I'm currently making a client-client approach on some simulation with objective-c with two computers (mac1 and mac2).
I have a class Client, and every computer has a instance of the "Client" on it (client1,client2). I expect that both clients will be synchronized: they will both be equal apart from memory locations.
When a user presses a key on mac1, I want both client1 and client2 to receive a given method from class Client (so that they are synchronized, i.e. they are the same apart from it's memory location on each mac).
To this approach, my current idea is to make 2 methods:
- (void) sendSelector:(Client*)toClient,...;
- (void) receiveSelector:(Client*)fromClient,...;
sendSelector: uses NSStringFromSelector() to transform the method to a NSString, and send it over the network (let's not worry about sending strings over net now).
On the other hand, receiveSelector: uses NSSelectorFromString() to transform a NSString back to a selector.
My first question/issue is: to what extent is this approach "standard" on networking with objective-c?
My second question:
And the method's arguments? Is there any way of "packing" a given class instance and send it over the network? I understand the pointer's problem when packing, but every instance on my program as an unique identity, so that should be no problem since both clients will know how to retrieve the object from its identity.
Thanks for your help
Let me address your second question first:
And the method's arguments? Is there any way of "packing" a given
class instance and send it over the network?
Many Cocoa classes implement/adopt the NSCoding #protocol. This means they support some default implementation for serializing to a byte stream, which you could then send over the network. You would be well advised to use the NSCoding approach unless it's fundamentally not suited to your needs for some reason. (i.e. use the highest level of abstraction that gets the job done)
Now for the more philosophical side of your first question; I'll rephrase your question as "is it a good approach to use serialized method invocations as a means of communication between two clients over a network?"
First, you should know that Objective-C has a not-often-used-any-more, but reasonably complete, implementation for handling remote invocations between machines with a high level of abstraction. It was called Distributed Objects. Apple appears to be shoving it under the rug to some degree (with good reason -- keep reading), but I was able to find an old cached copy of the Distributed Objects Programming Topics guide. You may find it informative. AFAIK, all the underpinnings of Distributed Objects still ship in the Objective-C runtime/frameworks, so if you wanted to use it, if only to prototype, you probably could.
I can't speculate as to the exact reasons that you can't seem to find this document on developer.apple.com these days, but I think it's fair to say that, in general, you don't want to be using a remote invocation approach like this in production, or over insecure network channels (for instance: over the Internet.) It's a huge potential attack vector. Just think of it: If I can modify, or spoof, your network messages, I can induce your client application to call arbitrary selectors with arbitrary arguments. It's not hard to see how this could go very wrong.
At a high level, let me recommend coming up with some sort of protocol for your application, with some arbitrary wire format (another person mentioned JSON -- It's got a lot of support these days -- but using NSCoding will probably bootstrap you the quickest), and when your client receives such a message, it should read the message as data and make a decision about what action to take, without actually deriving at runtime what is, in effect, code from the message itself.
From a "getting things done" perspective, I like to share a maxim I learned a while ago: "Make it work; Make it work right; Make it work fast. In that order."
For prototyping, maybe you don't care about security. Maybe when you're just trying to "make it work" you use Distributed Objects, or maybe you roll your own remote invocation protocol, as it appears you've been thinking of doing. Just remember: you really need to "make it work right" before releasing it into the wild, or those decisions you made for prototyping expedience could cost you dearly. The best approach here will be to create a class or group of classes that abstracts away the network protocol and wire format from the rest of your code, so you can swap out networking implementations later without having to touch all your code.
One more suggestion: I read in your initial question a desire to 'keep an object (or perhaps an object graph) in sync across multiple clients.' This is a complex topic, but you may wish to employ a "Command Pattern" (see the Gang of Four book, or any number of other treatments in the wild.) Taking such an approach may also inherently bring structure to your networking protocol. In other words, once you've broken down all your model mutation operations into "commands" maybe your protocol is as simple as serializing those commands using NSCoding and shipping them over the wire to the other client and executing them again there.
Hopefully this helps, or at least gives you some starting points and things to consider.
These days it would seem that the most standard way is to package everything up on JSON.
Related
I have a question regarding the "Use Case Output Port" in Uncle Bob´s Clean Architecture.
In the image, Uncle Bob describes the port as an interface. I am wondering if it has to be that way or if the invoked Use Case Interactor could also return a "simple" value. In either case the Application and Business Rules Layer would define its interface that the Interface Adapters Layer has to use. So I think for simple invocations just returning a value would not violate the architectural idea.
Is that true?
Additionally, I think this Output Port Interface implemented by the presenter should work like the Observer pattern. The presenter simply observes the interactor for relevant "events". In the case of .NET where events are first-class citizens, I think using one of these is the same idea.
Are these thoughts compatible with the ideas behind Clean Architecture?
Howzit OP. I see your question is still unanswered after all these years and I hope we can reason about this and provide some clarity. I also hope I am understanding your question correctly. So with that in mind, here is how I see the solution:
The short answer is, a use case interactor should be able to return a simple value (by which I assume string, int, bool etc) without breaking any architectural rules.
If we go over the onion architecture, which is very similar to the clean architecture, the idea is to encapsulate the core business logic in the center of the architecture, the domain. The corresponding concept in the clean architecture is the entities and the use cases on top of it. We do this because we want to dictate our understanding of the business in a consistent way when we write our business rules.
The interface adapters allow us to convert the outside world to our understanding. What we want is a contract in our domain (use cases or entities) that ensures we will get what we need from the outside world, without knowing any implementation details. We also don't care what the outside world calls it, we convert their understanding to ours.
A common way to do this, is to define the interface in the domain to establish a contract that says, we expect to give "x", and you must then tell us what "y" is. The implementation can then sit outside the domain.
Now to get to the core of your question. Let's assume that the core of our application is to track some complicated process with various stages. During one of these stages, we need to send data to a couple of external parties and we want to keep a reference of some sort for auditing purposes. In such a case our interface may sit in the domain and state we send our complicated object to some party, and we expect a string reference back. We can then use this string reference and fire some domain event etc. The implementation can sit completely outside of the domain and call external APIs and do it's thing, but our core domain is unaffected. Hence returning a simple value has no impact on the architecture. The reverse of the above scenario may also hold true. We can say that we have a reference id of some sort, and the outside world needs to return us our understanding of some object.
For the second part of your question. I would imagine it depends on the use case itself. If you present some idea out there and need to constantly react to it, domain events will get involved and you will have a structure very similar to the observer pattern. .NET encapsulates events very nicely and fits very well with clean architecture and Domain driven design.
Please let me know if the above makes sense or if I can clarify it in any way.
In one of mine project I have a quite complex data model.
I need a way to ensure that no retain cycle are created by me or by others colleagues and i want to use an automated approach.
There is a way to ensure that all the "dealloc" method are called?
You can try Static Analyzer (from menu : Product - Analyze or shorcut Shift+CMD+B). Or you create Unit Tests https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/ToolsLanguages/Conceptual/Xcode_Overview/UnitTestYourApp/UnitTestYourApp.html and check objects retainCount.
Leak instrument may help too : http://www.raywenderlich.com/2696/instruments-tutorial-for-ios-how-to-debug-memory-leaks , https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/developertools/conceptual/instrumentsuserguide/MemoryManagementforYouriOSApp/MemoryManagementforYouriOSApp.html
There is no way you can test such things automatically. Things you can do:
Have good coding standards and program architecture
Good architecture will prevent many retain cycles.
Be careful when using self in blocks (know when to use __weak id self).
Run Instruments and inspect leaks while your application is running
If you wish to do this you need to design & program it yourself.
For example you could:
Define "connection" as a strong reference to an instance of a class in your data model.
Define a protocol which provides either a "connected to" count method and one to return a connection by index or provides a connections iterator.
Have each class in your data model implement this protocol.
Now given a reference to your data model these protocol methods provide you with the "graph" (the objects are the nodes, the connections the arcs). Implement a cycle checking algorithm.
Now run the test at appropriate places during development & testing to check for accidental introduction of cycles.
You may be able to implement this without a protocol by using the facilities of the runtime, you can certainly given an arbitrary instance discover its ivars and whether an ivar is an object reference. You might get stuck though determining whether the ivar is strong or weak. While much more general this may be harder to implement, but once done...
HTH
I have a Component which has API exposed with some 10 functionality in all. I can think of two ways to achieve it:
Give out all these functionality as separate functions.
Expose only one function which takes an XML as input. Based on request_Type specified and the parameters passed in the XML, I internally call one of the respective functions.
Q1. Will the second design be more loosely coupled than the first ?
I always read about how I should try my components to be loosely coupled, should I really go to this extent to achieve lose coupling ?
Q2. Which one of these would be a better design in terms of OOP and why?
Edit:
If I am exposing this API over D-Bus for others to use, will type checking still be a consideration to compare the two approaches? From what I understand type checking is done at compile time, but in case when this function is exposed over some IPC, issue of type checking comes into picture ?
The two alternatives you propose do not differ in the (obviously quite large) number of "functions" you want to offer from your API. However, the second seems to have many disadvantages because you are loosing any strong type checking, it will become much harder to document the functionality etc. (The only advantage I see is that you don't need to change your API if you add functionality. But at the disadvantage that users will not be able to figure out API changes like deleted functions until run-time.)
What is more related with this question is the Single Responsiblity Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principle). As you are talking about OOP, you should not expose your tens of functions within one class but split them among different classes, each with a single responsibility. Defining good "responsibilities" and roles requires some practice, but following some basic guidelines will help you to get started quickly. See Are there any rules for OOP? for a good starting point.
Reply to the question edit
I haven't used D-Bus, so this might be totally wrong. But from a quick look at the tutorial I read
Each object supports one or more interfaces. Think of an interface as
a named group of methods and signals, just as it is in GLib or Qt or
Java. Interfaces define the type of an object instance.
DBus identifies interfaces with a simple namespaced string, something
like org.freedesktop.Introspectable. Most bindings will map these
interface names directly to the appropriate programming language
construct, for example to Java interfaces or C++ pure virtual classes.
As far as I understand, D-Bus has the concept of differnt objects which provide interfaces consisting of several methods. This means (to me) that my answer above still applies. The "D-Bus native" way of specifying your API would mean to exhibit interfaces and I don't see any reason why good OOP design guidelines shouldn't be valid, here. As D-Bus seems to map these even to native language constructs, this is even more likely.
Of course, nobody keeps you from just building your own API description language in XML. However, things like are some kind of abuse of underlying techniques. You should have good reasons for doing such things.
I've been working on a small project using C++ (although this question might be considered language-agnostic) and I'm trying to write my program so that it is as efficient and encapsulated as possible. I'm a self-taught and inexperienced programmer but I'm trying to teach myself good habits when it comes to using interfaces and OOP practices. I'm mainly interested in the typical 'best' practices when it comes to accessing the methods of an object that is acting as a subsystem for another class.
First, let me explain what I mean:
An instance of ClassGame wants to render out a 2d sprite image using the private ClassRenderer subsystem of ClassEngine. ClassGame only has access to the interface of ClassEngine, and ClassRenderer is supposed to be a subsystem of ClassEngine (behind a layer of abstraction).
My question is based on the way that the ClassGame object can indirectly make use of ClassRenderer's functionality while still remaining fast and behind a layer of abstraction. From what I've seen in lessons and other people's code examples, there seems to be two basic ways of doing this:
The first method that I learned via a series of online lectures on OOP design was to have one class delegate tasks to it's private member objects internally. [ In this example, ClassGame would call a method that belongs to ClassEngine, and ClassEngine would 'secretly' pass that request on to it's ClassRenderer subsystem by calling one of its methods. ] Kind of a 'daisy chain' of function calls. This makes sense to me, but it seems like it may be slower than some alternative options.
Another way that I've seen in other people's code is have an accessor method that returns a reference or pointer to the location of a particular subsystem. [ So, ClassGame would call a simple method in ClassEngine that would return a reference/pointer to the object that makes up its ClassRenderer subsystem ]. This route seems convenient to me, but it also seems to eliminate the point of having a private member act as a sub-component of a bigger class. Of course, this also means writing much fewer 'mindless' functions that simply pass a particular task on, due to the fact that you can simply write one getter function for each independent subsystem.
Considering the various important aspects of OO design (abstraction, encapsulation, modularity, usability, extensibility, etc.) while also considering speed and performance, is it better to use the first or the second type of method for delegating tasks to a sub-component?
The book Design Patterns Explained discusses a very similar problem in its chapter about the Bridge Pattern. Apparently this chapter is freely available online.
I would recommend you to read it :)
I think your type-1 approach resembles the OOP bridge pattern the most.
Type-2, returning handles to internal data is something that should generally be avoided.
There are many ways to do what you want, and it really depends on the context (for example, how big the project is, how much you expect to reuse from it in other projects etc.)
You have three classes: Game, Engine and Renderer. Both of your solutions make the Game commit to the Engine's interface. The second solution also makes the Game commit to the Renderer's interface. Clearly, the more interfaces you use, the more you have to change if the interfaces change.
How about a third option: The Game knows what it needs in terms of rendering, so you can create an abstract class that describes those requirements. That would be the only interface that the Game commits to. Let's call this interface AbstractGameRenderer.
To tie this into the rest of the system, again there are many ways. One option would be:
1. Implement this abstract interface using your existing Renderer class. So we have a class GameRenderer that uses Renderer and implements the AbstractGameRenderer interface.
2. The Engine creates both the Game object and the GameRenderer object.
3. The Engine passes the GameRenderer object to the Game object (using a pointer to AbstractGameRenderer).
The result: The Game can use a renderer that does what it wants. It doesn't know where it comes from, how it renders, who owns it - nothing. The GameRenderer is a specific implementation, but other implementations (using other renderers) could be written later. The Engine "knows everything" (but that may be acceptable).
Later, you want to take your Game's logic and use it as a mini-game in another game. All you need to do is create the appropriate GameRenderer (implementing AbstractGameRenderer) and pass it to the Game object. The Game object does not care that it's a different game, a different Engine and a different Renderer - it doesn't even know.
The point is that there are many solutions to design problems. This suggestion may not be appropriate or acceptable, or maybe it's exactly what you need. The principles I try to follow are:
1. Try not to commit to interfaces you can't control (you'll have to change if they change)
2. Try to prevent now the pain that will come later
In my example, the assumption is that it's less painful to change GameRenderer if Renderer changes, than it is to change a large component such as Game. But it's better to stick to principles (and minimise pain) rather than follow patterns blindly.
I frequently find myself writing "utility" classes that can be re-used throughout my projects.
For example, suppose I have an "Address Book" view. I might want to use my address book to select who gets sent an email, or maybe who gets added to a meeting request.
I'd develop this view controller so it can be used by both the email controller, and the meetings controller, with some sort of callback mechanism to let the caller know the user either finished selecting someone from the address book, or they canceled.
It seems there are basically four (reasonable) approaches one might take in this scenario;
Create an "AddressBookDelegate" protocol and a corresponding delegate property on the AddressBookController. Then use the messages defined in the protocol to communicate the result (similar to UIActionSheetDelegate).
Create an "informal" "AddressBookDelegate" protocol and a corresponding delegate property on the AddressBookController, but the type of the delegate property will be "id", and will check at runtime with "respondsToSelector:" to see if the delegate implements the methods we require (seems like most of the framework stuff has started going this way).
Pass the AddressBookController an id that represents a delegate, as well as two SELs which specify the methods to call when the user selects a user or cancels the request. The benefit I see with this is; suppose one controller supports BOTH sending emails AND setting up meetings (I know in this example that seems like bad design... but one can imagine a more generic situation where this would seem perfectly reasonable for a utility class) - In this case you could pass the AddressBookController different SELs depending on whether you're adding users to an email, or adding users to a meeting... a huge improvement over an iVar to indicate the controller's "state".
Pass the AddressBookController two blocks; one to run when the user selects someone from the address book, and one to run if the user cancels the request.
The blocks have been so tremendously useful to me, and SO much more elegant, I'm finding myself almost confused over when to NOT use them.
I'm hoping more experienced members of the StackOverflow community than I can help out with their thoughts on this topic.
The 'traditional' way to do this is with a protocol. Informal ones were used before #protocol was added to the language, but that was before my time and for at least the last few years informal protocols have been discouraged, especially given the #optional specifier. As for a 'delegate' which passes two SELs, this just seems more ugly than declaring a formal protocol, and generally doesn't seem right to me. Blocks are very new (esp. on iOS), as these things go, and while we have yet to see the tremendous volume of documentation/blogs on the best tried and true style, I like the idea, and this seems to be one of the things blocks are best for: neat new control flow structures.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that each of these methods vary in age, with none being better than the last except for style, which obviously counts for an awful lot, and is ultimately why each of these things was created. Basically, go with the newest thing you feel comfortable with, which should be either blocks or a formal protocol, and that your confusion is most likely coming from reading conflicting sources because they were written at different times, but with time in perspective, it is clear to see which supersedes the others.
[Controller askForSelection:^(id selection){
//blah blah blah
} canceled:^{
//blah blah blah
}];
is probably a hell of a lot more concise than defining two extra methods, and a protocol for them (formally or otherwise) or passing the SELs and storing them in ivars, etc.
I would just go with your first approach. It's a tried and true pattern in Cocoa, and seems to fit very well into what you're doing.
A few comments on the other approaches:
Informal protocol - I don't really see any advantage of doing this over a formal protocol. Every since formal protocols gained #optional methods, the utility of informal protocols is much less.
Passing SELs - I don't think this is an established pattern in Cocoa. I personally wouldn't consider it as better than the delegate approach, but if it fits your thinking better, then go for it. You're not really getting rid of state; you're just transforming into something else. Personally, I'd prefer to have an ivar that I can set and check without having to use selector types.
Passing blocks - This is sort of a new-age approach, and it has some merit. I think you need to be careful though because, in my opinion, it doesn't scale really well. For example, if NSTableView's delegate and data source methods were all blocks, I would personally find that somewhat annoying. Imagine if you wanted to set 10 different blocks, your -awakeFromNib (or whatever) method would be pretty big. Individual methods seem more appropriate in this case. However, if you're sure that you're never going to go beyond, say, two methods, then the block approach seems more reasonable.