I have a an iPhone app in which class A is a subclass of UIViewController:
Now I'm creating a new app, in which I want to re-use A, but have it subclass from B, which is fine, because B subclasses from UIViewController:
But now I have another class, C, which is a subclass of GLKViewController:
The problem comes when I try to make a third app which re-uses B without any changes. Since B inherits from UIViewController, I need to somehow tell C that it should inherit from B and from GLKViewController, which I believe is a case of multiple inheritance:
From what I'm reading, the best way to handle this is with composition, but I don't understand how to best apply it to my situation.
As a stand-in solution, I realized I could just create a wrapper class D which I can then modify on an app-by-app basis to subclass from the appropriate superclass for the task at hand:
But that seems kind of hacky. Is there a better way to do this?
Objective C only supports single inheritance. In this case you'd probably want to use protocols for common functionality. You can use a helper object to implement the protocol methods. In this case, you're not interested in whether your object is a member of a particular class, but whether it implements a specific set of methods.
you can't do that in Objective-C is single inheritance -- like java or most of the other modern languages.
use a paradigm of composition or delegation
You could possibly get that covered by using a category. It certainly is not the same as multiple inheritance but sometimes does the job.
Let me draft an example for a category and see if that does what you aim for.
Header: UIViewController+MyAwesomeExtension.h
#interface UIViewController (MyAwesomeExtension)
- (void)doSomething;
#end
Implementation: UIViewController+MyAwesomeExtension.m
#implementation UIViewController (MyAwesomeExtension)
- (void)doSomething
{
NSLog(#"doing something totally awesome");
}
#end
Now you are using it from within one of your UIViewController subclasses which also includes like e.g. GLKViewController ...
Implementation:
#import "UIViewController+MyAwesomeExtension.h"
...
[self.viewControllerDerivedClass doSomething];
...
Note that such category does have its limits. To find out more, how about researching the subject a bit further.
Overall, I think the "most" correct answer would be using protocols to get as close to multiple inheritance as possible, as Mike C. drafted in his answer. My answer is mostly a workaround for simple cases.
Related
I have a framework in obj-c which is included by other modules. I want to allow the modules which are going to include it to provide their own implementation for certain methods.
I can't use subclassing because of some issues around serializing these objects. So, have to rely on using category.
I am thinking of declaring a method/selector for the object and then modules will define the category and implement that method. Something like below:
Framework will declare interface like below:
#interface framework:NSObject
- (void)methodToBeImplemented;
#end
#implementation framework()
- (void)invokeClientDefinedMethod
{
if([self respondsToSelector:#(methodToBeImplemented)]) {
[self methodToBeImplemented];
}
}
//Module-1 will link against this framework and define the category
#implementation framework(methodImplementor)
- (void)methodToBeImplemented
{
...
}
#end
Can I choose not to implement methodToBeImplemented at all in framework and implementation to be provided by the modules themselves.
I know that I can do it performSelector route. But I cringe to do so because I want to send pointers to my method which is not really possible with performSelector
If possible, I would highly recommend using a delegate pattern for your object so that callers can pass a delegate that conforms to a protocol rather than directly extending the class. That's the normal way to implement this kind of system. But if there's a particular reason a delegate is not possible, you can build what you're describing.
What you're looking for is an informal protocol, which is how almost all protocols were handled prior to the introduction of #optional.
What you want to do is define a category on your class in your public header:
#interface Framework (OverridePoints)
- (void)methodToBeImplemented
#end
This declares that such a method may exist, but it does not enforce its actually being implemented. The key is having a name in the parentheses. This can be anything (I used "OverridePoints" here), but it cannot be empty since that would be an extension instead of a category.
Once you have that, then the rest of your ideas work. You can test for respondsToSelector:, and the consumer can implement (or not implement) the category methods just as you describe.
The one danger is that there is nothing preventing multiple parts of the program implementing the same method in categories. That is undefined behavior, but the compiler will not catch it for you.
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.
Quick question about semantics :)
If I was writing a protocol, which is preferred:
// (a)
#protocol MyProtocol
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSSet *things;
#end
vs.
// (b)
#protocol MyProtocol
- (NSSet *)things;
- (void)setThings:(NSSet *)things;
#end
(a) is cleaner code but has the implication that implementing classes will have an ivar for things, which isn't the case in my project. Because of my use case, things cannot be KVO either. It also implies that the implementing class will copy things, which it's not doing in every case for me.
(b) is more accurate code (it's very explicit about what you can / can't do i.e. no KVO) but it's a little messier.
Any opinions?
I am amending my answer that (a) probably is not best for a protocol but best for a non-protocol interface.
I would go with the #property. How a property is implemented is an implementation detail and I never consider that from the outside.
Consider a v1 implementation where the property is only that. In v2 the internals are changed and either the setter or getter is made a method. Totally reasonable, one of the reasons that properties are good, they allow such changes, they hide the implementation details.
Also consider the opposite, in the next version where is is desired to remove the methods and replace them with a property. Again an implementation detail that a property in the first instance covers quite well.
Finally, in this case there is a copy attribute which provided explicit information of how a call with a mutable object will be handled, that is lost in the method implementation.
Protocols define messaging contracts [1]. They are not intended to store data. According to the Apple documentation you are only supposed to add properties to class extensions (you can add properties to categories but the compiler won't synthesize an ivar) [2]. Depending on what you are trying to do I would use one of the two following approaches to be consistent with the documented usage of the Objective-C language:
If you have the source code of the class (its one you created) then use a class extension.
If you do not have the source code sub-class the object.
That being said, if you really need to do it the other way use option (b). It is more corect and more correct is cleaner code!
Here is another question that deals with the same issue.
Good luck
I think case 'a' makes misinformation: class adopting protocol MyProtocol can follow not rules nonatomic and copy.
And for me it's very odd add properties inside protocols. It is going against paradigms of object oriented programming: delegates shold do some action, not provide informations.
So I advice you not use 'a' and 'b' cases, but to think again about yours programm architecture.
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/
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.