I've been learning Kotlin and I've faced with Collections API. Before Kotlin I'd been learning Java and I know that in Java there's a lot of different types of Collections API. For example, instead of general List, Map, Queue, Set we use ArrayList, HashMap, LinkedList, LinkedMap and etc. Though in Kotlin we only use general types like Map, List, Set but also we can use HashMap and etc. So, what's going on there? Can you help me to figure out?
While Kotlin's original and primary target is the JVM, there is a huge push by JetBrains to make it multiplatform, and support JS and Native as well.
If you're using Kotlin on the JVM, the implementations of any collections you're using will still be the original JDK classes, e.g. java.util.ArrayList or java.util.HashSet. These are not reimplemented by the Kotlin standard library, which has some great benefits:
These are well-tested implementations, which are maintained anyway.
Using the exact same classes makes interop with Java a breeze, as you can pass them back and forth without having to perform conversions or mapping of any kind.
What Kotlin does do is introduce its own collection semantics over these existing implementations, in the form of the standard library interfaces such as List, Map, MutableList, MutableMap and so on. A small bit of compiler magic makes it so that these interfaces are implemented by the existing JDK classes as well.
If you don't need a specific implementation of a certain type of collection, you can use your collections via these interfaces plus the respective factory methods of the standard library (listOf, mapOf, mutableListOf, mutableMapOf, etc.). This keeps your code more generic, and independent of the concrete underlying implementations. You don't know what specific class the standard library mutableListOf function will create for you, only that it will be an object that satisfies the contract of the MutableList interface.
You should basically use these interfaces by default in your code, especially in public API:
In the case of function parameters, this lets clients provide the function with whatever implementation of the collection they wish to give you. If your function can operate on anything that's a List, you should ask for just that interface - no reason to require an ArrayList or LinkedList specifically.
If this is a return type, using these interfaces lets you change the specific implementation that you create internally in the future, without breaking client code. You can promise to just return a MutableList of things, and what implementation backs that list is not exposed to your clients.
If you look at all the collection handling functions of the Kotlin standard library, you'll see that on the surface, they almost exclusively operate on these interfaces. If you dig down deep enough, you'll find ArrayList instances being created, but this is not exposed to the client code, as it doesn't have to care about the concrete implementation most of the time.
Going back to the multiplatform point once more, if you write your code in a way such that it only relies on Kotlin standard library defined types, that code will be easily usable for non-JVM targets. If you reference kotlin.MutableList in your imports, that can immediately compile to JS code, because there's a Kotlin standard library implementation of that interface on each platform. Whether that maps to an existing class directly, wraps an existing class somehow, or is implemented for Kotlin from scratch, again, doesn't have to concern you. But if you refer to java.util.TreeSet in your code, that won't fly for the JS target, as the Java platform classes are not available there.
Can you still use classes such as java.util.ArrayList directly? Of course.
If you don't see your code going multiplatform at some point, using Java collections directly is perfectly okay.
If you need a specific implementation for a List or a Set for performance reasons, sometimes you'll have to use the Java classes directly.
Interestingly, in recent releases of Kotlin, these specific types of implementations (such as an array based list) are wrapped under standard library typealiases too, so that they're platform independent by default: see kotlin.collections.ArrayList or kotlin.collections.HashSet for examples of this. These Kotlin-defined types will usually show up first in IntelliJ completion, so you'll find yourself being pushed towards using them wherever possible. Same thing goes for most exceptions, e.g. IllegalArgumentException.
TL;DR: You can use either Kotlin collection types of Java types in Kotlin, but you should probably do the former whenever you can.
Creating a module (bundle, package, whatever) with only interfaces seems to me a strange idea. Yet, I don't know the other best solution to solve the following architectural requirement.
There often appears a need for a set of utilities. In many projects I can see the creation of "utils" folder, or even a seperate package (module) with frequently used ones.
Now consider the idea that you don't want to depend upon a concrete utils set. Instead you, therefore, use interfaces.
So you may create the whole project, with multiple modules, dependent only on the "Utils-Interfaces" set, which could be a separate module. Then you think you can re-use it in other projects, as these utils are frequently used.
So what do you do? Create a seperate module (package, bundle...) with interfaces with definitions of the methods to be implemented by concrete utility-classes? And re-use this "glue-interfaces-packages" (possibly with other "glues", such as bridges, providers etc.) in your various other projects? Or is there a better way to design the archictecture regarding the utilities that could be easily switched from one to another?
It seems a bit odd to have an interface for utility methods as it should be clear what they do. Also in most language you won't have static dispatch anymore. And you wouldn't solve a problem by having interfaces for utility methods. I think it would make more sense to look for a library doing the same thing or writing your own if such functionality isn't already implemented. Very specific things should be tied to the project, though.
Let's look at an example in Java:
public static boolean isDigitOnly(String text) {
return "\\d+".matches(text);
}
Let's assume one would use an interface. That would mean that you have to have an instance of such an implementation, most likely a singleton. So what's the point of that? You would write the method head twice and you don't have any advantage; interfaces are used for loose coupling, however such generic utility methods aren't bound to your application.
So maybe you just want to use a library. And actually there is one for exactly this use case: Apache Commons. Of course you may not want to include such a big library for a single method. However, if you need this many utility methods you may want to use it.
Now I've explained how to use and reuse utility methods; however, a part of your question was about using different implementations.
I can't see many cases you wanted this. If, for example, you have a method specific to a certain implementation of sockets, you may instead want
A) the utility method as a part of the API
B) an interface for different socket implementations on which you have one common utility method
If you cannot apply this to your problem, it's probably not a utility method or I didn't consider it. If you could provide me with a more specific problem I'd be happy to give you a more concrete answer.
Objective-C’s objects are pretty flexible when compared to similar languages like C++ and can be extended at runtime via Categories or through runtime functions.
Any idea what this sentence means? I am relatively new to Objective-C
While technically true, it may be confusing to the reader to call category extension "at runtime." As Justin Meiners explains, categories allow you to add additional methods to an existing class without requiring access to the existing class's source code. The use of categories is fairly common in Objective-C, though there are some dangers. If two different categories add the same method to the same class, then the behavior is undefined. Since you cannot know whether some other part of the system (perhaps even a system library) adds a category method, you typically must add a prefix to prevent collisions (for example rather than swappedString, a better name would likely be something like rnc_swappedString if this were part of RNCryptor for instance.)
As I said, it is technically true that categories are added at runtime, but from the programmer's point of view, categories are written as though just part of the class, so most people think of them as being a compile-time choice. It is very rare to decide at runtime whether to add a category method or not.
As a beginner, you should be aware of categories, but slow to create new ones. Creating categories is a somewhat intermediate-level skill. It's not something to avoid, but not something you'll use every day. It's very easy to overuse them. See Justin's link for more information.
On the other hand, "runtime functions" really do add new functionality to existing classes or even specific objects at runtime, and are completely under the control of code. You can, at runtime, modify a class such that it responds to a method it didn't previously respond to. You can even generate entirely new classes at runtime that did not exist when the program was compiled, and you can change the class of existing objects. (This is exactly how Key-Value Observation is implemented.)
Modifying classes and objects using the runtime is an advanced skill. You should not even consider using these techniques in production code until you have significant experience. And when you have that experience, it will tell you that you very seldom what to do this anyway. You will know the runtime functions because they are C-based, with names like method_exchangeImplmentations. You won't mistake them for normal ObjC (and you generally have to import objc/runtime.h to get to them.)
There is a middle-ground that bleeds into runtime manipulation called message forwarding and dynamic message resolution. This is often used for proxy objects, and is implemented with -forwardingTargetForSelector, +resolveInstanceMethod, and some similar methods. These are tools that allow classes to modify themselves at runtime, and is much less dangerous than modifying other classes (i.e. "swizzling").
It's also important to consider how all of this translates to Swift. In general, Swift has discouraged and restricted the use of runtime class manipulation, but it embraces (and improves) category-like extensions. By the time you're experienced enough to dig into the runtime, you will likely find it an even more obscure skill than it is today. But you will use extensions (Swift's version of categories) in every program.
A category allows you to add functionality to an existing class that you do not have access to source code for (System frameworks, 3rd party APIs etc). This functionality is possible by adding methods to a class at runtime.
For example lets say I wanted to add a method to NSString that swapped uppercase and lowercase letters called -swappedString. In static languages (such as C++), extending classes like this is more difficult. I would have to create a subclass of NSString (or a helper function). While my own code could take advantage of my subclass, any instance created in a library would not use my subclass and would not have my method.
Using categories I can extend any class, such as adding a -swappedString method and use it on any instance of the class, such asNSString transparently [anyString swappedString];.
You can learn more details from Apple's Docs
What are the practical differences between using modules with the use statement or isolated files with the include statement? I mean, if I have a subroutine that is used a lot throughout a program: when or why should I put it inside a module or just write it in a separate file and include it in every other part of the program where it needs to be used?
Also, would it be good practice to write all subroutines intended to go in a module in separate files and use include inside the module? Specially if the code in the subroutines is long, so as to keep the code better organized (that way all subroutines are packed in the mod, but if I have to edit one I don't need to go though a maze of code).
The conceptual differences between the two map through to very significant practical differences.
An INCLUDE line operates at the source level - it accomplishes simple ("dumb") text inclusion. In the absence of any special processor interpretation of the "filename" (no requirement for that actually to be a file) in the include line the complete source could quite easily be manually spliced together by the programmer and fed to the compiler with no difference what-so-ever in the semantics of the source. Included source has no real interpretation in isolation - its meaning is completely dependent on the context in which the include line that references the included source appears.
Modules operate at the much higher entity level of the program, i.e. at the level where the compiler is considering the things that the source actually describes. A module can be compiled in isolation of its downstream users and once it has been compiled the compiler knows exactly what things the module can provide to the program.
Typically what someone using include lines is hoping to do is what modules were actually designed to do.
Example issues:
Because entity declarations can be spread over multiple statements the entities described by included source might not be what you expect. Consider the following source to be included:
INTEGER :: i
In isolation it looks like this declares the name i as an integer scalar (or perhaps a function? Who knows!). Now consider the following scope that includes the above:
INCLUDE "source from above"
DIMENSION :: i(10,10)
i is now a rank two array! Perhaps you want to make it a POINTER? An ALLOCATABLE? A dummy argument? Perhaps that results in an error, or perhaps it is valid source! Throw implicit typing into the mix to really compound the potential fun.
An entity defined in a module is "completely" defined by the module. Attributes that are specific to the scope of use can be changed (VOLATILE, accessibility, etc), but the fundamental entity remains the same. Name clashes are explicitly called out and can be easily worked around with a rename clause on the USE statement.
Fortran has restrictions on statement ordering (specification statements must go before executable statements, etc.). Included source is also subject to those restrictions, again in the context of the point of inclusion, not the point of source definition.
Mix well with source ambiguity between statement function definitions (specification part) and assignment statements (executable part) for some completely obtuse error messages or, worse, silent acceptance by the compiler of erroneous code.
There are requirements on where the USE statement that references a module appears, but the source for the actual module program unit is completely independent of its point of use.
Fancy having some global state to be shared across related procedures and you want to use include? Let me introduce you to common blocks and the associated underlying concept of sequence association...
Sequence association is a unfortunate bleed-through of early underlying Fortran processor implementation that is an error prone, inflexible, anti-optimisation anachronism.
Module variables make common blocks and their associated evils completely unnecessary.
If you were using include lines, then note that you don't actually include the source of a commonly used procedure (the suggestion in your first paragraph is just going to result in a morass of syntax errors from the compiler). What you would typically do is include source that describes the interface of the procedure. For any non-trivial procedure the source that describes the interface is different from the complete source of the procedure - implying that you now need to maintain two source representations of the same thing. This is an error prone maintenance burden.
As mentioned - the compilers automatically gains knowledge of the interface of a module procedure (the compiler knowledge is "explicit" because it actually saw the procedure's code - hence the term "explicit interface"). No need for the programmer to do anything more.
A consequence of the above is that external subprograms should not be used at all unless there are very good reasons to the contrary (perhaps the existence of circular or excessively extensive dependencies) - the basic starting point should be to put everything in a module or main program.
Other posters have mentioned the source code organisation benefits of modules - including the ability to group related procedures and other "stuff" into the one package, with control over accessibility of internal implementation details.
I accept there is a valid use of INCLUDE lines as per the second paragraph of the question - where large modules become unwieldy in size. F2008 has addressed this with submodules, which also bring a number of other benefits. Once they become widely supported the include line work-around should be abandoned.
A second valid use is to overcome a lack of support by the language for generic programming techniques (what templates provide in C++) - i.e. where the types of objects involved in an operation may vary, but the token sequence that describes what to do on those objects is essentially the same. It might be another decade or so before the language sorts that out.
Placing procedures into modules and using those modules makes the interface of the procedure explicit. It allows a Fortran compiler to check for consistency between the actual arguments in a call and the dummy arguments of the procedure. This guards against a variety of programmer mistakes. An explicit interface is also necessary for certain "advanced" features of Fortran >=90; for example, optional or keyword arguments. Without the explicit interface, the compiler won't generate the correct call. Merely including a file doesn't provide these advantages.
M.S.B.'s answer is great and is probably the most important reason to prefer modules over include. I'd like to add a few more thoughts.
Using modules reduces your compiled binary size if that is something that is important to you. A module is compiled once, and when you use it you are symbolically loading that module to use the code. When you include a file, you are actually inserting the new code into your routine. If you use include a lot it can cause your binary to be large and also increase your compile time.
You can also use modules to fake OOP style coding in Fortran 90 through clever use of public and private functions and user defined types in a module. Even if you didn't want to do that, it provides a nice way to group functions that logically belong together.
Objective-C has no namespaces; it's much like C, everything is within one global namespace. Common practice is to prefix classes with initials, e.g. if you are working at IBM, you could prefix them with "IBM"; if you work for Microsoft, you could use "MS"; and so on. Sometimes the initials refer to the project, e.g. Adium prefixes classes with "AI" (as there is no company behind it of that you could take the initials). Apple prefixes classes with NS and says this prefix is reserved for Apple only.
So far so well. But appending 2 to 4 letters to a class name in front is a very, very limited namespace. E.g. MS or AI could have an entirely different meanings (AI could be Artificial Intelligence for example) and some other developer might decide to use them and create an equally named class. Bang, namespace collision.
Okay, if this is a collision between one of your own classes and one of an external framework you are using, you can easily change the naming of your class, no big deal. But what if you use two external frameworks, both frameworks that you don't have the source to and that you can't change? Your application links with both of them and you get name conflicts. How would you go about solving these? What is the best way to work around them in such a way that you can still use both classes?
In C you can work around these by not linking directly to the library, instead you load the library at runtime, using dlopen(), then find the symbol you are looking for using dlsym() and assign it to a global symbol (that you can name any way you like) and then access it through this global symbol. E.g. if you have a conflict because some C library has a function named open(), you could define a variable named myOpen and have it point to the open() function of the library, thus when you want to use the system open(), you just use open() and when you want to use the other one, you access it via the myOpen identifier.
Is something similar possible in Objective-C and if not, is there any other clever, tricky solution you can use resolve namespace conflicts? Any ideas?
Update:
Just to clarify this: answers that suggest how to avoid namespace collisions in advance or how to create a better namespace are certainly welcome; however, I will not accept them as the answer since they don't solve my problem. I have two libraries and their class names collide. I can't change them; I don't have the source of either one. The collision is already there and tips on how it could have been avoided in advance won't help anymore. I can forward them to the developers of these frameworks and hope they choose a better namespace in the future, but for the time being I'm searching a solution to work with the frameworks right now within a single application. Any solutions to make this possible?
Prefixing your classes with a unique prefix is fundamentally the only option but there are several ways to make this less onerous and ugly. There is a long discussion of options here. My favorite is the #compatibility_alias Objective-C compiler directive (described here). You can use #compatibility_alias to "rename" a class, allowing you to name your class using FQDN or some such prefix:
#interface COM_WHATEVER_ClassName : NSObject
#end
#compatibility_alias ClassName COM_WHATEVER_ClassName
// now ClassName is an alias for COM_WHATEVER_ClassName
#implementation ClassName //OK
//blah
#end
ClassName *myClass; //OK
As part of a complete strategy, you could prefix all your classes with a unique prefix such as the FQDN and then create a header with all the #compatibility_alias (I would imagine you could auto-generate said header).
The downside of prefixing like this is that you have to enter the true class name (e.g. COM_WHATEVER_ClassName above) in anything that needs the class name from a string besides the compiler. Notably, #compatibility_alias is a compiler directive, not a runtime function so NSClassFromString(ClassName) will fail (return nil)--you'll have to use NSClassFromString(COM_WHATERVER_ClassName). You can use ibtool via build phase to modify class names in an Interface Builder nib/xib so that you don't have to write the full COM_WHATEVER_... in Interface Builder.
Final caveat: because this is a compiler directive (and an obscure one at that), it may not be portable across compilers. In particular, I don't know if it works with the Clang frontend from the LLVM project, though it should work with LLVM-GCC (LLVM using the GCC frontend).
If you do not need to use classes from both frameworks at the same time, and you are targeting platforms which support NSBundle unloading (OS X 10.4 or later, no GNUStep support), and performance really isn't an issue for you, I believe that you could load one framework every time you need to use a class from it, and then unload it and load the other one when you need to use the other framework.
My initial idea was to use NSBundle to load one of the frameworks, then copy or rename the classes inside that framework, and then load the other framework. There are two problems with this. First, I couldn't find a function to copy the data pointed to rename or copy a class, and any other classes in that first framework which reference the renamed class would now reference the class from the other framework.
You wouldn't need to copy or rename a class if there were a way to copy the data pointed to by an IMP. You could create a new class and then copy over ivars, methods, properties and categories. Much more work, but it is possible. However, you would still have a problem with the other classes in the framework referencing the wrong class.
EDIT: The fundamental difference between the C and Objective-C runtimes is, as I understand it, when libraries are loaded, the functions in those libraries contain pointers to any symbols they reference, whereas in Objective-C, they contain string representations of the names of thsoe symbols. Thus, in your example, you can use dlsym to get the symbol's address in memory and attach it to another symbol. The other code in the library still works because you're not changing the address of the original symbol. Objective-C uses a lookup table to map class names to addresses, and it's a 1-1 mapping, so you can't have two classes with the same name. Thus, to load both classes, one of them must have their name changed. However, when other classes need to access one of the classes with that name, they will ask the lookup table for its address, and the lookup table will never return the address of the renamed class given the original class's name.
Several people have already shared some tricky and clever code that might help solve the problem. Some of the suggestions may work, but all of them are less than ideal, and some of them are downright nasty to implement. (Sometimes ugly hacks are unavoidable, but I try to avoid them whenever I can.) From a practical standpoint, here are my suggestions.
In any case, inform the developers of both frameworks of the conflict, and make it clear that their failure to avoid and/or deal with it is causing you real business problems, which could translate into lost business revenue if unresolved. Emphasize that while resolving existing conflicts on a per-class basis is a less intrusive fix, changing their prefix entirely (or using one if they're not currently, and shame on them!) is the best way to ensure that they won't see the same problem again.
If the naming conflicts are limited to a reasonably small set of classes, see if you can work around just those classes, especially if one of the conflicting classes isn't being used by your code, directly or indirectly. If so, see whether the vendor will provide a custom version of the framework that doesn't include the conflicting classes. If not, be frank about the fact that their inflexibility is reducing your ROI from using their framework. Don't feel bad about being pushy within reason — the customer is always right. ;-)
If one framework is more "dispensable", you might consider replacing it with another framework (or combination of code), either third-party or homebrew. (The latter is the undesirable worst-case, since it will certainly incur additional business costs, both for development and maintenance.) If you do, inform the vendor of that framework exactly why you decided to not use their framework.
If both frameworks are deemed equally indispensable to your application, explore ways to factor out usage of one of them to one or more separate processes, perhaps communicating via DO as Louis Gerbarg suggested. Depending on the degree of communication, this may not be as bad as you might expect. Several programs (including QuickTime, I believe) use this approach to provide more granular security provided by using Seatbelt sandbox profiles in Leopard, such that only a specific subset of your code is permitted to perform critical or sensitive operations. Performance will be a tradeoff, but may be your only option
I'm guessing that licensing fees, terms, and durations may prevent instant action on any of these points. Hopefully you'll be able to resolve the conflict as soon as possible. Good luck!
This is gross, but you could use distributed objects in order to keep one of the classes only in a subordinate programs address and RPC to it. That will get messy if you are passing a ton of stuff back and forth (and may not be possible if both class are directly manipulating views, etc).
There are other potential solutions, but a lot of them depend on the exact situation. In particular, are you using the modern or legacy runtimes, are you fat or single architecture, 32 or 64 bit, what OS releases are you targeting, are you dynamically linking, statically linking, or do you have a choice, and is it potentially okay to do something that might require maintenance for new software updates.
If you are really desperate, what you could do is:
Not link against one of the libraries directly
Implement an alternate version of the objc runtime routines that changes the name at load time (checkout the objc4 project, what exactly you need to do depends on a number of the questions I asked above, but it should be possible no matter what the answers are).
Use something like mach_override to inject your new implementation
Load the new library using normal methods, it will go through the patched linker routine and get its className changed
The above is going to be pretty labor intensive, and if you need to implement it against multiple archs and different runtime versions it will be very unpleasant, but it can definitely be made to work.
Have you considered using the runtime functions (/usr/include/objc/runtime.h) to clone one of the conflicting classes to a non-colliding class, and then loading the colliding class framework? (this would require the colliding frameworks to be loaded at different times to work.)
You can inspect the classes ivars, methods (with names and implementation addresses) and names with the runtime, and create your own as well dynamically to have the same ivar layout, methods names/implementation addresses, and only differ by name (to avoid the collision)
Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Have you considered hacking the object code (or library file) of one of the libraries, changing the colliding symbol to an alternative name - of the same length but a different spelling (but, recommendation, the same length of name)? Inherently nasty.
It isn't clear if your code is directly calling the two functions with the same name but different implementations or whether the conflict is indirect (nor is it clear whether it makes any difference). However, there's at least an outside chance that renaming would work. It might be an idea, too, to minimize the difference in the spellings, so that if the symbols are in a sorted order in a table, the renaming doesn't move things out of order. Things like binary search get upset if the array they're searching isn't in sorted order as expected.
#compatibility_alias will be able to solve class namespace conflicts, e.g.
#compatibility_alias NewAliasClass OriginalClass;
However, this will not resolve any of the enums, typedefs, or protocol namespace collisions. Furthermore, it does not play well with #class forward decls of the original class. Since most frameworks will come with these non-class things like typedefs, you would likely not be able to fix the namespacing problem with just compatibility_alias.
I looked at a similar problem to yours, but I had access to source and was building the frameworks.
The best solution I found for this was using #compatibility_alias conditionally with #defines to support the enums/typedefs/protocols/etc. You can do this conditionally on the compile unit for the header in question to minimize risk of expanding stuff in the other colliding framework.
It seems that the issue is that you can't reference headers files from both systems in the same translation unit (source file). If you create objective-c wrappers around the libraries (making them more usable in the process), and only #include the headers for each library in the implementation of the wrapper classes, that would effectively separate name collisions.
I don't have enough experience with this in objective-c (just getting started), but I believe that is what I would do in C.
Prefixing the files is the simplest solution I am aware of.
Cocoadev has a namespace page which is a community effort to avoid namespace collisions.
Feel free to add your own to this list, I believe that is what it is for.
http://www.cocoadev.com/index.pl?ChooseYourOwnPrefix
If you have a collision, I would suggest you think hard about how you might refactor one of the frameworks out of your application. Having a collision suggests that the two are doing similar things as it is, and you likely could get around using an extra framework simply by refactoring your application. Not only would this solve your namespace problem, but it would make your code more robust, easier to maintain, and more efficient.
Over a more technical solution, if I were in your position this would be my choice.
If the collision is only at the static link level then you can choose which library is used to resolve symbols:
cc foo.o -ldog bar.o -lcat
If foo.o and bar.o both reference the symbol rat then libdog will resolve foo.o's rat and libcat will resolve bar.o's rat.
Just a thought.. not tested or proven and could be way of the mark but in have you considered writing an adapter for the class's you use from the simpler of the frameworks.. or at least their interfaces?
If you were to write a wrapper around the simpler of the frameworks (or the one who's interfaces you access the least) would it not be possible to compile that wrapper into a library. Given the library is precompiled and only its headers need be distributed, You'd be effectively hiding the underlying framework and would be free to combine it with the second framework with clashing.
I appreciate of course that there are likely to be times when you need to use class's from both frameworks at the same time however, you could provide factories for further class adapters of that framework. On the back of that point I guess you'd need a bit of refactoring to extract out the interfaces you are using from both frameworks which should provide a nice starting point for you to build your wrapper.
You could build upon the library as you and when you need further functionality from the wrapped library, and simply recompile when you it changes.
Again, in no way proven but felt like adding a perspective. hope it helps :)
If you have two frameworks that have the same function name, you could try dynamically loading the frameworks. It'll be inelegant, but possible. How to do it with Objective-C classes, I don't know. I'm guessing the NSBundle class will have methods that'll load a specific class.