I am writing a custom subclass of UITableView. I would need this object itself to be its own data source and delegate, and this subclass would then have its own data source and delegate. This is done primarily so I can intercept calls to the datasource and delegate and potentially augment them before sending them off to their actual datasources.
My class is defined as so.
CustomTableView : UITableView<UITableViewDelegate, UITableViewDataSource> {
...
id customDataSource;
id customDelegate;
}
The problem comes when I try to set my data source and delegate.
I would like to override uitableview's properties:
- (void)setDataSource(id<UITableViewDataSource>)ds {
[super setDataSource:self]
customDataSource = ds;
}
Basically, I would like to tell the parent class(UItableView) to set the data source to self. I would then forward any callbacks to the customDataSource, after I have modified them.
[super setDataSource:self] doesnt crash, but the datasource never gets set. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks
I ended up not needing to use the method proposed in this question, but I did get it working. The problem was that I had accidentaly synthesized the properties that needed overriding, namely dataSource and delegate.
For people who need to do this in the future, simply override setDelegate and setDataSource in your custom subclass.
Dont assign the datasource to self. Create an intermediate object, which you contain in your CustomTableView, and set the datasource to that. Call it DataSourceInterceptor or something.
Another way to accomplish this would be to method-swizzle the datasource object that is being set.
Related
I understand how to use delegation with iOS objects that already exist. For example, if I create an instance of a UITableView, and my view controller conforms to the UITableView delegate, I can implement the various methods of the UITableView delegate. My newly create table can receive notifications, for example, when didSelectRowAtIndexPath is called.
My question is why did my table get this particular delegate callback? My understanding is that the delegate is just a list of methods with no implementation. It seems to me there must be a lot more going on. What is really going on "behind the scenes"?
Image if I were to rename all the delegate methods to the following:
- mysteryMethod1
- mysteryMethod2
- mysteryMethod3... Etc
One of these methods is responsible for setting the height of a row at a particular index. Another one these methods will be responsible for editing a particular row.
Everything I read about delegation says the delegator makes a contract with the delegate. The delegate promises to implement the methods. When it does, somehow everything is wired up correctly and everything magically works. What is the magic that I'm not seeing?
I think that in order to know how delegates actually work you should create your own custom delegate first, that way you will see that there is no magic under the hood, you probably can't see the implementation of the actual apple build in delegate methods but I assure you that there is a lot of logic implemented in those but it's just not available for privacy reasons I assume.
When you create your custom delegate let's say for example...
You have Class A and in this class, you start by creating a protocol
protocol ClassADelegate: class {
func changeBackgroundColor(_ color: UIColor?)
}
In this class you have a delegate property like this.
weak var delegate: ClassADelegate?
Let's say that this class is a Viewcontroller and you have an IBACtion on it like a UIbutton, and your goal is that when you tap that button another ViewController in your app change its background color to blue. Inside this action in Class A you do this...
func someAction() {
delegate?.changeBackgroundColor(.blue)
}
,
Let's say that the "magic" happens here in class A, by the way if you are thinking in delegates using UITableview think that UItableView is class A.
ok so now you have Class B that is where you want to change the color right?
Well now class B needs to conform to the protocol like this, just like you also conform to the protocol UITableViewDelegate etc.
class ClassB: UIViewController, ClassADelegate {
}
Now think of the word delegate for a second and think what that means, you are just delegating responsibility to somebody else, right? and yes, in this case, ClassB is going to be the delegated, for that we need to have an instance of Class A in class B just to have access to it's delegate property.
let classa = ClassA()
classa.delegate = self
the final step is just to call the method of the protocol like this..
func changeBackgroundColor(_ color: UIColor?) {
view.backgroundColor = color
}
To conclude if yo see this method in your class but you don't have access to the implementation of the protocol, you will ask yourself "where does this magic color coming from??" but as you saw it just comes from another class where a protocol belongs to, hope this helps.
I have tried to make a location autocomplete text view class by subclassing UITextField and use Google Place Autocomplete API. This works great, but I have a design error due to the implementation. To observe when the user types text, I set the UITextFieldDelegate to self in the custom subclass and track changes to the typed text in textView:shouldChangeTextInRange:replacementText:. This works, but here is the design error: If someone now wants to check what is typed into the custom subclass by setting the delegate to something new, the delegate of my class is not set to the object of the class itself anymore. Now the custom class is useless. Is there any way to either get the text as it is typed without the delegate, prevent the delegate from being changed, or in any other way fix my problem?
A few options I have though about that could work, but in a bad way:
Check regularly what the text property is: Should be obvious why busy waiting is a stupid idea
Override the delegate property and set it to private: Not sure if this will even work, but if it did, the class is no longer a proper subclass of UITextField and all delegate methods are unavailable when implementing my subclass.
Provide a new delegate for further use of the delegate: Allows someone to get the same things as the UITextFieldDelegate provides, but it still messes up the documentation and proper implementation of UITextField
Delegates in UIKit I normally one to one connections. Which can cause the problem you have described.
If you want multiple delegates of a UITextField I would derive a class from UITextField for example MYTextField and add a method to addDelegate and removeDelegate that maintains a list of delegates. The sent the MYTextField's delegate to itself and broadcast any delegate method to all listeners in the delegate array.
this post shows example code on how do maintain a list of multiple delegates.
Delegation to multiple objects
I have a UITableView combined with a fetched Results Controller. I deployed controller will change content method, and set the delegate of the frc to self.
But in a function I want to nil out it's delegate so that the will change content delegate method won't be called, and change delegate to self again after some operations to make sure other methods work right, just like this:
-(void)function
{
self.frc.delegate = nil;
for (id obj in self.frc.fetchedObjects) {
if ([obj isKindOfClass:[MultiValue class]]) {
MultiValue * multiValue = (MultiValue *)obj;
multiValue.isSelected = [NSNumber numberWithBool:YES];
}
}
self.frc.delegate = self;
}
The problem is, the delegate method (controllerWillChangeContent) will be called after the function method, so after I set self.frc.delegate to self, the delegate method will still be called.
How to solve this? Many thanks.
First of all:
Delegating is a way to customize the behavior of objects. It has similarities with subclassing on a per-instance basis. Would you change the hierarchy of an instance's class while the object is living? (Yes, you would do in some situations – very rarely.)
So the delegate of an object is not a "state" of the object, you should change. It is something like the "kind" of an object. You should recheck your whole approach.
Second of all:
The reason is that all changes are collected and the delegate message is sent afterwards, when you reset the delegate. This behavior is better in most situations. From the docs:
Rather than responding to changes individually (as illustrated in
Typical Use), you could just implement controllerDidChangeContent:
(which is sent to the delegate when all pending changes have been
processed) to reload the table view.
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/CoreData/Reference/NSFetchedResultsControllerDelegate_Protocol/index.html
To your Q:
You should recheck, why you do not want to be informed about changes in a specific situation while you want to be informed in other situations. This looks like a structural smell. If you are really in such a situation, you should recheck this again. If you are still in such a situation, you can set a flag inside the delegate that signals to ignore a change.
Say I write a UITextField subclass and want to have control over the text written into it by the user. I would set the input field's delegate to be myself and implement -textField:shouldChangeCharactersInRange:replacementString:.
However, I would still want to allow whatever part of code uses me as a text field to implement the usual delegate methods. An approach for that would be to store a second delegate reference and map them like so:
- (id)init {
self = [super init];
super.delegate = self;
return self;
}
- (void)setDelegate:(id)delegate {
self.nextDelegate = delegate;
}
- (id)delegate {
return self.nextDelegate;
}
I would then proceed to implement all UITextFieldDelegate methods and forward them to the next delegate as I wish. Obviously, I may want to modify some parameters before passing them on to the next delegate, like in -textField:shouldChangeCharactersInRange:replacementString:.
Another problem I'm thinking of is when the user's sets nextDelegate to the text field itself (for whatever reason), resulting in an infinite loop.
Is there a more elegant way to hijack delegate callbacks like in the example code I posted?
The problem with your approach is the overridden delegate accessor: There's no guarantee that Apple's code always uses the delegate ivar directly and does not use the getter to access the delegate. In that case it would just call through to the nextDelegate, bypassing your sneaked in self delegate.
You might have checked that your approach works in the current implementation but this could also change in future UIKit versions.
Is there a more elegant way to hijack delegate callbacks like in the example code I posted?
No, I'm not aware of any elegant solutions. You could not override the delegate accessor and instead set up secondary delegate (to which you have to manually pass all delegate messages).
To solve the actual problem of filtering text input it might be worthwhile looking into
- (void)replaceRange:(UITextRange *)range withText:(NSString *)text;
This method is implemented by UITextField (as it adopts UITextInput) and could be overridden to filter the text argument.
I think you're thinking about this correctly, and the approach you outlined will work fine (I've done it).
There's no circularity issue because you shouldn't expose nextDelegate in the subclass's public interface, so no caller will have the chance to setup a cycle. (You could also test in the setter that delegate != self.
It would be better, though, if you could avoid this altogether. For example, if you just want to tweak the text field text as it changes, you can get the control event:
[self addTarget:self action:#selector(didChange:) forControlEvents:UIControlEventEditingChanged];
Then,
- (void)textFieldDidChange:(id)sender {
self.text = [self alteredText];
}
- (NSString *)alteredText {
// do whatever transform to user input you wish, like change user input 'a' to 'x'
return [self.text stringByReplacingOccurrencesOfString:#"a" withString:#"x"];
}
This will work as well, but with the odd side effect that the delegate won't see the alteredText in shouldChangeCharactersInRange:. That's fixable by making alteredText public and having the class customers call it instead of the standard getter.
All of the problems with subclassing can be avoided by using a different approach of intercepting delegate messages: A "delegate proxy".
The idea is to use an intermediate object (derived from NSProxy) that either responds to a delegate message or passes it along to the next delegate. It's basically what you did by subclassing the UITextField but instead of using the text field object we'll use a custom object that handles only the interception of some delegate messages.
These customized delegate proxys form a set of reusable building blocks which are simply plugged into each other to customize the behavior of any object that uses delegation.
Here's an example (code on github) of a chain of delegates:
UITextField -> TextFilterDelegate -> SomeViewController
The UITextField passes delegate messages to TextFilterDelegate which responds to textField:shouldChangeCharactersInRange:replacementString: and passes other delegate messages on to its own delegate (the view controller).
Right now I have a view controller that handles a lot of network requests. They are each a subclass of a NetworkRequest class and this view controller is the delegate of all of them. It implements one callback function, networkRequestDidFinish.
The problem is that all these network requests are separate objects, and they will all call that same function. What is the proper way to design this? Right now I go through a bunch of if statements in networkRequestDidFinish to see what kind of network request returned. It feels wrong though, but I am not sure what is conventional to do in this case.
Thanks.
One useful pattern here is to be sure that the delegate methods pass self to the view controller. It sounds like you might already be doing this - if you're using a series of if statements, you probably have a pointer to the relevant NetworkRequest. If you aren't, or are not sure, read on.
You see this pattern pretty much wherever delegation is used. As an arbitrary example, take the UITableViewDelegate protocol. The first argument of each of the delegate methods is a UITableView. For example:
- (CGFloat)tableView:(UITableView *)tableView heightForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath
When a UITableView instance calls this delegate method, it passes self as that first argument. It does something like:
[self.delegate tableView:self heightForRowAtIndexPath:0];
Then, the delegate knows which UITableView it's dealing with, because it has a pointer dropped in its lap, as the argument tableView.
In your case, I would start by adding a parameter to the delegate method networkRequestDidFinish, changing its signature to:
- (void)networkRequestDidFinish:(NetworkRequest *)networkRequest
That way you can tell which instance of NetworkRequest has called the delegate method.
Already had that, or that's not good enough? Well, the next thing I'd say would be to consider whether you really need to perform different actions based on the actual class of the NetworkRequest instance that's calling the delegate method. If you're just passing along the data, the answer is probably no. For example:
- (void)networkRequestDidFinish:(NetworkRequest *)networkRequest {
[self processData:networkRequest.data];
}
That method doesn't care what class networkRequest really is. But you seem to care, since you're doing "a bunch of if statements." Then I would say that it might be a mistake to have them all hitting one delegate method. Instead, you might want to get rid of a delegate on NetworkRequest, and instead add a protocol to each of the subclasses of that class, specific to the subclass.
What?
Let's look at an example.
Imagine that one of the subclasses of NetworkRequest is FooNetworkRequest which, of course, requests foos. Its header might look like this:
// stuff...
#protocol FooNetworkRequestDelegate
- (void)fooNetworkRequestDidFinish:(FooNetworkRequest *)fooNetworkRequest;
#end
#interface FooNetworkRequest : NetworkRequest
#property (weak, nonatomic) id<FooNetworkRequestDelegate> delegate;
// stuff...
#end
You apply a similar treatment to all the other subclasses of NetworkRequest. Then, your view controller would adopt each of these protocols, and have a separate method for each subclass of NetworkRequest.
That still seems kind of dirty, right? It does to me. Maybe this is a hint that your view controller is trying to handle too many things at once. You should consider trying to spread out the responsibility for all these NetworkRequest subclasses to multiple view controller or model classes.
If that's not an option, you can at least make your view controller's source a little easier to read by using one or more categories. Put your view controller's main behavior in its .m file, as usual, and then create a category on that view controller that adopts the proper protocol(s) and handles the requests.
There are generally 2 nice procedures.
You can use block instead of the delegate. That means you can send a block to your request class either when instancing it or when you make the request.
Use a target/selector pair system to make it look kind of like adding a target to an UIButton. NSInvocation should do the trick.