Would anyone be able to explain to me what data encapsulation in Objective-C is? I've been told that this an important concept of Objective-C but I don't see why...
Explain it to me as if I was 5 and then as if I was 25....
Thanks for your time,
~Daniel
From http://mobile.tutsplus.com/tutorials/iphone/learn-objective-c-2/ :
What we mean by data encapsulation is
that data is contained (so to speak)
by methods meaning to access it we
need to use methods. Some of you who
have programmed in other languages and
havenʼt heard of data encapsulation
may be wondering why we do things this
way. The answer is that by
encapsulating data, there is a nice
cushion between the developer of a
class and the user of a class. Because
the class methods manage and maintains
the attributes within the class, they
can more easily maintain data
integrity. Another major benefit is
that when a developer distributes his
class, the people using it donʼt have
to worry about the internals of the
class at all. A developer may update a
method to make it faster or more
efficient, but this update is
transparent to the user of the class
as he/she still uses the same method
with no change to his/her code.
In simple terms, the user is provided with what the developer wanted them to have, and "protects" everything else. The developer can change anything internal without the user having to rewrite their code.
If developers did not conform to data encapsulation, we would need to rewrite our code every time a new version of a library, code snippet, or an entire program was released.
Data encapsulation in Objective-C means that only the class itself should touch it's instance variables. Therefor you should always mark them as private, and only expose them through properties, as this:
#interface Foo : NSObject {
#private
int numberOfBars;
Baz* contentBaz;
}
#property(nonatamic, assign) int numberOfBars;
#property(nonatomic, retain) Baz* contentBaz;
#end
This means that the class can implement validation in it's setter methods. And even better if you use #synthesizeto generate your getter and setters than you need not even worry about the memory model of Cocoa at all (with the exception of releasing your ivars in dealloc).
Related
I am having a lot of repeated code throughout my app classes given that some properties & method are stable across all my views.
I am looking to extend whatever class I am working with so that it automatically inherit all properties and methods that I think should be common to those classes.
I looked into the apple guide on extending classes. But I am left confused in the terms of the level of heritance that I can achieve.
I've successfully created Categories on lets say a UIViewController. But that limits me to only be able to declare Methods. I can not declare Properties on my Category and call them in side my Category or in the Extended Class. I want to be able to declare Properties and use it inside and outside my Extended-Class.
Its my first time trying to extend a class in objective-c taking full advantage of heritance but I do not know if it is possible. Am I missing something?
As an example in the code below every time I try to instantiate activityIndicatorView inside my method _activityIndicator it wouldn't recognise it. I've tried #syntetize and #dynamic but it doesn't work
NOTE: I am seeking an answer based on how to achieve heritance of methods and propeties. not highlighting what categories cant do (as I already tried and know I cant have properties there)
My attempt went as far of
#import <UIKit/UIKit.h>
#interface UIViewController (customViewController1)
#property (strong, nonatomic) UIView *activityIndicatorView;
- (void) _activityIndicator;
#end
#import "UIViewController+customViewController1.h"
#implementation UIViewController (customViewController1)
- (void) _activityIndicator {
//......
}
Your question is too broad, plus it is not clear what your problem is. Yes, you can subclass in Objective-C.
This is all very well documented in Apple's document "Object-Oriented Programming with Objective-C", section "The Object Model", subsection "Inheritance".
Categories are a nice way to add functionality while at the same time conforming to an object oriented principle to prefer composition over inheritance.
Categories only add methods, you can't add variables to a class using categories. If the class needs more properties, then it has to be subclassed.
When you use the term “extend”, you're talking about creating a subclass. This is, IIRC, how the term is used in Java and some other languages.
Apple uses the term differently (as Hermann Klecker hinted in his first comment). They literally mean extending an existing class with more functionality (in the form of methods)—that's what categories do. This is the normal English definition; extending something in the real world generally does not create a new thing.
Objective-C supports subclasses, too; it just doesn't call them “extending” the superclass. It's called creating a subclass, which inherits from the superclass.
Strctly spoken you cannot add a property to an existing class any differnt than creating a subclass.
If you cannot halp yourself and subclassing is not an option, then you can extend the class with getters and setters for the property that you want to store within the class.
Instead of really storing it as a member/instance variable/property, which you can't do, you could store the object (it cannto be a scalar, must be an object) in the global space using objc_setAssociatedObject(id object, void *key, id value, objc_AssociationPolicy policy).
This is some sort of global dictionary with two keys, the key itself and the ojbect to which you want to associat the stored object to. In your case that is the object of the type of the exended class. The setter stores it there and the getter receives it from there using objc_getAssociatedObject.
You delete an association by sending nil as value to objc_setAssociatedObject
AFAIK retained associated objects (values) are released shortly after the object that holds the associateion (object) is deallocated.
For further details see the Ojbective-C Runtime Reference https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/ObjCRuntimeRef/Reference/reference.html
Just: I do not say that this is strictly following the OO paradigm. :-)
I'm just wondering about semantics. When is something truly a "property" of an object? I noticed in a lot of Apple's APIs, they explicitly define getters and setters instead of using properties (e.g. URL and setURL on NSURLRequest/NSMutableURLRequest; surely the URL seems like a "property" of an URL request, right?) I'm wondering if there's some subtle thing that I'm missing or if Apple just doesn't like properties all that much. =P
UPDATE: As of iOS 8, Apple has converted most (if not all) of their non-property getters and setters to properties. (Probably done so that Swift compatibility would be easier.)
or if Apple just doesn't like properties all that much.
The real cause is that most of the Foundation framework (let's not forget you're talking about NS* classes) is old as dirt - they have been around there since the NeXT times... At that time, the Objective-C language didn't sport the #property keyword - to emulate properties, it was necessary for the programmers to declare and implement getter and setter methods manually, this applied to Apple's code as well.
Now the Foundation framework is so fundamental that it hasn't changed a lot. It hasn't been radically rewritten and as far as I'm concerned, programmers who wrote it didn't bother rewriting all the code using the new syntax. You can see that recently added classes do in fact feature declared properties instead of getters and setters, but that's not true for older classes.
Anyway, properties declared manually and those declared using #property and #synthesize are completely equivalent. That said, there's a very minor difference when accessing them, but that doesn't belong to the declaration thingy: if you write
someObject.someProperty
in your code, the someObject must have a complete and concrete type, so if a property named someProperty is nonexistent, you'll get a compiler error. In contrast,
[someObject someProperty]
and
[someObject setSomeProperty:]
allow you the method call even if it's undeclared.
Edit:
I ask what the semantic difference between them is
So by "semantic difference", you meant "when it should be used" rather than "does it run differently". I see. Well... Conceptually, properties represent state. A property is a particular characteristic of an object that may change over time. It's just an unrelated fact that properties are accessed using accessor methods in Objecive-C.
If you write a method that acts on the obejct (other than setting a property, of course), there's a fair chance you should be declaring and calling it as a method. If you access (read or write) an attribute of an object, that better fits the task of a property.
Having a getter and setter lets you use messages to access the item
[myObject someProperty] or [myObject setSomeProperty: someNewValue]
Making something a #property gives you the additionally ability to use dot notation to call the getter and setter. This is because #property chooses method names that make the class key-value-coding compliant for the particular value.
myObject.someProperty or myObject.someProperty = someNewValue
While it is possible to do this manually, it is considered best-practice to use #property when you want to use the dot notation. Over time, the behind-the-scenes bahaviours of #property and #synthesize have changed quite a bit particularly in regard to auto-creating storage for the associated pointer. Using #property makes it easier to keep up with Apple's changes in convention with little or no change in your code.
Additionaly, using #property makes your code much easier to read.
In Objective-C, we can add #property and #synthesize to create a property -- like an instance variable with getter and setter which are public to the users of this class.
In this case, isn't it just the same as declaring an instance variable and making it public? Then there won't be the overhead of calling the getter and setter as methods. There might be a chance that we might put in validation for the setter, such as limiting a number to be between 0 and 100, but other than that, won't a public instance variable just achieve the same thing, and faster?
Even if you're only using the accessors generated by #synthesize, they get you several benefits:
Memory management: generated setters retain the new value for a (retain) property. If you try to access an object ivar directly from outside the class, you don't know whether the class might retain it. (This is less of an issue under ARC, but still important.)
Threadsafe access: generated accessors are atomic by default, so you don't have to worry about race conditions accessing the property from multiple threads.
Key-Value Coding & Observation: KVC provides convenient access to your properties in various scenarios. You can use KVC when setting up predicates (say, for filtering a collection of your objects), or use key paths for getting at properties in collections (say, a dictionary containing objects of your class). KVO lets other parts of your program automatically respond to changes in a property's value -- this is used a lot with Cocoa Bindings on the Mac, where you can have a control bound to the value of a property, and also used in Core Data on both platforms.
In addition to all this, properties provide encapsulation. Other objects (clients) using an instance of your class don't have to know whether you're using the generated accessors -- you can create your own accessors that do other useful stuff without client code needing changes. At some point, you may decide your class needs to react to an externally made change to one of its ivars: if you're using accessors already, you only need to change them, rather than make your clients start using them. Or Apple can improve the generated accessors with better performance or new features in a future OS version, and neither the rest of your class' code nor its clients need changes.
Overhead Is Not a Real Issue
To answer your last question, yes there will be overhead—but the overhead of pushing one more frame and popping it off the stack is negligible, especially considering the power of modern processors. If you are that concerned with performance you should profile your application and decide where actual problems are—I guarantee you you'll find better places to optimize than removing a few accessors.
It's Good Design
Encapsulating your private members and protecting them with accessors and mutators is simply a fundamental principle of good software design: it makes your software easier to maintain, debug, and extend. You might ask the same question about any other language: for example why not just make all fields public in your Java classes? (except for a language like Ruby, I suppose, which make it impossible to expose instance variables). The bottom line is that certain software design practices are in place because as your software grows larger and larger, you will be saving yourself from a veritable hell.
Lazy Loading
Validation in setters is one possibility, but there's more you can do than that. You can override your getters to implement lazy loading. For example, say you have a class that has to load some fields from a file or database. Traditionally this is done at initialization. However, it might be possible that not all fields will actually be used by whoever is instantiating the object, so instead you wait to initialize those members until it's requested via the getter. This cleans up initialization and can be a more efficient use of processing time.
Helps Avoid Retain Cycles in ARC
Finally, properties make it easier to avoid retain loops with blocks under ARC. The problem with ivars is that when you access them, you are implicitly referencing self. So, when you say:
_foo = 7;
what you're really saying is
self->_foo = 7;
So say you have the following:
[self doSomethingWithABlock:^{
_foo = 7;
}];
You've now got yourself a retain cycle. What you need is a weak pointer.
__block __weak id weakSelf = self;
[self doSomethingWithABlock:^{
weakSelf->_foo = 7;
}];
Now, obviously this is still a problem with setters and getters, however you are less likely to forget to use weakSelf since you have to explicity call self.property, whereas ivars are referenced by self implicitly. The static analayzer will help you pick this problem up if you're using properties.
#property is a published fact. It tells other classes that they can get, and maybe set, a property of the class. Properties are not variables, they are literally what the word says. For example, count is a property of an NSArray. Is it necessarily an instance variable? No. And there's no reason why you should care whether it is.
#synthesize creates a default getter, setter and instance variable unless you've defined any of those things yourself. It's an implementation specific. It's how your class chooses to satisfy its contractual obligation to provide the property. It's just one way of providing a property, and you can change your implementation at any time without telling anyone else about it.
So why not expose instance variables instead of providing getters and setters? Because that binds your hands on the implementation of the class. It makes other acts rely on the specific way it has been coded rather than merely the interface you've chosen to publish for it. That quickly creates fragile and inter-dependent code that will break. It's anathema to object-oriented programming.
Because one would normally be interested in encapsulation and hiding data and implementations. It is easier to maintain; You have to change one implementation, rather than all. Implementation details are hidden from the client. Also, the client shouldn't have to think about whether the class is a derived class.
You are correct... for a few very limited cases. Properties are horrible in terms of CPU cycle performance when they are used in the inner loops of pixel, image and real-time audio DSP (etc.) code. For less frequent uses, they bring a lot of benefits in terms of readable maintainable reusable code.
#property and #synthesize is set are getting getter and setter methods
other usage is you can use the that variable in other classes also
if you want to use the variable as instance variable and your custom getter and setter methods you can do but some times when you set the value for variable and while retrieving value of variable sometimes will become zombie which may cause crash of your app.
so the property will tell operating system not to release object till you deallocate your object of class,
hope it helps
I am a bit confused about encapsulation. In general (or in Obj-C), does it mean separation of interface/implementation OR does it imply access of ivars through methods ?
Please clarify. Thank you.
Actually, Both.
As nacho4d said, you encapsulate instance variables within your class and prevent direct access to them by using methods and properties to read and write their values. This ensures that the instance can always know when something has read or written a value whereas direct ivar access is no different from setting a value in a C struct.
However, the separation of #interface from #implementation also contributes greatly to encapsulation. And one of the goals of the enhancements to the language in the past few years has been to increase the degree of encapsulation offered by that separation.
Namely, the class's primary #interface can now contain only the parts of your class that you want other developers/code to interact with. The public interface, if you will. All of the implementation details can be moved out of the #interface in the latest compilers, including all instance variables.
The latter. From wikipedia:
A language mechanism for restricting
access to some of the object's
components.
Specifically in Objective-C an ivar will be #protected by default, so they only can be accessed within the same class or subclasses. can change it to #private or #public as you need.
The methods you mentioned are accessors (getters and setters) and in that case you probably want to use #properties since they can be defined in 1 line and you can set some attributes like retain, assign, copy, readonly, etc.
Read further on properties here (Apple doc)
Hiding of Class methods and variables from once class to other is called encapsulation.
Say I have a class like this:
#interface MyAwesomeClass : NSObject
{
#private
NSString *thing1;
NSString *thing2;
}
#property (retain) NSString *thing1;
#property (retain) NSString *thing2;
#end
#implementation MyAwesomeClass
#synthesize thing1, thing1;
#end
When accessing thing1 and thing2 internally (i.e, within the implementation of MyAwesomeClass), is it better to use the property, or just reference the instance variable directly (assuming cases in which we do not do any work in a "custom" access or mutator, i.e., we just set and get the variable). Pre-Objective C 2.0, we usually just access the ivars directly, but what's the usual coding style/best practice now? And does this recommendation change if an instance variable/property is private and not accessible outside of the class at all? Should you create a property for every ivar, even if they're private, or only for public-facing data? What if my app doesn't use key-value coding features (since KVC only fires for property access)?
I'm interested in looking beyond the low-level technical details. For example, given (sub-optimal) code like:
#interface MyAwesomeClass : NSObject
{
id myObj;
}
#proprety id myObj;
#end
#implementation MyAwesomeClass
#synthesize myObj;
#end
I know that myObj = anotherObject is functionally the same as self.myObj = anotherObj.
But properties aren't merely fancy syntax for instructing the compiler to write accessors and mutators for you, of course; they're also a way to better encapsulate data, i.e., you can change the internal implementation of the class without rewriting classes that rely on those properties. I'm interested in answers that address the importance of this encapsulation issue when dealing with the class's own internal code. Furthermore, properly-written properties can fire KVC notifications, but direct ivar access won't; does this matter if my app isn't utilizing KVC features now, just in case it might in the future?
If you spend time on the cocoa-dev mailing list, you'll find that this is a very contentious topic.
Some people think ivars should only ever be used internally and that properties should never (or rarely) be used except externally. There are various concerns with KVO notifications and accessor side effects.
Some people think that you should always (or mostly) use properties instead of ivars. The main advantage here is that your memory management is well contained inside of accessor methods instead of strewn across your implementation logic. The KVO notifications and accessor side effects can be overcome by creating separate properties that point to the same ivar.
Looking at Apple's sample code will reveal that they are all over the place on this topic. Some samples use properties internally, some use ivars.
I would say, in general, that this is a matter of taste and that there is no right way to do it. I myself use a mix of both styles.
I don't think any way is 'better'. You see both styles in common use, so there isn't even a usual/best practice now. In my experience, the style used has very little impact on how well I digest some implementation file I am looking. You certainly want to be comfortable with both styles (and any in between) when looking at other people's code.
Using a property for every internal ivar might be going slightly overboard, in terms of maintenance. I've done it, and it added a non-trivial amount of work that I don't think paid off for me. But if you have a strong desire/OCD for seeing consistent code like self.var everywhere, and you have it in the back of your mind every time you look at a class, then use it. Don't discount the effect that a nagging feeling can have on productivity.
Exceptions- Obviously, for custom getters (e.g. lazy creation), you don't have much of a choice. Also, I do create and use a property for internal setters when it makes it more convenient (e.g. setting objects with ownership semantics).
"just in case", "might" is not be a compelling reason to do something without more data, since the time required to implement it is non-zero. A better question might be, what is the probability that all the private ivars in some class will require KVC notifications in the future, but not now? For most of my own classes, the answer is exceedingly low, so I now avoid a hard rule about creating properties for every private ivar.
I've found that when dealing with internal implementations, I quickly get a good handle on how each ivar should be accessed regardless.
If you are interested, my own approach is this:
Reading ivars: Direct access, unless there is a custom getter (e.g. lazy creation)
Writing ivars: Directly in alloc/dealloc. Elsewhere, through a private property if one exists.
The only difference in an assignment of thing1 = something; and self.thing1 = something; is that if you want to have the property assignment operation (retain, copy, etc), done on the assigned object, then you need to use a property. Assigning without properties will effectively be just that, assigning a reference to the provided object.
I think that defining a property for internal data is unnecessary. Only define properties for ivars that will be accessed often and need specific mutator behavior.
If thing1 is used with KVO it is a good idea to use self.thing1= when you set it. If thing1 is #public, then it is best to assume that someone someday will sometime want to use it with KVO.
If thing1 has complex set semantics that you don't want to repeat everywhere you set it (for example retain, or non-nonatomic) then use through self.thing1= is a good idea.
If benchmarking shows that calling setThing1: is taking significant time then you might want to think about ways to set it without use of self.thing1= -- maybe note that it can not be KVO'ed, or see if manually implementing KVO is better (for example if you set it 3000 times in a loop somewhere, you might be able to set it via self->thing1 3000 times, and make 2 KVO calls about the value being about to change and having changed).
That leaves the case of a trivial setter on a private variable where you know you aren't using KVO. At that point it stops being a technical issue, and falls under code style. At least as long as the accessor doesn't show up as a bottleneck in the profiler. I tend to use direct ivar access at that point (unless I think I will KVO that value in the future, or might want to make it public and thus think others may want to KVO it).
However when I set things with direct ivar access I try to only do it via self->thing1=, that makes it a lot simpler to find them all and change them if I ever find the need to use KVO, or to make it public, or to make a more complex accessor.
Other things mentioned here are all right on. A few things that the other answers missed are:
First, always keep in mind the implications of accessors/mutators being virtual (as all Objective-C methods are.) In general, it's been said that one should avoid calling virtual methods in init and dealloc, because you don't know what a subclass will do that could mess you up. For this reason, I generally try to access the iVars directly in init and dealloc, and access them through the accessor/mutators everywhere else. On the other hand, if you don't consistently use the accessors in all other places, subclasses that override them may be impacted.
Relatedly, atomicity guarantees of properties (i.e. your #properties are declared atomic) can't be maintained for anyone if you're accessing the iVar directly anywhere outside of init & dealloc. If you needed something to be atomic, don't throw away the atomicity by accessing the iVar directly. Similarly, if you don't need those guarantees, declare your property nonatomic (for performance.)
This also relates to the KVO issue. In init, no one can possibly be observing you yet (legitimately), and in dealloc, any remaining observer has a stale unretained (i.e. bogus) reference. The same reasoning also applies to the atomicity guarantees of properties. (i.e. how would concurrent accesses happen before init returns and accesses that happen during dealloc are inherently errors.)
If you mix and match direct and accessor/mutator use, you risk running afoul of not only KVO and atomicity, but of subclassers as well.