I have a bit of code that I use to draw a border around a NSTextField when mousing over it, and while editing it, as well as to have it resize vertically when the user is typing. I want to use this code on an NSTokenFieldCell now. I've gotten it to work fine, and the implementation is identical for both NSTextField and NSTokenFieldCell. I was wondering if there was some way I could avoid the need to duplicate my code between the two class types. I believe NSTokenFieldCell is actually a subclass of NSTextField.
I ended up pulling all my custom functionality out into a separate NSObject class, and then gave both my NSTextField and NSTokenField classes an instance of it, then I just proxied all of the custom logic into my "logic" object using - (id)forwardingTargetForSelector:(SEL)aSelector
It's not perfect as I still need to manually proxy over the methods that I overrode such as drawRect in each class, but I'd say it falls into the "good enough" category now. I'm interested to see if anyone has a better solution I can try.
Related
I have a custom graphic that is to be displayed to a user when an event occurs. The graphic needs to be displayed on whichever viewController is currently being displayed to the user.
The way i have programmed it so far is by adding to ALL viewcontrtollers:
1) the .h file for the custom graphic class
2) an observer for the NSNotification event that is raised
3) the method which actually draws the graphic.
This doesnt feel like a very efficient way of doing things and i was wondering if anyone has a better way of doing things?
To me it sounds like you've done it in a fairly sane way. The only other way I can think is to just add the graphic to the window which would then overlay on the current view controller and you'd only need to have one object listening for the notification. You could use the app delegate for instance. But then you would have to worry about rotation of the screen yourself when adding the graphic over the top.
What you are doing is correct .. The only thing you can improve is to mauve the drawing graphics part to the custom graphic class.. (if you are not already doing so...
just Make a UIViewController variable as a member variable to the graphics class..and then set it up to the current view displaying..after you receive the notifications..and the class will itself draw the code based on the ViewController you set it up to
The reason it doesn't feel efficient is that you're duplicating a lot of code. That's more work at the outset, and it creates a maintenance headache. You should be taking advantage of the inheritance that's built into object oriented languages, including Objective-C.
If you want all your view controllers to share some behavior, then implement that behavior in a common superclass. Derive all your other view controllers from that superclass, and they'll all automatically get the desired behavior. Your superclass's initializer can take care of registering the view controller for the notification(s) that you care about, and -dealloc can unregister it. This way, you don't have to clutter up each view controller with the same repeated code, and if you want to change the code you only have to do it in one place.
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.
So, I've been making iOS apps since the first iPod touch came out, but something has always flabbergasted me; why is the list of new Cocoa Touch classes restricted to subclasses of NSObject, UIView, and UITableView? I routinely make subclasses of UIImageView and UIViewController.
Am I "Doing It Wrong™?" Have I totally misunderstood MVC to the point where I make Controller classes where I shouldn't? What is the philosophical reasoning for requiring classes to never descend from a basic controller class?
What gives you the idea that you aren't supposed to subclass UIViewController? This is directly from the documentation for UIViewController:
In a typical iPhone application, there is usually at least one custom subclass of UIViewController and more often there are several.
The C of MVC is supposed to be the least re-usable part it's whole job is to mediate between M & V. If you find something that is in the C section of your code that you have to copy and paste into several subclasses of a given object or into several projects that code should be moved elsewhere.
If you are just basing this off the fact that there is not a nice popup menu item that says UIViewController, don't worry about it Apple has just not bothered to write a template file for that class yet.
Uhm... maybe it's just me, but I see a UIViewController subclass template when I choose new File.
UIViewController template http://files.me.com/aclark78/obnp83
Like #theMikeSwan says, there simply aren't GUI templates for this when you create a new class in Xcode GUI. But you can always create a new subclass whose parent is initially NSObject. After that, you just go to your code and change the parent class to whatever you like.
So... no, you are not doing it wrong in the sense that you rightly understand that often you want to subclass UIViewController; but yes, you are doing it wrong since you assume you shouldn't do this only because Xcode GUI does not support it :)
I'm writing a program for iPhone that will first let the user take a photo, then will dynamically retrieve a colour of the place where the user taps on the image, and draw a rectangle of that colour. I have two relevant classes for this: AppViewController and AppView. The former contains all the UI elements and IBActions, the latter the position of last tap, the touches-handling methods and the drawRect (and a static method to get colour data at a given coords of an image).
What I wanted to do is to put the touch-handling (calling drawRect in touchesMoved/Ended) and the drawRect in the AppViewController. That doesn't work, since that class doesn't inherit from UIView, but from UIViewController. What's the correct way to do that?
Another way to phrase that: How to constantly change something (well, constantly as long as the user is swiping across the screen) in a class that doesn't support touch-detection methods?
(This probably doesn't explain it well. Please ask clarifying questions).
I think the delegate pattern might be helpful to you in this situation. You could call your delegate's shouldUpdateRectangle selector in touchesMoved/Ended.
There is not really a correct way to move the view's behaviors into a view controller, since that is not the way the classes are meant to be used. You should probably look at what's driving you to try to subvert the framework's design this way, because that is likely going to be easier to fix.
It's not uncommon, though, for a view to call out to a supporting class for help in this stuff. You could certainly have your view's drawRect: call methods in the view controller, though I would be careful about mixing their concerns too much, because it could get hard to figure out who's responsible for what.
The question is not only regarding the headline, but more of a "how will I achieve this, without trying to force a Java/Flash design into an Objective C (iPhone)program".
I have 6 views that extends UIView, these views all have different behavior but share certain methods, like -(void) update and -(void) changeState:(NSInteger)state.
A viewController, whose job is it to update, instantiate and display these views has a switch block to do this. So switch(4) {...} instantiates UIView4, but as I need a reference to the currently instantiated view (to do update and changeState:), I have a UIView property on my ViewController called self.currentView. As the instantiated UIView4 extends UIView I can easily go [self.currentView addSubview:UIView4instance] and then release the UIView4instance.
Now how will I call the [UIView4instance update] method on the view? or the [UIView5instance changeState] etc. etc.
Since I added it to self.currentView which is of type UIView it no longer has any reason to believe it has an update or changeState: method, meaning I cannot iterate the views and send them these messages.
This approach brings on a ton of other problems, I would need to test and typeCast my views each time I needed to do any operations on them.
If I were doing something like this Composite Pattern approach in, say, Java. I would either write an interface that all the views (UIView1, UIview2.... UIViewN) would implement. Or maybe an abstract class that all the views inherited the changeState: and update methods from.
This way I could have self.currentView just know that I'm adding objects to your view and they all conform to these methods.
The two solutions I can think of, with my very small Objective-C experience is:
doing it with delegation or categories, but this seems overkill in every way :/
I guess I could also extend UIView and then extend my class extending UIView again, but there is probably a reason Objective-C does not directly support abstract classes...
Hope someone could point me in the right direction regarding these issues.
Thanks:)
Yes it is equal. You can declare a protocol
#protocol MyViewProtocol
-(void)update;
-(void)changeState:(NSInteger)state;
#end
and declare your subclasses like
#interface MyUIView3 : UIView<MyViewProtocol> {
....
}
....
#end
Then, the declaration
UIView<MyViewProtocol>* view=[[MyUIView3 alloc] init];
means that view is an instance (of a subclass of) UIView which also conforms to MyViewProtocol.
Just the way it works in Java, I think. See the apple doc on protocols.
One thing to be aware of is that while defining a protocol like this is a convenience and certainly makes things clearer, it is by no means necessary to make your solution work. Objective-C binds methods at runtime, and so all you really need to do is to make sure all your view classes implement the methods you care about and call them.
You will get a complier warning for this, but it will work.
Now, in general it's probably preferable to define a protocol like this and it's what I generally do. But it's also important to remember that runtime binding is there and can be incredibly powerful.