I'm trying to create an instance of a singleton class written in Objective-C. I must conform to it's delegate protocol. The Swift implementation looks something like this:
class SomeClass: ManagerDelegate {
let manager = Manager.sharedInstance()
func someFunction(){
manager.delegate = self
}
}
The Objective-C singleton class looks something like this:
// header
#protocol ManagerDelegate <NSObject>
#required
-(void)delegateMethod;
#end
#interface Manager : NSObject {
}
+ (id)sharedInstance;
#property (nonatomic, assign) id delegate;
#end
// class file
+ (id) sharedManager{
static Manager *theSharedManager = nil;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
theSharedManager = [[self alloc] init];
});
return theSharedManager;
}
- (void) someInternalMethod{
[delegate delegateMethod];
}
Upon specifying the delegate (manager.delegate = self), I receive the error
Ambiguous reference to member 'delegate'
Is the Objective-C class improperly formed or am I implementing it incorrectly? Am I missing something else?
Your problem is caused by the definition of your sharedInstance method in Objective-C. By declaring it as
+ (id)sharedInstance;
it gets converted to sharedInstance() -> AnyObject! in Swift. Swift then doesn't know which of many potential delegate properties that it can find you mean. If you change your Objective C declaration and implementation to be:
+ (instancetype)sharedInstance;
your problem will go away.
And as #rmaddy points out, your delegate should be weak not assign. If you use assign then delegate will be left as an invalid pointer in the event that the delegate is deallocated.
Also, the use of a delegate with a singleton is a bit contradictory. Given that you will only ever have one instance of the Manager which may be used by a number of other objects and you can only have one active delegate at a time there is the potential for conflicts.
I would suggest that either blocks/closures or NSNotification is a better approach to call backs from a singleton.
Its because whenever you bring instance from objective c code to swift it gives as AnyObject so
let manager = Manager.sharedInstance() //manager is AnyObject due to bridging between objc and swift
gives you AnyObject for manager property. You need to forcefully cast that AnyObject to Manager to use it as manager's instance like below.
class SomeClass: NSObject, ManagerDelegate {
let manager = Manager.sharedInstance() as! Manager //here was your error
func someFunction(){
manager.delegate = self
}
func delegateMethod() {
print("Hello")
}
}
Hope this solves your problem :)
Related
Consider the following Objective-C protocol declaration, which requires only class methods:
#protocol TDWMethoding<NSObject>
+ (void)foo;
+ (void)bar;
#end
Assuming I need to return an instance of a Class which conforms to this protocol from a method, how am I supposed to specify the return type?
- (nullable /*return-type*/)instantiateMethoding {
Class instance = ... // some implementation
if ([instance conformsToProtocol:#protocol(TDWMethoding)]) {
return instance;
}
return nil;
}
There are a number of working options I considered so far in regards to how to express the /*return-type*/, but each has its own downsides:
Class - this way it doesn't expose conformance. What kind of Class is it? What does it do? Does it conform to the protocol at all?
Class<TDWMethoding> - this looks like a viable solution and even was suggested a few times by other developers (here and here) but I personally find it inconsistent and misleading: when we have a variable of form Type<Protocol> *instance, it commonly means that protocol class methods should be sent to the instance's class ([[instance class] foo]) not the instance itself ([instance foo]);
id<TDWMethoding> and returning an instance of the class instead - this is consistent, but it requires me to instantiate the class, which is both redundant and prevents me from hiding the constructors of the utility classes which conforms to the protocol with NS_UNAVAILABLE macro.
Is there a better semantic to express such a return-type?
Class<TDWMethoding> is correct. It's not inconsistent. When something is of type Class, you send class methods to it. When something is an instance, and you want to send to the class, you access its -class.
That said, this does seem very strange, and likely means you're overusing Class methods. You should think hard about whether a sharedInstance is a better model for this.
But if you want to identify the type, Class<TDWMethoding> is correct, though id would likely be more common, as discussed in How to cast Class object to conformance witih protocol.
After digging a little deeper into The Objective-C Programming Language documentation, I actually found the exact answer to such a scenario:
Protocols can’t be used to type class objects. Only instances can be statically typed to a protocol, just as only instances can be statically typed to a class. (However, at runtime, both classes and instances respond to a conformsToProtocol: message.)
Which means that it's just not supported and I should implement this differently. (e.g. with use of a singleton pattern, as suggested in Rob's answer)
The solution is doesn't use such protocols at all. Why? Because it's inflexible.
It should be just:
#protocol TDWMethoding
- (void)foo;
- (void)bar;
#end
Then you will be able to do any what you want, for example you will be able to create wrapper for yours class, that will be implementing yours protocol.
#interface TDWMethodingModel<TDWMethoding>
#property (nonatomic, readonly) void (^fooCaller)(void);
#property (nonatomic, readonly) void (^barCaller)(void);
- (instancetype)initWithFooCaller:(void (^)(void))fooCaller barCaller:(void (^)(void))barCaller NS_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER;
- (instancetype)init NS_UNAVAILABLE;
#end
#implementation TDWMethodingModel
- (instancetype)initWithFooCaller:(void (^)(void))fooCaller barCaller:(void (^)(void))barCaller {
self = [super init];
if (nil == self) {
return nil;
}
_fooCaller = fooCaller;
_barCaller = barCaller;
return self;
}
- (void)foo {
self.fooCaller();
}
- (void)bar {
self.barCaller();
}
#end
then:
- (id<TDWMethoding>)instantiateMethoding
{
static id<TDWMethoding> methoding;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
methoding = [[TDWMethodingModel alloc] initWithFooCaller:^{
[SomeClass foo];
} barCaller:^{
[SomeClass bar];
}];
});
return methoding;
}
I'm attempting to write a test for an objective-c class. The class I'm trying to test is MyClass and it looks like this:
#interface MyClass : NSObject
- (void)dispatchEvent:(IMAAdEvent *)event;
#end
In order to test this dispatchEvent method, I need to pass in an instance of IMAAdEvent. The IMAAdEvent class comes from Google's library GoogleAds-IMA-iOS-SDK.
Unfortunately, I can't call init on this class because the init method is marked as NS_UNAVAILABLE. In XCode I get an error that reflects this:
'init' in unavailable
Ideally, I would like to make my own mock subclass of IMAAdEvent like this. Is there some way I can initialize my subclass without calling the unavailable init method on the superclass?:
#interface MockImaAdEvent : IMAAdEvent
#end
#implementation MockImaAdEvent
- (id)init {
// is there something I can do here so that I return an instances
// of the subclass without calling [super init]?
}
#end
As of Xcode 12.5, Swift is no longer able to use the previous solution. The compiler has started returning errors for init() is unavailable on lines of code where new init functions have been added. The Xcode 12.5 Release Notes indicate the following:
Clang now infers the availability of +new from availability annotations on -init methods. Since +new calls [[Foo alloc] init], +new isn’t available unless +init is available.
Despite this release note, there is still a valid workaround. By writing the mock class in Objective-C and using a bridging-header to bring it into Swift, the mock class can still call super.new to get a new instance of the parent class (and then customize the subclass from there).
Here is an example:
#interface MockInAppMessagingCampaignInfo ()
#property (strong, nonatomic) NSString *campaignNameValue;
#end
#implementation MockInAppMessagingCampaignInfo
+ (id)newWithCampaignName:(NSString *)campaignName {
MockInAppMessagingCampaignInfo *newObject = super.new;
newObject.campaignNameValue = campaignName;
return newObject;
}
- (NSString *)campaignName {
self.campaignNameWasCalled = YES;
return self.campaignNameValue ?: #"";
}
#end
If I use a method that's not called init then this seems to work. It still seems really weird to not call [super init] in this function, but it's working and returning a new instance of the MockImaAdEvent class
#interface MockImaAdEvent : IMAAdEvent {
enum IMAAdEventType type;
}
#property (nonatomic) enum IMAAdEventType type;
#end
#implementation MockImaAdEvent
#synthesize type;
- (id)initWithType:(NSInteger)_type {
type = _type;
return self;
}
#end
// in my test I can initialize like this:
MockImaAdEvent *adEvent = [[MockImaAdEvent alloc] initWithType:kIMAAdEvent_LOADED];
An alternative solution for Xcode 12.5 that doesn't require Objective-C bridging-header is to create a custom static initialiser that uses the objc runtime to invoke new.
I have used that for fakes that subclass objects with unavailable initialisers and works great.
Example:
static func customInit() -> SomeObjectFake {
let instance = SomeObjectFake.perform(NSSelectorFromString("new")).takeRetainedValue() as! SomeObjectFake
...
return instance
}
I am new to Swift. I've taken a couple of online course and have started converting an existing Objective-C project to Swift as a learning experience. I have a few questions if someone has time. I've searched the board but haven't found the answers. I am sorry if I missed them.
Delegate Protocols - I'm used to defining my own in Objective-C. Below I have the original Objective-C version and below it I have my new Swift version. Have I followed the correct design pattern for Swift?
I find myself making optionals for all of the properties especially objects like NSData or custom classes. Is this practice acceptable? I am not sure how I would know an initial value for most objects. I know the language wants you to set an initial value but it seems strange for certain objects.
If I am not mistaken we do not have to call self.super init in custom initializers in Swift. Is this correct?
Objective-C Version
#protocol FLOParserHandlerDelegate;
#interface FLOParserHandler: NSObject <NSXMLParserDelegate>
// Properties
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSMutableData *PHData;
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSMutableString *currentParsedCharacterData; // This grabs the characters as they come in and adds them together.
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSMutableArray *XMLDataArray; // This is the master array that holds all of the article arrays with the date, title and link objects.
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSMutableDictionary *dateTitleLinkDictionary;// This is used to gather the date, title and link in an array to added to the master array.
// Delegate Property
#property (nonatomic, weak) id <FLOParserHandlerDelegate> delegate;
// init Methods
- (id) initWithCHData: (NSMutableData *) data;
// Class Methods
-(void) startParser;
#end
#pragma mark-
#pragma mark FLOParserHandler Protocol Definition
#protocol FLOParserHandlerDelegate
#optional
- (void) floParserHandlerDidFinishParsing: (FLOParserHandler *) parserHandler;
- (void) floParserHandler: (FLOParserHandler *) parserHandler didFailWithError: (NSError *) error;
#end
Swift Version
import Foundation
protocol FLOParserHandlerDelegate
{
func floParserHandlerDidFinishParsing(parserHandler : FLOParserHandler) -> ()
func floParserHandler(parserHandler : FLOParserHandler, error : NSError) -> ()
}
// Note that we have to inherit from NSObject here. I believe this iis because we are mixing it with Objective-C.
class FLOParserHandler : NSObject, NSXMLParserDelegate
{
var PHData : NSData?
var currentParsedCharacterData : String?
var XMLDataArray : [String]?
var dateDictionary : [String:NSDate]?
var titleDictionary : [String:String]?
var linkDictionary : [String:String]?
// Delegate Property
var delegate : FLOParserHandlerDelegate?
// Init Methods
init(data : NSData)
{
self.PHData = data
}
// Class Methds
func startParser()
{
var parser = NSXMLParser(data: self.PHData)
parser.delegate = self
parser.parse()
}
}
Thank you,
Jon
Your protocol definition is valid. There is one little thing you should know about:
As with type property requirements, you always prefix type method
requirements with the class keyword when they are defined in a
protocol
protocol SomeProtocol {
class func someTypeMethod()
}
Its perfectly fine to use optionals, or you may use implicity unwrapped optionals like NSData!. In which case you should do this and where no, you may read here: Why create "Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals"?.
Shortly, you doing this in following situations:
a) Constant cannot be defined using initializtion, but you know that it would not be nil (otherwise app will crash)
b) Objective-C Api required you to use pointers, and pointers in Obj-C could be nil. In that case you use imilicity unwrapped optionals.
You always have to call 'super' if you have superclass, to be sure, that class is properly initialized.
Hope that helps.
I have an objective-C singleton as follows:
#interface MyModel : NSObject
+ (MyModel*) model;
...
+ (MyModel*) model
{
static MyModel *singlton = nil;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^ {
singlton = [[MyModel alloc] initSharedInstance];
});
return singlton;
}
- (MyModel*) initSharedInstance
{
self = [super init];
if (self)
etc.
}
Which gets called in multiple places within the GUI code as:
[[MyModel model] someMethod];
And therefore the model will get created as a consequence of whichever part of the GUI happens to reference it first.
I'm not sure how to implement the equivalent of accessing the class via [[MyModel model] someMethod] in Swift as all examples of using Swift involve creating an object using an initializer and when Objective C class method code is converted to Swift initializer code there is a problem with it not working when the method does not have parameters.
UPDATE
++++++++++
The workaround below is only necessary if you name your singleton method with a name derived from the suffix of the class name i.e. the OPs question the method name is model and the class is called MyModel.
If the method is renamed to something like singleton then it is possible to call it from Swift just like this:
let m = MyModel.singleton()
+++++++++++
I don't know if this is good/bad practice but I was able to get around the problem with initializer conversion not working when there are no parameters by adding a dummy init method. So using the code from the other answer as an example:
#interface XYZThing : NSObject
+ (XYZThing*) thing;
+ (XYZThing*) thingWithFoo:(int)foo bar:(int)bar;
#end
#implementation XYZThing
+ (XYZThing*) thing
{
NSLog(#"This is not executed");
return nil;
}
+ (XYZThing*)thingWithFoo:(int)foo bar:(int)bar
{
NSLog(#"But this is");
return nil;
}
#end
...
let thing = XYZThing()
let otherThing = XYZThing(foo:3, bar:7)
With this code above the thing method is not called, but the thingWithFoo:bar: method is.
But if it is changed to this then now the thing method will get called:
#interface XYZThing : NSObject
+ (XYZThing*) init;
+ (XYZThing*) thing;
+ (XYZThing*) thingWithFoo:(int)foo bar:(int)bar;
#end
#implementation XYZThing
+ (XYZThing*) init
{
return nil;
}
+ (XYZThing*) thing
{
NSLog(#"Now this is executed");
return nil;
}
+ (XYZThing*)thingWithFoo:(int)foo bar:(int)bar
{
NSLog(#"And so is this");
return nil;
}
#end
...
let thing = XYZThing()
let otherThing = XYZThing(foo:3, bar:7)
If the Swift compiler mistakenly identifies a method as a class factory method, you can use the NS_SWIFT_NAME macro, passing the Swift signature of the method to have it imported correctly. For example:
+ (id)recordWithQuality:(double)quality NS_SWIFT_NAME(record(quality:));
so,your method should be this:
+ (MyModel*)model NS_SWIFT_NAME(log());
Do exactly what the compiler warning tells you to:
MyModel().someMethod()
Read on to see why...
Swift automatically recognizes ObjC conventions for initializers and convenience constructors. If you have a class that looks like this:
#interface XYZThing : NSObject
+ (instancetype)thing;
+ (instancetype)thingWithFoo:(int)foo bar:(int)bar;
#end
...then, when Swift turns them into initializers, it elides the part of the method name that's the generic name of the class (Thing/thing), moves the part of the selector that refers to the parameter to be a parameter label, and drops any prepositions connecting those parts. So the initializer declarations look like this in Swift:
class XYZThing: NSObject [
init()
init(foo: Int, bar: Int)
}
and you construct objects like this:
let thing = XYZThing()
let otherThing = XYZThing(foo:3, bar:7)
A followup: because class methods like +[XYZThing thing] are treated like initializers by the ObjC to Swift translator (even if that doesn't seem to fully work right now), that naming pattern is a bad idea for singletons. A singleton retrieval method shouldn't be an initializer, because an initializer always creates a new instance.
A singleton retrieval method should instead have a name that doesn't start with the generic name of the class; e.g. +sharedThing, +defaultThing, +oneThingToRuleThemAll, etc.
I have a class Film, each of which stores a unique ID. In C#, Java etc I can define a static int currentID and each time i set the ID i can increase the currentID and the change occurs at the class level not object level. Can this be done in Objective-C? I've found it very hard to find an answer for this.
Issue Description:
You want your ClassA to have a ClassB class variable.
You are using Objective-C as programming language.
Objective-C does not support class variables as C++ does.
One Alternative:
Simulate a class variable behavior using Objective-C features
Declare/Define an static variable within the classA.m so it will be only accessible for the classA methods (and everything you put inside classA.m).
Overwrite the NSObject initialize class method to initialize just once the static variable with an instance of ClassB.
You will be wondering, why should I overwrite the NSObject initialize method. Apple documentation about this method has the answer: "The runtime sends initialize to each class in a program exactly one time just before the class, or any class that inherits from it, is sent its first message from within the program. (Thus the method may never be invoked if the class is not used.)".
Feel free to use the static variable within any ClassA class/instance method.
Code sample:
file: classA.m
static ClassB *classVariableName = nil;
#implementation ClassA
...
+(void) initialize
{
if (! classVariableName)
classVariableName = [[ClassB alloc] init];
}
+(void) classMethodName
{
[classVariableName doSomething];
}
-(void) instanceMethodName
{
[classVariableName doSomething];
}
...
#end
References:
Class variables explained comparing Objective-C and C++ approaches
As of Xcode 8, you can define class properties in Obj-C. This has been added to interoperate with Swift's static properties.
Objective-C now supports class properties, which interoperate with Swift type properties. They are declared as: #property (class) NSString *someStringProperty;. They are never synthesized. (23891898)
Here is an example
#interface YourClass : NSObject
#property (class, nonatomic, assign) NSInteger currentId;
#end
#implementation YourClass
static NSInteger _currentId = 0;
+ (NSInteger)currentId {
return _currentId;
}
+ (void)setCurrentId:(NSInteger)newValue {
_currentId = newValue;
}
#end
Then you can access it like this:
YourClass.currentId = 1;
val = YourClass.currentId;
Here is a very interesting explanatory post I used as a reference to edit this old answer.
2011 Answer: (don't use this, it's terrible)
If you really really don't want to declare a global variable, there another option, maybe not very orthodox :-), but works... You can declare a "get&set" method like this, with an static variable inside:
+ (NSString*)testHolder:(NSString*)_test {
static NSString *test;
if(_test != nil) {
if(test != nil)
[test release];
test = [_test retain];
}
// if(test == nil)
// test = #"Initialize the var here if you need to";
return test;
}
So, if you need to get the value, just call:
NSString *testVal = [MyClass testHolder:nil]
And then, when you want to set it:
[MyClass testHolder:testVal]
In the case you want to be able to set this pseudo-static-var to nil, you can declare testHolder as this:
+ (NSString*)testHolderSet:(BOOL)shouldSet newValue:(NSString*)_test {
static NSString *test;
if(shouldSet) {
if(test != nil)
[test release];
test = [_test retain];
}
return test;
}
And two handy methods:
+ (NSString*)test {
return [MyClass testHolderSet:NO newValue:nil];
}
+ (void)setTest:(NSString*)_test {
[MyClass testHolderSet:YES newValue:_test];
}
Hope it helps! Good luck.
On your .m file, you can declare a variable as static:
static ClassName *variableName = nil;
Then you can initialize it on your +(void)initialize method.
Please note that this is a plain C static variable and is not static in the sense Java or C# consider it, but will yield similar results.
In your .m file, declare a file global variable:
static int currentID = 1;
then in your init routine, refernce that:
- (id) init
{
self = [super init];
if (self != nil) {
_myID = currentID++; // not thread safe
}
return self;
}
or if it needs to change at some other time (eg in your openConnection method), then increment it there. Remember it is not thread safe as is, you'll need to do syncronization (or better yet, use an atomic add) if there may be any threading issues.
As pgb said, there are no "class variables," only "instance variables." The objective-c way of doing class variables is a static global variable inside the .m file of the class. The "static" ensures that the variable can not be used outside of that file (i.e. it can't be extern).
Here would be an option:
+(int)getId{
static int id;
//Do anything you need to update the ID here
return id;
}
Note that this method will be the only method to access id, so you will have to update it somehow in this code.
(Strictly speaking not an answer to the question, but in my experience likely to be useful when looking for class variables)
A class method can often play many of the roles a class variable would in other languages (e.g. changed configuration during tests):
#interface MyCls: NSObject
+ (NSString*)theNameThing;
- (void)doTheThing;
#end
#implementation
+ (NSString*)theNameThing { return #"Something general"; }
- (void)doTheThing {
[SomeResource changeSomething:[self.class theNameThing]];
}
#end
#interface MySpecialCase: MyCls
#end
#implementation
+ (NSString*)theNameThing { return #"Something specific"; }
#end
Now, an object of class MyCls calls Resource:changeSomething: with the string #"Something general" upon a call to doTheThing:, but an object derived from MySpecialCase with the string #"Something specific".
u can rename the class as classA.mm and add C++ features in it.
Another possibility would be to have a little NSNumber subclass singleton.