I have a class written in Objective-C and I want to have another similar one. Except for few details. Is there any smart way of copying class implementation and making another class? I'd like to change few things, but ctrl+c + ctrl+v sounds so unintuitive.
Regards
PS. edit: I have multiple classes to implement, also I'd like to have neat solution for future.
Use class inheritance.
Implement class A with the common functionality
Derive classes B and C from A to add functional differences.
Take a look at Classes Inherit from Other Classes.
If you like to simply add a method without subclassing, see Categories Add Methods to Existing Classes. But be aware what you shouldn't do with categories!
If you like to change values, add appropriate properties to the interface declaration.
Related
Many CocoaPod and native iOS libraries use protocols that they name either CustomClassDelegate or CustomClassDataSource as a means to do some setup or customization. I was wondering when I should use this programming model, because it seems like I could accomplish much of this with properties.
Example
If I define a custom class called SmurfViewController that has a SmurfLabel, is it better practice to store the smurfLabel as a private property and have a public computed property called smurf that looks like this:
private var smurfLabel = UILabel()
public var smurf: String {
get {
return smurfLabel.text
}
set(text) {
smurfLabel.text = text
}
}
or should I define a SmurfDataSource that has a public function that looks like this:
func textForSmurfLabel() -> String {
return "smurfText"
}
When should I use what here?
You should just use a property for that. Delegates and Datasources are for different controllers/Objects to speak to one another when the alternative is to instantiate the controller/object from the navigationStack/view hierarchy. A Delegate forms a specific communication between the two that allows for clear knowledge in what their relationship is while keeping them decoupled (assuming you try to keep it that way). I disagree with the article that says callbacks are "better". They are amazing and I advise using them often, but just understand that most options that swift provides you with have a place where they work best.
I might be slightly bias, but Swift is an amazing language with OOP being a backbone and everything it has was well put together in order to provide the correct tools for each situation you find yourself in.
I often find myself using both of those tools and one other more customizable option in my more advanced setups where I have an overseeing viewController that manages many child controllers. It has direct access to all of them that are active but if any of its children communicate with it, it is through delegates. Its main job is just to handle their place on the screen though, so I keep everything manageable.
Delegates and data sources are more appropriate for offloading behaviors to other entities, not simple values. In other words, if your type just needs a value for something, you are correct that it makes more sense to expose that as a property that can be set from the client code.
But what should happen (for example) when a user taps a specific table view cell is a behavior that shouldn't be hard coded into UITableView. Instead, for flexibility, any implementation of that behavior can be created in a delegate and called by the UITableView when appropriate.
In general, think of delegation as a way to make subclassing unnecessary, because the methods you would normally override in a subclass are instead moved into a protocol that can be implemented by ANY type, not just a subclass of the base type. And instead of calling internally implemented methods to get certain behaviors, your type is simply calling those behaviors on an external collaborating class (the delegate).
So perhaps the best guideline for when to use a data source or delegate is the question: "Would I need to subclass this class in order to change this value or behavior in the future". If the answer is no, because you can just set a property from client code, then don't use delegation. If the answer is yes, then offload that behavior to a delegate or data source instead of forcing future programmers to subclass your class to make it work for their use case.
Delegate is an interface for the undefined activities.
so when you make a SDK or framework, you must provide an interface so that users can write a proper code for the interfaces' expecting activity.
i.e, Table View needs a datasource to show it's contents, but the apple's library developers doesn't know the content whatever contents their library users will use. so they provided an interface like datasource, delegate.
and in the library, they just call this methods. that's the way the library should be made.
But in your code, the label is defined very explicitly as well as it's in the current view, and you don't need to make an interface for an undefined activity.
if you want know more about this kind of coding style, you need to do some researches on Software Design Pattern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_pattern
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegation_pattern
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design_pattern
I love apple's sdk very much, because they used all the needed design patterns very properly.
I'm very new to the Grails framework, so please bear with me.
Nonetheless, I am a bit confused on the functionality difference between extending a domain class and embedding objects.
From a database point of view, they both do the same thing. When embedding an object, all the properties of all the classes are stored in one table. Similarily, when extending a class (using table-per-hierarchy), all the properties of all the classes are stored in one table.
I'm sure there is a functionality difference between these two, and so I figured I ask this question.
When do you use either one?
The only technical difference is the ability to have multiple tables through the table per subclass property when extending a class. Otherwise, they are identical in use.
However, that said, by extending another class you are also modeling that within the class structure so you can make use of instanceof and polymorphic features of Java/Groovy.
While hearing talk around the objective-c programming community, I hear the term "override" thrown around a lot. I'm fairly familiar with general object oriented programming terms, but from an iOS and Objective-c standpoint, the definition is a little unclear to me. According to Wikipedia:
Method overriding, in object oriented programming, is a language
feature that allows a subclass or child class to provide a specific
implementation of a method that is already provided by one of its
superclasses or parent classes.
Cool. That makes sense. But what throws me off is... isn't that the whole point of the "family relationship", where the subclass inherits all of the public methods and variables of it's superclass. The standard "hierarchy" model. That has never quite made sense to me. I hear some of the senior developers say things such as "Once he said it's okay to override a category I was done listening".
That got me to thinking, I should probably get a better grasp on what exactly overriding is. Could someone explain it in greater detail related specifically to Objective-C / Cocoa Touch?
This is very common in all OOP languages.
Often times a base class will provide a default (i.e. simple, unexciting) implementation for a method. Then, derived classes will override that default implementation and provide a specific (i.e. more interesting) implementation.
Consider an Animal base class that exposes a Speak() method. Well there is no common way that animals speak, so that default implementation would probably just do nothing.
A Dog class, which is derived from Animal, can override Speak() to actually make a barking sound, which is more appropriate than the default mute case.
Your quote from your senior seems to me like it's mis-heard or -remembered. I'd bet it was "...it's okay to override a method in a category I was done..."
Using a category to "override" a method on the same class is a Bad Idea: the original method is clobbered and cannot be called. In addition, if the original method was itself implemented in a category, then which version is actually used is undefined. This is not the same as overriding an inherited method (thus my scare quotes).
Overriding an inherited method works as expected: a class defines a method which was already defined in one of its ancestors. When the method is called on an instance of the subclass, the redefined code is run. The class itself can invoke the non-overridden version by using the super keyword as the receiver of the appropriate message.
I'm trying to define a "Product"-class for my model (.edmx), and I have it in the same folder as the model.
I get: Ambiguity between 'MVCTest.Models.Product.ProductID' and 'MVCTest.Models.Product.ProductID' error
What's needed to do so I can define my classes correctly?
/M
Have you tried using "Partial class"? Only really appropriate if it's an extension of the product class I guess.
If this is not what you were looking for then let us know with more information or even code snippets.
You could always separate out by namespace. Have one class in one namespace. Although having the same class with the same properties is a bit unusual, and suggests that you need to refactor and create some form of inheritance as griegs suggested.
I am dealing with a large codebase that has a lot of classes and a lot of abstract methods on these classes. I am interested in peoples opinions about what I should do in the following situation.
If I have a class Parent-A with an abstract method. There will only be 2 children. If Child-B implements AbstractMethodA but Child-B does not as it doesnt apply.
Should I
Remove the abstract keyword from parent and use virtual or dynamic?
Provide a empty implementation of the method.
Provide an implementation that raises an error if called.
Ignore the warning.
Edit: Thanks for all the answers. It confirmed my suspicion that this shouldn't happen. After further investigation it turns out the methods weren't used at all so I have removed them entirely.
If AbstractMethodA does not apply to Child-B, then Child-B should not be inheriting from Parent-A.
Or to take the contrapositive, if Child-B inherits from Parent-A, and AbstractMethodA does not apply to the child, then it should not be in the parent either.
By putting a method in Parent-A, you are saying that the method applies to Parent-A and all its children. That's what inheritance means, and if you use it to mean something different, you will end up in a serious dispute with your compiler.
[Edit - that said, Mladen Prajdic's answer is fine if the method does apply, but should do nothing for one or more of the classes involved. A method which does nothing is IMO not the same thing as a method which is not applicable, but maybe we don't mean the same thing by "doesn't apply"]
Another technique is to implement the method in Child-B anyway, but have it do something drastic like always returning failure, or throw an exception, or something. It works, but should be regarded as a bit of a bodge rather than a clean design, since it means that callers need to know that the thing they have that they're treating as Parent-A is really a child-B and hence they shouldn't call AbstractMethodA. Basically you've discarded polymorphism, which is the main benefit of OO inheritance. Personally I prefer doing it this way over having an exception-throwing implementation in the base class, because then a child class can't "accidentally" behave badly by "forgetting" to implement the method at all. It has to implement it, and if it implements it to not work then it does so explicitly. A bad situation should be noisy.
If implementation in descendants is not mandatory then you should go for 1+2 (i.e. empty virtual method in ancestor)
I think that, generally speaking, you shouldn't inherit from the abstract class if you are unable to implement all of the abstract methods in the first place, but I understand that there are some situations where it still makes senseto do that, (see the Stream class and its implementations).
I think you should just create implementations of these abstract methods that throw a NotImplementedException.
You can also try using ObsoleteAttribute so that calling that particular method would be a compile time error (on top of throwing NotImplementedException of course). Note that ObsoleteAttribute is not quite meant to be used for this, but I guess if you use a meaningful error message with comments, it's alright.
Obligatory code example:
[Obsolete("This class does not implement this method", true)]
public override string MyReallyImportantMethod()
{
throw new NotImplementedException("This class does not implement this method.");
}
make it virtual empty in base class and override it in children.
You could use interfaces. Then Child-A and Child-B can both implement different methods and still inherit from Parent-A. Interfaces work like abstract methods in that they force the class to implement them.
If some subclasses (B1, B2, ...) of A are used for a different subset of its methods than others (C1, C2, ...), one might say that A can be split in B and C.
I don't know Delphi too well (not at all :) ), but I thought that just like e.g. in Java and COM, a class can 'implement' multiple interfaces. In C++ this can only be achieved by multiply inheriting abstract classes.
More concrete: I would create two abstract classes (with abstract methods), and change the inheritance tree.
If that's not possible, a workaround could be an "Adapter": an intermediate class A_nonB_ with all B methods implemented empty (and yielding a warning on calling them), and A_nonC_. Then change the inheritance tree to solve your problem: B1, B2, ... inherit from A_nonC_ and C1, C2,... inherit from A_NonB_.