstitial, GADCustomEventBanner, ChartboostDelegate {
weak var delegate: ChartBoostAdapterDelegate?
override init(){
}
...
}
The simple answer is that you can't.
Maybe one protocol depends on another, in which case you would use the dependent protocol for the type of your delegate.
Note that this can be solved using Mixins (possible since Swift 2.0) if you are in a Swift-only environment. It just cannot be solved as long as you need to have the code bridged to Obj-C, as this problem is unsolvable in Obj-C. Yet that can usually be solved by a wrapper class, which I will show later on.
Let's break this down to a minimalist example:
import Foundation
#objc
protocol ProtoA {
var identifier: String { get }
}
#objc
protocol ProtoB {
var identifier: UUID { get }
}
#objc
class ClassA: NSObject, ProtoA, ProtoB {
let identifier = "ID1"
let identifier = UUID()
}
The code above will fail as no two properties can have the same name. If I only declare identifier once and make it a String, compiler will complain that ClassA does not conform to ProtoB and vice verse.
But here is Swift-only code that actually does work:
import Foundation
protocol ProtoA {
var identifier: String { get }
}
protocol ProtoB {
var identifier: UUID { get }
}
class ClassA {
let stringIdentifier = "ID1"
let uuidIdentifier = UUID()
}
extension ProtoA where Self: ClassA {
var identifier: String {
return self.stringIdentifier
}
}
extension ProtoB where Self: ClassA {
var identifier: UUID {
return self.uuidIdentifier
}
}
extension ClassA: ProtoA, ProtoB { }
Of course, you cannot do that:
let test = ClassA()
print(test.identifier)
The compiler will say ambigous use of 'identifier', as it has no idea which identifier you want to access but you can do this:
let test = ClassA()
print((test as ProtoA).identifier)
print((test as ProtoB).identifier)
and the output will be
ID1
C3F7A09B-15C2-4FEE-9AFF-0425DF66B12A
as expected.
Now to expose a ClassA instance to Obj-C, you need to wrap it:
class ClassB: NSObject {
var stringIdentifier: String { return self.wrapped.stringIdentifier }
var uuidIdentifier: UUID { return self.wrapped.uuidIdentifier }
private let wrapped: ClassA
init ( _ wrapped: ClassA )
{
self.wrapped = wrapped
}
}
extension ClassA {
var asObjCObject: ClassB { return ClassB(self) }
}
If you put it directly into the class declaration of ClassA, you could even make it a stored property, that way you don't have to recreate it ever again but that complicates everything as then ClassB may only hold a weak reference to the wrapped object, otherwise you create a retain cycle and neither of both objects will ever be freed. It's better to cache it somewhere in your Obj-C code.
And to solve your issue, one would use a similar wrapper approach by building a master class and this master class hands out two wrapper class, one conforming to GADCustomEventInterstitial and one conforming to GADCustomEventBanner but these would not have any internal state or logic, they both use the master class as storage backend and pass on all requests to this class that implements all required logic.
This is my inheritance structure
Protocols
protocol BaseProtocol {
}
protocol ChildProtocol: BaseProtocol {
}
Classes
class BaseClass: NSObject {
var myVar: BaseProtocol!
}
class ChildClass: BaseClass {
override var myVar: ChildProtocol!
}
I'm receiving a compiler error:
Property 'myVar' with type 'ChildProtocol!' cannot override a property with type 'BaseProtocol!'
What is the best approach to achieve this?
UPDATE
I updated the question trying to implement the solution with generics but it does not work :( This is my code (now the real one, without examples)
Protocols
protocol TPLPileInteractorOutput {
}
protocol TPLAddInteractorOutput: TPLPileInteractorOutput {
func errorReceived(error: String)
}
Classes
class TPLPileInteractor<T: TPLPileInteractorOutput>: NSObject, TPLPileInteractorInput {
var output: T!
}
And my children
class TPLAddInteractor<T: TPLAddInteractorOutput>: TPLPileInteractor<TPLPileInteractorOutput>, TPLAddInteractorInput {
}
Well, inside my TPLAddInteractor I can't access self.output, it throws a compiler error, for example
'TPLPileInteractorOutput' does not have a member named 'errorReceived'
Besides that, when I create the instance of TPLAddInteractor
let addInteractor: TPLAddInteractor<TPLAddInteractorOutput> = TPLAddInteractor()
I receive this other error
Generic parameter 'T' cannot be bound to non-#objc protocol type 'TPLAddInteractorOutput'
Any thoughts?
#tskulbru is correct: it can't be done, and this has nothing to do with your protocols. Consider the example below, which also fails…this time with Cannot override with a stored property 'myVar':
class Foo {
}
class Goo: Foo {
}
class BaseClass: NSObject {
var myVar: Foo!
}
class ChildClass: BaseClass {
override var myVar: Foo!
}
To understand why, let's reexamine the docs:
Overriding Properties
You can override an inherited instance or class property to provide
your own custom getter and setter for that property, or to add
property observers to enable the overriding property to observe when
the underlying property value changes.
The implication is that if you are going to override a property, you must write your own getter/setter, or else you must add property observers. Simply replacing one variable type with another is not allowed.
Now for some rampant speculation: why is this the case? Well, consider on the one hand that Swift is intended to be optimized for speed. Having to do runtime type checks in order to determine whether your var is in fact a Foo or a Bar slows things down. Then consider that the language designers likely have a preference for composition over inheritance. If both of these are true, it's not surprising that you cannot override a property's type.
All that said, if you needed to get an equivalent behavior, #tskulbru's solution looks quite elegant, assuming you can get it to compile. :)
I don't think you can do that with protocols
The way i would solve the problem you are having is with the use of generics. This means that you essentially have the classes like this (Updated to a working example).
Protocols
protocol BaseProtocol {
func didSomething()
}
protocol ChildProtocol: BaseProtocol {
func didSomethingElse()
}
Classes
class BaseClass<T: BaseProtocol> {
var myProtocol: T?
func doCallBack() {
myProtocol?.didSomething()
}
}
class ChildClass<T: ChildProtocol> : BaseClass<T> {
override func doCallBack() {
super.doCallBack()
myProtocol?.didSomethingElse()
}
}
Implementation/Example use
class DoesSomethingClass : ChildProtocol {
func doSomething() {
var s = ChildClass<DoesSomethingClass>()
s.myProtocol = self
s.doCallBack()
}
func didSomething() {
println("doSomething()")
}
func didSomethingElse() {
println("doSomethingElse()")
}
}
let foo = DoesSomethingClass()
foo.doSomething()
Remember, you need a class which actually implements the protocol, and its THAT class you actually define as the generic type to the BaseClass/ChildClass. Since the code expects the type to be a type which conforms to the protocol.
There are two ways you can go with your code, depending what you want to achieve with your code (you didn't tell us).
The simple case: you just want to be able to assign an object that confirms to ChildProtocol to myVar.
Solution: don't override myVar. Just use it in ChildClass. You can do this by design of the language Swift. It is one of the basics of object oriented languages.
Second case: you not only want to enable assigning instances of ChildProtocol, you also want to disable to be able to assign instances of BaseProtocol.
If you want to do this, use the Generics solution, provided here in the answers section.
If you are unsure, the simple case is correct for you.
Gerd