Let us say that application has a concept of cars in it. A car is an instance of Car. There are a small number of possible cars and most, but not all of the data about a car is known at design time. Each kind of car is a singleton; there is at most one of each kind of Car per app.*
Since they are singletons, and since they are named, that suggests some sugar. The most important piece of sugar is this: when I import "Car.h", into a file, I want the symbols "MAFerrari", "MAMercedes", and "MAMclauren" to start showing up in my autocomplete where ever code completion thinks I am trying to provide an instance of a Car*.
My next greedy desire is that I want to be able to send instance methods to my MAFerrari literal, e.g. [MAFerrari topSpeed] means "get the singleton instance of Car that corresponds to the Ferrari and send topSpeed to it", but I acknowledge the utter triviality of this. Even pragmatists should know what their Utopia looks like.
Finally, if possible, I want clean way to declare the constant properties of the three cars as literal data at the top of my Car.m file.
Now, again, I don't actually expect all of that to be possible in Objective C. I just want to know how close we can get to that all that.
The closest idea I've had is to subclass Car for each type of car and provide a +sharedInstance method for each one. sharedInstance can implement the singleton pattern: if it's initialized, return it, otherwise initialize it, store it (where? it should be private to the Car class hierarchy), then return it. Each subclass can implement its own initializer which contains the defaults for that subclass.
Here's what I don't like about this:
I think I have to import all the header files whenever I work with these subclasses. This absolutely sucks. Is there another way?
I have to create .m/.h file pair for every one of these subclasses. That seems like a lot of boilerplate, since they have no unique behavior.
[[MAFerrari sharedInstance] topSpeed] isn't quite as good as [MAFerrari topSpeed], but I acknowledge that this is trivial.
Anyway, how would you do it?
*In reality, it's not cars, but in-app purchase assets, for the curious.
It sounds like what you want is just a global variable. You can create a global variable named whatever you want (say, MAFerrari) and stick whatever you want in it — whether the contents of the variables are instances of multiple singleton classes or multiple instances of the same class doesn't really matter from the point of view of having global names to refer to the objects.
Easy-peasy.
Note that these aren't singletons; they're just long-lived instances of a class stored in global variables.
// Bolt.h
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#interface Bolt : NSObject
// Properties
- (instancetype)initWithLength:(NSUInteger)length
diameter:(NSUInteger)diam
thread:(NSUInteger)thread
grade:(NSUInteger)grade;
// etc.
#end
extern Bolt * twentyFiveByTwelveCoarseThreadGradeEightBolt;
extern Bolt * fiftyByTenFineThreadGradeFiveBolt;
//
// Bolt.m
#import "Bolt.h"
Bolt * twentyFiveByTwelveCoarseThreadClassEightBolt;
Bolt * fiftyByTenFineThreadGradeFiveBolt;
// This will be run before main() but after classes are loaded
__attribute__((constructor))
static void initialize_global_Bolts(void)
{
twentyFiveByTwelveCoarseThreadClassEightBolt = [[Bolt alloc] initWithLength:25
diameter:12
thread:175
grade:8];
fiftyByTenFineThreadGradeFiveBolt = [[Bolt alloc] initWithLength:50
diameter:10
thread:1
grade:5];
}
#implementation Bolt
- (instancetype)initWithLength:(NSUInteger)length
diameter:(NSUInteger)diam
thread:(NSUInteger)thread
grade:(NSUInteger)grade
{
// Do initialization
}
#end
Now you can do things like [fiftyByTenFineThreadGradeFiveBolt maximumTorque]; wherever Bolt.h is imported.
You can't put dictionary or other literals at top level, because they resolve into method calls, which can't be used outside of other methods.
Related
In Objective-C, is there any way to run a specific selector automatically every time an object is instantiated? (I know about +initialize but I need an instance method).
Specifically, I am writing a custom string class (that inherits from my own root class with a similar interface to NSObject) and I am trying to make it 'play nicely' with Objective-C constant strings. To do this, I have the following class definition (as required by the runtime):
// 1) Required Layout
#interface MYConstantString : MYObject {
//Class isa; inherited from MYObject
char *c_string;
unsigned int length;
}
Now, I want to implement my string class by using a pointer to a C-struct inside the class (this "C object" is already well implemented so I basically just want to wrap it in an Objective-C class). Ideally therefore, my Objective-C class would look like this:
// 2) Desired Laout
#interface MYConstantString : MYObject {
// Class isa;
StringObject *string;
}
And then the class and instance methods would just wrap C function calls using that StringObject.
So because I can't have the desired ivar layout (2), I wish to hack around the required ivar layout (1) to work for me. For example:
- (void)fixup {
// Pseudocode
temp = copystring(c_string);
c_string = (void *)StringObjectNewWithString(temp); // Fudge pointer
length = ... // I can do something else with this.
}
So, to return to the question, is there a way to call -fixup automatically, rather than having to do the following every time I make write an Objective-C constant string?
MYConstantString *str = #"Constant string";
[str fixup];
I know this is an obscene hack, and Objective-C constant string interoperability isn't totally crucial for what I need, but it would be nice to be able to use the #"" syntax and make the code more 'naturally' Objective-C.
I'm guessing you left out an important fact: you're using -fconstant-string-class=MYConstantString when building to have the compiler use your class for constant string objects (#"...").
Given that, then, no. There are two significant problems. First, "instance creation" for constant strings happens at compile time, not run time. The reason that there's a required layout is that the compiler does nothing but lay out the string's data in a data section with a reference to the appropriate class object where the isa pointer goes. It doesn't invoke any custom code. It is not necessarily even aware of such custom code at compile time. A given translation unit may not include the constant string class. The reference to that is resolved at link time.
Second, the constant string instance is almost certainly laid out in a read-only data section. There's a good chance that even calling your -fixup method manually as in your question would encounter an access violation because you'd be modifying read-only memory.
You should consider using a class cluster. Make MYConstantString one concrete subclass of an abstract base class. Make it conform to the required layout and just use the character pointer and length ivars as they are. If it would be convenient to translate to StringObject at various points, do that at those points. Implement other, separate concrete subclasses to use StringObject internally, if desired.
MYConstantString *str = #"Constant string";
That can't work because #"..." is an NSString, and it's not only a problem of layout but of instance sizes. If you want 0-copy or anything like that, what you have to do is have something like:
MYConstantString *str = [MyConstantString stringWithNSString:#"Constant string"];
and let -stringWithNSString: recognize when the passed string is a constant one (I'm pretty sure the concrete class of constant strings is easy to recognize, and probably hasn't changed ever for backward compatibility reasons) and then hack it around to grab the pointer to the bytes and similar things.
Novice here attempting to understand inheritance. If I initialize a new object with several properties and I want other classes to help assign values to those properties, do I need to create instances of those other classes? Visualized:
-(ObjA *)init{
self = [super init];
self.property1 = [method from Class A];
self.property2 = [method from Class B];
self.property3 = [method from Class C]; etc...
return self;
}
In other words, assuming Class A, B, and C need to know what Object A is, would I need to make those class methods instance methods and initialize each object? Is there another way to go about this? Thank you in advance for your help.
In other words, assuming Class A, B, and C need to know what Object A
is
NO.
You can simply call a method from ClassA/B/C etc. But the return type must match with respective property.
Let, the property1 is for kind NSString then your ClassA method must be
-(NSString *)methodClassA{
...
return someStringValue;
}
Then you need to use:
ClassA *objClassA=[ClassA new];
self.property1=[objClassA methodClassA];
Or you can go with class method by this:
+(NSString *)methodClassA{
...
return someStringValue;
}
And using it as:
self.property1=[ClassA methodClassA];
assuming Class A, B, and C need to know what Object A is
The initialization code of an object should be self contained, unless it is using functionality owned by a different object, in which case the object acts as a client of that functionality. That is, objectA acts as client of A,B,C (as seen in your code).
But this doesn't imply that A,B,C need to know (have a dependency on) objectA. By doing that, you are saying that they don't have a reason to exist on their own.
In general,
Every class or method should have one encapsulated purpose. This makes it easy to understand, change, and test in isolation. It's a common pattern to create classes whose sole purpose is to encapsulate information to create a different class, but to split that in three different classes is beyond weird (as in, I can't imagine an example of that).
An object shouldn't be allowed to exist in an unusable state, nor should it require non essential information when it is created. Does objectA require those properties to function? if it does, your code is right, if it doesn't, the initializer is providing too much information and making it less reusable.
Try to rethink your doubt with a real (instead abstract) example. You may end up making sense of it yourself.
Given the code below, the spaceship (only ever one in the program) checks to see if it can pay for a new part, and 'if (so)', builds it. When the payFor: message is sent, should the iVars be dealt with like below, or should the each transaction be a method like +(void)deduct: (ShipObject *) cost;, or should I use struct and use structure arithmetic?
# implementation Spaceship
+(void) payFor: (ShipObject) *shipObject
{
totalEnergy -= [shipObject energy];
totalCredits -= [shipObject credits];
totalSamples -= [shipObject samples];
}
+(void) buildShipObject: (ShipObject) *shipObject
{
if ([self canBuild: shipObject]) {
[self payFor: shipObject];
...
}
Thanks for any insights!
First, since the methods are class methods, not instance methods, I assume that variables not ivars, but static variables of some sort.
If payments with some, not all, forms of payment are to be allowed (say, only with energy and samples, but not credits) then you should use three different methods. Otherwise, your payFor method is very idiomatic to Objective C. Using C struct should be reserved for the rare situations where Objective C classes no longer provide adequate performance.
Consider making the spaceship a singleton, and use ivars: this may become handy if you decide to introduce more ships in the game, or do something that's easier done with objects (e.g. externalization of object's state).
In ObjC we can use protocols to restrict an id behavior, so we can declare something like
-(void)aMethod:(id<aProtocol>)aVar which works very well until we provide a value or a non-id variable as aVar, but this gets completely broken since we can pass a generic id variable delcared without protocols specifiers... Is this normal? Is there any workaround? Am I missing something?
Just use id less, and declare variables and parameters using the correct types, where possible. That is to say: don't pass ids around. If you are implementing a collections class (for example), then id's often useful.
My approach is to specify types, and introduce that type as local as possible in the source. So I omit id and add the type, and when (for instance) I take a reference from a collection, I create a variable:
MONType<MONProtocol>* thing = [array objectAtIndex:idx];
// now thing is correctly typed. use thing.
Similarly, if I have an id parameter, I declare a new variable:
- (IBAction)someAction:(id)sender
{
NSButton * button = sender;
// now use button, not sender
Protocols are extremely useful. Very often, better/cleaner than subclassing.
You're missing the understanding that types in Objective-C are determined at runtime, not compile time. Just because you say that an object will be of type id<aProtocol> does not mean that at runtime it is guaranteed to be so.
The idea of specifying something as id<aProtocol> is to aid you as a developer and people using your code. It aids you as a developer because the compiler will warn (or error under ARC) if you attempt to call a method on something that the compiler can determine it doesn't think exists on instances of its supposed type (excluding forwarding which could mean an instance responds to something the compiler cannot determine). It aids people using your code as it tells them the contract that they should adhere to when interfacing with your code.
So, in your question you say that:
but this gets completely broken if we pass a generic id variable delcared without protocols specifiers
Well, the compiler would warn and tell you that you're trying to pass something that does not conform to that protocol, except for the case of passing id. That's why you generally should try to type things more precisely than just id.
If you have a method defined like so:
- (void)aMethod:(id<aProtocol>)aVar
Then aVar could be of type SomeSubclass where that is defined like so:
#interface SomeSubclass : NSObject <aProtocol>
And you could then use aMethod like this:
SomeSubclass *obj = [SomeSubclass new];
[other aMethod:obj];
I (FINALLY) found out that using Objective-C++ is the way to go. Let's suppose I want to be able to pass NSString or NSNumber (instead of a too much generic id and instead of using protocols which become useless passing id values): well, I can create a C++ class having two distinct constructors, one for each ObjC class, so passing id values cannot be done anymore (almost directly). For example, let's take a look at
class NSStringOrNSNumber{
public:
NSStringOrNSNumber(NSString *);
NSStringOrNSNumber(NSNumber *);
};
The great advantage is that methods/functions taking a NSStringOrNSNumber parameter can get NSString/NSNumber values DIRECTLY, since the constructor acts as an implicit cast. In other words, if we have
void aFunction(NSStringOrNSNumber param);
the following calls are perfectly valid:
aFunction(#"Hello!");
aFunction(#25);
The only (little) downside is that we need the class to implement a function if we want to get back the value passed to the constructor.
Using a C++ class constructor to get something like id<NSCoding> is still better the using id<NSCoding> directly: in fact, if we do the following
#class classOne, classTwo;
class NSCodingClass{
private:
NSCodingClass(classOne *);
NSCodingClass(classTwo *);
public:
NSCodingClass(id<NSCoding>);
}
we won't be able to pass a generic id as a parameter (since it would be ambiguous: the compiler cannot know which constructor to call among the two private ones)
I'm not yet that into design patterns so "Sorry!" to bother you with such a question, that might be obvious.
The thing is, I have several classes: Show, Segment, Command. These three classes are totally different, except the one thing: They all have an NSArray called schedules, which contains ScheduleItem classes.
In my workflow I need to check, if the current time matches a scheduleItem to set the Show,Segment or Command active. So, I'd like to have a method on all these three classes called isActive(). Since this method does the same for all current and future classes, I'm looking for a way to implement the isActive method just once, and reuse it in those classes.
Is there a nice way doing this?
To remember, those classes have absolutely nothing in common, except the schedules array. So, I'd like to avoid subclassing. But you can convince me otherwise.
You can create smth like this
#interface ScheduleCollection : NSObject {
NSArray* schedules;
}
#property NSArray* schedules;
/**
Return true if matches.
*/
-(BOOL) match:(ScheduleSclass); //or call it isActive or whatever you like
#end
Then replace schedules array in Show, Segment, Command with ivar of this class. If you need to compare time just get the property and call match:
Show* show = ...;
BOOL m = [show.schedules match: my_time];
There's really no design pattern for this except generic inheritance (shared base class with the method). You can't add it as a category for all three, as they don't share a base class.
If you want to avoid introducing a base class, you can use the fact that type id is a typeless object, and you can invoke any method on it at runtime. Only it will fail if the actual objec doesn't have the method...
On each of the objects, create a method called getSchedule like this:
- (NSArray*) getSchedule {
return schedule;
}
Then just create this method somewhere else
-(BOOL) isActive:(id)anyObjectWithGetScheduleAnyOtherWillFailWithSelectorNotImplemented
{
// You could do an explicit check to determine if the object passed in implements
// getSchedule, but I skipped it here.
NSArray* schedule = [anyObjectWithGetScheduleAnyOtherWillFailWithSelectorNotImplemented getSchedule];
<your implementation here>
}
In my opinion, you would be better off just introducing a shared base class, as it's a lot clearer and won't really take that much more work. But if you have good reasons not to, this will also do the job.