I've implemented data binding and view model in my app, everything works great but I face a dumb issue which actually makes me wonder about re usability.
I have a fragment which has a picture and a title from a database that I put in other fragments. It's all bind to the viewModel calling some getters.
My issue is I need it in another activity now which has a different viewmodel for clarity and also because I don't need all the livedata from before but I can't really give it the new viewmodel since when I define it the type is specific to the other one.
<variable
name="viewModel"
type="com.example.thegreenstring.view.ObjectiveViewModel" />
So what am I suppose to do? It kind of means that you can't reuse fragments unless you have the same view model right? Sucks a little. I thought the only workaround was to make a specific view model for this fragment but it feels a little weird no?
Thanks for your help in advance !
Related
I have a controller which has no direct coupling to the view classes, i.e. it subscribes to events from the event bus, and nothing else.
I'm arbitrarily creating it in the View class (by inject()), but it really doesn't need to be there. Is there a way to tell TornadoFX that it should be created otherwise?
TornadoFX doesn't do any annotation scanning, so there is no way to add a #Startup annotation or anything like that. The easiest way to make sure it's instantiated is actually injecting it into your App subclass. That makes for a pragmatic, yet clean and maintainable approach IMO :)
EDIT: It's actually better to use find(), to make sure that it's actually created right away, since inject() is lazy.
val ctrl = find<MyController>()
In MVC the View shouldn't hold it's data. However I know in Objective-c you do: [textField setString:#"hello"];, that string is then retained by the text field. The same applies for the textField's font and text colour, etc.
However a UITableView uses a datasource to ask a controller for it's data, it's then up to the controller to reload the table view. But it also stores some data itself, like background colour.
I can understand a reason as to why a UITextView doesn't use a data source the code would become much more lengthy, if every property had to be a method. But why use a data source in some cases and not others, why not just set an array of UITableViewCells (I know that this means cells could not be reused and so it would use more memory, but what other design reason is there), for the UITableView to display?
And when creating you own objects how do you know when to just store a small amount of generic data (e.g. the string a textview displays can only be a string, but any the string itself can be anything)in a view, or use a datasource?
MVC is a pattern, not an edict. Let the view do the work. Some coupling is just going to happen. Follow the guidelines of the pattern, and bend it to the style and desires of your developers and organization.
I'm not familiar with objective-c's mvc framework, but I think I understand the question.
Basically, you don't want the view doing anything with the datasource backend, that is, anything having to do with the plumbing of accessing the DB.
But its ok for the view to have access and use the data itself. That is the M part of MVC. The model gets passed around. The view knows how to display it. The controller knows how to do the business logic to it (including interacting with backend systems like the data access layer).
In the case of data grid, it has to hit the backend to get the data, so it has to rely on the controller.
Ideally, the view knows only about display related information (like the background color). The whole idea being separation of concerns. You want the view to handle just its part of things, like-wise the controller. Then you can modify them independently of each-other.
As for the specifics of the datasource (versus an array), grids tend to be complex. Maybe that is handling paging or other niceties. In this case, I don't think its so much the separation of layers (since an array could just as easily be the model), but handling more functionality.
I'm not sure what you mean re 'storing' small amounts of data in the view. The view should tend to deal with 'view stuff'.
how should I call a class for a timeline custom view? My project's prefix is HM.
HMTimelineView
or
HMTimeline
Shouldn't I name any view class with the suffix View? But why is it NSButton but NSImage**View**?
To me, HMTimeline sounds like it could be a model object, so I would recommend the "View" suffix, but this is a decision you'll have to make based on what you think makes your code easier to understand.
There may be naming rules regarding this that I'm not aware of, but I believe NSButton isn't called NSButtonView because a button is intrinsically a client-visible interface object--it doesn't present a specific model object and is unlikely to be confused for a model object, so it's convenient to leave off the suffix.
if it is inherited from UIView
then
HMTimelineView will be best
if it is inherited from NSObject
then
HMTimeline will be best.
u have to understand that
whenever anyone go to use urCustom objects like HMTimelineView,HMTimeline then then they will automatically come to know
"oh it would be from View" -for HMTimelineView.
"oh it would be from NSObject" -for HMTimeline.
If you object is just a view, then you can put view on the end of it. The difference in NSButton and NSImageView are because an NSButton has a view, it itself is not a just a view, it is a button :P. NSImageView is the view of the image, it has an image, but is the object to view the image.
There also isn't a "correct" way. Using HMTimeline by comparison to HMTimelineView will not break your code. Its just a way to help a developer understand what the object is.
The “View” suffix is used inconsistently in Cocoa. Generally speaking, NSControl and its public subclasses don’t use “View”, but there are some inconsistencies (like NSText). In general, a view that presents content (which I assume a “timeline view” does) should have a “View” suffix.
This highly depends on your preferences, I guess, and understandability of the whole set of class names that make up your app. Much also depends on conventions that you will simply learn by looking at how other code is written, mostly the same SDK.
I think that HMTimelineView is far more understandable than HMTimeline. You also have to think that possibly you will have a HMTimeLineViewController, so HMTimeLime would be possibly ambiguous. Think of this, if you want: views, controllers, and models play a role in a design pattern (MVC) so that it is useful to identify them with a suffix. The same can be said for delegate classes, where the suffix is also usual.
About NSButton, it certainly derives from NSView, but its direct class is NSButton; so, in a sense, I think that its "control nature" prevails on the view nature, and NSButton is far more understandable then UIButtonView.
Hope this helps.
I have a strong j2ee background, and I am trying to move to objective-c for some desktop/iphone programming.
I used many java web frameworks with mvc in mind, spring and struts ecc... so I am used to have servlet or controller which pass attributes to jsp pages, which is the view.
In jsp pages with jstl you can call this attribute and render to video.
In this way controller and view are (in theory) clearly separated.
With xcode, I can easily recognize the controller and the view built with IBuilder.
All the tutorial I found, shown the controller which go and change directly labels or text fields.
So my two questions:
seems to me that there's no separation between the two (controller and view), where I am wrong in that ?
is there a way for a controller to pack all objects in a kind of context in a j2ee way and have the view read that context ?
thanks
Leonardo
In most of the examples you have read you probably saw something like this:
[myTextfield setStringValue:myString];
now in this case sure the controller is updating the textfield directly, however as myTextfield is usually an IBOutlet it can be any textfield in your view, or even nil. quite possibiy it doesn't even need to know that it is an NSTextfield just that it responds to a setStringValue method. In this sense there is a seperation between the controller and view.
Now in your comments above you were concerned with seperation of responsibilities within MVC but did not mention the model much. With Cocoa bindings you can bind directly to model keypaths, in this case the model neeed not know anything at all about the view.
MVC is a bit of an ambiguous concept with no hard definition. It can mean different things to different people. For me it means that the view has knowledge of the controller ( through outlets or bindings) limited knowledge of the model(through bindings). The contoller has full knowledge of the model and limited knowledge of the view(through outlets). Finally the model has zero knowlege of the view and ideally no knowledge of the controller.
With regard to your second question, I don't use j2ee, but I think you can acheivee what you want by having your controller update a context ivar ( probably a NSDictionary) then in your view bind to this context with a keypath. However there is no real need to wrap everything up bindings are very versitile and u can bind to any property.
I do not understand your second question (I've never used J2EE), but I think I can make some headway answering your first.
Cocoa does not enforce MVC; it just strongly encourages it -- especially for larger projects. Consider an example program, one that has an NSTableView bound to an NSArrayController.
In this case, the NSTableView is clearly the view (it has the word "view" in its name) and the NSArrayController is clearly the controller (it has the word "controller" in its name).
The model is an NSArray that the NSArrayController knows about, but you probably don't interact with that model directly. You will instead ask the NSArrayController to manipulate its model by sending addObject: and removeObject: messages to the array controller (and not to the array itself).
When you do this, the NSArrayController will effect a change in the NSTableView via bindings. Again, you don't ever ask the NSTableView to do anything.
So you never talk to the view and you never talk to the model. Everything you want to happen goes through the controller.
MVC. QED.
Of course, maybe the way your project works, the view should be its own controller. The world won't end, although you might find it to be a little more difficult to go against the grain of the framework. But you should always try to use the best approach for the job at hand instead of insisting on some sort of design pattern purity.
I'm trying to re-implement an old Reversi board game I wrote with a bit more of a snazzy UI. I've looked at Jens Alfke's GeekGameBoard code for inspiration, and CALayers looks like the way to go for implementing the UI.
However, there is no clean separation of model and view in the GeekGameBoard code; the model is the view, which makes it hard to, for example, make a copy of the game state in order to perform game-tree search for the AI player. However, I don't seem to be able to come up with an alternative way to structure that allows a separation of model and view that doesn't involve a constant battle to keep two parallel grids (on for the model, one for the view) in synch. This, of course, has its own problems.
How do I best best implement the relationship between an AI search-friendly model structure and a display-friendly view? Any suggestions / experiences would be appreciated. I'm dreading / half expecting an answer along the lines of "there is no good answer: deal with it as best you can" but I'm prepared to be surprised!
Thanks for the answer Peter. I'm not entirely sure I understand it fully, however. I can see how this works if you just have an initial set of pieces that are moved around, and even removed, but what happens when a person puts a new piece down? Would it work like this:
User clicks in the view.
View click is translated to a board location and controller is notified.
Controller creates a new Board with the successor state (if appropriate, i.e. it was a legal move).
The view picks up the new board via its bindings, tears down the existing view/layer hierarchy and replaces it with the current state.
Does that sound right?
PS: Sorry for failing to specify whether it was for the iPhone or Mac. I'm most interested in something that works for the iPhone, but if I can get it to work nicely on the Mac first I'm sure I can adapt the solution to work on the iPhone myself. (Or post a new question!)
In theory, it should be the same as for an NSView-based UI: Add a model property (or properties), expose it (or them) as bindings, then bind the view (layer) to the model through a controller.
For example, you might have a Board class with Pieces on it (each Piece having a reference to the Player who owns it), with all of those being model classes. Your controller would own a Board, and your view/layer would be able to display a Board, possibly with a subview/sublayer for each Piece.
You'd bind your board view/layer to the controller's board property, and in your view/layer's setter for that property, create a subview/sublayer for each piece, and bind it to any properties of the Piece that it will need. (Don't forget to unbind and remove all the subviews/sublayers when replacing the main view/layer's Board.)
When you want to move or modify a Piece, you'd do so using its own properties; these will translate to property accesses on the view/layer. Ostensibly, you'll have your layer's properties set up to animate changes (so that, for example, changing a Piece's position will cause the layer for it to move accordingly).
The same goes for the Board. You might let the user change one or both tile colors; you'll bind your color well(s) through your game controller to its Board object, and with the view/layer bound to the same property of the same Board, it'll pick up the change automatically.
Disclaimers: I've never used Core Animation for anything, and if you're asking about Cocoa Touch instead of Cocoa, the above solution won't work, since it depends on Cocoa Bindings.
I have an iPhone application where almost all of the interface is constructed using Core Animation CALayers, and I use a very similar pattern to what Peter describes. He's correct in that you want to treat your CALayers as if they were NSViews / UIViews and manage their logic through controllers and data via model objects.
In my case, I create a hierarchy of controller objects which also function as model objects (I may refactor to split out the model components). Each of the controller objects manages a CALayer, so there ends up being a parallel CALayer display hierarchy to the model-controller one. For my application, I need to perform calculations for equations constructed using this hierarchy, so I use the controllers to provide calculated values from the bottom of the tree up. The controllers also handle user editing events, such as the insertion of new suboperations or deletion of operation trees.
I've created a layer-hosting view class that allows the CALayer tree to respond to touch or mouse events (the source of which is now available within the Core Plot project). For your boardgame example, the CALayer pieces could take in the touch events, and have their controllers manage the back-end logic (determine a legal move, etc.). You should just be able to move pieces around and maintain the same controllers without tearing everything down on every move.