As many other developers new to Cocoa, I struggle with delegate and controller concept. I get the basics, but one thing bugs me. Practically every explanation says that "usually" or "in simple cases" (which are the only ones they give as examples) controller and delegate tend to be the same object.
That leads to a question: when would you want to separate controller and delegate for the same interface object?
Two general cases when using a separate class for your delegate is needed are
When you need to perform unrelated actions in response to the same delegate message, or
When you would like to share the logic of the delegate among multiple views or controllers.
An example of the first situation would be a page with two unrelated tables. Each UITableView would need its own delegate, so using the controller as the delegate would require an ugly if statement in each delegate method; defining and using separate delegates is clearly preferred in this case.
An example of the second situation would be a group of similar pages that show DB data from tables of similar structure. Pages themselves are sufficiently dissimilar, so you cannot reuse the controller in its entirety. If you choose to put the delegate into the controller, most of the logic behind the table view's data source would be identical. You can put the code into a shared delegate implementation, and have each controller instantiate that delegate with the configuration parameters specific to the table associated with this controller.
One note to keep in mind when using another object besides the controller as your delegate: the controller should retain / keep a strong reference to the delegate, since the view will only keep a weak / assign reference to it. See property "assign" and "retain" for delegate for more information on this.
Related
I have just a minor question about coding style.
I have a subclass of UIViewController which is a delegate to an MKMapView object. Naturally, I have an ivar in my view controller which points to said MKMapView. When I'm writing one of the callback methods mapView:didUpdateUserLocation:, is it smarter to send messages to the passed-in reference of the map view or to the ivar reference of the map view?
I'm aware these are essentially the same thing. I use the ivar reference of the map view object. What are the pros and cons of both styles?
Since you know that both MKMapView objects are one and the same thing, it doesn't matter in this particular case. The reason for the convention requiring the first delegate parameter to be the calling object is to handle the situation when a class is a delegate to more than one object. E.g. if you show two different UIAlertView's in your view controller, and the view controller is a delegate to both (a common scenario), then you want to know in the delegate methods which alert view you're dealing with.
I could use some architectural advice. I've run into the following problem a few times now and I've never found a truly elegant way to solve it.
The issue, described at the highest level possible:I have a parent class that would like to act as the delegate for multiple children (all using the same protocol), but when the children call methods on the parent, the parent no longer knows which child is making the call.
I would like to use loose coupling (delegates/protocols or notifications) rather than direct calls. I don't need multiple handlers, so notifications seem like they might be overkill.
To illustrate the problem, let me try a super-simplified example:
I start with a parent view controller (and corresponding view). I create three child views and insert each of them into the parent view. I would like the parent view controller to be notified whenever the user touches one of the children. There are a few options to notify the parent:
Define a protocol. The parent implements the protocol and sets itself as the delegate to each of the children. When the user touches a child view, its view controller calls its delegate (the parent). In this case, the parent is notified that a view is touched, but it doesn't know which one. Not good enough.
Same as #1, but define the methods in the protocol to also pass some sort of identifier. When the child tells its delegate that it was touched, it also passes a pointer to itself. This way, the parent know exactly which view was touched. It just seems really strange for an object to pass a reference of itself.
Use NSNotifications. The parent defines a separate method for each of the three children and then subscribes to the "viewWasTouched" notification for each of the three children as the notification sender. The children don't need to attach themselves to the user dictionary, but they do need to send the notification with a pointer to themselves as the scope.
Same as #4, but rather than using separate methods, the parent could just use one with a switch case or other branching along with the notification's sender to determine which path to take.
Create multiple man-in-the-middle classes that act as the delegates to the child views and then call methods on the parent either with a pointer to the child or with some other differentiating factor. This approach doesn't seem scalable.
Are any of these approaches considered best practice? I can't say for sure, but it feels like I'm missing something more obvious/elegant.
Your #2 is the standard Cocoa pattern for delegates. Each message of the delegate protocol takes the object as the first argument. For example, in UITableViewDelegate, you find methods like this:
- (CGFloat)tableView:(UITableView *)tableView heightForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath;
When a table view sends this message to its delegate, it sends itself (the table view) as the first argument. If the delegate object is the delegate of multiple table views, it can use the first argument to figure out which table view sent the message.
When there are no other arguments, the message still takes the object as an argument, as in this UITableViewDataSource method:
- (NSInteger)numberOfSectionsInTableView:(UITableView *)tableView;
You will find this pattern all over the Cocoa Touch framework; UIPickerViewDelegate, UIImagePickerControllerDelegate, and UINavigationControllerDelegate are just a few examples.
You should follow the standard pattern unless you have a compelling reason not to. Following the convention will make it easier for others (and future you) to understand your code.
I am learning iOS programming through the Big Nerd Ranch guide by Hillegass and Conway. I’m writing an app of my own as I go through the book, and one of the questions that has been bugging me is exactly when I need to subclass UIViewController (and its ilk) and when I can just instantiate it.
For example, my app consists of generic building blocks: the interface is tabbed, and the tabs lead to a UITableView, a UINavigationController that creates UITableViews, and so on. Following the book’s instructions, I have subclassed UITableViewController to create the table views. However, in creating the UITabBarController that contains all of my app’s content, it seems sufficient to instantiate a UITabBarController and then add a bunch of views to it. (All of this is done in the application:didFinishLaunchingWithOptions: method of my app delegate. Since most of my app consists of simple combinations of basic UI parts, I’m trying to do build the UI programmatically whenever possible.)
I get the impression that what I should be doing is creating a subclass of UIViewController (or UITableViewController or whatever) for every interface in my project. This seems weird to me, since most of these classes would only ever be instantiated once. Am I just misunderstanding how OO should be used in this case? (I have a good amount of programming experience but relatively little has been with OOP.) Should I be creating a subclass for each and every screen that the user will see?
Should I be creating a subclass for each and every screen that the user will see?
If each view requires different logic, yes.
Don't shy away from creating new classes for conceptually separate things. Programmers coming from non-OOP to OOP might feel that a file with only a small amount of code is a waste. Suppress this feeling. Classes are cheap, and help enormously to organise your thinking.
So you have two types of UIViewControllers in iOS. "Container" viewControllers and "Content" viewcontrollers. Both are subclasses of UIViewController but have very different purposes.
The Container type is what the UINavigationController and UITabController are. They are rarely subclassed and typically used as is (in fact, I believe Apple doesn't allow the subclassing of UINavigationController at all). These "Containers" take care of moving "Content" view controller around for you. They do not have much content of their own, beyond adding things like a tab bar or a navigation bar.
The "Content" view controller are the ones you create most of the time. You will rarely be able to use a UIViewController as is, because it will not have any functionality. That is why you subclass them. These are meant to represent a single "screenful" of content. So in effect, every "screen" the user sees should be controlled by a UIViewController subclass.
The UITableViewController is simply a specialized sublass of UIViewController that already contains some methods for managing tables.
The way the UIKit framework was designed was for you to use subclasses of UIViewController to display content and to use out-of-the-box "Container" controllers to facilitate the management of your UIViewController subclasses.
You need a subclass of UIViewController if you want to do any of the following (not an exhaustive list, but some examples)
customize the view hierarchy when the view hierarchy is loaded (in
viewDidLoad)
provide some behaviour as the view controller's views become visible
(or not) (in viewWillAppear:, viewDidAppear:, viewWillDisappear:,
etc.)
clean up after yourself as needed in viewDidUnload
create outlets to views in the hierarchy so you can adjust them as
needed in the above lifecycle methods
My reasoning behind subclassing UIViewController, and other classes is that:
Almost always you must initialize variables and assign values to the instances of classes. You add subviews and set their frames, define actions for the UIViewController instance, etc. If this UIViewController instance is directly from the base class, its initialization should be done outside of it. If this initialization is required at different places for multiple times, you may have to deal with repeated initialization process.
So, you've compiled these processes into a method, making it reusable from wherever this UIViewController instance is used. But where do you want to put it? Don't you think it's much better to put it inside the subclass of UIViewController? Also, you don't even have to come up with specific name for this initialization method. Just override the default -(id)init from the super class.
Though you may think it's suffice to use UIViewController without subclassing it for now, as your project grows, it will be challenged to deal with reusability issues. Take some time to look at your codes. Check if there is too much repetition for such as initializing an object, or assigning values to it. If you are doing same things with an instance of a class in multiple places, compile them into a method to be reused. And as number of such methods grow, you will find the need to use subclass which will contain these relevant methods for the instance.
No matter the size of your project, using classes to distinguish different objects is important. Almost always, the basic essential classification is done by the framework, making it unnecessary to introduce new concept for a class. However, this doesn't mean the framework also knows how your project and its objects can be classified into. By using subclass, you can utilize every benefit the development framework can provide and still keeping the objects in your project to be as unique as possible, based on the purpose you've designed for them.
Well about the UITabBarController you are right. There is no reason for you to subclass anything if the default behavior is sufficient. However once you need to do some custom things you will need to subclass it..
Also, why are you trying to build the GUI programmatically? For the learning curve? There is no real reason not to use InterfaceBuilder, it saves you a lot of time.
You should subclass the UITableViewController in order to get your data in the view, that is how the MVC model works. The default implementation does not offer anything in order to get your data in the view, I don't think they will ever do that in order to make sure that nothing is wasted, their 'connection' to the model object might be different from the one you want and you would end up writing an adapter if your model object is not compatible.
I hope this will help you out a bit.
And merry x-mas.
Hey guys, I currently have a root table view which has a toolbar at the bottom and has labels and a refresh button within it, much like the Mail app's toolbar. This root table view controller obtains data from a server by allocating and initializing a DataUpdater class. Within this class are the NSURLConnection delegate methods that are called while communicating with the server.
As you can probably guess, I need to know when certain (delegate) functions are called within the DataUpdater class and the values of the parameters passed to these delegate functions so that I can update the labels on the toolbar accordingly (i.e. Connecting..., Updated, etc).
The problem I am having is determining how to notify the root table view controller of what is going on in these delegate methods. Would I use protocols, if so how? I have been skimming the documentation and don't quite see how I would get this effect. Or would you suggest I implement my program another way?
Thanks in advance!
A protocol is a kind of contract that says: I promise to provide the non-optional methods defined in the protocol, and maybe even the optional ones. It's purpose is like Java interfaces: to work around missing multiple-inheritence.
The delegate pattern in Objective-C normally works like this: you define a protocol, and then in your class, you define a variable like id<MyProtocol> myDelegate; and define a setter and maybe getter (either via normal methods, e.g. - (void)setDelegate:(id<MyProtocol>)aDelegate; or via properties.
Note that the delegate is not retained ! So if you work with a property, you need the assign option, not retain.
Now back in your class, you check whether myDelegate is nil and if not, you can directly call its non-optional methods. If you want to call an optional method, you first need to verify its presence via respondsToSelector:.
So if you decide to use the delegate pattern, you need to define a protocol, add that protocol to your root table view controller, implement the necessary methods there, and make sure to call [foo setDelegate:self]; or something similar to inform your other class that the root table view controller is the delegate. And of course implement the delegate calls in your class.
Edit:
An alternative might be to use NSNotifications, BTW. The advantage of notifications is that you can have multiple objects listen and react to them. The disadvantage is that you cannot (directly) pass values back. For example, you can define a delegate method that asks the delegate whether to do something or not. That's not possible with notifications, it's more like shouting into a room instead of having a one-to-one conversation.
DarkDust's answer about protocols is fine but I would like to add some things to it.
One underlying thing that is often forgotten when it comes to delegation is object ownership. When a program is running it creates a tree of objects. Its root object is the application delegate and for example it owns a navigation controller, which owns the individual view controllers, which own the view and the view owns its subviews and so on.
Often the question comes up: "Why is the delegate not retained, just assigned?" The problem is that if you send a message to a deallocated object the program crashes. So how do you make sure the delegate stays around? The answer is object ownership.
I give you an example: a UITableView and its data source which is the TableViewController which is nothing but a delegate. The TableViewController holds a reference with its view property to the UITableView, so it owns the TableView. That means when the tableView is alive there must also be its parent object present, which is the UITableView's delegate. So there is no danger that the delegate goes away somehow.
In the end it is again all about memory management.
Take home message is: think upfront about object ownership will make your program mode modular, easier to maintain and will lead to a looser coupling between individual objects.
I have an NSTableView which I wish to allow users to drag-and-drop video files onto. When they drop the file, it'll get added as a row in the table view.
How would I go about doing this? Currently the tableview's takes its data from an Array Controller (which takes its data from a NSMutableArray)
I found this documentation, but cannot seem to make it work..
I have..
made a "TableCon" class (which I changed to inherit from NSTableView, not NSObject)
changed the NSTableView class to TableCon
set the NSTableView's delegate outlet to that class
called registerForDraggedTypes in TableCon's init
implemented - (NSDragOperation)draggingEntered:(id <NSDraggingInfo>)sender; (again in TableCon)
..but, nothing, it acts like I never changed anything (no errors), what am I doing wrong?
Edit: I've tried implementing Boaz Stuller's suggestion, and also found this description of the solution (the first reply includes the solution to the first post). So what I have done now is..
Subclass NSArrayController which feeds content to the table view (TableListCon)
Add tableView outlet to TableListCon (and pointed it at the NSTableView)
Implement validateDrop, writeRowsWithIndexes, and acceptDrop in TableListCon
Called registerForDraggedTypes on the tableView outlet.
Again, no errors/warnings, but only the awakeFromNib method seems to be called (None of the other methods are called)
NSTableView handles drag-and-drop differently from generic views, which is overall a good thing. It means that you don't have to manually handle the complicated highlighting, cell tracking and inserting behaviours that tables require.
A description of what is required can be found here. Basically, you still call -registerDraggedTypes: (generally in your -awakeFromNib method) but instead of implementing the NSDraggingDestination methods, you implement the various data source methods associated with drag and drop, which can be found here. You should not need to subclass NSTableView to implement drag-and-drop in this fashion.
Note those are data source methods. You need to hook the table view's dataSource outlet to the class that implements those methods in order for them to be called.
In addition to what Boaz said, it sounds like you're creating an NSTableView subclass and then making an instance of that subclass the delegate of NSTableView. If you're going to subclass, that subclass should be used in place of NSTableView, not in addition to it. Also, it's almost always a violation of concerns to have a view be a delegate for another object.