Related
I tend to only put the necessities (stored properties, initializers) into my class definitions and move everything else into their own extension, kind of like an extension per logical block that I would group with // MARK: as well.
For a UIView subclass for example, I would end up with an extension for layout-related stuff, one for subscribing and handling events and so forth. In these extensions, I inevitably have to override some UIKit methods, e.g. layoutSubviews. I never noticed any issues with this approach -- until today.
Take this class hierarchy for example:
public class C: NSObject {
public func method() { print("C") }
}
public class B: C {
}
extension B {
override public func method() { print("B") }
}
public class A: B {
}
extension A {
override public func method() { print("A") }
}
(A() as A).method()
(A() as B).method()
(A() as C).method()
The output is A B C. That makes little sense to me. I read about Protocol Extensions being statically dispatched, but this ain't a protocol. This is a regular class, and I expect method calls to be dynamically dispatched at runtime. Clearly the call on C should at least be dynamically dispatched and produce C?
If I remove the inheritance from NSObject and make C a root class, the compiler complains saying declarations in extensions cannot override yet, which I read about already. But how does having NSObject as a root class change things?
Moving both overrides into their class declaration produces A A A as expected, moving only B's produces A B B, moving only A's produces C B C, the last of which makes absolutely no sense to me: not even the one statically typed to A produces the A-output any more!
Adding the dynamic keyword to the definition or an override does seem to give me the desired behavior 'from that point in the class hierarchy downwards'...
Let's change our example to something a little less constructed, what actually made me post this question:
public class B: UIView {
}
extension B {
override public func layoutSubviews() { print("B") }
}
public class A: B {
}
extension A {
override public func layoutSubviews() { print("A") }
}
(A() as A).layoutSubviews()
(A() as B).layoutSubviews()
(A() as UIView).layoutSubviews()
We now get A B A. Here I cannot make UIView's layoutSubviews dynamic by any means.
Moving both overrides into their class declaration gets us A A A again, only A's or only B's still gets us A B A. dynamic again solves my problems.
In theory I could add dynamic to all overrides I ever do but I feel like I'm doing something else wrong here.
Is it really wrong to use extensions for grouping code like I do?
Extensions cannot/should not override.
It is not possible to override functionality (like properties or methods) in extensions as documented in Apple's Swift Guide.
Extensions can add new functionality to a type, but they cannot override existing functionality.
Swift Developer Guide
The compiler is allowing you to override in the extension for compatibility with Objective-C. But it's actually violating the language directive.
😊That just reminded me of Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" 🤖
Extensions (syntactic sugar) define independent methods that receive their own arguments. The function that is called for i.e. layoutSubviews depends on the context the compiler knows about when the code is compiled. UIView inherits from UIResponder which inherits from NSObject so the override in the extension is permitted but should not be.
So there's nothing wrong with grouping but you should override in the class not in the extension.
Directive Notes
You can only override a superclass method i.e. load() initialize()in an extension of a subclass if the method is Objective-C compatible.
Therefore we can take a look at why it is allowing you to compile using layoutSubviews.
All Swift apps execute inside the Objective-C runtime except for when using pure Swift-only frameworks which allow for a Swift-only runtime.
As we found out the Objective-C runtime generally calls two class main methods load() and initialize() automatically when initializing classes in your app’s processes.
Regarding the dynamic modifier
From the Apple Developer Library (archive.org)
You can use the dynamic modifier to require that access to members be dynamically dispatched through the Objective-C runtime.
When Swift APIs are imported by the Objective-C runtime, there are no guarantees of dynamic dispatch for properties, methods, subscripts, or initializers. The Swift compiler may still devirtualize or inline member access to optimize the performance of your code, bypassing the Objective-C runtime. 😳
So dynamic can be applied to your layoutSubviews -> UIView Class since it’s represented by Objective-C and access to that member is always used using the Objective-C runtime.
That's why the compiler allowing you to use override and dynamic.
One of the goals of Swift is static dispatching, or rather the reduction of dynamic dispatching. Obj-C however is a very dynamic language. The situation you're seeing is borne out of the link between the 2 languages and the way they work together. It shouldn't really compile.
One of the main points about extensions is that they are for extending, not for replacing / overriding. It's clear from both the name and the documentation that this is the intention. Indeed if you take out the link to Obj-C from your code (remove NSObject as the superclass) it won't compile.
So, the compiler is trying to decide what it can statically dispatch and what it has to dynamically dispatch, and it's falling through a gap because of the Obj-C link in your code. The reason dynamic 'works' is because it's forcing Obj-C linking on everything so it's all always dynamic.
So, it isn't wrong to use extensions for grouping, that's great, but it is wrong to override in extensions. Any overrides should be in the main class itself, and call out to extension points.
There is a way to achieve a clean separation of class signature and implementation (in extensions) while maintaining the ability to have overrides in subclasses. The trick is to use variables in place of the functions
If you make sure to define each subclass in a separate swift source file, you can use computed variables for the overrides while keeping the corresponding implementation cleanly organized in extensions. This will circumvent Swift's "rules" and will make your class's API/signature neatly organized in one place:
// ---------- BaseClass.swift -------------
public class BaseClass
{
public var method1:(Int) -> String { return doMethod1 }
public init() {}
}
// the extension could also be in a separate file
extension BaseClass
{
private func doMethod1(param:Int) -> String { return "BaseClass \(param)" }
}
...
// ---------- ClassA.swift ----------
public class A:BaseClass
{
override public var method1:(Int) -> String { return doMethod1 }
}
// this extension can be in a separate file but not in the same
// file as the BaseClass extension that defines its doMethod1 implementation
extension A
{
private func doMethod1(param:Int) -> String
{
return "A \(param) added to \(super.method1(param))"
}
}
...
// ---------- ClassB.swift ----------
public class B:A
{
override public var method1:(Int) -> String { return doMethod1 }
}
extension B
{
private func doMethod1(param:Int) -> String
{
return "B \(param) added to \(super.method1(param))"
}
}
Each class's extension are able to use the same method names for the implementation because they are private and not visible to each other (as long as they are in separate files).
As you can see inheritance (using the variable name) works properly using super.variablename
BaseClass().method1(123) --> "BaseClass 123"
A().method1(123) --> "A 123 added to BaseClass 123"
B().method1(123) --> "B 123 added to A 123 added to BaseClass 123"
(B() as A).method1(123) --> "B 123 added to A 123 added to BaseClass 123"
(B() as BaseClass).method1(123) --> "B 123 added to A 123 added to BaseClass 123"
This answer it not aimed at the OP, other than the fact that I felt inspired to respond by his statement, "I tend to only put the necessities (stored properties, initializers) into my class definitions and move everything else into their own extension ...". I'm primarily a C# programmer, and in C# one can use partial classes for this purpose. For example, Visual Studio places the UI-related stuff in a separate source file using a partial class, and leaves your main source file uncluttered so you don't have that distraction.
If you search for "swift partial class" you'll find various links where Swift adherents say that Swift doesn't need partial classes because you can use extensions. Interestingly, if you type "swift extension" into the Google search field, its first search suggestion is "swift extension override", and at the moment this Stack Overflow question is the first hit. I take that to mean that problems with (lack of) override capabilities are the most searched-for topic related to Swift extensions, and highlights the fact that Swift extensions can't possibly replace partial classes, at least if you use derived classes in your programming.
Anyway, to cut a long-winded introduction short, I ran into this problem in a situation where I wanted to move some boilerplate / baggage methods out of the main source files for Swift classes that my C#-to-Swift program was generating. After running into the problem of no override allowed for these methods after moving them to extensions, I ended up implementing the following simple-minded workaround. The main Swift source files still contain some tiny stub methods that call the real methods in the extension files, and these extension methods are given unique names to avoid the override problem.
public protocol PCopierSerializable {
static func getFieldTable(mCopier : MCopier) -> FieldTable
static func createObject(initTable : [Int : Any?]) -> Any
func doSerialization(mCopier : MCopier)
}
.
public class SimpleClass : PCopierSerializable {
public var aMember : Int32
public init(
aMember : Int32
) {
self.aMember = aMember
}
public class func getFieldTable(mCopier : MCopier) -> FieldTable {
return getFieldTable_SimpleClass(mCopier: mCopier)
}
public class func createObject(initTable : [Int : Any?]) -> Any {
return createObject_SimpleClass(initTable: initTable)
}
public func doSerialization(mCopier : MCopier) {
doSerialization_SimpleClass(mCopier: mCopier)
}
}
.
extension SimpleClass {
class func getFieldTable_SimpleClass(mCopier : MCopier) -> FieldTable {
var fieldTable : FieldTable = [ : ]
fieldTable[376442881] = { () in try mCopier.getInt32A() } // aMember
return fieldTable
}
class func createObject_SimpleClass(initTable : [Int : Any?]) -> Any {
return SimpleClass(
aMember: initTable[376442881] as! Int32
)
}
func doSerialization_SimpleClass(mCopier : MCopier) {
mCopier.writeBinaryObjectHeader(367620, 1)
mCopier.serializeProperty(376442881, .eInt32, { () in mCopier.putInt32(aMember) } )
}
}
.
public class DerivedClass : SimpleClass {
public var aNewMember : Int32
public init(
aNewMember : Int32,
aMember : Int32
) {
self.aNewMember = aNewMember
super.init(
aMember: aMember
)
}
public class override func getFieldTable(mCopier : MCopier) -> FieldTable {
return getFieldTable_DerivedClass(mCopier: mCopier)
}
public class override func createObject(initTable : [Int : Any?]) -> Any {
return createObject_DerivedClass(initTable: initTable)
}
public override func doSerialization(mCopier : MCopier) {
doSerialization_DerivedClass(mCopier: mCopier)
}
}
.
extension DerivedClass {
class func getFieldTable_DerivedClass(mCopier : MCopier) -> FieldTable {
var fieldTable : FieldTable = [ : ]
fieldTable[376443905] = { () in try mCopier.getInt32A() } // aNewMember
fieldTable[376442881] = { () in try mCopier.getInt32A() } // aMember
return fieldTable
}
class func createObject_DerivedClass(initTable : [Int : Any?]) -> Any {
return DerivedClass(
aNewMember: initTable[376443905] as! Int32,
aMember: initTable[376442881] as! Int32
)
}
func doSerialization_DerivedClass(mCopier : MCopier) {
mCopier.writeBinaryObjectHeader(367621, 2)
mCopier.serializeProperty(376443905, .eInt32, { () in mCopier.putInt32(aNewMember) } )
mCopier.serializeProperty(376442881, .eInt32, { () in mCopier.putInt32(aMember) } )
}
}
Like I said in my introduction, this doesn't really answer the OP's question, but I'm hoping this simple-minded workaround might be helpful to others who wish to move methods from the main source files to extension files and run into the no-override problem.
Use POP (Protocol-Oriented Programming) to override functions in extensions.
protocol AProtocol {
func aFunction()
}
extension AProtocol {
func aFunction() {
print("empty")
}
}
class AClass: AProtocol {
}
extension AClass {
func aFunction() {
print("not empty")
}
}
let cls = AClass()
cls.aFunction()
Just wanted to add that for Objective-C classes, two separate categories can end up overwriting the same method, and it this case... well... unexpected things can happen.
The Objective-C runtime doesn't make any guarantees about which extension will be used, as described by Apple here:
If the name of a method declared in a category is the same as a method in the original class, or a method in another category on the same class (or even a superclass), the behavior is undefined as to which method implementation is used at runtime. This is less likely to be an issue if you’re using categories with your own classes, but can cause problems when using categories to add methods to standard Cocoa or Cocoa Touch classes.
It's a good thing Swift prohibits this for pure Swift classes, since this kind of overly-dynamic behaviour is a potential source of hard to detect and investigate bugs.
I've encountered a problem that is explained in the code below (Swift 3.1):
protocol MyProtocol {
func methodA()
func methodB()
}
extension MyProtocol {
func methodA() {
print("Default methodA")
}
func methodB() {
methodA()
}
}
// Test 1
class BaseClass: MyProtocol {
}
class SubClass: BaseClass {
func methodA() {
print("SubClass methodA")
}
}
let object1 = SubClass()
object1.methodB()
//
// Test 2
class JustClass: MyProtocol {
func methodA() {
print("JustClass methodA")
}
}
let object2 = JustClass()
object2.methodB()
//
// Output
// Default methodA
// JustClass methodA
So I would expect that "SubClass methodA" text should be printed after object1.methodB() call. But for some reason default implementation of methodA() from protocol extension is called. However object2.methodB()call works as expected.
Is it another Swift bug in protocol method dispatching or am I missing something and the code works correctly?
This is just how protocols currently dispatch methods.
A protocol witness table (see this WWDC talk for more info) is used in order to dynamically dispatch to implementations of protocol requirements upon being called on a protocol-typed instance. All it is, is really just a listing of the function implementations to call for each requirement of the protocol for a given conforming type.
Each type that states its conformance to a protocol gets its own protocol witness table. You'll note that I said "states its conformance", and not just "conforms to". BaseClass gets its own protocol witness table for conformance to MyProtocol. However SubClass does not get its own table for conformance to MyProtocol – instead, it simply relies on BaseClass's. If you moved the : MyProtocol down to the definition of SubClass, it would get to have its own PWT.
So all we have to think about here is what the PWT for BaseClass looks like. Well, it doesn't provide an implementation for either of the protocol requirements methodA() or methodB() – so it relies on the implementations in the protocol extension. What this means is that the PWT for BaseClass conforming to MyProtocol just contains mappings to the extension methods.
So, when the extension methodB() method is called, and makes the call out to methodA(), it dynamically dispatches that call through the PWT (as it's being called on a protocol-typed instance; namely self). So when this happens with a SubClass instance, we're going through BaseClass's PWT. So we end up calling the extension implementation of methodA(), regardless of the fact that SubClass provides an implementation of it.
Now let's consider the PWT of JustClass. It provides an implementation of methodA(), therefore its PWT for conformance to MyProtocol has that implementation as the mapping for methodA(), as well as the extension implementation for methodB(). So when methodA() is dynamically dispatched via its PWT, we end up in its implementation.
As I say in this Q&A, this behaviour of subclasses not getting their own PWTs for protocols that their superclass(es) conform to is indeed somewhat surprising, and has been filed as a bug. The reasoning behind it, as Swift team member Jordan Rose says in the comments of the bug report, is
[...] The subclass does not get to provide new members to satisfy the conformance. This is important because a protocol can be added to a base class in one module and a subclass created in another module.
Therefore if this was the behaviour, already-compiled subclasses would lack any PWTs from superclass conformances that were added after the fact in another module, which would be problematic.
As others have already said, one solution in this case is to have BaseClass provide its own implementation of methodA(). This method will now be in BaseClass's PWT, rather than the extension method.
Although of course, because we're dealing with classes here, it won't just be BaseClass's implementation of the method that's listed – instead it will be a thunk that then dynamically dispatches through the class' vtable (the mechanism by which classes achieve polymorphism). Therefore for a SubClass instance, we'll wind up calling its override of methodA().
A very short answer that a friend shared with me was:
Only the class that declares the conformance gets a protocol witness table
Meaning a subclass having that function has no effect on how the protocol witness table is setup.
The protocol witness is a contract only between the protocol, it's extensions, and the concrete class that implements it.
Well I suppose the subclass method A is not polymorphic because you can't put the override keyword on it, since the class doesn't know the method is implemented in an extension of the protocol and thus doesn't let you override it. The extension method is probably stepping on your implementation in runtime, much like 2 exact category methods trump each other with undefined behavior in objective C. You can fix this behavior by adding another layer in your model and implementing the methods in a class rather than the protocol extension, thus getting polymorphic behavior out of them. The downside is that you cannot leave methods unimplemented in this layer, as there is no native support for abstract classes (which is really what you're trying to do with protocol extensions)
protocol MyProtocol {
func methodA()
func methodB()
}
class MyProtocolClass: MyProtocol {
func methodA() {
print("Default methodA")
}
func methodB() {
methodA()
}
}
// Test 1
class BaseClass: MyProtocolClass {
}
class SubClass: BaseClass {
override func methodA() {
print("SubClass methodA")
}
}
let object1 = SubClass()
object1.methodB()
//
// Test 2
class JustClass: MyProtocolClass {
override func methodA() {
print("JustClass methodA")
}
}
let object2 = JustClass()
object2.methodB()
//
// Output
// SubClass methodA
// JustClass methodA
Also relevante answer here: Swift Protocol Extensions overriding
In your code,
let object1 = SubClass()
object1.methodB()
You invoked methodB from an instance of SubClass, but SubClass does not have any method named methodB. However its super class, BaseClass conform to MyProtocol, which has a methodB methodB.
So, it will invoke the methodB from MyProtocal. Therefore it will execute the methodA in extesion MyProtocol.
To reach what you expect, you need implement methodA in BaseClass and override it in SubClass, like the following code
class BaseClass: MyProtocol {
func methodA() {
print("BaseClass methodA")
}
}
class SubClass: BaseClass {
override func methodA() {
print("SubClass methodA")
}
}
Now, output would become
//Output
//SubClass methodA
//JustClass methodA
Although the method can reach what you expect, but I'm not sure this kind of code struct is recommended.
What I am trying to do is notify an object when it gets replaced as a delegate from my services object. I was wondering if there is a way to create a default implamintation of willSet so I do not have to duplicate code for each service object I create:
protocol BaseServiceDelegate: class {
var delegate: BaseServiceDelegate? {get set}
func servicesDelegateReferanceWasRemoved(service: BaseServiceDelegate)
}
extension BaseServiceDelegate {
willSet(newValue){
delegate?.servicesDelegateReferanceWasRemoved(self)
self = newValue
}
}
Im really not sure where to start with the syntax of the extension or if this is possible. The error with the above code is on the 'willSet' line: "Exspected declaration"
Thank you for your time
still not sure if its possible but i made some edits to insure you have access to the delegate object defined
the best answer I can find is to define a base Protocol:
protocol baseProtocol {
func informOfAction()
}
then implement this on your delegates that would like to also have this functionality:
protocol childProtocol: baseProtocol {
func somethingHappend()
func somethingElseHappend()
}
and when you create the object that conforms to childProtocol have the custom will set there
var delegate: childProtocol? {
willSet{
delegate?.informOfAction()
}
}
not as nice as i was looking for but not too bad, an extra 3 lines on all my objects similar to 'delegate'
#property (strong, nonatomic) UIViewController<UITableViewDelegate> *thing;
I want to implement a property like in this Objective-C code in Swift. So here is what I've tried:
class AClass<T: UIViewController where T: UITableViewDelegate>: UIViewController {
var thing: T!
}
This compiles. My problem comes when I add properties from the storyboard. The #IBOutlet tag generates an compiler error.
class AClass<T: UIViewController where T: UITableViewDelegate>: UIViewController {
#IBOutlet weak var anotherThing: UILabel! // error
var thing: T!
}
The error:
Variable in a generic class cannot be represented in Objective-C
Am I implementing this right? What can I do to fix or get around this error?
EDIT:
Swift 4 finally has a solution for this problem. See my updated answer.
Update for Swift 4
Swift 4 has added support for representing a type as a class that conforms to a protocol. The syntax is Class & Protocol. Here is some example code using this concept from "What's New in Swift" (session 402 from WWDC 2017):
protocol Shakeable {
func shake()
}
extension UIButton: Shakeable { /* ... */ }
extension UISlider: Shakeable { /* ... */ }
// Example function to generically shake some control elements
func shakeEm(controls: [UIControl & Shakeable]) {
for control in controls where control.isEnabled {
control.shake()
}
}
As of Swift 3, this method causes problems because you can't pass in the correct types. If you try to pass in [UIControl], it doesn't have the shake method. If you try to pass in [UIButton], then the code compiles, but you can't pass in any UISliders. If you pass in [Shakeable], then you can't check control.state, because Shakeable doesn't have that. Swift 4 finally addressed the topic.
Old Answer
I am getting around this problem for the time being with the following code:
// This class is used to replace the UIViewController<UITableViewDelegate>
// declaration in Objective-C
class ConformingClass: UIViewController, UITableViewDelegate {}
class AClass: UIViewController {
#IBOutlet weak var anotherThing: UILabel!
var thing: ConformingClass!
}
This seems hackish to me. If any of the delegate methods were required, then I would have to implement those methods in ConformingClass (which I do NOT want to do) and override them in a subclass.
I have posted this answer in case anyone else comes across this problem and my solution helps them, but I am not happy with the solution. If anyone posts a better solution, I will accept their answer.
It's not the ideal solution, but you can use a generic function instead of a generic class, like this:
class AClass: UIViewController {
#IBOutlet weak var anotherThing: UILabel!
private var thing: UIViewController?
func setThing<T: UIViewController where T: UITableViewDelegate>(delegate: T) {
thing = delegate
}
}
I came across the same issue, and also tried the generic approach. Eventually the generic approach broke the entire design.
After re-thinking about this issue, I found that a protocol which cannot be used to fully specify a type (in other words, must come with additional type information such as a class type) is unlikely to be a complete one. Moreover, although the Objc style of declaring ClassType<ProtocolType> comes handy, it disregards the benefit of abstraction provided by protocol because such protocol does not really raise the abstraction level. Further, if such declaration appears at multiple places, it has to be duplicated. Even worse, if multiple declarations of such type are interrelated (possibly a single object will be passed around them ), the programme becomes fragile and hard to maintain because later if the declaration at one place needs to be changed, all the related declarations have to be changed as well.
Solution
If the use case of a property involves both a protocol (say ProtocolX) and some aspects of a class (say ClassX), the following approach could be taken into account:
Declare an additional protocol that inherits from ProtocolX with the added method/property requirements which ClassX automatically satisfy. Like the example below, a method and a property are the additional requirements, both of which UIViewController automatically satisfy.
protocol CustomTableViewDelegate: UITableViewDelegate {
var navigationController: UINavigationController? { get }
func performSegueWithIdentifier(identifier: String, sender: AnyObject?)
}
Declare an additional protocol that inherits from ProtocolX with an additional read-only property of the type ClassX. Not only does this approach allow the use of ClassX in its entirety, but also exhibits the flexibility of not requiring an implementation to subclass ClassX. For example:
protocol CustomTableViewDelegate: UITableViewDelegate {
var viewController: UIViewController { get }
}
// Implementation A
class CustomViewController: UIViewController, UITableViewDelegate {
var viewController: UIViewController { return self }
... // Other important implementation
}
// Implementation B
class CustomClass: UITableViewDelegate {
private var _aViewControllerRef: UIViewController // Could come from anywhere e.g. initializer
var viewController: UIViewController { return _aViewControllerRef }
... // UITableViewDelegate methods implementation
}
PS. The snippet above are for demonstration only, mixing UIViewController and UITableViewDelegate together is not recommended.
Edit for Swift 2+: Thanks for #Shaps's comment, the following could be added to save having to implement the desired property everywhere.
extension CustomTableViewDelegate where Self: UIViewController {
var viewController: UIViewController { return self }
}
you can declare a delegate in Swift like this:
weak var delegate : UITableViewDelegate?
It will work with even hybrid(Objective-c and swift) project. Delegate should be optional & weak because its availability is not guaranteed and weak does not create retain cycle.
You are getting that error because there are no generics in Objective-C and it will not allow you to add #IBOutlet property.
Edit: 1. Forcing a type on delegate
To force that delegate is always a UIViewController you can implement the custom setter and throw exception when its not a UIViewController.
weak var _delegate : UITableViewDelegate? //stored property
var delegate : UITableViewDelegate? {
set {
if newValue! is UIViewController {
_delegate = newValue
} else {
NSException(name: "Inavlid delegate type", reason: "Delegate must be a UIViewController", userInfo: nil).raise()
}
}
get {
return _delegate
}
}
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.