I read an article about "Method Swizzling in Objective-C". In this article the meaning of "Method Swizzing" is to exchange the implementations of two methods. The sample is as below shows:
- (void) logged_viewDidAppear:(BOOL)animated {
[self logged_viewDidAppear:animated];
NSLog(#"logged view did appear for %#", [self class]);
}
+ (void)load {
static dispatch_once_t once_token;
dispatch_once(&once_token, ^{
SEL viewWillAppearSelector = #selector(viewDidAppear:);
SEL viewWillAppearLoggerSelector = #selector(logged_viewDidAppear:);
Method originalMethod = class_getInstanceMethod(self, viewWillAppearSelector);
Method extendedMethod = class_getInstanceMethod(self, viewWillAppearLoggerSelector);
method_exchangeImplementations(originalMethod, extendedMethod);
});
}
- (void) logged_viewDidAppear:(BOOL)animated {
[self logged_viewDidAppear:animated];
NSLog(#"logged view did appear for %#", [self class]);
}
In the article, one sentence is
It may seem this this method makes a nonsensical recursive call to itself, but it won’t actually be doing that after we swizzle it.
But I am not very clear about this statement,does it mean that when we write the code like below:
[self viewDidAppear],
since its implementation became "logged_viewDidAppear", so the program goes to method "logged_viewDidAppear", and in that method as we can see, the first line is [self logged_viewDidAppear:animated]; for the same reason, the method becomes "viewDidAppear". Is my word correct?
Yep. When viewDidAppear is called, it actually would be swizzled to the implementation of logged_viewDidAppear at runtime, so does logged_viewDidApear being called.
Check this:http://nshipster.com/method-swizzling/ and this
https://www.bignerdranch.com/blog/inside-the-bracket-part-7-runtime-machinations/
Related
Is it possible to create an Objective-C class that can have an arbitrary number of dynamic properties at runtime?
I want to be able to call mySpecialClass.anyProperty and intercept this inside my class to be able to provide my own custom implementation that can then return an NSString (for instance) at runtime with raising an exception. Obviously this all has to compile.
Ideal would be if I could refer to my properties using something similar to the new literal syntax, e.g. mySpecialClass["anyProperty"].
I guess in a way I want to create something like a dynamic NSDictionary with no CFDictionary backing store, that executes 2 custom methods on property getting and setting respectively, with the property name passed in to these accessor methods so they can decide what to do.
There are at least two ways to do this.
Subscripting
Use objectForKeyedSubscript: and setObject:forKeyedSubscript:
#property (nonatomic,strong) NSMutableDictionary *properties;
- (id)objectForKeyedSubscript:(id)key {
return [[self properties] valueForKey:[NSString stringWithFormat:#"%#",key]];
}
- (void)setObject:(id)object forKeyedSubscript:(id <NSCopying>)key {
[[self properties] setValue:object forKey:[NSString stringWithFormat:#"%#",key]];
}
Person *p = [Person new];
p[#"name"] = #"Jon";
NSLog(#"%#",p[#"name"]);
resolveInstanceMethod:
This is the objc_sendMsg executed by the runtime for all methods:
If you look at the bottom, you have the opportunity to resolveInstanceMethod:, which lets you redirect the method call to one of your choosing. To answer your question, you need to write a generic getter and setter that looks-up a value on a dictionary ivar:
// generic getter
static id propertyIMP(id self, SEL _cmd) {
return [[self properties] valueForKey:NSStringFromSelector(_cmd)];
}
// generic setter
static void setPropertyIMP(id self, SEL _cmd, id aValue) {
id value = [aValue copy];
NSMutableString *key = [NSStringFromSelector(_cmd) mutableCopy];
// delete "set" and ":" and lowercase first letter
[key deleteCharactersInRange:NSMakeRange(0, 3)];
[key deleteCharactersInRange:NSMakeRange([key length] - 1, 1)];
NSString *firstChar = [key substringToIndex:1];
[key replaceCharactersInRange:NSMakeRange(0, 1) withString:[firstChar lowercaseString]];
[[self properties] setValue:value forKey:key];
}
And then implement resolveInstanceMethod: to add the requested method to the class.
+ (BOOL)resolveInstanceMethod:(SEL)aSEL {
if ([NSStringFromSelector(aSEL) hasPrefix:#"set"]) {
class_addMethod([self class], aSEL, (IMP)setPropertyIMP, "v#:#");
} else {
class_addMethod([self class], aSEL,(IMP)propertyIMP, "##:");
}
return YES;
}
You could also do it returning a NSMethodSignature for the method, which is then wrapped in a NSInvocation and passed to forwardInvocation:, but adding the method is faster.
Here is a gist that runs in CodeRunner. It doesn't handle myClass["anyProperty"] calls.
You're asking different things. If you want to be able to use the bracket syntax mySpecialClass[#"anyProperty"] on instances of your class, it is very easy. Just implement the methods:
- (id)objectForKeyedSubscript:(id)key
{
return ###something based on the key argument###
}
- (void)setObject:(id)object forKeyedSubscript:(id <NSCopying>)key
{
###set something with object based on key####
}
It will be called everytime you use the bracket syntax in your source code.
Otherwise if you want to create properties at runtime, there are different ways to proceed, take a look at NSObject's forwardInvocation: method, or look at the Objective-C Runtime Reference for functions to dynamically alter a class...
Guillaume is right. forwardInvocation: is the way to go. This answer gives some more details: method_missing-like functionality in objective-c (i.e. dynamic delegation at run time)
This has even more details: Equivalent of Ruby method_missing in Objective C / iOS
And these are some other lesser known Obj-C features that might help you: Hidden features of Objective-C
Enjoy!
In C# you can create a delegate method, assign it to a variable or pass it into a method as if it were a variable. For example:
public delegate int Lookup(String s);
//...
public static int Evaluate(String exp, Lookup variableEvaluator)
{
//...
}
I heard that in C you can create a pointer to any method and then pass that pointer to a method.
Can anyone give me a simple example of doing that in Objective-C? Of course, I can create an object with a singe method and pass that object into a method. But I am curious if there is a way of doing that similar to that of C# or C.
Lots of ways.
One: the good. Use blocks (closures, lambda calculus, however you call it):
typedef void (^MyCallback)();
- (void)callTheCallback:(MyCallback)blockToInvoke
{
blockToInvoke();
}
MyCallback cb = ^{
NSLog(#"I was called! :D");
};
[self callTheCallback:cb];
Two: the bad. Grab a pointer to the method function itself and call that. (Warning: if you use this approach, I'll sue you.)
- (void)callTheCallback:(IMP)funcPtrToCall withObject:(id)obj selector:(SEL)sel
{
funcPtrToCall(obj, sel);
}
- (void)someCallbackMethod
{
NSLog(#"I was called! :D");
}
IMP implemt = [[self class] instanceMethodForSelector:#selector(someCallbackMethod)];
[self callTheCallback:implemt withObject:self selector:#selector(someCallbackMethod)];
Three: the ugly. Use a delegate:
- (void)delegateMethodOfSomeObject:(SomeObject *)obj
{
NSLog(#"I was called! :D");
}
SomeObject *obj = [[SomeObject alloc] init];
obj.delegate = self;
[obj makeThisObjectSomehowCallItsDelegateThatIsCurrentlySelf];
Two quick thoughts come to mind.
The short answer is called "blocks", but it's lower level than is probably recommended for what you need.
The "cleaner" solution (read: higher level) is to pass two params: and object (called "target") and a selector (called "action"). This is a very common pattern in Objective-C, so I'll only demonstrate this one. If you are interested in the blocks idea, check out this doc.
Essentially, the object should be passed as an id, and the selector as a SEL, for which we have the handy #selector() construct:
-(void) doThingWithTarget:(id) targetObj action:(SEL) actionSel {
if([targetObj respondsToSelector:actionSel]) {
[targetObj performSelector:actionSel withObject:self];
}
}
// ...
[thatOtherObject doThingWithTarget:self action:#selector(myMethod:)];
// ... where
-(void) myMethod:(id) sender {
// sender is the calling object, or should be by contract.
}
Objective C uses selectors. http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/cocoa/conceptual/objectivec/Chapters/ocSelectors.html
I was just reading some source code of https://github.com/MugunthKumar/MKNetworkKit, and saw this
+(void) initialize {
if(!_sharedNetworkQueue) {
static dispatch_once_t oncePredicate;
dispatch_once(&oncePredicate, ^{
_sharedNetworkQueue = [[NSOperationQueue alloc] init];
[_sharedNetworkQueue addObserver:[self self] forKeyPath:#"operationCount" options:0 context:NULL];
[_sharedNetworkQueue setMaxConcurrentOperationCount:6];
});
}
}
what does that [self self] mean here?
-self is a method defined in the NSObject protocol. It returns the receiver, that is, the object you send the message self to. If you do [a self], you get a back, and yes, if you do [self self] (or self.self), you indeed get self back.
It may be useful in key-value paths where you are supposed to append a new component, but intend to observe the entire object, like in Cocoa Bindings. I don't see any application of this in the code you posted, but it may be the case that proxies adopt self differently, to point to the proxy itself, rather than the remote/forwarded object.
It is the same as self, only a redundant call .
[self self] // ---> Same object of self
This is currently what I have for my init,
- (id)init
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
self.url = [[NSURL alloc] init];
self.blurb = [[NSString alloc] init];
self.author = [[NSString alloc] init];
}
return self;
}
It does nothing, but I have another method called initWithObject: that will use its argument to fill up the instance variables url, blurb, and author. I don't know what I should be doing with this init. Should I throw an exception? What other options do I have?
If you want to override your standard -init method you could either return nil (if you do not want -init to be used) or do:
- (instancetype)init
{
return [self initWithObject:nil];
}
If you want to stop the use of -init completely you can tag it as an unavailable attribute or use NSAssert:
// .h
// ...
- (instancetype)init UNAVAILABLE_ATTRIBUTE;
// ...
// .m
- (instancetype)init
{
NSAssert(NO, #"This method should not be used");
return nil;
}
You can use either UNAVAILABLE_ATTRIBUTE or NSAssert(), but if you use UNAVAILABLE_ATTRIBUTE you need some kind of implementation of -init, even if it just returns nil.
You don't have to have a plain init—you can simply have your initWithObject: method. If you're doing any basic setup that will remain the same 80% of the time, or if you have some common code in all your initializers, you can override init, but you are not required to.
Also consider changing your initWithObject: name to be more specific, to something like initWithPost: (I'm assuming this is some kind of blog-entry fetcher based on your ivars) so it's more apparent what object is desired.
I think you misinterpreted what you read. I don't think you would throw an exception. You could; however, leak memory. If your initWithObject: method looks like this:
- (id)initWithObject:(id)obj {
if ((self = [self init])) {
self.url=[obj url];
self.blurb=[obj blurb];
self.author=[obj author];
}
return self;
}
And you would be perfectly fine. You could get an exception if your object was instantiated with -init and you used a variable which was assigned, assuming it was real. So in your subsequent methods be sure to check that the objects exist before using them.
If you made your object with -init rather than -initWithObject this could throw an exception:
- (void)dealloc {
[url release];
[blurb release];
[author release];
[super dealloc];
}
The rule that Apple has established for Cocoa programming is that every class must have one initializer method which is the "Designated Initializer". Every other initializer for the class must call that D.I.* The D.I. itself must call the superclass's D.I. Generally, the initializer with the greatest number of arguments (the one that most completely specifies the state of the new object) is the D.I.
In your case, with the bare init, and initWithObject:, the second would likely be the D.I. You would therefore override init to call initWithObject: with some default argument:
- (id) init {
return [self initWithObject:[Object objectWithURL:[NSURL URLWithString:#"http://www.apple.com"]
blurb:#""
author:#""]];
}
This will result in a sort of dummy object, which is correctly initialized with useless data. (Outside of ARC, be sure to watch the memory management of the default argument(s) -- you want to use an autoreleased/unowned object(s).)
*Sometimes an exception is made for initWithCoder:.
If you have any method that you don't want called and that you don't want your subclass to support, throwing an exception in a Debug build is perfectly reasonable.
I've just run into blocks and I think they are just what I'm looking for, except for one thing: is it possible to call a method [self methodName] from within a block?
This is what I'm trying to do:
-(void)someFunction{
Fader* fader = [[Fader alloc]init];
void (^tempFunction)(void) = ^ {
[self changeWindow:game];
//changeWindow function is located in superclass
};
[fader setFunction:tempFunction];
}
I've been searching for a couple of days and I can't find any evidence that this is possible.
Is this at all possible, or am I trying to use blocks for something they aren't meant for?
The reason I'm using blocks is that I've created a Fader class, and I want to store a block for it to execute when it finishes fading out.
Thank you
EDIT:
Okay, I added in the suggestion, but I'm still getting an EXC_BAD_ACCESS error...
-(void)someFunction{
Fader* fader = [[Fader alloc]init];
__block MyScreen* me = self;
void (^tempFunction)(void) = ^ {
[me changeWindow:game];
//changeWindow function is located in superclass
};
[fader setFunction:tempFunction];
[fader release];
}
Maybe I'm not allowed to give fader the function...?
Yes, you can do this.
Note, however, that the block will retain self. If you end up storing this block in an ivar, you could easily create a retain cycle, which means neither would ever get deallocated.
To get around this, you can do:
- (void) someMethodWithAParameter:(id)aParameter {
__block MySelfType *blocksafeSelf = self;
void (^tempFunction)(void) = ^ {
[blocksafeSelf changeWindow:game];
};
[self doSomethingWithBlock:tempFunction];
}
The __block keyword means (among other things) that the referenced object will not be retained.
The accepted answer is outdated. Using __block in that case can cause errors!
To avoid this problem, it’s best practice to capture a weak reference to self, like this:
- (void)configureBlock {
XYZBlockKeeper * __weak weakSelf = self;
self.block = ^{
[weakSelf doSomething]; // capture the weak reference
// to avoid the reference cycle
}
}
Please, look at Apple Documentation - Avoid Strong Reference Cycles when Capturing self
for more details.
__block CURRENTViewController *blocksafeSelf = self;
[homeHelper setRestAsCheckIn:strRestId :^(NSObject *temp) {
[blocksafeSelf YOURMETHOD:params];
}];
Is it possible to call a method [self methodName] from within a block?
Yes, why not. If your tempFunction is an instance method, you can do it. The called method should be accessible is the only restriction.
Consider this (which I think is the best practice)
#implementaion ViewController
- (void) viewDidLoad {
__weak typeof(self) wself = self;
[xxx doSomethingUsingBlock: ^{
__strong typeof(wself) self = wself;
[self anotherMessage];
}];
}
#end
Moreover, You can define wrapper macros.
#define MakeWeakSelf __weak typeof(self) wself = self
#define MakeStrongSelf __strong typeof(wself) self = wself
I wonder whether you [fader setFunction:tempFunction]; then is synchronous or asynchronous.
blocks push onto stack.so in MRR,if you don't retain it,it will pop off.
-(void)someFunction{
Fader* fader = [[Fader alloc]init];
void (^tempFunction)(void) = ^ {
[self changeWindow:game];
//changeWindow function is located in superclass
};
[fader setFunction:tempFunction];
//if the tempFunction execute there will be right.
}//there the tempFunction pop off
//....some thing go on
//execute the tempFunction will go wrong.