self init.. vs. super init... in subclasses - ios

Question

I have a UIViewContoller subclass BaseViewControler. It has a method named -initWithStyle:. If I subclass that class as SubBaseViewContoller,
what should -[SubBaseViewController init] look like?
My code:
- (id)init
{
self = [self initWithStyle:kGreenStyle];
if (self) {
// stuff
}
return self;
}
In SubBaseViewController I don't have initWithStyle:
and my app crashed randomly with the -init above, I checked other view controllers which are subclasses of BaseViewController, and they use self = [super initWithStyle:kGreenStyle], and work. What's the explanation?

Answer 1

A UIViewController has two designated initializers:
- (id)initWithNibName:(NSString *)nibName bundle:(NSBundle *)nibBundle;
and
- (instancetype)initWithCoder:(NSCoder *)aDecoder;
The second form will be invoked when Interface Builder is used to define a View Controller with a resource, that is nib files ore segues. The first form can be used when you manually create a view controller.
You can override these initializers as follows:
// Designated initializer
- (id)initWithNibName:(NSString *)nibName bundle:(NSBundle *)nibBundle
{
self = [super initWithNibName:nibName bundle:nibBundle];
if (self) {
; // your initialization
}
return self;
}
// Designated initializer
- (instancetype)initWithCoder:(NSCoder *)aDecoder
{
self = [super initWithCoder:aDecoder];
if (self) {
; // your initialization
}
return self;
}
Note: The method init will not be called when created from a resource. When you invoke init yourself, it will eventually call initWithNibName:bundle: with nil arguments.
See also: Reference: Multiple Initializers and the Designated Initializer
Another possible solution for your problem:
One approach to provide a method to initialize a custom View Controller is to use a "convenience class method". In this case, you don't need to override the designated initializers, instead you provide properties in your subclass.
The convenience class method may then look like as shown below:
// MyViewController
+ (instancetype) myViewControllerWithStyle:(Style)style
{
// Possibly get the bundle and the nib name (or leave it nil)
...
// Invoke a designated initializer with suitable parameters:
MyViewController* viewController = [[MyViewController alloc] initWithName:nibName
bundle:bundle];
viewController.style = style;
return viewController;
}

Answer 2

You should use super instead of self:
- (id)init
{
self = [super initWithStyle:kGreenStyle];
if (self) {
}
return self;
}
If you do it that way you force just parent class to do all the initialisation which it supposed to do. And if you want to do something in init method just in your subclass you add it here:
- (id)init
{
self = [super initWithStyle:kGreenStyle];
if (self) {
// do some stuff you need to do in subclass initialisation
// for example init variable specific just for that class (not parent class)
}
return self;
}

Answer 3

This is kind of a synthesis of Greg's and CouchDeveloper's answers.
But really, it's a defense of Greg's answer.
First, yes, understand designated initializers. They are important, and CouchDeveloper
is right to emphasize this.
Second, nothing prevents a subclass of UIViewController from having
completely different designated initializers (preferably one) of your own choosing.
If you are creating UIViewControllers outside of Interface Builder,
as it appears the OP may be doing, the primacy of -initWithNibName:Bundle:
and -initWithCoder: becomes silly.
Apple say this:
When you define a subclass, you must be able to identify the designated initializer of the superclass and invoke it in your subclass’s designated initializer through a message to super. You must also make sure that inherited initializers are covered in some way.
Given that, here's what the OP's BaseViewController might look like:
const NSUInteger kDefaultStyle = 0; // just to have something to use
#implementation BaseViewContoller
// No longer valid for *this* class.
// Should have one for -initWithCoder: too, but elided for this example.
- (instancetype)initWithNibName:(NSString *)nibNameOrNil
bundle:(NSBundle *)nibBundleOrNil
{
[self doesNotRecognizeSelector:_cmd];
return nil;
}
// New designated initializer for *this* class.
// This should call the superclass's designated initializer.
- (instancetype)initWithStyle:(NSUInteger)style
{
// use the designated initializer of the superclass to init
if ((self = [super initWithNibName:nil bundle:nil])) {
// stuff
}
return self;
}
// in *other* initializers, you *should* call *your* class's
// designated initializer.
- (instancetype)init
{
return [self initWithStyle:kDefaultStyle];
}
#end
Given this, I think CouchDeveloper's "this is wrong" calling out in the comments
of Greg's answer is itself wrong. This is because:
BaseViewController is unseen, so we can't possibly know what its designated initializer is, regardless of its superclass.
OP has given every indication that -[BaseViewController initWithStyle:] is the designated initializer
OP is perfectly free to declare [SubBaseViewController init] as the designated initializer, so long as he follows the rules.
Finally, unrequested advice for the OP:
Assuming those aren't typos in your original post, you should always capitalize the
first letter of class names. BaseViewController, not baseViewController.
You can swim against the idiom is when you
become a total badass; by that point, I'll wager you'll not want to.