I feel that modern Objective-C encourages using instance variables as properties for memory management and key-value observation. That works fine, and I'm using interface inside implementation file for private variables, like this:
#interface MyClass ()
#property NSObject* myVar;
#end
However, how can I make protected variables? In case above, my subclasses won't be able to see properties declared like that. I can go iVar route, but then it feels off with the rest of the code if private variables are declared like above and protected are iVars.
I've read this solution: Workaround to accomplish protected properties in Objective-C, but it seems to overcomplicate code too much.
Your best option is to use a category in a second header file, e.g. MyClass_protected.h, and include it in the main class and subclasses, as suggested in the solution you link. It's really quite straightforward, not "overcomplicated" at all, just one additional file.
Objective-C has very strong introspection characteristics. No matter how or where you declare a property (or any other function, for that matter), you can access it from anywhere. You will get a compiler warning unless the code you're writing can see the corresponding declaration or implementation (unless you use an introspective method like one of the performSelector... family). The only reasons for the interface are name-safety, type-safety, and preventing compiler warnings. Therefore, you have a few options:
The main class interface
You get implementation safety (i.e. the compiler will give a warning if you don't implement a method). However, every class (that imports yours) will see the methods. You can use a comment to indicate that the method should be protected, but of course no one will see it unless they check the source. I most often use this when I'm the only programmer on a project, as I know what should be protected and what shouldn't.
A category in the same .h file
As above, programmers won't see it's protected unless they check the source, but if they do it will be much more obvious. If you declare this in a named category (#interface MyClass (protected)) you lose type safety, but it's even more clear what you intend. I most often use this to emulate abstract methods - i.e. explicitly not implementation-safe, but should be visible to everyone.
A category in the subclass's .m file directly
It's a bad idea, don't do it. You do only see the methods in the subclass, but you lose implementation safety and it really just feels wrong. I have only ever used this for unit tests, and I eventually migrated those to a separate header.
A category in a separate header (MyClass_protected.h)
The preferred solution, and the closest Objective-C can get to protected methods. It's just one more file, seriously, don't get your panties in a bunch over that. You can use the class extension (they are anonymous categories) and you won't lose implementation safety. It's only visible to classes that include it, which should only be subclasses; the fact that the contained methods are intended to be used as protected should be obvious to all but the most incompetent programmers because of the header name.
Related
I've been reading a little bit about this and what I don't understand is why people adds class extensions to make a method private.
Wouldn't it suffice to just leave it out from the header file?
It looks to me to be enough, but I might be missing a bigger point?
Short answer: now (as of Xcode 4.4, I think), you don't. Reason: you don't need to forward declare methods. Put your private methods in your .m file, and you're done.
Previously (Xcode 4.3 and older), you had to forward declare your methods before you could call them. Because you already declared the class in the .h file, you can't declare it again in the .m file, so a class extension is the way to add methods to an already declared class.
Edit: as #Yar mentioned above (and below), a private method in a .m file that isn't declared would not be visible to subclasses of that class, meaning it would be impossible for that subclass to call or override that method. Still, I'd be inclined to just not bother declaring it, unless/until you end up with a subclass that needs to override or call it. For me this happens pretty infrequently.
It would be sufficient to leave it out of the header file, but then your subclasses don't know it's there, either. This means that you get a compiler error if you try to call these private methods. This is why you use an external file that is a class extension, and all subclasses import that extension in the .m file.
Obviously, this situation is not ideal because you get three files for each class, minimum, but the joy of Objective-C is about making LOTS of files and not worry about it. If you are scared to make files, you will end up with big classes, which is an anti-pattern.
One problem is naming the class extension file, since it's a category with no, um, category. I've been using a scheme like Blah4Subclasses, which is probably about as bad a suggestion as you'll get.
the class continuation has nothing to do with access, wrt the translation. the objc language does not specify access for methods. so it's a relatively weak private. what people end up falling back on is the ability to hide method declarations in their implementation file.
the important point to take away is that the class continuation is generally only visible to your class (because it is often placed in the *.m file). this pattern reduces the likelihood of a private method's use because it is not visible to the client, or to the compiler (in translations other than the one which contains the class' #implementation in the typical structure).
also note that the class continuation is capable of a lot -- so it's a convenient place to store your private #interface; properties, ivars, methods.
lastly, it is also a habit from earlier days, because it was a more frequent necessity. not too long ago, the declaration was added so the compiler knew the object responded to a specific selector, and the signature of that selector. because clang parses the entire #implementation block these days, many people find they do not need the declarations in the class continuation because the compiler can match methods seen in the #implementation, regardless of order of declaration.
You can add #private in your .h file.
I'm in the process of looking over some code in a large project, and I have noticed that in several of the classes, instance variables are created but no corresponding properties (#property) are created.
Is it "wrong" to create instance variables without properties? Doesn't this become a memory management issue?
I've actually never seen code like this before so I'm not sure what to think at this point.
Thanks in advance!
#properties are merely shorthand -- very convenient short-hand -- for code you can write yourself, no magic about it.
It may also be that the #properties are declared in the implementation file within a class extension and there is no publicly accessible API for directly manipulating the instance variables.
There's no reason that you have to use the Objective-C 2 style setters/getters to manage your instance variables - as long as the instance variable is released within the dealloc method (if indeed it's a alloced/inited object, etc.) then there's nothing to worry about.
Bear in mind that prior to Objective-C, such properties (and the whole #property/#synthesize syntax) simply didn't exist, so you had to create your own getters/setters if you deemed it necessary/convenient.
Not at all. Instance variables work fine, and are subject to the same memory management rules as anything else: retain it before saving it to the instance var, and make sure you release it when you don't need it anymore (typically in the dealloc).
Some history here might be helpful:
In the beginning, there were only instance variables. "Properties" existed only in an informal way, by convention, for objects outside your class to access "public" data that the class exposed. You'd write your own -(Foo *)foo and -(void)setFoo:(Foo *)f methods for each of these. Those often were like boilerplate code, trivially returning the ivar in the first case, and doing the right retain/release/set dance in the latter.
So Objective-C 2.0 came along and gave us the ability to declare properties with the language syntax, and even generate the accessors for us-- lots of time and boilerplate code was saved.
As time went on, some people began to think about all ivars as "properties", public or private. The public ones appear in the .h file as #properties, but you can also create a private interface to your object in the .m file that declare your "private" #properties, so you can use the accessors inside your class. This might or might not be overkill, depending on your philosophy to it, but this I think has to the situation you see now, where naked ivars look suspicious.
They shouldn't. Instance variables happily exist without any of the other machinery. Just get your retain/release right (in non-GC runtimes).
As you get more advanced, see #bbum's answer to this question:
Must every ivar be a property?
for some more varsity things to think about around the benefits of properties around KVO and subclassing.
Properties for instance variables aren't mandatory. In fact, prior to v2.0 of Objective-C, there was no such thing as properties -- you had to write your own accessors and mutators for instance variables (if you wanted to access them outside of the class). Properties can simplify memory management, but to be honest, memory management of ivars isn't that difficult, and it's not hard to handle yourself.
How come sometimes you need to put the method signature in the .h file and sometimes you don't?
Methods which you are overriding from your superclass do not need to be redeclared in your class's interface. It is sometimes a good idea to do so, but is not required.
Similarly, you do not need to declare methods that you are implementing from a protocol; simply declaring that you conform to the protocol is enough.
You should declare methods which are "new" to your class: those which are not inherited from a superclass nor part of a protocol. This is to give the compiler the necessary information to determine the correct argument and return types and is necessary to the correct running of your application.
Those answerers who have said that you don't have to declare your methods are technical correct, however be aware that this is a very bad practice as the compiler will infer parameter and return types which may not match the definition and can cause undefined behavior when the method is called.
This is just because some people like to put it in the header. Some people don't. You might have notice that in the .h files there is an #interface. You technically just need to put method signatures there. But, trust me, it makes life a lot easier if its in the header file (mostly because its more readable).
Because technically objects have no methods in Objective-C as we know them from other languages, instead what you are doing is to send messages to the object, if there is a corresponding method (message) on the object with the same signature, it will be called. This means there is no real need to have the signatures in the header however it is good practice to have them so that the compiler can warn if you write the wrong signature.
It's always a good idea to declare methods in the #interface before using them (it helps the compiler, allowing the compiler to help you by catching more type errors), but the header file should really only have public methods (methods you want other classes to know about). For private methods that are used internally by the class, a class extension within the .m file is a good idea, i.e.:
#interface MyClass ()
-(void) superSecretMethod;
#end
It's always a good idea to put the signature of your public methods in the .h file. You will avoid compiler warnings, and you'll know that if you do get a warning, it's for a good reason (you mistyped your method name, parameter type, etc).
I've seen a number of strategies for declaring semi-private methods in Objective-C, but there does not seem to be a way to make a truly private method. I accept that. But, why is this so? Every explanation I've essentially says, "you can't do it, but here's a close approximation."
There are a number of keywords applied to ivars (members) that control their scope, e.g. #private, #public, #protected. Why can't this be done for methods as well? It seems like something the runtime should be able to support. Is there an underlying philosophy I'm missing? Is this deliberate?
The answer is... well... simple. Simplicity and consistency, in fact.
Objective-C is purely dynamic at the moment of method dispatch. In particular, every method dispatch goes through the exact same dynamic method resolution point as every other method dispatch. At runtime, every method implementation has the exact same exposure and all of the APIs provided by the Objective-C runtime that work with methods and selectors work equally the same across all methods.
As many have answered (both here and in other questions), compile-time private methods are supported; if a class doesn't declare a method in its publicly available interface, then that method might as well not exist as far as your code is concerned. In other words, you can achieve all of the various combinations of visibility desired at compilation time by organizing your project appropriately.
There is little benefit to duplicating the same functionality into the runtime. It would add a tremendous amount of complexity and overhead. And even with all of that complexity, it still wouldn't prevent all but the most casual developer from executing your supposedly "private" methods.
EDIT: One of the assumptions I've
noticed is that private messages would
have to go through the runtime
resulting in a potentially large
overhead. Is this absolutely true?
Yes, it is. There's no reason to suppose that the implementor of a class would not want to use all of the Objective-C feature set in the implementation, and that means that dynamic dispatch must happen. However, there is no particular reason why private methods couldn't be dispatched by a special variant of objc_msgSend(), since the compiler would know that they were private; i.e. this could be achieved by adding a private-only method table to the Class structure.
There would be no way for a private
method to short-circuit this check or
skip the runtime?
It couldn't skip the runtime, but the runtime wouldn't necessarily have to do any checking for private methods.
That said, there's no reason that a third-party couldn't deliberately call objc_msgSendPrivate() on an object, outside of the implementation of that object, and some things (KVO, for example) would have to do that. In effect, it would just be a convention and little better in practice than prefixing private methods’ selectors or not mentioning them in the interface header.
To do so, though, would undermine the pure dynamic nature of the language. No longer would every method dispatch go through an identical dispatch mechanism. Instead, you would be left in a situation where most methods behave one way and a small handful are just different.
This extends beyond the runtime as there are many mechanisms in Cocoa built on top of the consistent dynamism of Objective-C. For example, both Key Value Coding and Key Value Observation would either have to be very heavily modified to support private methods — most likely by creating an exploitable loophole — or private methods would be incompatible.
The runtime could support it but the cost would be enormous. Every selector that is sent would need to be checked for whether it is private or public for that class, or each class would need to manage two separate dispatch tables. This isn't the same for instance variables because this level of protection is done at compile time.
Also, the runtime would need to verify that the sender of a private message is of the same class as the receiver. You could also bypass private methods; if the class used instanceMethodForSelector:, it could give the returned IMP to any other class for them to invoke the private method directly.
Private methods could not bypass the message dispatch. Consider the following scenario:
A class AllPublic has a public instance method doSomething
Another class HasPrivate has a private instance method also called doSomething
You create an array containing any number of instances of both AllPublic and HasPrivate
You have the following loop:
for (id anObject in myArray)
[anObject doSomething];
If you ran that loop from within AllPublic, the runtime would have to stop you sending doSomething on the HasPrivate instances, however this loop would be usable if it was inside the HasPrivate class.
The answers posted thus far do a good job of answering the question from a philosophical perspective, so I'm going to posit a more pragmatic reason: what would be gained by changing the semantics of the language? It's simple enough to effectively "hide" private methods. By way of example, imagine you have a class declared in a header file, like so:
#interface MyObject : NSObject {}
- (void) doSomething;
#end
If you have a need for "private" methods, you can also put this in the implementation file:
#interface MyObject (Private)
- (void) doSomeHelperThing;
#end
#implementation MyObject
- (void) doSomething
{
// Do some stuff
[self doSomeHelperThing];
// Do some other stuff;
}
- (void) doSomeHelperThing
{
// Do some helper stuff
}
#end
Sure, it's not quite the same as C++/Java private methods, but it's effectively close enough, so why alter the semantics of the language, as well as the compiler, runtime, etc., to add a feature that's already emulated in an acceptable way? As noted in other answers, the message-passing semantics -- and their reliance on runtime reflection -- would make handling "private" messages non-trivial.
The easiest solution is just to declare some static C functions in your Objective-C classes. These only have file scope as per the C rules for the static keyword and because of that they can only be used by methods in that class.
No fuss at all.
Yes, it can be done without affecting the runtime by utilizing a technique already employed by the compiler(s) for handling C++: name-mangling.
It hasn't been done because it hasn't been established that it would solve some considerable difficulty in the coding problem space that other techniques (e.g., prefixing or underscoring) are able to circumvent sufficiently. IOW, you need more pain to overcome ingrained habits.
You could contribute patches to clang or gcc that add private methods to the syntax and generated mangled names that it alone recognized during compilation (and promptly forgot). Then others in the Objective-C community would be able to determine whether it was actually worthwhile or not. It's likely to be faster that way than trying to convince the developers.
Essentially, it has to do with Objective-C's message-passing form of method calls. Any message can be sent to any object, and the object chooses how to respond to the message. Normally it will respond by executing the method named after the message, but it could respond in a number of other ways too. This doesn't make private methods completely impossible — Ruby does it with a similar message-passing system — but it does make them somewhat awkward.
Even Ruby's implementation of private methods is a bit confusing to people because of the strangeness (you can send the object any message you like, except for the ones on this list!). Essentially, Ruby makes it work by forbidding private methods to be called with an explicit receiver. In Objective-C it would require even more work since Objective-C doesn't have that option.
It's an issue with the runtime environment of Objective-C. While C/C++ compiles down into unreadable machine code, Objective-C still maintains some human-readable attributes like method names as strings. This gives Objective-C the ability to perform reflective features.
EDIT: Being a reflective language without strict private methods makes Objective-C more "pythonic" in that you trust other people that use your code rather than restrict what methods they can call. Using naming conventions like double underscores is meant to hide your code from a casual client coder, but won't stop coders needing to do more serious work.
There are two answers depending on the interpretation of the question.
The first is by hiding the method implementation from the interface. This is used, typically with a category with no name (e.g. #interface Foo()). This permits the object to send those messages but not others - though one might still override accidentally (or otherwise).
The second answer, on the assumption that this is about performance and inlining, is made possible but as a local C function instead. If you wanted a ‘private foo(NSString *arg)‘ method, you would do void MyClass_foo(MyClass *self, NSString *arg) and call it as a C function like MyClass_foo(self,arg). The syntax is different, but it acts with the sane kind of performance characteristics of C++'s private methods.
Although this answers the question, I should point out that the no-name category is by far the more common Objective-C way of doing this.
Objective-C doesn't support private methods because it doesn't need them.
In C++, every method must be visible in the declaration of the class. You can't have methods that someone including the header file cannot see. So if you want methods that code outside your implementation shouldn't use, you have no choice, the compiler must give you some tool so you can tell it that the method must not be used, that is the "private" keyword.
In Objective-C, you can have methods that are not in the header file. So you achieve the same purpose very easily by not adding the method to the header file. There's no need for private methods. Objective-C also has the advantage that you don't need to recompile every user of a class because you changed private methods.
For instance variables, that you used to have to declare in the header file (not anymore), #private, #public and #protected are available.
A missing answer here is: because private methods are a bad idea from an evolvability point of view. It might seem a good idea to make a method private when writing it, but it is a form of early binding. The context might change, and a later user might want to use a different implementation. A bit provocative: "Agile developers don't use private methods"
In a way, just like Smalltalk, Objective-C is for grown-up programmers. We value knowing what the original developer assumed the interface should be, and take the responsibility to deal with the consequences if we need to change implementation. So yes, it is philosophy, not implementation.
In Objective C, if you are subclassing something, and are planning to override a method on the superclass, should you re-declare the superclass method in your subclass #interface?
For example, if you are subclassing UIViewController (e.g. MyViewController), and you are planning to override "viewDidLoad" should you include that method in your MyViewController #interface declaration, or just implement it in MyViewController.m?
In examples I've come across, I've seen it done both ways (re-declaring the method in your subclass interface, or not re-declaring the method). There may not be any functional difference, but what is the best practice?
I often declare methods that I plan to override in either the public header or at least in a private category. The benefit to this is that you'll get an incomplete class definition warning if you forget to actually override the method... which comes in handy from time to time.
As for when to place it in the public header, that's pretty subjective and probably up to you/your team's coding styles. I usually only redeclare a method in the public header if I plan to radically change what the method is going to do or if I plan not to invoke the super class's version of the method.
People often use the header as documentation for the class (and tools like AutoDoc support this). Obviously, if you're following that convention, the only sensible choice is to include redefined methods so you can explain what you've done with them. Otherwise your docs for the class are either incomplete or scattered to the four corners of the earth.
But if we're just copy-pasting the declaration, I don't personally like to redeclare methods. It's not DRY and it bloats your header unnecessarily. Less code is better code.