This recent question got me thinking about category conflicts, specifically involving the UIViewControllerRotation category within UIViewController.h. This category includes the shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation:. If one wanted to override this method (via a category) and make it run the same code for every UIViewController (as the linked post is trying to accomplish) then they'd have two categories with the same method - something that I read leads to undefined behavior.
I gave this a try and, for a standard view-based application in iOS 4.3, the rotation logic fell back to the default, portrait only rotation, effectively ignoring the category. This was with no shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation: method defined in my UIViewController subclass. Interestingly, when I did define the shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation: method and simply called return [super shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation:] then the category was called. So this leaves me with two question:
Are all bets off (behavior-wise) when you have conflicting category methods?
Is one out of luck if they wanted to override a category method w/ out inheritance?
Any feedback is much appreciated! Thanks.
Suggestion; don't do that!!!
You really don't want to override behavior of all instances of any given UIKit class across all instances within your application for a couple of reasons.
First, you'll be changing the behavior of the class in ways that the class was likely not designed to deal with. As well, instances that are in UI hierarchies that are beyond your control (embedded complex framework components, typically) will behave differently, too.
Secondly, there is no way your implementation can know the internal implementation details of the original implementation to the point of not risking failing to make the same assumptions. While you could do something swizzle-like, down that path is extremely fragile and will be a maintenance nightmare.
It is undefined what happens if you have conflicting implementations of a category method. UIViewController provides a default implementation of shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation:, so you cannot attach your own implementation via a category.
You may, however, hijack -[UIViewController shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation:] and insert your own implementation. I have a discussion on that in Hijacking with method_exchangeImplementations().
This must be used very carefully, and is dependent on certain implementation details of UIViewController which might change. So I don't recommend this approach for most problems. Generally if you want a "special rotating view controller" that is what subclassing is for. You make your MYSpecialViewController and you subclass from that. Using hijacking (or any other mechanism that inserts itself into the object model dynamically) will impact every view controller in the system, including Apple-provided ones who may or may not react well to it. But for certain problems, it is a very useful solution.
I also do agree with bbum.
However, you can safely use Class Clusters approach. In that way you'll achieve additional benefit: accessing original shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation: method through super.
Implementation may look like the following :
#interface UIViewController (MyViewController)
– (id) initMyControllerWithNibName:(NSString *)nibName bundle:(NSBundle *)nibBundle;
#end
#implementation UIViewController (MyViewController)
– (id) initMyControllerWithNibName:(NSString *)nibName bundle:(NSBundle *)nibBundle {
[self release];
return [[InheritedUIViewController alloc] initWithNibName:nibName bundle:nibBundle];
}
#end
Overriding shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation: through simple inheritance :
#interface InheritedUIViewController: UIViewController
- (BOOL)shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation:(UIInterfaceOrientation)interfaceOrientation;
#end
#implementation InheritedUIViewController: UIViewController
- (BOOL)shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation:(UIInterfaceOrientation)interfaceOrientation {
// some implementation
return [super shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation:interfaceOrientation]; // optional
//return yourValue;
}
#end
So now, initializing UIViewController through categorized initMyControllerWithNibName::, InheritedUIViewController's shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation: method implementation will be called, with possibility to access its original implementation.
Related
I implemented the following category for UINavigationController inside of one *.m file:
#interface UINavigationController (ConfirmPop) <UINavigationBarDelegate>
#end
#implementation UINavigationController (ConfirmPop)
- (BOOL)navigationBar:(UINavigationBar *)navigationBar shouldPopItem:(UINavigationItem *)item
{
...
return YES;
}
#end
I was trying to check some conditions before popping the current view controller, and it worked all right but I short noticed that that category affected all UINavigationControllers in my app. Why does that happen? I thought this would only happen if I declared it on a header file and if I imported somewhere - which is not the case.
Categories apply globally. There isn't a way to apply them selectively.
Categories are used to add new functionality to all instances of that class, especially when your code isn't responsible for creating instances of that class -- otherwise subclassing might be a better choice.
You could create your own instance of a UINavigationController with the desired behavior and only use it where you want that behavior. Or if that's somehow not possible, you could add property-like methods to the category that toggle the desired behavior on and off.
I have a two different ways of representing data in my app: via UITableView or UIScrollView.
So I have 2 main classes: AppTableView: UITableView and AppScrollView: UIScrollView.
And I want to implement the same additions to both views. So I wrote two classes: SomeAdditionsTableView: UITableView and SomeAdditionsScrollView: UIScrollView. The code of this classes is the same.
Main classes now looks like
AppTableView: SomeAdditionsTableView and AppScrollView: SomeAdditionsScrollView.
How to avoid this code duplicate? Thanks in advance.
Yeah this is a problem with the lack of multiple inheritance in Objective-c. I had the same problem when needing certain methods on a subclass of UIView and UIScrollView separately here: Subclassing UIView vs UIScrollView. There are 3 possible solutions I know of:
If you don't need to store any kind of instance variable, simply declare a category on UIScrollView and make sure to import that category into the two subclasses. This is the easiest solution, but least likely to work since you probably need to store state information if you're subclassing anyway.
Only create a subclass of UITableView and simply don't use it as a UITableView when you don't want a UITableView. You can technically just use a UITableView as a UIScrollView without invoking any of the tableView's methods. Of course, you're going to end up carrying around the 'weight' of a tableView (all of it's instance variables) but there no reason you have to use a UITableView as a UITableView and not just a UIScrollView.
Delegate as much of your code to a separate object to minimize code duplication. In each separate subclass carry an instance variable that is the method delegate and forward method calls to that delegate. Now here's where it gets fun. You can use protocols to declare the delegate methods in your subclass and override a special NSObject method: - (id) forwardingTargetForSelector:(SEL)aSelector to make sure those method calls get sent to the delegate. You use a category on the subclass that conforms to the protocol declared in the delegate class. This will expose all the methods of the delegate class in the subclass without requiring you to actually implement those methods in the subclass. When the runtime can't find the declared method in the subclass, it will call - (id) forwardingTargetForSelector:(SEL)aSelector, which you can use to return your delegate/forwarded class. This will prevent you from needing forward each individual method. Depending on what those method calls do, this may take a little more 'wiring', but it'll save you a lot of code writing in the end. It essentially 'mimics' multiple inheritance in objective-c using protocols. See my question/answer here for more details: https://stackoverflow.com/a/9419587/1147934.
Of the three, the last option tends to work the best for me. It takes a little work to get your head around but will significantly reduce code duplication. I also use it when I want to subclass without subclassing. The biggest requirement, though, is any class that you want to do this with will have to move it's method declarations out of it's interface into a separate protocol. But it's really not a big deal and the benefits of getting 'multiple inheritance like behavior' is great.
Also, there are times you may need the forwarded class to access instance variables in the forwarding class (the subclass). You can achieve this by using a delegate pattern whereby the forwarded class maintains a weak reference to the forwarding class in order to access those instance variables. For example, in your case, if you're trying to delegate methods that operate on a UIScrollView, those methods may need to be able to access that view. If those methods are stuck in a delegate class, they won't have direct access to the view's variables unless you give it to them. As usual with any delegate pattern, be very careful you don't create a retain cycle.
If your additions don't need any state of their own, you can make them a category on UIScrollView. Then, since a UITableView is a type of UIScrollView, you can use the category methods on one of those too.
If they do need to define new variables, then I would make it an independent class and have a MyTableView : UITableView subclass with a SomeAdditions property and, similarly, MyScrollView : UIScrollView.
You can achieve a lot by using protocols and "has_a"-relationships, instead of inheritance's "is_a"-relationships.
One very common pattern is delegate, but protocols are also useful for forwarding methods calls to encapsulated or wrapped objects.
in the following example to classes, that are not related to each other, share a common object, but it is also possible, that objects of the same kind use objects of different classes, that all implement a common protocol, so equal objects could do very different stuff.
#interface ClassA : NSObject
#property (strong) id<BrainProtocol> *brain
#end
##implementation ClassA
#synthezise brain;
-(void)theMethod
{
[brain theMethod];
}
#end
#interface ClassB : NSObject
#property (strong) id<BrainProtocol> *brain
#end
##implementation ClassB
#synthezise brain;
-(void)theMethod
{
[brain theMethod];
}
#end
ClassA *a = [[ClassA alloc] init];
ClassB *b = [[ClassB alloc] init];
//A object, that implements the BrainProtocol
Brain *brain = [[brain alloc] init];
[a setBrain:brain];
[b setBrain:brain];
I'm working with a Navigation Controller based iOS app. There are multiple tableView screens that pull and save data from a Core Data persistent store. Most of the data for the different table views comes from NSFetchedResultsController instances or NSFetchRequests.
The app works as intended but I have been getting a few random crashes and glitches that seem to be related to Core Data. For example sometimes when I save the context the app will crash but not always. Another thing I've been seeing is the very first tableView doesn't always update the reflect the data that was modified in it's detail view.
Currently I'm passing around a single Managed Object Context that was created in the app delegate to each of the different view controllers by setting the context property of the view controller just before I push it onto the navigation stack.
This seems like a clunky, hacky way of getting the job done. Is there a better design pattern to use?
I noticed in one of the WWDC sessions using delegation but I've never used creating my own delegates before and haven't been able to puzzle it out of the WWDC session.
Thanks.
=)
Use singleton NSManagedObjectContext for all Controllers isn't a best practice.
Each Controller should have your own Context to manage specific, sometimes atomic, operations at document store.
Think if you can edit a NSManagedObject attached to Controller that pass the same Context to other Controller that will select another instance to delete or edit.. you can lost the controll about modified states.
When you create a view controller, you pass it a context. You pass an
existing context, or (in a situation where you want the new controller
to manage a discrete set of edits) a new context that you create for
it. It’s typically the responsibility of the application delegate to
create a context to pass to the first view controller that’s
displayed.
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/DataManagement/Conceptual/CoreDataSnippets/Articles/stack.html
1)
Use a singleton for your CoreData setup (NSPesistentStoreCoordinator, NSManagedObjectModel & NSManagedObjectContext). You can use this singleton to execute the fetch requests you created in your Models and to add or delete Entities to your Context.
2)
Delegates are not that hard. Following is a sample:
#class SomeClass
#protocol SomeClassDelegate <NSObject> //Implements the NSObject protocol
- (void) someClassInstance:(SomeClass *)obj givesAStringObject:(NSString *)theString;
- (BOOL) someClassInstanceWantsToKnowABooleanValue:(SomeClass *)obj //Call to delegate to get a boolean value
#optional
- (NSString *) thisMethodIsOptional;
#end
#interface SomeClass : NSObject {
id<SomeClassDelegate> delegate;
//Other instance variables omitted.
}
#property (assign) id<SomeClassDelegate> delegate;
#end
#implementation SomeClass
#synthesize delegate;
- (void) someMethodThatShouldNotifyTheDelegate {
NSString *hello = #"Hello";
if (self.delegate != nil && [self.delegate respondsToSelector:#selector(someClassInstance:givesAStringObject:)]) {
[self.delegate someClassInstance:self givesAStringObject:hello];
}
}
#end
Option 1 could be something like this, you will have to setup the variables in the init of the object (and implement the singleton ofcourse):
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#import <CoreData/CoreData.h>
#interface CoreDataUtility : NSObject {
#private
NSManagedObjectModel *managedObjectModel;
NSManagedObjectContext *managedObjectContext;
NSPersistentStoreCoordinator *persistentStoreCoordinator;
}
+ (CoreDataUtility *)sharedCoreDataUtility;
- (NSEntityDescription *) entityDesctiptionForName:(NSString *)name;
- (NSMutableArray *) executeRequest:(NSFetchRequest *)request;
- (id) getInsertedObjectForEntity:(NSString *)entity;
- (void) deleteAllObjects:(NSString *) entityName;
- (void) deleteManagedObject:(NSManagedObject *)object;
- (void) saveContext;
#end
Currently I'm passing around a single Managed Object Context that was
created in the app delegate to each of the different view
controllers...This seems like a clunky, hacky way of getting the job
done. Is there a better design pattern to use?
There's nothing particularly special about a managed object context in this respect, it's just another object that your view controller may need to do its job. Whenever you're setting up an object to perform a task, there are at least three strategies that you can use:
Give the object everything it needs to get the job done.
Give the object a helper that it can use to make decisions or get additional information.
Build enough knowledge about other parts of the application into the object that it can go get the information it needs.
What you're doing right now sounds like the first strategy, and I'd argue that it's often the best because it makes your view controllers more flexible, less dependant on other parts of the app. By providing the MOC to your view controllers, you leave open the possibility that you might someday use that same view controller with a different context.
Jayallengator makes the helpful observation that every managed object has a reference to its context, and if you're passing around specific managed objects you don't also need to pass along the context. I'd take that a step further: if you're passing specific managed objects to your view controller, the view controller often won't need to know about the context at all. For example, you might keep Game objects in your data store, but a GameBoardViewController will probably only care about the one Game that's being played, and can use that object's interface to get any related objects (Player, Level, etc.). Perhaps these observations can help you streamline your code.
The second strategy is delegation. You'll usually use a protocol when you use delegation, so that your object knows what messages it can send its helper without knowing anything else about the helper. Delegation is a way to introduce a necessary dependency into your code in a limited, well-defined way. For example, UITableView knows that it can send any of the messages defined in the UITableViewDelegate protocol to its delegate, but it doesn't need to know anything else about the delegate. The delegate could be a view controller, or it could be some other kind of object; the table doesn't care. The table's delegate and data source are often the same object, but they don't have to be; again, the table doesn't care.
The third strategy is to use global variables or shared objects (which is what people usually mean when they talk about singletons). Having a shared object that you can access from anywhere in your code is certainly easy, and you don't have that "klunky" extra line of code that configures your object, but it generally means that you're locking your view controllers in to using that shared object and no other. It's a lot like gluing a hammer to your hand because you know for certain that that hammer is the tool you need. Works great for pounding nails, but it can be painful if you later discover that you'd like to use the same hand for driving screws or eating dinner.
The singleton approach seems to be best-practice, but another trick I found useful was that in cases where you're passing a NSManagedObject from one view controller to the next anyway (usually as an instance variable), you don't need to also pass the NSManagedObjectContext since you can get the context from the object you passed in by invoking [myManagedObject managedObjectContext]. This can be a handy shortcut when there's maybe only one or two methods where you need the context and you don't want the overhead of creating yet another NSManagedObjectContext ivar/property.
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.
In Objective-C, how do you rewire a class's instance method to call a method in another class?
Say a UIView class A contains another UIView class called childA. I want it so that when childA's drawRect is called, a method in class A is invoked without having to subclass childA and do the desired call in its drawRect there. How can this be achieved?
Also, how do I supply a method to childA's draw class dynamically? I know this is probably not a good practice but it would be useful for testing purposes.
To answer your first question about rewiring methods:
You don't want to be doing this on general principle, since it kinda defeats the whole purpose of object-oriented design, but for testing purposes, it can be useful. As long as you're on Leopard, it's not especially difficult, either.
Take a look at the Objective-C 2.0 Runtime Reference, which contains the keys to the kingdom, as it were. Look at the functions class_getInstanceMethod, method_getImplementation, method_getTypeEncoding, and class_addMethod which, in combination, let you change the methods of a class at runtime.
If you're just swizzling one selector for another, method_exchangeImplementations is a useful shortcut.
To answer your second question about supplying a method dynamically, that's as simple as passing a SEL to a method and then calling -performSelector:withObject::
#interface MyView : NSView {
SEL drawingSelector;
id drawingDelegate;
}
#property SEL drawingSelector;
#property id drawingDelegate;
#end
#implementation MyView
- (void)drawRect:(NSRect)rect {
[self.drawingDelegate performSelector:drawingSelector withObject:[NSValue valueWithRect:rect]];
}
#end
For the first issue you raise, it seems like you would set up UIView A as a delegate object of childA and the other UIViews - then they could use delegate methods to call the extra drawing features you wanted in A.
Either that or have each child ask for the superview and if it is of type "A" call the method you are interested in.