Is there a way to indicate to the compiler that a class object conforms to a protocol?
As I understand, by creating +(void)foo class methods, an instance of that class object will have those methods as instance methods. So, as long as I create +(void)foo methods for all required protocol methods, I can have a class object act as a delegate.
My problem of course is that in the class's header file, I only know how to indicate that instances of the class conform to the protocol (as is typically the case). So, the best I've figured out is to cast the class object like so:
something.delegate = (id<SomethingDelegate>)[self class]
Any ideas?
Related, but different:
ObjC: is there such a thing as a "class protocol"?
What you're doing now is correct as it will silence warnings which is your goal. You will be sending the class object messages defined in the protocol for instances which is a bit confusing, but the runtime doesn't care.
Think about it this way: you want to set a delegate to an object that responds to the messages defined in the protocol. Your class does this, and your class is also an object. Therefore, you should treat your class like an object that conforms to that protocol. Therefore, what you've written is completely correct (based on what you're trying to do).
One thing to note, though, is this class will not properly respond to conformsToProtocol:. This is generally okay for a delegate setup anyway (delegates don't usually check if the class conforms — they just check if it can respond to a selector).
As a side note, one thing you can do syntactically is:
Class<SomethingDelegate> variable = (Class<SomethingDelegate>)[self class];
The difference here is that the compiler will use the class methods from the protocol instead of instance messages. This is not what you want in your case, though.
There is no Objective-C syntax to indicate that a metaclass conforms to a protocol.
I think you can do it at runtime, by using class_addProtocol on the metaclass. But I haven't tried it.
I guess you could also write a +conformsToProtocol: method on your class, and lie about your conformance. This could have unexpected side-effects, since there's already a +conformsToProtocol: on NSObject (in addition to -conformsToProtocol:).
Neither of these will eliminate the need for a cast to shut the compiler up. Just use a singleton.
Related
I'm struggling to forward a class method through a facade class.
To clarify, I'm overriding all the following methods:
-(NSMethodSignature *)methodSignatureForSelector:(SEL)aSelector
-(void)forwardInvocation:(NSInvocation *)anInvocation
+(BOOL)instancesRespondToSelector:(SEL)aSelector
+(NSMethodSignature *)instanceMethodSignatureForSelector:(SEL)aSelector
+(IMP)instanceMethodForSelector:(SEL)aSelector
+(BOOL)resolveClassMethod:(SEL)sel
+(BOOL)resolveInstanceMethod:(SEL)sel
.. and yet, for the class method, the only one to be called is +resolveClassMethod. From there, I immediately get an unrecognized selector exception regardless of whether I return YES or NO.
What's going on?
Does class message forwarding work differently to instance message forwarding?
Similarly, why isn't there a +forwardInvocation class method?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
So you already know that to make an object do forwardInvocation for instance methods, you have to implement the instance methods -forwardInvocation: and -methodSignatureForSelector: (the others are unnecessary). Well, class methods are just methods on the class object. Classes are objects and work like any other objects, and support all the instance methods of the root class (NSObject in this case).
The Objective-C runtime doesn't care that an object is a class object or non-class object. The message forwarding mechanism is the same. So when you send a message to an object, whatever it is, and it can't find it, it just looks for the forwardInvocation: and methodSignatureForSelector: methods on the object. So you need to have these methods on your class object.
i.e. implement the class methods +forwardInvocation: and +methodSignatureForSelector:
I have the following method:
-(void)SomeMethod:(id)classOrProtocol;
It will be called like this:
[self someMethod:#protocol(SomeProtocol)];
Or
[self someMethod:[SomeClass class]];
Within the method body I need to decide if |classOrProtocol| is:
Any Class(Class) OR Any Protocol(Protocol) OR Anything else
[[classOrProtocol class] isKindOfClass: [Protocol class]]
Results in a (build)error:
Receiver 'Protocol' is a forward class and corresponding #interface may not exist
So how can I tell a Protocol from a Class from anything else?
In Objective-C 2 (i.e. unless you use 32 bit runtime on OS X) Protocol is defined to be just a forward class, see /usr/include/objc/runtime.h. The real interface is nowhere declared. You can try to include /usr/inlcude/objc/Protocol.h by saying
#import <objc/Protocol.h>
but as is written there, no method is publicly supported for an instance of Protocol. The only accepted way to deal with Protocol instances is to use runtime functions, given in Objective-C Runtime Reference. It's not even publicly defined whether Protocol is a subclass of anything, and it's not even stated that it implements NSObject protocol. So you can't call any method on it.
Of course you can use the source code of the runtime to see what's going on. Protocol inherits from Object (which is a remnant from pre-OpenStep NeXTSTep), not from NSObject. So you can't use the familiar methods for NSObject-derived objects, including Class of NSObject-derived objects. See the opensourced implementations of Protocol.h and Protocol.m. As you see there, the class Protocol itself doesn't do anything, because every method just casts self to protocol_t and calls a function. In fact, as can be seen from the function _read_images and others in objc-runtime-new.mm, the isa pointer of a Protocol object is set by hand when the executable and libraries are loaded, and never used.
So, don't try to inspect whether an id is a Protocol or not.
If you really need to do this, you can use
id foo=...;
if(foo->isa==class_getClass("Protocol")){
...
}
But, seriously, don't do it.
This is not an issue 'caused by inability to determine whether it's class or protocol. The error is 'caused by missing interface of Protocol class. Make sure you import Protocol.m at the top of your implementation file where you're testing argument's type.
You can also try using NSClassFromString() function which will return Class object or nil. Do note though that if nil is returned it doesn't mean that argument is protocol. It just means that it could be undefined class too!
There is also method NSProtocolFromString which returns appropriate results - Protocol for protocol and nil for undefined protocol.
using the "Method * class_copyMethodList(Class cls, unsigned int *outCount)" function one can get a list of all methods that exist on an objective-C class.
I would like to know how to find which of these methods are constructors as I am writing an IOC container. I would like to determine the constructors and their parameter types.
I would like to know how to find which of these methods are
constructors as I am writing an IOC container. I would like to
determine the constructors and their parameter types.
In short, you can't. Or, at the least, you'll find that down this path lies madness.
First, Objective-C does not have constructors. It has initializers, sometimes many, and -- for a properly written class -- only one of which is the designated initializer. There is no way to identify the designated initializer at compile time or run time.
How do I use this with a Method * and no instantiated member of the
class?
You don't. First you allocate an instance of the class, then you initialize the instance.
Overall, this level of abstraction just isn't done in Objective-C outside of academic investigations. It can be done, but it is generally avoided because of the fragility of the resulting solution and the hairball of code-hell that is trying to dynamically support the underlying C ABI (go look at the source to libffi).
If you want to go down this path, then you are far better off either defining a custom abstract class that all of your containers will subclass that can provide the binding logic to the class behind it.
Or use protocols; i.e. a class could implement an IOCBean protocol and one method would be initIOCGoop that is the designated initializer goo.
Doing this generically for all classes is going to be rife with fragility, special cases, and will require a gigantic mess of code that will be difficult to maintain over time.
You can get the method signature by using the following method:
methodSignatureForSelector:
From the documentation:
An NSMethodSignature object records type information for the arguments and return value of a method. It is used to forward messages that the receiving object does not respond to—most notably in the case of distributed objects. You typically create an NSMethodSignature object using NSObject’s methodSignatureForSelector: instance method (on Mac OS X v10.5 and later you can also use signatureWithObjCTypes:). It is then used to create an NSInvocation object, which is passed as the argument to a forwardInvocation: message to send the invocation on to whatever other object can handle the message. In the default case, NSObject invokes doesNotRecognizeSelector:, which raises an exception. For distributed objects, the NSInvocation object is encoded using the information in the NSMethodSignature object and sent to the real object represented by the receiver of the message.
I want to go to there. Seriously though, how does one implement a pure virtual method in an "Apple" way? Do you use a Protocol with your base class and throw exceptions on those methods?
When you program in Objective-C you need to purge your mind of such things as virtual methods. You don't call methods on Objective-C objects, you send messages to them. Objects either respond to messages or they don't, but due to the dynamic binding, you can't tell this until run time.
Thus, you can declare a method on a base object and not not provide an implementation, no problem (except for the compiler warning), but you can't have the compiler flag up when you directly instantiate an object with such methods and it won't throw an error at runtime unless you actually send that message to the object.
The best way to create "virtual" base classes (in my opinion) is to declare the method and give it a stub implementation that throws a suitable exception.
In Objective-C, there is no pure virtual support as in C++.
A simulation would be that you declare a method in your interface but don't implement it in your .m file. Of course you'd get compiler warnings but IIRC you can turn those off. But you won't get warnings/errors if you don't overwrite them in the subclass, which you get in C++ (IIRC).
An alternative would be to implement them with just an NSAssert(NO, #"Subclasses need to overwrite this method"); body. Still, you'd only catch this at runtime, not compiletime.
Depending on what you're doing the delegate pattern may be more appropriate than a subclass, where the delegate is defined as id<YourDelegateProtocol>. The compiler will generate a warning if the required methods in the delegate protocol are not implemented.
Subclassing is generally avoided in Objective-C since objects cannot inherit from multiple superclasses but they can implement multiple protocols.
You should use the:
- (void)doesNotRecognizeSelector:(SEL)aSelector method.
As noted by Apple, here: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/cocoa/reference/Foundation/Classes/NSObject_Class/Reference/Reference.html
You have a few options, but you're on the right track.
ObjC doesn't support this directly, forcing subclasses to implement a protocol is the best way to check it at compilation.
'Secretly' implementing the method in the base class and asserting is what I do to confirm the subclasser has subclassed correctly at runtime. Some people have mixed feelings about assertions, or must leave them active, so that's not always a good solution.
You can also force subclasses use a specific class constructor and initialization sequence, then verify they have implemented everything required before returning an instance, in case compiler warnings don't cut it.
But ObjC is missing some lang features which allow clients to shoot themselves in the foot, or workaround what they wish so... you shouldn't get too stuck on enforcing it.
note: Exceptions are very uncommon (and a bit unsafe, too) in ObjC.
A virtual method is a method whose behavior can be overridden within an inheriting class by a function with the same signature (i.e same name with same number of params and type of params).
Example:-
#implementation BaseClass
-(void)viewDidLoad
{
[self virtualMethod:123];
}
-(void)virtualMethod:(int)param
{
//implement this method in subclass
}
#end
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#interface ChildClass:BaseClass
#end
#implementation ChildClass
-(void)virtualMethod:(int)param
{
NSLog(#"There is no keyword "Virtual" in Objective C.");
}
#end
Output:-
"There is no keyword "Virtual" in Objective C."
Does a method which I check for with respondsToSelector have to actually exist?
What if I only define it in the interface part and fail to implement it? I'm looking at a poor-man's virtual function in Objective-C.
First, yes the method actually has to exist for the check to succeed in the context you describe. respondsToSelector: will return NO if the method is not implemented.
More importantly, I think you mean a poor man's pure virtual function in Objective-C. All instance methods are "virtual" in Objective-C; since method lookup is done a run-time, the subclass' implementation will always be used, even from a pointer of the superclass type. In Objective-C, there is no such thing as a pure virtual base class. You can often achieve what you want by either using a #protocol to define an API or using a base class that provides an implementation that throws an NSNotImplementedException as its body. Subclasses would obviously have to override the implementation, making it effectively pure virtual.
Given that calling respondsToSelector: only makes sense when you don’t know whether a method exists, it’s not entirely clear what you mean.
If you mean, does some implementation of a method with the specified selector have to exist somewhere, the answer is no. Selectors merely represent names of methods. The #selector directive doesn’t reference any aspect of any method implementation.
respondsToSelector will return NO, since the selector isn't callable at run-time. The interface part only affects compilation.