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>()
Related
In my project (a game) I have multiple objects that are manipulated by touch, so I thought that having all touchable objects as subclasses of a "Touchable" abstract class would be a good idea, something along the lines of:
Touchable is a subclass of CCSprite
Box is a subclass of Touchable
Motor is a subclass of Touchable
therefore Box and Motor are CCSprites, and they inherit the common methods of Touchable, and can override them
Is this a correct way to go about this, or is there some other way to tackle this hierachy?
I previously explained why subclassing CCSprite is almost always a bad idea.
"Touchable" as the name suggests is an ability of an object. A node can either be touched, or it can not. Moreover, this must not be restricted to sprites. What if later on you want a touchable label, a touchable particle effect, or some other touchable node class?
Obviously you can't subclass CCNode to make it touchable and then turn subclasses of that touchable node class back into sprites, labels, etc. because cocos2d already established a class hierarchy - this is where the inflexibility of such a hierarchical system surfaces, and starts becoming a real pain.
You could add such a touchable (or killable, flying, jumping, drivable, swipeable, etc) ability to any object, at any time, and you could take it away at any time as well. That makes it a candidate for a plugin class (a component). Any ability, especially those that may be temporary, should not be part of a superclass but instead be additional objects that you can add to an existing object, and enable/disable as needed.
One way to go about this is to use the userObject property of nodes. Write an Abilities container class, and assign it to the userObject of your nodes. Then add the desired Ability classes to the container of a node. The node then updates the userObject container class by forwarding the update method, which forwards update to all abilities. Or the Ability container itself registers with CCScheduler to receive updates. The only thing the container class and ability classes need is a (weak) reference to the owning node.
Depends on if "Touchable" represents a random set of behaviors that each class must explicitly implement to support or if there can be a single implementation that "just works" with inheritance (with, maybe, a bit of customization).
If the former, then your thinking is mostly correct. If the latter, then Jack's suggestion of using an #protocol (which is a lot like an Interface in Java) makes sense.
Personally, I'd keep it really simple. Start with an SPAbstractSprite class that is a subclass of CCSprite. Then, subclass that into SPBox and SPMotor.
Start your implementation in SPBox and/or SPMotor and, as common things fall out, refactor them into SPAbstractSprite.
As for the notion of "touchable", I wouldn't worry about trying to make that a named thing for now. Approach it the same way as above; implement touchable support in your motor or box, then refactor up to the abstract parent class later.
I am, quite admittedly, a very design-and-code-interleaved person, though, and fully acknowledge that there are those who really like to sit down and draw out a nice set of box/lines/hierarchy before writing a line of code.
In any case, you should note that the class hierarchies across the Apple provided classes and examples tend to be quite shallow and don't tend to do a huge amount of this abstraction, though abstraction is still used heavily (UIView is an abstract container for all the view like goop that all those subclasses need, for example).
Sorry for the stupid post, but I am new to Objective-C programming and Cocoa and have a couple of questions which I can't find the answers to, I'm hoping someone can enlighten me.
Firstly, in XCode, when using the Interface builder, when I want to create a new object I drag the object to my 'assets'. However I can't specify methods or anything without manually creating a new class file. Is there any point using the interface builder's 'object'?
The first app I built to test things with, I put most of the code in the AppDelegate class files. Research has shown me that the AppDelegate's purpose is simply handling application events like launching and closing. Was I wrong in putting the methods in this class? Does it make any difference?
Finally, if I have several class files created, each handling their own functionality with an interface built and linked to the classes, then what do I do with the 'main' file? It seems to me that the 'main' file and 'appdelegate' class files will be for the most case left as-is?
I hope that makes sense. Again i'm sorry for the silly-sounding questions but I can't find any answers.
Thanks in advance everyone!
Firstly, in XCode, when using the Interface builder, when I want to create a new object I drag the object to my 'assets'. However I can't specify methods or anything without manually creating a new class file.
Sure you can. Just set the class of the object using the inspector.
Note that you can only connect nib objects to an outlet or action. You can't specify any random methods, nor should you—the whole point of the IBOutlet, IBOutletCollection, and IBAction keywords is to declare in code that these properties/methods are used by a nib.
Is there any point using the interface builder's 'object'?
Yes, but pretty rarely. Usually you create objects in code and connect outlets to them.
The application's delegate is one object you may want to create in the MainMenu or MainWindow nib, if you build your application that way (the iOS templates have changed away from it for some reason).
The first app I built to test things with, I put most of the code in the AppDelegate class files. Research has shown me that the AppDelegate's purpose is simply handling application events like launching and closing. Was I wrong in putting the methods in this class?
Probably. The application's delegate generally should only handle business relating to the NS/UIApplicationDelegate protocol.
On the flip side, it's OK to make your root view controller the application's delegate, if it makes sense to do so (and the NS/UIApplicationDelegate implementation code is not too voluminous). The question you have to answer—and only you can answer it for your application—is whether you are making your root view controller the application's delegate or the application's delegate the root view controller. If in doubt, keep them separate.
Does it make any difference?
Long-term, yes. It's very easy, especially in the class of the application's delegate, to create a Big Ball of Mud class—one without well-defined and clearly-delineated responsibilities. Take dynamite to such a class as soon as possible.
Finally, if I have several class files created, each handling their own functionality with an interface built and linked to the classes, then what do I do with the 'main' file? It seems to me that the 'main' file and 'appdelegate' class files will be for the most case left as-is?
Yes. They're boiler-plate.
If you haven't written any code in the application's delegate (or have removed everything you had put there into new and better-delineated classes), such that all that's left are empty method bodies or none at all, you can safely remove the application's delegate. You can always create it again later if you change your mind.
Note that if you delete your application delegate class, you should also change the main.m file—or the MainMenu/MainWindow nib, if you have one—to not refer to it. Your application won't build if your UIApplicationMain call (or any other code) refers to a class that doesn't exist, and it will crash if your MainMenu/MainWindow nib (or any other nib) refers to a class that doesn't exist.
There is no shame in your application having a delegate if you need it to, but if you don't, removing it and the class you were using for it eliminates future temptation to stuff code there or use it to store third-order globals.
The point of using objects in interface builder is to connect methods of the object to UI elements.
It partly depends on what your methods are doing, but for the most part the app delegate class is going to be left alone. It isn't an actual requirement (your program will work either way) but it is common practice because it generally creates more maintainable code. The app delegate should just handle the application events ( using other classes to do any complex logic or heavy lifting ).
The 'main' file will most likely not change. I can't think of any reason to do so, but I wouldn't rule it out for some advanced cases.
To be honest I only used the Object thing in IB once, when I wanted a separate object to have some UI bindings.
About the app delegate and main file, yes, you'll leave them as-is most of the time. But if you try to do something besides test apps you'll need to handle open events to, for example, connect to a server, ask the user for a review, increment some launch counter, etc... Those are just examples!
The main file I advise you to left it alone and use the object oriented tools provided. You should have a view controller hierarchy, isolate your views from the data, and use the view controller to comunicate between view and model. Read about MVC if you want more info on how your application should be organized.
I have a custom graphic that is to be displayed to a user when an event occurs. The graphic needs to be displayed on whichever viewController is currently being displayed to the user.
The way i have programmed it so far is by adding to ALL viewcontrtollers:
1) the .h file for the custom graphic class
2) an observer for the NSNotification event that is raised
3) the method which actually draws the graphic.
This doesnt feel like a very efficient way of doing things and i was wondering if anyone has a better way of doing things?
To me it sounds like you've done it in a fairly sane way. The only other way I can think is to just add the graphic to the window which would then overlay on the current view controller and you'd only need to have one object listening for the notification. You could use the app delegate for instance. But then you would have to worry about rotation of the screen yourself when adding the graphic over the top.
What you are doing is correct .. The only thing you can improve is to mauve the drawing graphics part to the custom graphic class.. (if you are not already doing so...
just Make a UIViewController variable as a member variable to the graphics class..and then set it up to the current view displaying..after you receive the notifications..and the class will itself draw the code based on the ViewController you set it up to
The reason it doesn't feel efficient is that you're duplicating a lot of code. That's more work at the outset, and it creates a maintenance headache. You should be taking advantage of the inheritance that's built into object oriented languages, including Objective-C.
If you want all your view controllers to share some behavior, then implement that behavior in a common superclass. Derive all your other view controllers from that superclass, and they'll all automatically get the desired behavior. Your superclass's initializer can take care of registering the view controller for the notification(s) that you care about, and -dealloc can unregister it. This way, you don't have to clutter up each view controller with the same repeated code, and if you want to change the code you only have to do it in one place.
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'm relatively new to Objective-C and Cocoa... I've been trying to understand how to correctly implement the MVC pattern in Cocoa/Cocoa Touch for a long time now... I understand the idea behind it; it makes complete sense conceptually: a model holds the data, a view is what that the user sees and can interact with, and the controller acts as the bridge between the two. View can't talk to the model, model can't talk to the view. Got it.
What doesn't make sense to me is how to use MVC efficiently… if the user can only interact with the view, and does something to interact with it (i.e. for an iPhone app, the user clicks/drags within a subclass of UIView, triggering the "touchesBegan" and "touchesMoved" methods, etc.), how does the view communicate these events to the controller?
I've looked at countless examples and forums online, but have yet to find a simplified all-purpose way of achieving this… I know how to communicate with a controller through buttons, sliders, and other things that you can connect to an outlet, but for things that don't have a target-action mechanism, what's the best way to do it?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions regarding what to do, or where to look.
The standard way in Cocoa to do this is the delegate pattern (cf. UITableViewDelegate). Your view class would declare a delegate protocol and the controller sets itself as the view's delegate. The view then calls one of the delegate methods you defined whenever it wants to communicate something to the controller.
An alternative would be to implement the target-action mechanism for your view yourself. You get this more or less for free if you subclass from UIControl (just call sendActionsForControlEvents:) but it is quite easy to implement a system that works the same way for any custom class.
(Edit: I suppose a third way is to have the controller observe properties of the view (with KVO). This wouldn't work well to communicate touch events but it is a feasible way if you want to notify the controller about a state change or something like that.)