I need to have a class, which has all methods of NSArray, which behave the same way, but 2 methods are modified.
I want to override these 2 methods in my custom class:
1) countByEnumeratingWithState:objects:count:
2) objectAtIndex:
After hours of research I don't see any reasonable way to do that, because:
I don't want to use category, because not all NSArray instances should have the modified behaviour. (Plus that throws warnings)
I don't want to re-write all initializers plus all arrayWith... methods + the primitive methods + implemented my own storage (because this functionality is already implemented in Cocoa, right? Why would I re-implement all the functionality of a class that is already there?)
If I have my custom class inherit NSObject and use NSArray as storage in an ivar, then all NSArray's methods are not available when programming in Xcode (even if I can forward them to the NSArray ivar)
I had some success overwriting the method implementations on demand by using method_setImplementation(...), but still can't figure out a way to have dynamically a class created at runtime, which then will have custom implementation of the 2 methods I mentioned.
Looking forward to your ideas! Thanks
Mantra: If something is hard (or seems like it requires more code than is necessary), it is likely that your design is counter to the design principals of the iOS / OS X frameworks. It may yield a better solution to revisit your design.
To answer the original question, if you want to subclass NSArray (or NSMutableArray), you need to implement the primitive methods, no more, no less.
The primitive methods are the methods declared in the #interface of the class itself. I.e.:
#interface NSArray : NSObject
- (NSUInteger)count;
- (id)objectAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index;
#end
And for NSMutableArray:
#interface NSMutableArray : NSArray
- (void)addObject:(id)anObject;
- (void)insertObject:(id)anObject atIndex:(NSUInteger)index;
- (void)removeLastObject;
- (void)removeObjectAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index;
- (void)replaceObjectAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index withObject:(id)anObject;
#end
If you subclass NSMutableArray and implement the above 7 methods (the two from NSArray, too), you will have an NSMutableArray subclass that is compatible -- assuming your methods are correctly implemented -- with all APIs that consume mutable arrays.
This is because of the way class clusters are designed. The public classes are abstract; are never directly instantiated. They provide a primitive interface that contains the class's core functionality and then concrete implementations of all the other non-primtive API (save for the initializers, see below) that are implemented in terms of the primitives. Concrete, private, subclasses then override all the primitives and some of the non-primitives to provide optimal behaviors for specific configurations.
I want to have an NSArray instance for a library I'm working on and I
want to have it working transparently for the users of my library. Ie.
for them should be no difference between using a normal NSArray and
the modified class I'll be providing. Ie. it's a storage concern,
which the end users should not be concerned with and the interface
should remain the same as NSArray - therefore loosing all init methods
is not really an option at that point.
The initialization methods are not a part of the primitive interface to NSArray. You are adding a requirement above and beyond "make a class compatible with NSArray / NSMutableArray" as defined by the documentation. Nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out.
The reason why this is the case is because it is exceptionally rare to subclass the collection classes to provide the kind of business logic you describe. Collections are very generic in their behavior whereas such business logic that conditionalizes collection behavior would be done in a class that manages the overall model layer object graph.
If you really want to do this, provide an implementation of whatever init* methods you want, calling through to your wrapped generic instance as needed. There isn't anything so special about the implementations of the initializers that you are going to lose much in doing so.
No need to implement all of them, either. Implement one or two and #throw a descriptive exception on the rest.
If you do decide to forward the ones that accept var-args, you can't directly because there are no va_list accepting methods. Instead, you'll want to convert the va_list of arguments into a language array (i.e. id[] foo = malloc(... * sizeof(id));) and pass it to initWithObjects:count:.
Some other comments:
What you are doing [provide full NS*Array interface in a subclass] seems hard because it is not a common pattern and the framework designers saw no need to create a design to support it. Custom behaviors at the primitive collection levels are almost always better implemented at a higher level within the object graph. Almost always.
method_setImplementation() and dynamic class creation is academically interesting, but pretty much never a solution. Obviously, mucking with the NSArray or NSMutableArray classes (or the concrete implementation classes) is going to blow up the rest of the frameworks that rely upon standard behavior. Beyond that it, it is a pattern of dynamic OO composition that is not really intended to be used in Objective-C; it'll be a pain in the ass to maintain.
Instead of subclassing NSArray why not create a new class based on NSObject that contains an NSArray?
Then you can use all the functions of the NSArray and add your own methods that will do custom actions with it?
Or do you NEED an NSArray?
Related
I have an object that used to be an NSMutableSet but needed some more stuff attached to it. The obvious (and obviously not supported) thing to do is to subclass NSMutableSet and tack on the two additional properties. Since NSMutableSet, like basically all Cocoa data structures, is a class cluster I cannot subclass it in the usual way, since the super class just throws exceptions. This led me down several paths.
The first path was to create sort of a composite object that declared itself as a subclass of NSMutableSet but really just forwarded the invocations to an internal NSMutableSet. I didn't want to have to implement every method on NSMutableSet, so I thought forwardInvocation: would be a good way to accomplish my mission. Unfortunately, the abstract class of NSMutableSet implements all of the methods on the interface and their implementations throw exceptions, so I was never getting to the point where I could forward an invocation.
The second path was to subclass NSProxy and forward the invocation from there. This solution falls short in that I need to copy the interface of NSMutableSet over unless there's a way to declare "this class implements this interface" that I don't know about (this could very well be the solution).
The third path was to create a category on NSMutableSet and import it just for the class that needs to use it but that falls short since you cannot add non-dynamic properties via a category. That led me to using associated objects in a category. I'm willing to admit that that is the correct solution for this use case, but I wish it weren't since it's kind of clunky. It's doubly clunky since the properties I'm adding are primitive so I'll have to wrap and unwrap them when setting and getting the association (unless there's a way to associate primitives which I'm unfamiliar with).
Essentially, what I would like is something that behaves functionally as a subclass of NSMutableSet (and all class clusters) but cannot figure out the best approach. Thanks!
Trying to subclass Cocoa class clusters will just create an awful lot of hurt. It may seem a good idea, but you will forever run into problems.
Just create an NSObject with an NSMutableSet as the first member object.
Subclassing Cocoa class cluster is kind of discouraged. Not without reasons. Please do not enter this crashy world.
Either of your solutions will work. I've successfully used the first path with NSArray and NSDictionary, so I believe it should work fine for NSMutableSet as well. Just remember that you need to override not only forwardInvocation:, but a few of other methods as well. Please consult Surrogate Objects sections of Apple docs:
Although forwarding mimics inheritance, the NSObject class never confuses the two. Methods like respondsToSelector: and isKindOfClass: look only at the inheritance hierarchy, never at the forwarding chain.
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjCRuntimeGuide/Articles/ocrtForwarding.html
In my case, I've overridden:
conformsToProtocol:
isKindOfClass:
isMemberOfClass:
respondsToSelector:
instancesRespondToSelector:
forwardInvocation:
methodSignatureForSelector:
instanceMethodSignatureForSelector:
from which isKindOfClass:, conformsToProtocol: and respondsToSelector: are definitely crucial.
I've also used the third path with good results, but I admit the associated objects API is clunky.
First, gnasher729 is correct. Don't subclass class clusters. Just don't do it. Can you do it? If I tell you that you can't, will it help you convince yourself that you shouldn't? I can lie if it helps you make good choices.
But in all seriousness, it is almost always meaningless as well. Is your subclass really a specific kind of set? Or is it really kind of like a set. Consider NSAttributedString. It isn't a kind of string, it has-a string. This is almost always better.
And also, class clusters happen to be a royal pain to subclass.
That said, adding associated values onto a data structure, as you've already discovered, is generally just fine, because what you really want is "hey, I have some data that needs to go along with this other data." Wrapping has gotten so easy that it shouldn't really slow you down. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/14918158/97337:
objc_setAssociatedObject(self, animatingKey, #(value), OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC);
And with "one weird trick", you can make this really easy:
#interface NSObject (BoolVal)
#property (nonatomic, readwrite, assign) BOOL boolVal;
#end
#implementation NSObject (BoolVal)
- (BOOL)boolVal {
return [objc_getAssociatedObject(self, _cmd) boolValue];
}
- (void)setBoolVal:(BOOL)value {
objc_setAssociatedObject(self, #selector(boolVal), #(value), OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC);
}
#end
But I'd still come back to the question of whether this is really a kind of set (rather than just like a set), and whether it really needs to respond to every message that can be sent to a set. As with NSAttributedString, your real needs are often much smaller than that in practice, and wrapping the handful of methods you need is often worth the simplicity and control.
For completeness, let's look at your first path:
create sort of a composite object that declared itself as a subclass of NSMutableSet but really just forwarded the invocations to an internal NSMutableSet
Can you subclass an NSMutableSet? Yes, but should you? The documentation for NSMutableSet says:
Subclassing Notes
There should be little need of subclassing. If you need to customize behavior, it is often better to consider composition instead of subclassing.
So weigh that up and if you want to subclass refer again to the documentation:
Methods to Override
In a subclass, you must override both of its primitive methods:
addObject:
removeObject:
You must also override the primitive methods of the NSSet class.
And looking at the NSSet class documentation we find its primitive methods are:
Methods to Override
In a subclass, you must override all of its primitive methods:
count
member:
objectEnumerator
That's it, 5 methods.
You can define your own class as a subclass of NSMutableSet, add an instance variable which is an instance of NSMutableSet, implement 5 methods and redirect them to the set instance, add whatever init methods you wish, and then add your additional properties.
If performance is of concern then the tradeoff is between redirecting those five methods and accessing associated objects for your additional properties. You'll need to profile to work that out, but if and only if performance becomes an issue.
I went through the source code of GNUStep's NSNumber's implementation to understand how does factory method implementation works there.
From there What I could understand was we have NSNumber with blank implementation for all initWithXYZ kind of methods. and NSTemporaryNumber was acting like an intermediate class in the hierarchy that implemented all the initWithXYZ methods where it actually created objects of specific types , autoreleased itself and returned the created object.
Also allocWithZone was overridden to avoid creation of NSNumber object and to create object of NSTemporaryNumber if it was so otherwise create objects of specific types.
What I didn't understand was, can't the same things be done by NSNumber itself ?
why give blank implementations at all , create the object of specific type and then autorelease self.
Also if we have implementations of createXYZ methods in NSNumber itself, why have initWithXYZ methods ?
If I have to implement a factory implementation for my project where say I have two mediaItems, video , audio and photo etc.
for which I have separate classes and corresponding enums which I pass to initWithMediaType who will create an object of correct child class, return it and destroy itself.
Have two classes like NSNumber and NSTemporaryNumber: say Media and TemporaryMedia, one with blank implementations other with implementations as mentioned above ?
Should I do something like this ?
Is this the way we have to implement Factory pattern in Objective C ?
My question might seem silly biut I come from a Java, C++ background where things looked different.
The purpose might be the same but I am finding it difficult to understand the way Objective C does it since it does not have abstract classes.
Link to the source:
http://www.koders.com/objectivec/fid46956186C20201706AFE1744AA7AFEEE09D1FE5A.aspx
The point is that NSNumber is a class cluster. The class you actually end up with may be an NSIntNumber, an NSFloatNumber or one of several others. They all respond to the same messages as NSNumber (and, usually in this pattern will be subclasses of it, but that isn't required) so it makes no real difference to the caller.
When you call alloc there's no way to know what sort of object to create, so a neutral type is created and returned instead. It substitutes appropriately upon receiving an appropriate init.
So this pattern is for the implementation of class clusters. You can ignore it if writing a class that provides only instances of itself.
I have an object called Settings that inherits from NSMutableDictionary. When I try to initialize this object using
Settings *settings = [[Settings alloc] initWithContentsOfFile: #"someFile"]
it returns an object of type NSCFDictionary. As a result, it doesn't recognize my additional methods. For example, when I call the selector "save", it objects:
[NSCFDictionary save]: unrecognized selector sent to instance 0x524bc0
Of course, it's OK when I initialize using the garden variety
Settings *settings = [[Settings alloc] init]
I tried to cast it again to Settings but that didn't work. This seems really simple - what am I missing?
Thanks
NSDictionary is a class cluster. This means that the value returned from its init methods is not strictly an NSDictionary, but a subclass that implements the actual functionality. In almost every case, it is better to give your class an NSDictionary as an instance variable or to simply define a category on NSDictionary.
Chuck is correct about NSDictionary (and Dave, by extension, about NSArray/Set/String) and class clusters. Odds are that -[NSDictionary initWithContentsOfFile:] calls down to a different initializer than -init does, which is why it swaps out your allocated Settings instance for another subclass of NSMutableDictionary. (The initialization action when reading from a file may select a particular known subclass of NSDictionary which performs well for loading from a file, etc.)
I'll echo Chuck's guidance that it is almost always better to use composition or categories than inheritance for an NSDictionary. It's highly likely that you could accomplish what you're doing with categories in a much simpler way, and expose yourself to fewer potential bugs in the process. Consider yourself warned before deciding to subclass.
That being said, both NSDictionary and NSMutableDictionary have been designed to support subclassing, and on rare occasions that's the right thing to do. Think long and hard about it before trying it. If you find it's the right choice for your design, here are some key points to know and do as needed:
Override the following primitive methods from NSDictionary:
-count
-objectForKey:
-keyEnumerator
-initWithObjects:forKeys:count: (designated initializer)
Override the following primitive methods from NSMutableDictionary:
-setObject:forKey:
-removeObjectForKey:
If you're supporting NSCoding, be aware of classForKeyedArchiver and replacementObjectForKeyedArchiver: (both instance methods from NSObject) — they can totally change how your class responds, and you often unintentionally inherit some odd behavior from NS(Mutable)Dictionary. (You can verify if they are the culprit by setting a breakpoint on them, or implementing them to call super and breaking on your own code.)
I've implemented a number of these points in an NSMutableDictionary subclass of my own. You can check it out and use the code however may be helpful to you. One that particularly helped me (and could be the solution for your problem) was overloading the designated initializer, which is currently undocumented (Radar #7046209).
The thing to remember is that even though these bullets cover most common uses, there are always edge cases and less common functionality to account for. For example, -isEqual: and -hash for testing equality, etc.
If you actually read the spec for NSDictionary (a rash action, I know) you'll find a section named "Subclassing Notes". In it you will read:
If you do need to subclass NSDictionary, you need to take into account
that is represented by a Class cluster—there are therefore several
primitive methods upon which the methods are conceptually based:
initWithObjects:forKeys:
count
objectForKey:
keyEnumerator
In a subclass, you must override all these methods.
From https://stackoverflow.com/a/1191351/467588, this is what I did to make a subclass of NSDictionary works. I just declare an NSDictionary as an instance variable of my class and add some more required methods. I don't know what to call them though.
I posted my code sample here https://stackoverflow.com/a/10993594/467588.
This question is very old, and since most of these answers were posted, Apple has introduced object subscripting, which allows you to make your own classes behave more like NSMutableArray or NSMutableDictionary. This is simpler than the alternatives discussed above.
At a minimum, you have to override these methods:
//Array-style
- (id)objectAtIndexedSubscript:(NSUInteger)idx;
- (void)setObject:(id)obj atIndexedSubscript:(NSUInteger)idx;
//Dictionary-style
- (id)objectForKeyedSubscript:(id <NSCopying>)key;
- (void)setObject:(id)obj forKeyedSubscript:(id <NSCopying>)key;
Here's a nice tutorial on how to do just that.
I'd like an instance variable object to adopt a protocol.
#interface GameScene : Scene <AVAudioPlayerDelegate> {
#private
Layer *content <CocosNodeOpacity>;
}
For example I'd like my Layer object to adopt the <CocosNodeOpacity> so that I can get the methods
-(GLubyte) opacity; //and
-(void) setOpacity: (GLubyte) opacity;
for free. The syntax shown above is invalid. Is it possible to achieve this without creating a new implementation file and creating a custom object? Thanks.
If these are all code you created, the best way to do this is probably to make the Layer class itself adopt the protocol, rather than the variable.
#interface Layer : NSObject <CocosNodeOpacity> { ... }
A key benefit to this approach is that the compiler will check whether you've implemented all required methods in the protocol at compile time, which is generally what you want. Adding the methods in same place as the rest of the standard class implementation is easier to understand (no hunting to find where the magical code came from) and less fragile than using categories (adding the same method via different categories can result in undefined behavior). As a general rule, I only use categories when I have to, such as adding methods to (closed-source) third-party code.
If you don't control the source of Layer, you may have to use this instead when you declare your ivar:
Layer<CocosNodeOpacity> *content;
Note that adopting a protocol allows you to statically type variables with a class type and get compile warnings if the methods aren't present. However, you don't get the methods "for free", since you still have to implement them. Still, judicious use of protocols and static typing can make your code more robust and "fail-fast" than using id as the type for everything. You are to be commended for not just taking the easy way out. :-)
For some details about protocols (including required and optional methods) see this SO answer.
A protocol in Objective-C is similar to an interface in Java. The protocol defines a set of functions and acts as a contract. It's like saying "I guarantee that whatever this object is, it has these methods."
You're pretty close on the syntax in your first code block. It would actually look something like this:
#interface GameScene : Scene <AVAudioPlayerDelegate> {
#private
Layer<CocosNodeOpacity> * content;
}
However, that doesn't save you from having to define the methods for opacity in your Layer class. Using the protocol, you've established that your class will have those functions, but you haven't actually provided them. You'll still need to write the code for them.
I think what you're looking for is an Objective-C category. A category provides a way to extend the functionality of any class by adding methods to it at runtime. They're possible because Objective-C is a completely dynamic language. If you aren't the author of the Layer class and can't easily add the opacity methods to it, a category is the way to go. In some cases, categories are extremely useful - you can add methods to built-in classes, like NSString and NSColor, without having the existing class source.
There's plenty of documentation for categories here on stack overflow. The apple docs are also very good. Here's an article to get you started:
http://macdevelopertips.com/objective-c/objective-c-categories.html
What is the purpose/use of NSObject in Objective-C? I see classes that extend NSObject like this:
#interface Fraction : NSObject
In C++ or Java, we don't use any variables like NSObject even though we have preprocessor directives and import statements in both Objective-C and Java.
Why do classes explicitly inherit from NSObject in Objective-C? What are the consequences of not declaring inheritance from NSObject?
We use NSObject to explicitly state what a given class inherits from. I'm not sure about C++, but in Java there's something similar - the Object class. The only difference is that Java doesn't require that classes explicitly descend from Object - the language assumes anything that doesn't have a specified parent class descends from Object. Objective-C is different because it allows you to define different root classes - you are allowed to make a class that doesn't inherit from NSObject.
An example of such a different root class is NSProxy.
Have a look at the GNUstep NSObject source, it shows how the methods interact with the objective-c runtime through C functions.
+ (id) allocWithZone:(NSZone*)z
{
return NSAllocateObject(self, 0, z);
}
- (void) dealloc
{
NSDeallocateObject (self);
}
+ (BOOL) isSubclassOfClass: (Class)aClass
{
return GSObjCIsKindOf(self, aClass);
}
Since object-oriented languages have the concept of an inheritance, in any inheritance hierarchy there is a root class. In Java, the default parent class (if none is provided) is java.lang.Object, whereas in Objective-C, if you don't explicitly declare a parent class, you don't get one. Essentially, your class becomes a root class itself. This is a common mistake among Objective-C newcomers, since you normally want to inherit from NSObject in such cases.
While often problematic and puzzling, this actually allows quite a bit of flexibility, since you can define your own class hierarchies that act completely differently from NSObject. (Java doesn't allow you to do this at all.) On the other hand, unless you know what you're doing, it's easy to get yourself into trouble this way. Fortunately, the compiler will provide warnings if you call a method not defined by a class with no declared parent class, such as those you would normally expect to inherit from NSObject.
As for the "use" of NSObject, check out the documentation of the NSObject class and NSObject protocol. They define common methods used for object allocation, memory management, comparison, hashing, printing descriptions, checking class membership, querying whether objects respond to a selector, etc. Basically, NSObject is "good for" providing the core functionality of Objective-C objects free of charge.
All classes don't necessarily inherit from NSObject but it is the core for many of the classes because it provides things like alloc, retain, and release.
NSObject is the root class of all classes. In my estimation, it's 3 most basic functions are to allocate and initialize memory for you (alloc & init), as well as provide a description function.
Objective-C is all about objects sending messages to other objects -- so NSObject exists to provide that basic functionality.
If this sounds strange to you, you may wish to read more about programming paradigms, particularly object-oriented programming....In a nutshell, however, Objective C is a simple extension to the C language. C gets you the ability to program computer memory, numbers, and characters, but do anything else (like use strings, or show views, for example) you need the extension part, and NSObject is the beginning of that extension.
It may be a useful exercise to pick a class (like NSString, or any for that matter), and follow it's superclasses back to NSObject, to see what functionality each class added.
Hope that helps...
NSObject
The root class of most Objective-C class hierarchies, from which
subclasses inherit a basic interface to the runtime system and the
ability to behave as Objective-C objects.
From Apple documentation - https://developer.apple.com/documentation/objectivec/nsobject.
Basically, most of OOP programming languages explicitly or implicitly specify base class or base functionality. Otherwise you cannot build system where objects communicate with each other. Properties, memory management, message sending mechanism are partly or completely provided or supported by NSObject. Apple provide parts of the Objective-C implementation - https://opensource.apple.com/source/objc4/objc4-723/runtime/NSObject.mm.auto.html, where it's possible to see what is actually inside NSObject.
Also because Objective-C is a language from C-family, so compiler and linker needs to calculate how to layout object in memory and where put and find methods, that's only possible if you know how each of the classes/instances lays in memory and where. In case of Objective-C all base classes (NSObject, NSProxy, etc) have specification of that, so it's possible to calculate their size and add on top all inherited stuff - https://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html#objective-c.
Consequently compiler don't let to leave a class without base class. So in the end class inheritance should lead to one of the root classes. Here is the error that appears if you don't specify it (from Xcode):
Class 'ClassWithoutBaseClass' defined without specifying a base class