Shouldn't every .swift file be a class? - objective-c

I have some experience in ObjC and I just started learning Swift. In Objc everything is a class through #interface in .h and #implementation of .m, or in other Swift classes that I have seen everything is usually in some form of
class MyCustomClassInhertingfrom: SomeFoundationClass { //methods & properties}
Yet here in some class named pancakeHouse.Swift there is no mention of the keyword class WHY? Isn't this a Model Class? Doesn't this break the MVC design pattern? Is this happening because of new powerful features of enums& structs vs class in Swift?_____I am confused obviously!
import UIKit
import CoreLocation
enum PriceGuide : Int {
case Unknown = 0
case Low = 1
case Medium = 2
case High = 3
}
extension PriceGuide : CustomStringConvertible {
var description : String {
switch self {
case .Unknown:
return "?"
case .Low:
return "$"
case .Medium:
return "$$"
case .High:
return "$$$"
}
}
}
enum PancakeRating {
case Unknown
case Rating(Int)
}
extension PancakeRating {
init?(value: Int) {
if value > 0 && value <= 5 {
self = .Rating(value)
} else {
self = .Unknown
}
}
}
extension PancakeRating {
var ratingImage : UIImage? {
guard let baseName = ratingImageName else {
return nil
}
return UIImage(named: baseName)
}
var smallRatingImage : UIImage? {
guard let baseName = ratingImageName else {
return nil
}
return UIImage(named: "\(baseName)_small")
}
private var ratingImageName : String? {
switch self {
case .Unknown:
return nil
case .Rating(let value):
return "pancake_rate_\(value)"
}
}
}
struct PancakeHouse {
let name: String
let photo: UIImage?
let thumbnail: UIImage?
let priceGuide: PriceGuide
let location: CLLocationCoordinate2D?
let details: String
let rating: PancakeRating
}
extension PancakeHouse {
init?(dict: [String : AnyObject]) {
guard let name = dict["name"] as? String,
let priceGuideRaw = dict["priceGuide"] as? Int,
let priceGuide = PriceGuide(rawValue: priceGuideRaw),
let details = dict["details"] as? String,
let ratingRaw = dict["rating"] as? Int,
let rating = PancakeRating(value: ratingRaw) else {
return nil
}
self.name = name
self.priceGuide = priceGuide
self.details = details
self.rating = rating
if let imageName = dict["imageName"] as? String where !imageName.isEmpty {
photo = UIImage(named: imageName)
} else {
photo = nil
}
if let thumbnailName = dict["thumbnailName"] as? String where !thumbnailName.isEmpty {
thumbnail = UIImage(named: thumbnailName)
} else {
thumbnail = nil
}
if let latitude = dict["latitude"] as? Double,
let longitude = dict["longitude"] as? Double {
location = CLLocationCoordinate2D(latitude: latitude, longitude: longitude)
} else {
location = nil
}
}
}
extension PancakeHouse {
static func loadDefaultPancakeHouses() -> [PancakeHouse]? {
return self.loadPancakeHousesFromPlistNamed("pancake_houses")
}
static func loadPancakeHousesFromPlistNamed(plistName: String) -> [PancakeHouse]? {
guard let path = NSBundle.mainBundle().pathForResource(plistName, ofType: "plist"),
let array = NSArray(contentsOfFile: path) as? [[String : AnyObject]] else {
return nil
}
return array.map { PancakeHouse(dict: $0) }
.filter { $0 != nil }
.map { $0! }
}
}
extension PancakeHouse : CustomStringConvertible {
var description : String {
return "\(name) :: \(details)"
}
}
extension PancakeHouse: Equatable {
}
func ==(lhs: PancakeHouse, rhs: PancakeHouse) -> Bool {
return lhs.name == rhs.name
}
Note: I would appreciate an answer that also includes comparison of the .swift vs .h + .m ie don't just consider this as a specific question, consider it as a general question and explain or link the prerequisites's details needed to understand this question)

pancakeHouse.swift defines PancakeHouse and all the various things that go with it. That is perfectly good Swift style. There is no class here because PancakeHouse happens to be a struct, which is also perfectly good Swift style (and mildly preferred). Structs are much like classes in Swift, in that they can have data and methods (and extensions).
ObjC does not require that each class be defined in its own .h/.m pair, but it is fairly typical ObjC style to do so. That said, even in ObjC there are exceptions. It is common to have mutable subclasses defined in the same file as their base class (NSArray and NSMutableArray are both defined in NSArray.h). Swift style has evolved towards lumping related things together more closely. One style makes it easier to find something if you know its name. The other makes it easier to find related concepts together. Both have their advantages, and once people are used to one they tend to believe that that one is obviously correct. But they're just different ways of organizing.
Note that this file also makes use of Swift extensions to break up related methods. That is also common and good Swift. Old ObjC did that with categories, but it's much less common to organize ObjC code that way today (categories are used for other things now). Again, neither is deeply correct. It's just the styles that have evolved.

Swift files just need valid swift code. That's all. In this case, your swift file is just defining two enums. Generally it's better practice to put each enum (and its extension) in it's own .swift file, but that's really just personal opinion when you get right down to it.
A .m is the implementation of the .h interface. It's a pain in the !##$ to keep those two things always up to date. Swift makes this much easier by just merging them into one thing/file, and your entire project automatically sees it based on the access you've set. If you don't set any access, like the example above, then you have 'internal' which means the whole project.

There are two philosophies the compiler writers could take on this question:
Each public class needs a file with the matching name - this is Java's way of doing it. Although it is minimally restrictive, the logic behind it is to let the compiler find class references without looking through all the files. It also helps programmers organize their code.
Do it your own way - this is the road taken by Swift, along with C, C#, Objective-C. Essentially, compiler writers tell you that their compiler will find your classes no matter where you put them, letting you organize your code in a way that you find the most intuitive for you and your team.

Related

Swift enum associated values in Objective-C

Is there a way to use new Swift3 enums with associated value in Objective-C?
Is there a way to declare/bridge Swift3 enums with associated value in Objective-C, if I develop a library and want to give Swift3 users convenient API?
I'm afraid it's not possible, Apple has a list of Swift Type Compatibility which explicitly excludes enumerations defined in Swift without Int raw value type.
Reference
This is what I did:
In Swift class created the enum
enum Origin {
case Search(searchTerm: String, searchResultsPageNum: Int)
case Discovery(pageNum: Int)
}
Then in my Class, created enum property and functions (that are visible to Objective C) to set and get values of the enum property.
#objc class GameSession: NSObject
{
...
var gameOrigin: Origin?
...
let originStr = "origin"
let notSpecified = "Not Specified"
#objc func getOrigin() -> NSDictionary
{
guard let origin = gameOrigin else {
return [originStr: notSpecified]
}
switch origin {
case .Search(let searchTerm, let searchResultsPageNum):
return ["searchTerm": searchTerm, "searchResultsPageNum": "\(searchResultsPageNum)"]
case .Discovery(let pageNum)
return ["pageNum": pageNum]
default:
return [originStr: notSpecified]
}
}
#objc func setSearchOriginWith(searchTerm: String, searchResultsPageNum: Int, filtered:Bool)
{
self.gameOrigin = Origin.Search(searchTerm: searchTerm, searchResultsPageNum: searchResultsPageNum, filtered: filtered)
}
#objc func setDiscoveryOriginWith(pageNum: Int)
{
self.gameOrigin = Origin.Discovery(pageNum: pageNum)
}
}

SWIFT 3.0 migration error - Extension of a generic Obj-C class cannot access the class' generic parameter at runtime

I have this code working fine in Swift 2.
extension PHFetchResult: Sequence {
public func makeIterator() -> NSFastEnumerationIterator {
return NSFastEnumerationIterator(self)
}
}
Since I upgraded to Swift 3
Extension of a generic Objective-C class cannot access the class's generic parameters at runtime
I have no idea on how to fix this. Any help is much appreciated!
Problem was reported here: https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-1576
But in the end you can't use for in with PHFetchResult in Swift 3.0. Let's see some examples:
let collections = PHAssetCollection.fetchAssetCollections(with: .album, subtype: .any, options: nil)
let collectionLists = PHCollectionList.fetchCollectionLists(with: .momentList, subtype: .momentListYear, options: nil)
let assets = PHAsset.fetchAssets(with: .image, options: nil)
You can either use the built-in enumeration of PHFetchResult (my recommended solution):
collections.enumerateObjects(_:) { (collection, count, stop) in
//...
}
collectionLists.enumerateObjects(_:) { (collectionList, count, stop) in
//...
}
assets.enumerateObjects(_:) { (asset, count, stop) in
//...
}
Or access each object by its index:
for idx in 0 ..< collections.count {
let collection = collections[idx]
// ...
}
for idx in 0 ..< collectionLists.count {
let collectionList = collectionLists[idx]
// ...
}
for idx in 0 ..< assets.count {
let asset = assets[idx]
// ...
}
Pulling from Realm, you may be able to get around this by extending a subclass of what you want to conform to Sequence and put the makeIerator function there.
// Sequence conformance for ClassA is provided by ProtocolX's `makeIterator()` implementation.
extension ClassA: Sequence {}
extension ProtocolX {
// Support Sequence-style enumeration
public func makeIterator() -> RLMIterator {
return RLMIterator(collection: self)
}
}
You can see the full code at https://github.com/realm/realm-cocoa/blob/master/Realm/Swift/RLMSupport.swift
You can use a wrapper type as suggested by Swift engineer Jordan Rose on the bug report:
import Photos
struct ResultSequence<Element: AnyObject>: Sequence {
var result: PHFetchResult<Element>
init(_ result: PHFetchResult<Element>) {
self.result = result
}
func makeIterator() -> NSFastEnumerationIterator {
return NSFastEnumerationIterator(self.result)
}
}
func test(_ request: PHFetchResult<PHCollection>) {
for elem in ResultSequence(request) {
print(elem)
}
}
There is no way to fix that, you might need to refactor your code or use some other techniques.
you can refer to this:
How to use a swift class with a generic type in objective c
docs:
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/BuildingCocoaApps/MixandMatch.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014216-CH10-XID_78

Call generic function from non-generic function in Swift

MMCondition is a protocol defined in Swift, but interoperates with Objective-C (annotated with #objc).
#objc public protocol MMCondition {
static var name: String { get }
static var isMutuallyExclusive: Bool { get }
}
I have the following code:
// addCondition cannot be generic as I want it to be accessible from Objective-C as well.
public func addCondition(condition: MMCondition) {
// How do I initialize OperationConditionImplementer here?
let operationCondition = OperationConditionImplementer(condition: condition) // doesn't compile
// Error: Cannot invoke initializer for type 'OperationConditionImplementer<T>' with an argument list of type '(condition: MMCondition)'
// Can I use condition.dynamicType to init OperationConditionImplementer somehow?
}
struct OperationConditionImplementer<T: MMCondition> {
let condition: T
static var name: String {
return "Silent<\(T.name)>"
}
static var isMutuallyExclusive: Bool {
return T.isMutuallyExclusive
}
init(condition: T) {
self.condition = condition
}
}
From Objective-C, you can't use generics as stated in the documentation.
You’ll have access to anything within a class or protocol that’s
marked with the #objc attribute as long as it’s compatible with
Objective-C. This excludes Swift-only features such as those listed
here:
Generics
...
So you need to remove completely the generics code. One possible solution might be:
#objc protocol MMCondition {
static var name: String { get }
static var isMutuallyExclusive: Bool { get }
}
struct OperationConditionImplementer {
let condition: MMCondition
var name: String {
return "Silent<\(condition.dynamicType.name)>"
}
var isMutuallyExclusive: Bool {
return condition.dynamicType.isMutuallyExclusive
}
init(condition: MMCondition) {
self.condition = condition
// Here decide comparing types
if condition.dynamicType === ExampleCondition.self {
print(condition.dynamicType.name)
}
}
}
So for instance, if you try it out in a playground:
class ExampleCondition: NSObject, MMCondition {
static var name: String = "ExampleCondition"
static var isMutuallyExclusive: Bool = false
}
let example = OperationConditionImplementer(condition: ExampleCondition())
You'll see "ExampleCondition" printed.
If you eventually switch to pure Swift, you need to specify T when initializing a OperationConditionImplementer.
You can achieve that defining the addCondition method as:
func addCondition<T: MMCondition>(condition: T) {
let a = OperationConditionImplementer<T>(condition: condition)
}
Since Swift 2.0 instances of generic classes can implement Objective-C protocols. What won't be possible I believe is having a struct implement the protocol. In fact I expect that your protocol may need to inherit from NSObjectProtocol to be usable in Objective-C which would then prevent you from implementing the protocol with structs or enums.
You also rightly mention that you can't access generic functions from Objective-C.
For a concrete example of using a generic to fulfil an Objective-C protocol have a look at this blog post.

Alternative to load method in Swift

I am working on developing an application in Swift. I wanted to design a system for the application that allowed for loose coupling between objects, and one strategy (which I have used successfully in other languages) was to create something I call an instance factory. It is pretty simple and here is the basic implementation I came up with in Swift:
import Foundation
private var typeGenerators = Dictionary<String, InstanceFactory.GeneratorCallback>()
public class InstanceFactory: NSObject {
public typealias GeneratorCallback = () -> AnyObject!
public class func registerGeneratorFor(typeName: String, callback: GeneratorCallback) {
typeGenerators[typeName] = callback
}
public class func instanceOf(typeName: String) -> AnyObject! {
return typeGenerators[typeName]?()
}
}
The idea is that when an object instance needs access to another object instance, rather than creating that instance outright which would more tightly couple the two objects, the first object would defer to the factory to provide the needed instance by calling the instanceOf method. The factory would know how to provide various instance types because those types would register with the factory and provide a closure that could generate the instance.
The trick is how to get the classes to register with the factory. I had previously made a similar factory in Objective-C and the way I got registration to work was to override the +load method for each class that needed to register with the factory. This worked great for Objective-C, and I figured it could work for Swift as well since I would be restricting the factory to only provide objects that are derived from NSObject. It appeared I got this to work and I spent a significant about of effort designing classes to make use of the factory.
However, after upgrading to Xcode 6.3, I discovered Apple has disallowed the usage of the load class method in Swift. Without this, I am unaware of a mechanism to allow classes to automatically register themselves with the factory.
I am wondering if there some other way to get the registration to work.
What alternatives are available that could allow classes to register with the factory, or what other techniques could be use to accomplish the same kind of loose coupling the factory provides?
I've found a possible solution to your problem after I wanted to register all ViewControllers that would be implementing a certain Protocol in my application and I ran into both this question and a possible answer.
The original was posted here: How to list all classes conforming to protocol in Swift?
I adapted it to Swift 3 and made it a bit more Swift-y and generic:
import UIKit
class ContextRoute: NSObject {
}
#objc protocol ContextRoutable {
static var route: ContextRoute { get }
}
class ContextRouter: NSObject {
private static var storedRoutes: [ContextRoute]?
static var routes: [ContextRoute] {
get {
if let storedRoutes = storedRoutes {
return storedRoutes
}
let routables: [ContextRoutable.Type] = classes(implementing: ContextRoutable.self)
let newRoutes = routables.map { routable in routable.route }
storedRoutes = newRoutes
return newRoutes
}
}
private class func classes<T>(implementing objcProtocol: Protocol) -> [T] {
let classes = classList().flatMap { objcClass in objcClass as? T }
return classes
}
private class func classList() -> [AnyObject] {
let expectedClassCount = objc_getClassList(nil, 0)
let allClasses = UnsafeMutablePointer<AnyClass?>.allocate(capacity: Int(expectedClassCount))
let autoreleasingAllClasses = AutoreleasingUnsafeMutablePointer<AnyClass?>(allClasses)
let actualClassCount:Int32 = objc_getClassList(autoreleasingAllClasses, expectedClassCount)
var classes = [AnyObject]()
for i in 0 ..< actualClassCount {
if let currentClass: AnyClass = allClasses[Int(i)],
class_conformsToProtocol(currentClass, ContextRoutable.self) {
classes.append(currentClass)
}
}
allClasses.deallocate(capacity: Int(expectedClassCount))
return classes
}
}
I tried it in my application and it works. I clocked it in the simulator and it takes 0.05s for an application that has about 12000 classes.
Consider taking the Swift approach using a protocol instead. I think the solution is actually simpler than the Objective-C approach. There are variations of this with Self constraints which are even better if you have more control over the classes.
// define a protocol to create an instance of a class
protocol FactoryInstantiable {
static func makeFactoryInstance() -> AnyObject
}
// Factory for generating new instances
public class InstanceFactory: NSObject {
public class func instanceOf(typeName: String) -> AnyObject! {
if let ProductType = NSClassFromString(typeName) as? FactoryInstantiable.Type {
return ProductType.makeFactoryInstance()
} else {
return nil
}
}
}
// your class which generally could be defined somewhere else
class MyClass {
var counter : Int
init(counter: Int) {
self.counter = 0
}
}
// extension of your class to conform to the FactoryInstantiable protocol
extension MyClass : FactoryInstantiable {
static func makeFactoryInstance() -> AnyObject {
return MyClass(counter: 0)
}
}

Information Hiding the "Swifter" way?

I have a question regarding object oriented design principles and Swift. I am pretty familiar with Java and I am currently taking a udacity course to get a first hands on in Swift.
In the Java community (basically in every community that follows OOP) it is very common to use information hiding techniques such as hiding or encapsulating data within classes to make sure it cannot be manipulated from outside. A common principle is to declare all attributes of a class as being private and use getters for retrieving an attribute's value and setters for manipulation.
I tried to follow this approach when writing a class that was part of the course and it looks like this:
//
// RecordedAudio.swift
// Pitch Perfect
//
import Foundation
class RecordedAudio: NSObject {
private let filePathUrl: NSURL!
private let title: String?
init(filePathUrl: NSURL, title: String?)
{
self.filePathUrl = filePathUrl
self.title = title
}
func getFilePathUrl() -> NSURL
{
return filePathUrl
}
func getTitle() -> String
{
if title != nil
{
return title!
}
else
{
return "none"
}
}
}
The code works and my private attributes cannot be accessed from outside my class, which is exactly the behavior I wanted to achieve. However, the following questions came to my mind:
1.) The course instructor decided to leave the attributes' access control level at the default "internal" and not use getters/setters but rather access the attributes directly from outside. Any thoughts on why developers might do that in swift? Is my approach not "swift" enough???
2.) In conclusion: Is there a "swifter" way to implement encapsulation when writing your own class? What are swift's native techniques to achieve the information hiding I am aiming for?
You can restrict external property manipulation, by marking the property public for reading and private for writing, as described in the documentation:
class RecordedAudio: NSObject {
public private(set) let filePathUrl: NSURL!
public private(set) let title: String?
init(filePathUrl: NSURL, title: String?) {
self.filePathUrl = filePathUrl
self.title = title
}
}
// in another file
let audio = RecordedAudio(filePathUrl: myUrl, title: myTitle)
let url = audio.filePathUrl // works, returns the url
audio.filePathUrl = newUrl // doesn't compile
I do it a bit like in Obj-C:
class MyClass
private var _something:Int
var something:Int {
get {return _something}
// optional: set { _something = newValue }
}
init() { _something = 99 }
}
...
let c = MyClass()
let v = c.something
Above is a primitive example, but handled stringent it works as a good pattern.