I just resumed work on an old project and have been thinking about rewriting some parts of it.
My question relates to how to structure my program. I have been trying to follow the MVC paradigm. I'll start by explaining where things stand: the program manipulates 4 types of images: Bias, Darks, Flat Fields and Lights. I have a class called Image that can represent all of these. The Bias and Dark are subtracted from the Light and then the Light is divided by the Flat Field. Initially, I was going to use 2 classes for this, one called CalibrationImage and the other just Light. But the difference was only of one method which would be the dividing function I mentioned above. Otherwise, they are the same. So I decided against having two classes for this purpose.
The 2nd major class in the program concerns handling multiple Image objects -- this class is known as ImageStacker. As of right now, it holds Image objects in a mutable array. It can do various operations on this array, like stack all the images, calibrate them etc.
This class also acts as the datasource for the NSTableView object in the main window. I'm not thinking that instead of having a single mutable array, I should have 4 arrays each holding its designated for a type of image (like, an array for Lights, another for Darks etc.). Once the program begins its actual work, it will Darks, Flat Fields and Bias frames. It will then calibrate each object held in the Lights array and then stack them. I feel like this provides the program with logical progression. Its also a bit easy to visualize.
Is this a good program design? Does it follow MVC? As I see it, my view is NSTableView, controller is NSApplication and Model is ImageStacker. But then, Image feels like its not part of the MVC but I cant see how to write the program without it.
My 2-cents: MVC is a presentation design pattern. I will typically write my MVC apps with separate business and data layers apart from MVC portion. It is ok that Image is not apart of the MVC pattern, it would probably better fit into a group of classes that you would define as your business layer. There are a lot of good books, blogs and articles out there that talk about programming design patters so I will not reiterate what they have already done. Simply asking this question is a good start. I would suggest you follow through by looking at content that is already available.
Related
For quite a while I've been looking at objective c examples, watching the Stanford lectures, and playing around with some code to get a hang of creating an iOS app.
However there are a few things that I can't find a good answer on:
How do I properly separate my layers? I understand the MVC structure, and I saw some examples of creating Categories for models to implement business logic. Is that the proper way, by enriching models or should I create dedicated classes (e.g. to authenticate users, extract models from json, group orders)?
How smart should views be? Can I make a view that displays a Contact (by assigning the contact property) or should I create separate properties for all of the Contact fields or should the view request it's information via a delegate call?
I'm using a Storyboard in my application. On my screen I want to
have a navigation bar, and let's say a view that displays orders. On
other screens I want to reuse the order-view.
How can I re-use the order-view's ViewController and View in other ViewControllers?
If I have 4 screens with the same look-and-feel, do I have to simply copy them in the Storyboard? This seems like a pain to main, what if I want to change my background? Or add a button to all of the views? When I create a setup-wizard I don't want to define the look-and-feel for every screen separately.
Coming from a C# background I probably have to get into the objective-c mindset :)
Any help on this would be great.
1) ObjC-Categories will easily distort your understanding of the main problem you're facing. ObjC-Categories are completely unnecessary. You could always approach these extensions by subclassing, object composition, additional methods in the actual model, or some customization in the controller or view. So if you need to format data (e.g. which is present in the model) for display in a view -- that task would often land in the controller. As far as the examples you provide: You may opt for models in simple cases -- as well, any of the examples could merit dedicated class, if complex enough or if it would keep you from redundant implementation. Note that these may be accessory classes, which simply produce a model, or they may be composites of multiple concrete of abstract classes. Not everything needs to land squarely in the definition of M-or-V-or-C. You're free to use many design patterns with ObjC. Think of MVC as the patterns Cocoa typically uses -- you will need to know them, and you will need to know how to subclass and extend these types, but these patterns lose dominance as implementations move away from Cocoa's libraries (e.g. as complexity increases).
2) They can be smart. However, under MVC, you want to focus its implementation on the view/presentation aspect. A view which represents a collection of information could in fact perform some tasks which are typically reserved for the controller -- however, you would generally cede that the implementation were a dedicated MONContactView in doing so. If you go that route, you would generally do so for easy reusability or to achieve a simple interface. Displaying information about a Contact could be very complex - In simple scenarios, these tasks are often handled by the controller. Specifically, a MONAwesomeContactView is likely less complex (e.g. in SLOC) than MONAwesomeContactViewController (unless you have some very special drawing or layout to perform). It would be more common to set the controller's contact, and let the controller push the contact data to the views' fields. Again, in the case of a very specialized subclass -- a view could very well hold its own controllers in some cases.
3a) There's nothing wrong with creating multiple instances of a class.
3b) No need to copy. When duplication is smelled, I push the implementation to actual code -- the programs can apply the look and feel you desire, or add or manipulate the subviews as you desire. Of course, they will not be present in Xcode's NIB editor. There are of course alternate approaches, but this replication often makes me move the implementation to compiled code. Achieving a good balance of both is not so difficult (personally, I do most of my views programmatically, rather than using NIBs).
This is a pretty abstract question and it's not clear what oh mean by 'layers'. Yes, you should create your own classes where appropriate, but categories also give you the option of adding functionality to existing classes. If you can be more specific with the question it'll be easier to provide a better answer.
It's a judgement call. If you want to create a view class that knows how to display an instance of your Contact type, that's fine in my book. If that view knows where Contacts are stored in the app, though, that's not so good.
Remember that the things in a storyboard are objects, not classes. You don't want to try to re-use a view from one scene in another scene -- that'd mean sharing a view between scenes, which really won't work. If you want to use the same order-view in several places, that'd be a good candidate for creating a class. On the other hand, you can set up your storyboard so that several different scenes all transition to the same scene. If you want different parts of your app to modally display a scene that displays an order, for example, you can do that.
Still on assignment 4 of cs193p. - http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs193p/cgi-bin/drupal/system/files/assignments/Assignment%204_2.pdf
I've fully (ish) implemented the displaying photos from a list of places.
I'm adding the second tab of the application (required tasks 10 & 11) , which is to generate and display a list of the 20 most recent photos viewed in chronological order.
My question relates to the MVC pattern and setting/accesing NSUserdefaults.
Basically, anytime a photo is viewed, a property list stored in NSUserdefaults needs to be updated.
When selecting the "recent photos" tab, those values need to be read and displayed, so that the user can select a recently viewed photo, and then view it by selecting it.
I think I can implement this quite easily from a writing lines of code and it will probably work point of view.
I've seen this question: CS193P UITabBarController MVC Help on Assignment 4 which is kind of related, but doesn't really address my more theoretical question about the nature of the pattern.
My question is more about the MVC pattern.
In the lecture, when he demonstrated this with favourite graphs, from the previous calculator assignment he used a delegate to communicate between the favourites list view controller and the graphviewController (see diagram on slide 64 of lecture 9). http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs193p/cgi-bin/drupal/system/files/lectures/Lecture%209_1.pdf
I'm trying to work out if I need to do something similar to avoid breaking the MVC pattern, or if I can just use NSUserdefaults in both the viewWillLoad of my imageViewController to add a photo to the favourites and and then in my setter in RecentImagesViewController. I know NSUserdefaults is designed for persistence, it just feels a bit like I"m using a global variable.
I realise this question is worded in a way which makes it difficult to follow if you aren't familiar with the cs193p course - sorry.
Thanks for any advice!!
I don't think you have to transform something rather simple in something complex. You are storing the favorites using the NSUserDefaults and that's it. The place where you are using might not be the best (I am not saying the viewWillLoad is a bad place, I don't know your code), but I don't think you need a delegate to just update the NSUserDefaults. Botton line, don't forget the KISS principle. :)
Well, it probably feels like you're using a global variable because the user defaults themselves are a global concept. And they should be. You don't want different parts of the app operating on unsynchronized versions of user preferences.
But, if you use the term variable in the sense of an old C/C++ global static piece of data, then, no ... that's not what it is. NSUserDefaults was written by Apple to be a nice tidy class that encapsulates the user default data. The fact that you use [NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults] to access something like a singleton instance (not sure if that's how Apple chose to implement it) still doesn't mean it's a true global variable.
I agree with Jacky Boy that keeping it simple is best, but your question is really asking whether doing it the way you are is a violation of the MVC pattern (and adhering slavishly to a pattern is not always going to make your code the best). That depends on what you consider the model to be. I could justify saying that Apple built NSUserDefaults to be a model layer encapsulation of the preferences data. So, there you have your model layer, and your controllers should be able to use it.
Or do you feel the need to write the entire model layer yourself, in which case your model layer would just have a wrapper for NSUserDefaults. That would seem like overkill for most situations.
Here is maybe one situation that could warrant it. If you have a lot of preference data that seems logically related, but some of it is not appropriate for NSUserDefaults. Perhaps it's a lot of binary data, stored in a hierarchy of objects, and you want to persist it with Core Data. But, it still seems logically related to what you're keeping in NSUserDefaults. Maybe then, you decide to write your own model layer, that encapsulates both the Core Data and NSUserDefaults data. Your view controllers could then use that directly.
But, generally, I think iOS is well designed to have whoever needs to just use the standardUserDefaults object directly.
If I understand the question correctly, it sounds like the setting/loading should be occurring from the appropriate view controller. Creating a delegate (which may or may not be a singleton) that you can call from each of the different tab's view controllers will help prevent you from duplicating code.
I'm working on a multiview app for iPhone and currently have my views (VIEW) set up and their transitions (CONTROLLER?) working nicely. Now I'd like to add objects for the actual program data (MODEL).
My question is: How should I structure my data to adhere to the Model View Controller (MVC) design pattern? I know I should create separate classes to implement my data structures and that my controller classes can pass messages to them from the view, but are there any other organizational considerations I should examine? Especially those particular to Cocoa Touch, Xcode, or iOS?
Other particulars: Playback of pre-recorded and perhaps user-generated audio will also be essential. I know these are model elements, but how exactly they relate to the "V" and the "C" I'm still a bit fuzzy on. I suppose when a user action requires audio playback, the CONTROLLER should pass a message to the MODEL to ready the appropriate sounds, but where exactly should regulation of the playback live? In a "PlayerController" separate from the ViewController I imagine?
Many thanks and pardon my MVC noobery.
Caleb gives a good introduction and overview of how to think about the problem. In your particular case, here are some of the pieces you would might have given your description:
Clip (M) - Responsible for holding the actual audio data. It would know how to interpret the data and given information about it, but it wouldn't actually play anything.
Player (V) - Actually plays a clip on the speakers. Yes, that's a kind of view in MVC. Audio is just another kind of presentation. That said, you'd never call it "PlayerView" because that would suggest it were a subclass of UIView.
PlayerView (V) - A screen representation of the Player. Knows nothing about Clips.
ClipManager (C) - An object that would keep track of all the clips in the system and manage fetching them from the network, adding and removing them to caches, etc.
PlayerViewController (C) - Retrieves a Clip from the ClipManager, and coordinates a Player and a PlayerView to display and play it, as well as any other UI elements (like a "back button" or the like).
This is just an example of how you might break it down for some theoretical audio player app. There are many correct MVC ways to do it, but this is one way to think about it.
Lord John Worfin (and, I'm sure, someone before him) said: "Character is what you are in the dark." Well, a model is what an application is when nobody is looking -- it's the data and logic that defines how the app behaves regardless of how it's presented on screen.
Imagine that you decide to add a command-line interface to your application. You'd still want to use the same structures for managing your data, and your logic for sorting, sifting, and calculating based on the data should still be the same too. The code in your app that remains important/useful no matter how the user sees or interacts with the app is the model.
A model can be very simple and made up entirely of standard objects. iOS apps are often more about retrieving, storing, and displaying data than they are about crunching numbers, so it's not unusual to have a model that's just an array of dictionaries, or a hierarchy of dictionaries that's several levels deep. If you look at Core Data's NSManagedObject class, it's similar in many respects to NSMutableDictionary. So, don't be afraid to use standard objects if they're appropriate.
That said, you can certainly also create your own model objects, and that's useful if you have certain requirements that you want to enforce on your data, or if you want to be able to derive information from the data.
Beginners often wonder how each controller gets access to the model. Some folks advocate using the singleton pattern for this, mainly because it provides a single, shared, globally accessible object. I don't recommend this. Instead, have some high-level object in your app such as the app delegate create/load the model (which will likely be a graph of many individual objects) and give a pointer to the model to any view controllers that need it. If those controllers in turn create other view controllers, they can again provide a pointer to the model (or part of it) to their child controllers.
I hope that helps.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
You are writing a Tetris program in Java. How would you set up your class design with regards to the following aspects?
Piece class: Have one Piece class, with an internal array which determines the shape of the piece, versus having seven Piece classes, one for each of the pieces. They are all subclasses of one generic Piece class.
Piece class representation: Have an array of 4 instances of Block, representing one square of a piece, and each Block contains its location on the Board (in graphical coordinates) vs. having a 4x4 array where null means there is no block there, and location is determined by the shape of the array.
Location: Each Block in the Piece array or on the Board array stores its location vs. the Piece and the Board know the locations of the Blocks that comprise them.
Generating a Piece: Have a static method of the Piece class getRandomPiece, or have a PieceFactory which you make one instance of that has the genRandomPiece method on the instance.
Manipulating the current piece: Use the Proxy pattern, so that everything that needs access to it just uses the proxy, or have a getCurrentPiece method on the Board class and call that any time you want to do something with the current piece.
This is not homework. I'm just at odds with what the intro CS course teaches at my college and I want to see what people in general believe. What would be thought of as "good" OOP design? Ignore the fact that it's for an intro course - how would you do it?
Firstly, I wouldn't subclass the Piece class because it's unnecessary. The Piece class should be capable of describing any shape without using inheritance. IMHO, this isn't what inheritance was made for and it just complicates things.
Secondly, I wouldn't store the x/y coordinates in the Block objects because it allows two blocks to exist in the same place. The Piece classes would keep a grid (i.e. 2D array) holding the block objects. The x/y coordinates would be the indexes of the 2D array.
As for the static method vs factory object for getting a random piece, I'd go with the factory object for the simple fact that the factory object can be mocked for testing.
I would treat the board as one large Piece object. The Board class would keep the large Piece object as a member variable, and might keep other Piece objects such as the current piece being played, and the next piece to be played. This is done using composition to avoid inheritance.
All these classes and stuff... it might be making the problem way too abstract for what it really is. Many different ways to represent tetris pieces (stackoverflow.com/questions/233850/…) and many different ways to manipulate them. If it's for an intro course I wouldn't worry about OOP. Just my opinion, not a real answer to your question.
Having said that, one could suffice with simply a Board and Piece class.
Board class: Encapsulates a simple 2d array of rectangles. Properties like currentpiece, nextpiece. Routines like draw(), fullrows(), drop(), etc.. which manipulate the current piece and the filled in board squares.
Piece class: Encapsulates an array of unsigned 16 bit numbers encoding the pieces in their various rotations. You would track color, current location, and rotation. Perhaps one routine, rotate() would be necessary.
The rest, would be, depending on the environment, handling keyboard events etc...
I've found that placing too much emphasis on design tends to make people forget that what they really need to do is to get something running. I'm not saying don't design, I'm saying that more often than not, there is more value in getting something going, giving you traction and motivation to keep going.
I would say, to the class, you have X hours to make a design for a tetris game. Then they would need to turn in that design. Then I would say, you have X days, to get something running based on the design you turned in or even not based on the design.
One Piece interface, with seven classes that implement that interface for the individual pieces (which would also enable the OOP course to discuss interfaces) (EDIT: One Piece class. See comments)
I would have a BlockGrid class that can be used for any map of blocks - both the board, and the individual pieces. BlockGrid should have methods to detect intersections - for example, boolean intersects(Block block2, Point location) - as well as to rotate a grid (interesting discussion point for the course: If the Board doesn't need to rotate, should a rotate() method be in BlockGrid?). For a Piece, BlockGrid would represent be a 4x4 grid.
I would create a PieceFactory with a method getRandomShape() to get an instance of one of the seven shapes
For manipulating the piece, I'd get into a Model-View-Controller architecture. The Model is the Piece. The Controller is perhaps a PieceController, and would also allow or disallow legal/illegal moves. The thing that would show the Piece on the screen is a PieceView (hrm, or is it a BlockGridView that can show Piece.getBlockGrid()? Another discussion point!)
There are multiple legitimate ways to architect this. It would benefit the course to have discussions on the pro's and con's of different OOP principles applied to the problem. In fact, it might be interesting to compare and contrast this with a non-OOP implementation that just uses arrays to represent the board and pieces.
EDIT: Claudiu helped me realize that the BlockGrid would sufficiently differentiate pieces, so there is no need for a Piece interface with multiple subclasses; rather, an instance of a Piece class could differ from other instances based on its BlockGrid.
Piece class: I think that a single class for all the pieces is sufficient. The class functions shoudl be general enough to work for any piece, so there is no need to subclass.
Piece Class Representation: I believe that a 4x4 array is probably a better way as you will then find it much easier to rotate the piece.
Location: Location should definitely be stored by the board, not the piece as otherwise you would have to go through the entire set of blocks to ensure that no two blocks are in the same position.
Generating a Piece: Honestly for this one I do not feel that it will make too much of a difference. Having said that, I would prefer a static function as there is really not so much to this function that it warrants its own class.
Manipulating the Current Piece: I would just implement a getCurrent function as I feel that there is no need to overcomplicate the problem by adding in an extra class to serve as a proxy.
This is how I would do it, but there are many different ways, and at the end of the day, the thing to focus on is simply getting the program running.
As my Cocoa skills gradually improve I'm trying not to abuse the MVC as I did early on when I'd find myself backed into a hole built by my previous assumptions. I don't have anyone here to bounce this off of so hoping one of you can help...
I have a custom Model class that has numerous & varied properties (NSString, NSDate, NSNumber, etc.). I have a need to serialize the properties for transmission. Occasionally as this data is being processed for serialization a questions may come up that the user will need to respond to (UIAlertView, etc.)
Without bogging down in too many more specifics where does this code belong?
Part of me says Model because it's about persistence of data - in a way.
Part of me says View because it's another interpretation of the core data (no pun intended) contained within the model. And the user will have to interact with dialogs on occasion as data is processed
Part of me says Controller because it's managing the transformation of data between model & view.
Is it a combination of all three? If so how would communication be handled between classes as the data is being processed? NSNotifications? Direct method calls?
This may be something that you'd want to use the Visitor pattern for -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern -- because you might eventually want to use different sorts of serialization for different things and you can have different visitor classes rather than a lot of special cases in the model code.
Here's a discussion of the Visitor pattern in objective-c/cocoa: http://www.cocoadev.com/index.pl?VisitorPattern
Here's an (old!!!) article from Dr. Dobbs about the visitor pattern in objective-c: http://www.drdobbs.com/184410252
The reason that the problem you're working on doesn't fit well into the MVC paradigm is that the serialization that you're doing is like a view on a stream-based rendering surface and it is displayed. Sometimes, this can be done really smoothly in the model but sometimes it's more complex and you need to look at your case to figure out which one it is.
Frequently, the transmission/web service (or whatever) code you're using will have its own handler for this data, for example ObjectiveResource adds a serialization and deserialization handler that works as an extension to NSObject that enables it to do a lot of this stuff transparently, and you might look into that code (particularly the ObjectiveSupport part) if you're trying to do this more generically.
Typically almost all application specific code belongs in the controller. The controller should interact and observe (via notification) the model and update the view as appropriate.
If you are doing model processing such that it is something that might be re-used in another app with the same model, then that processing could be in the model.
Views can be laid out in Interface Builder or created in code and/or be subclassed for custom drawing, but they should not have application logic and would not interact directly with the model.
I would suggest putting the serialising code in the model. If the process fails it can report that to whatever's listening to it (the view / controller) which can then present the UIAlertView, correct the problem and re-submit for another attempt.
I'd say in the model.
The call to serialize the data will be done by the controller. If the data cannot be serialized then the model should return an error which the controller then has to handle.