I work with a codebase where there are many classes with thousands of lines of code. I've noticed inconsistencies in style concerning prepending class names when using their methods and I'm trying to figure out the previous developer's reasoning. If we
import GeneralCode
in Class A, is it bad practice to write
GeneralCode.DoSomething()
in Class A since we already imported it (instead of simply using DoSomething())? I would think so, but I suppose it's also nice to know which methods come from which classes at a glance, since Class A imports many classes and uses methods from several of them.
EDIT: This is for VB.NET, not Java (sorry for the wrong tag, rough morning). I am new to VB.NET but GeneralCode and DoSomething() are not declared as static, neither is the import in Class A.
Might be something to do with VB.NET, but DoSomething() can indeed be used with or without prepending GeneralCode.
A method need to be prefixed with
The class name if it's a static method.
The name of the instance when it's not a static method.
Unless you are calling a method from your own class.
I have two frameworks in my Xcode project that both define a class with the same name (B.framework and C.framework both have a class named MyClass), resulting in a couple warnings like so:
Duplicate symbol _OBJC_METACLASS_$_MyClass originally in B.framework/B(MyClass.o) now lazily loaded from C.framework/C(MyClass.o)
Duplicate symbol _OBJC_CLASS_$_MyClass originally in B.framework/B(MyClass.o) now lazily loaded from C.framework/C(MyClass.o)
Then at run time only one of the implementations is loaded, and trying to use the other one will result in a "unrecognized selector sent to instance" because they are totally different classes (even though they have the same name).
I use one of the MyClass implementations directly in my code, but the other framework only uses its MyClass internally and I have no idea why its even exported (its not even mentioned in the frameworks header files, i used nm to view the symbols).
How can I make both frameworks work?
There's no such thing as "exported" classes in Obj-C. Or rather, there's no such thing as "non-exported" classes. This problem is precisely why the use of 2- or 3-letter prefixes on classes is strongly recommended for all Obj-C code. Your only solution (besides not using these frameworks) is to edit one (or both) of the frameworks to change the class name, or if you don't have access to the source, then you need to contact the vendor and ask them to make that change.
Baby new to Xcode, Cocoa touch and iOS development in general. And am taking the Stanford walkthrough for their iPhone class. I am a little confused at a couple of places and need to shoot my doubts to you guys:
I have two classes that I have created for my model, essentially CalculatorBrain.m and CalculatorBrain.h.
From what I gather, in Objective C, creating a class essentially consists of two functions, one is to declare the class which contains the method/messages and other variables while the other is the actual implementation for the same. From this stems two questions:
Why must I declare a class without implementing it's methods at first? (the concept seems to be borrowed from interfaces) and only then move on to implementing it .
From the above question, as I go through the walkthrough, I notice that the class declaration took place in CalculatorBrain.h whereas the methods were actually implemented in CalculatorBrain.m. I am unable to grasp the nuances of why this was done so if anybody is willing to shed some light on this, it would really help
Thanks again,
Parijat Kalia!!!
These are traditions from the C world, and they're just common practice to avoid some problems. They aren't two classes, they are the definition (in the .h file) and the implementation (in the .c or .cc file).
If you defined the class in the .c file, you couldn't refer to it elsewhere because it wouldn't be defined. You could include your .c file, but then you'd have two copies of the code. You could also use the "extern" keyword, but at this point it's kind of odd.
If you put code in the .h file, then when it's included the code gets included. This means you can get compiler errors that you have three "getMyThing" functions.
This means you can give out your headers to others without giving away your top-secret implementation (useful for making libraries), include your header without worrying about the possible multiple definitions, etc. You can also add variables and functions in the .c file which people using the header (like your other code) can't see or use, so you don't have to worry about changing it later and having compilation break.
What is the Objective-C equivalent of Java packages? How do you group and organize your classes in Objective-C?
Question 1: Objective-C equivalent of Java packages?
Objective-C doesn't have an equivalent to Java packages or C++ namespaces. Part of the reason for this is that Objective-C was originally a very thin runtime layer on top of C, and added objects to C with minimum fuss. Unfortunately for us now, naming conflicts are something we have to deal with when using Objective-C. You win some, you lose some...
One small clarification (although it's not much for consolation) is that Objective-C actually has two flat namespaces — one for classes and one for protocols (like Java's interfaces). This doesn't solve any class naming conflicts, but it does mean you can have a protocol and class with the same name (like <NSObject> and NSObject) where the latter usually adopts ("implements") the former. This feature can prevent "Foo / FooImpl" pattern rampant in Java, but sadly doesn't help with class conflicts.
Question 2: How to [name] and organize Objective-C classes?
Naming
The following rules are subjective, but they are decent guidelines for naming Objective-C classes.
If your code can't be run by other code (it's not a framework, plugin, etc. but an end-user application or tool) you only need to avoid conflicts with code you link against. Often, this means you can get away with no prefix at all, so long as the frameworks/plugins/bundles you use have proper namespaces.
If you're developing "componentized" code (like a framework, plugin, etc.) you should choose a prefix (hopefully one that's unique) and document your use of it someplace visible so others know to avoid potential conflicts. For example, the CocoaDev wiki "registry" is a de facto public forum for calling "dibs" on a prefix. However, if your code is something like a company-internal framework, you may be able to use a prefix that someone else already does, so long as you aren't using anything with that prefix.
Organization
Organizing source files on disk is something that many Cocoa developers unfortunately gloss over. When you create a new file in Xcode, the default location is the project directory, right beside your project file, etc. Personally, I put application source in source/, test code (OCUnit, etc.) in test/, all the resources (NIB/XIB files, Info.plist, images, etc.) in resources/, and so on. If you're developing a complex project, grouping source code in a hierarchy of directories based on functionality can be a good solution, too. In any case, a well-organized project directory makes it easier to find what you need.
Xcode really doesn't care where your files are located. The organization in the project sidebar is completely independent of disk location — it is a logical (not physical) grouping. You can organize however you like in the sidebar without affecting disk location, which is nice when your source is stored in version control. On the other hand, if you move the files around on disk, patching up Xcode references is manual and tedious, but can be done. It's easiest to create your organization from the get-go, and create files in the directory where they belong.
My Opinion
Although it could be nice to have a package/namespace mechanism, don't hold your breath for it to happen. Class conflicts are quite rare in practice, and are generally glaringly obvious when they happen. Namespaces are really a solution for a non-problem in Objective-C. (In addition, adding namespaces would obviate the need for workarounds like prefixes, but could introduce a lot more complexity in method invocation, etc.)
The more subtle and devious bugs come from method conflicts when methods are added and/or overridden, not only by subclasses, but also be categories, which can cause nasty errors, since the load order of categories is undefined (nondeterministic). Implementing categories is one of the sharpest edges of Objective-C, and should only be attempted if you know what you're doing, particularly for third-party code, and especially for Cocoa framework classes.
They use long names...
Article on coding style & naming in Cocoa / Objective-C
Discussion whether Obj-C needs namespaces (deleted, archive here)
See
What is the best way to solve an Objective-C namespace collision?
for a discussion of how Objective-C has no namespaces, and the painful hacks this necessitates.
Unfortuantely objective c doesn't have any equivalent to namespace of C#,c++ and package of java....
The naming collisions could be solved by giving contextual name for example if u gonna give a name to method it should imply the class and module that it comes in so that...these problems could be avoided.
Go through the following url to know more on naming convention as advised by apple
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/cocoa/conceptual/ProgrammingWithObjectiveC/Conventions/Conventions.html
What about something like this (inside a directory)?
#define PruebaPaquete ar_com_oxenstudio_paq1_PruebaPaquete
#interface ar_com_oxenstudio_paq1_PruebaPaquete : NSObject {
and importing it like this:
#import "ar/com/oxenstudio/paq1/PruebaPaquete.h"
PruebaPaquete *p = [[PruebaPaquete alloc] init];
and when you have name collision:
#import "ar/com/oxenstudio/paq1/PruebaPaquete.h"
#import "ar/com/oxenstudio/paq2/PruebaPaquete.h"
ar_com_oxenstudio_paq1_PruebaPaquete *p = [[ar_com_oxenstudio_paq1_PruebaPaquete alloc] init];
ar_com_oxenstudio_paq2_PruebaPaquete *p2 = [[ar_com_oxenstudio_paq2_PruebaPaquete alloc] init];
Well, I think all the other answers here seem to focus on naming collisions, but missed at least one important feature, package private access control that java package provides.
When I design a class, I find it is quite often that I just want some specific class(es) to call its methods, b/c they work together to achieve a task, but I don't want all the other unrelated classes to call those methods. That is where java package access control comes in handy, so I can group the related classes into a packaged and make those methods package private access control. But there is no way to do that in objective c.
Without package private access control I find it is very hard to avoid people writing code like this, [[[[[a m1] m2] m3] m4] m5] or [a.b.c.d m1].
Update: Xcode 4.4 introduced "An Objective-C class extension header", in my opinion, that is in some way to provide "package private access control", so if you include the extension header, you can call my "package private" methods; if you only include my public header, you can only call my public API.
What is the standard way of incorporating helper/utility functions in Obj-C classes?
I.e. General purpose functions which are used throughout the application and called by more than 1 class.
Can an Obj-C method exist outside of a class, or does it need to be a C function for it to have this kind of behaviour?
I would group similar functions as static methods in a helper class. These can then be called using the classname rather the instance name. Static methods are defined with a + instead of the usual -.
like so:
#interface HelperClass: superclassname {
// instance variables - none if all methods are static.
}
+ (void) helperMethod: (int) parameter_varName;
#end
This would be called like so.
[HelperClass helperMethod: 10 ];
As this is static you do not init/alloc the class. This has the advantage of clearly grouping like Helper functions. You could use standalone C functions but as your Application gets larger it can become a right mess! Hope this helps.
Tony
I don't see why people are avoiding creating functions. Objective-C is a superset of C, which means that C is part of it. Moreover, it's completely integrated—there's no wall between them.
Create functions! It's fine! Foundation does it. Application Kit does it. Core Animation does it. Core Media does it.
I see no reason not to.
There are a number of options for this in Objective-C. First, since Obj-C is a strict superset of C, you can define all your library functions in a separate module (source file) and happily call them from any Obj-C object/code you already have. If you create an obj-c source file (.m file) you can then call back into/use objects.
If your generic functions are logically manipulating other, established objects (for instances, operates on an NSString), you can use categories to graph your functions on already existing classes (where that makes sense).
Finally, as Tony points out, you can create classes with static methods (although I like this option the least, personally). I tend to use a mix of one an two... adding categories where appropriate and using standard functions for others. I generally only make a new class where it makes sense to design a class.