How can I share code between classes in Objective-C, the way Traits in PHP work?
I thought of using categories, but I wondered if there is something more suitable when it wouldn't be sensible to use inheritance.
There are several ways to share code between classes and each one has its own importance, depending upon the situation:
You can use inheritance.
You can declare Global Methods.
You can put the sharable code in AppDelegate.
You can use Singleton Class and put the common code in that class. (Not preferred for sharing code but we can still do it.)
All methods have their own pros/cons. You need to study their applications and use. Hope it helps.
Depends. You should ask yourself why do you want to have the same behaviour in various classes. You can use: Inheritance or design patterns (e.g. Composite pattern).
See:
Does Objective-C support traits/mixins?
Not sure if this is the best practice, or what you mean by "sharing code" but I usually have a static class which can hold global values.
The class is static and you can access it from anywhere like this:
[dataModel getMyValue];
[dataModel setMyValue];
It only becomes an issues if you try to write to it from multiple threads, but other than that its a good way to store shared data in your app.
Sharing code in Objective-C can be done only via subclassing or doing composition.
There is no equivalent of PHP's traits here. Categories work in a little bit different way. They're are assigned to a certain class, so you can't use code from category in any class. Unless you create NSObject category, which is good idea only in rare cases. You can treat category as a class extension.
It's possible 'share' interfaces having many different protocols. But it's not exactly what you need, I guess.
Related
If I am implementing a function that does some calculation based on certain input and returns the output without causing any side effects.
I always use Regular C functions instead of having static methods in a class.
Is there a rationale behind using static methods forcefully put into a class ?
I am not talking about methods that create singletons or factory methods but the regular methods like there:
Instead of having something like this:
+(NSString *)generateStringFromPrefixString:(NSString *)prefixString word:(NSString *)word;
won't this be better ?
NSString *generateString(NSString *prefixString, NSString *word);
In terms of efficiency also, wont we be saving, lookup for the selector to get the function pointer ?
Objective-C doesn't have such a thing as "static methods". It has class methods. This isn't just picking a nit because class methods are dispatched dynamically, not statically. And that can be one reason to use a class method rather than a function: it allows for subclasses to override it.
By contrast, that can also be a reason to use a function rather than a class method – to prevent it from being overridden.
But, in general, there's no rule that you have to use class methods. If a function suits your needs and your preferences, use a function.
I don't think it is bad design, no, but there are certain circumstances where one may be considered more appropriate than the other. The key questions are:
Does this method belong to a class?
Is this method worth adding to a class?
A class is something that is self-contained and reusable. For the method in your example, I would be tempted to answer "Yes, it does/is," because it is something specific to NSString and is a method you (presumably) want to use fairly often. Its parameters are also of type NSString. I would therefore use the message form in a class extension and #import the extension when you need it.
There are two situations (off the top of my head) where this is not really appropriate. Firstly is the situation where the method interacts specifically with other entities outside of the 'main class'. Examples of this can be found near the bottom of Apple's NSObjcRuntime.h file. These are all standard C functions. They don't really belong to a specific class.
The second situation to use a standard C function is when it will only be used once (or very few times) in a very specific circumstance. UIApplicationMain is the perfect example, and helper methods for a specific UIView subclass's -drawRect: method also come to mind.
A final point on efficiency. Yes, selector lookup is fractionally slower standard C calls. However, the runtime (Apple's at least, can't comment on GCC's) does use a caching system so that the most commonly sent messages quickly gravitate to the 'top' of the selector table.
Disclaimer: This is somewhat a question of a style and the above recommendations are the way I would do it as I think it makes code more organised and readable. I'm sure there are other equally valid ways to structure/interleave C and Objective-C code.
One important factor is testability. Does your c-functions specifically need testing? (off-course everything has to be ideally tested, but sometimes you just can test a thing by calling what calls it). If you need to, can you access those functions individually?
Maybe you need to mock them to test other functionality?
As of 2013, if you live in the Apple/Xcode/iOS/MacOS world, it is much more likely you have more built-in tools for testing things in objc than plain c. What I am trying to say is: Mocking of c-functions is harder.
I like very much C functions. At first I didn't like them to be in my good-looking objc code. After a while, I thought that doesn't matter too much. What it really matters is the context. My point is (as same as PLPiper's on NSObjcRuntime.h) that sometimes, by judging by its name or functionality, a function does not belong to any class. So there is no semantic reason to make them a class method. All this ambiguous-like thing went away when I started writing tests for code that contained several inline c functions. Now, if I need some c function be specifically tested, mocked, etc. I know it is easier to do it in objc. There are more/easier built-in tools for testing objc things that c.
For the interested: Function mocking (for testing) in C?
For sake of consistency and programmer expectation, i'd say to use Objective C style. I'm no fan of mixing calling notation and function notation, but your mileage may differ.
Since Objective-C does not support multiple inheritance, is there some other mechanism to share code between classes?
I'm writing a Cocoa library on top of an existing xml schema. Many elements in the schema (for example, ) are used in multiple types. I was hoping to centralize this somehow, so that I didn't have to add #property NSString *name and the associated code to generate the xml for the name property in every single class that has a name attribute. That would be fairly straightforward if multiple inheritance were supported, but I don't know how to do it otherwise.
The best thing I can think of is to create a common superclass that has a superset of methods to encode each optional property, then call the appropriate methods (i.e. encodeName) in the encoding method for each class. Does that seem like the best way to go?
I would recommend you create a new Category with your properties/functions etc and add said category to NSObject. That would make all properties and functions available to all subclasses of NSObject. It's not exactly multiple inheritance but provides a great amount of flexibility.
It is actually possible to add data to a class at run time using the runtime's Associative Reference functions. It's a little deeper than normal SDK work, but works quite well. It's not the same as a full property with getters and setters, but it does associate objects with an instance.
If the methods are only required on certain objects then maybe a sub class from that class is the way to go or a category on that specific class would be better. The category on NSObject is quite a wide net to cast.
If you want to add additional state then sub classing is probably your safest bet.
If you do add a category make sure you prefix your methods with something unique so to avoid any conflicts. E.g. PSMySpecialMethod as opposed to mySpecialMethod
I've recently discovered categories and was wondering when it might be appropriate to use them in a user defined class/new class. For example, I can see the benefits of adding a category to an existing class like NSString, but when creating a new class what would be the advantage of adding a category to this rather than just implementing a normal method?
Hope this makes sense.
Many thanks
Jules
The answer isn't really any different for your own classes than it is for framework classes. If you have multiple projects, you'll likely end up sharing some classes between them. However, you may want to extend some of your classes so that they work more easily with a specific project, but not want to include those extra methods in your other projects, where they might not make sense. You can use a category to extend your class without needing to subclass.
If I understand your question correctly, creating a "new class" is always "subclassing" because you're subclassing NSObject at the very least.
You could use categories on a new class to separate out sections of responsibility of a complex class. For example, all the basic functionality (instance variables, accessors, description, etc.) can go in one file (the "main" class file) while all methods to support a protocol (such as NSTableViewDataSource) can go in another.
Some take this approach to keep things "neat". I'm a firm believer in "if it's my own custom class, all its code should be in one file" so I do not personally do this. I demarcate different logical aspects of the class' code with "#pragma mark Some Section Name" to help navigation and readability. Your mileage may vary.
Adding a Category on NSString is useful when you want to call a method on every single NSString instance you will encounter. This is a real improvement over inheritance for this kind of object because they are used by the core framework and you don't have to convert a NSString object to your subclass when you want to call your custom method.
On the other hand, you can just put methods in, no instance variables.
In the book Refactoring by Martin Fowler, he has a section titled "Introduce Foreign Method" (A server class you are using needs an additional method, but you can't modify the class.) That's what categories are good for.
That said, there are times when using a category, instead of changing the class, is appropriate. A good example on using a category, even though you could change the server class, is how Apple handled the UIViewController MediaPlayer Additions. They could have put these two methods in UIViewController itself but since the only people who would ever use them are people who are using the Media Player framework, it made more sense to keep the methods there.
Objective-C categories are extremely useful, but there are some problems with this power. These come in basically two forms which I know of:
Two categories attempting to add the same convenience method. In this case, it is undefined which one is used. If you are careful - not adding too many methods or using particularly common method names - the first problem should almost never be an issue.
New methods being added to a class by a writer that clash with a category. In this case the category overrides the class method. Since the class may not be under my control, I am more worried about this problem.
Backporting changes should be fairly safe, but implementing interfaces or adding convenience methods seem more dangerous. I know that Cocoa seems to use it for convenience methods quite a lot, but then again the base class is under there control. I think maybe they are just using the categories to reduce dependencies - so a String class can have convenience methods for working in Cocoa, but if you don't use Cocoa, it isn't pulled in.
So, how safe are categories/what guidelines are there for keeping them safe?
Usually, when extending code not under your control (e.g. Foundation), it's traditional to use a prefix or suffix on the method name to avoid these sorts of collisions.
Example from Peter Hosey's perform on main thread category:
#interface NSObject (PRHPerformOnMainThread)
- (id) performOnMainThread_PRH;
#end
It's not the most beautiful solution, but if you're worried about fragility it's a good idea.
I found the Google Objective-C Style Guide useful and it includes a convention to help avoid the collisions you mention.
Is the concept of the Objective-C categories in anyway similar to the concept of mixins? If so: what are the similarities? In not: what are the differences?
To the best of my understanding:
Mixins
Syntactic sugar for composition
Added by the developer of the class, not the user
Can be reused by multiple classes
Can add instance variables
Can be implemented using forwarding in Objective-C
Categories
Similar to extension methods in other languages
Usually added by the user of the class, not the developer
Used by exactly one class and its subclasses
Can't add instance variables
To be clear the answer is NO - they are not the same.
The differences are outlined by John Calsbeek in the accepted answer, but I would say the key difference is the one where mixins can be used in different classes, whereas categories always extend exactly one class - which they declare in their definition.
This is the key difference because it means the use cases for these two features are utterly different. Another way of looking at it is that, if you're coming from Ruby to Objective-C and missing your mixins, you won't find any joy with categories.
The use case for mixins is that you have some code - methods and instance variables - that you want to reuse in several classes that don't have a common superclass. You can't do that with categories.
Mixins are effectively "multiple-inheritance" of the type you don't find in Objective-C. The closest thing in objective-c is protocols, just as the closest thing Java is interfaces, but they have neither instance variables nor method bodies (in objective-C or java). So you're generally left with creating helper classes or putting code in superclasses.
The use case for objective-c categories is that you want to add methods to an existing class - even a system or library class.
I would say that mixins are more powerful, but since it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, it would be pointless.
To be accurate:
the Ruby equivalent of Categories, is to simply reopen the class you want to extend and extend it. (You can do that anywhere in Ruby, and it's effectively identical to Categories)
I'm not sure what the objective-c equivalent to Mixins is though - anyone?
[Update] A bit more searching, and no there isn't an equivalent of Mixins in Objective-C, but the enterprising Vladimir Mitrovic has created a library that effectively does it. https://github.com/vl4dimir/ObjectiveMixin
I'm in two minds as to whether to use it or not: sometimes if the language you're using doesn't support something, it's easier to work with it rather than fight it or try to import your favourite features from other languages. ("If you can't be with the programming language you love, love the one you're with").
Then again, perhaps that's just a bit to snooty of me. The whole Aspect Oriented Programming movement has been glomming features onto Java for years (but never gaining much traction, I might add, outside of JBoss). Anyway, Vladimir gets extra kudos for using Ninja Turtles in his example.
On another side node: as a relative objective-c noob, it seems to me that categories are way overused in sample code I find all over the web. It seems common practice to add static helper methods to system classes with categories, when it would be just as easy to create a helper class to house those methods in your project, with less risk of them breaking when the system class is updated or you import someone else's library with their own such categories. A common example is adding new static color methods to UIColor. Why not just add them to a local class?
The one really good use I've seen for categories is adding methods, not to system classes, but to generated classes. So when you generate classes from your core-data object model, and you want to add new constructors or other methods that really do belong in the model class, you can do it with categories, allowing you to safely regenerate the model class if you change your model, without losing your work.
In summary:
- forget about categories as a solution for mixins
- categories are good for core-data but overused and overrated otherwise
Categories are defined for a particular class, as far as I know, you can't create a category and add the methods it implements to several classes.
With a mixin, you might derive a new class from your base and the mixin, then instantiate this new class to take advantage of it.
With a category, you are effectively adding directly the base class, so that all instances of that base have access to the functionality provided by the category.