Still waiting on my MacBook.
When an interface that I create references a protocol e.g. CCLocationManagerDelegate does the various methods get autogenerated or does intellisense pop up with all the available methods to implement?
Xcode doesn't do this unless the methods are in a template file (and I'm not aware of a template for a <CLLocationManagerDelegate>.
That being said, you might want to check out Accessorizer, which is a neat app that can do a whole bunch of code generation for you, of which (I believe) protocol conformance is a part.
Related
I'm working on a open source project, which consist on a framework for iOS devices, and one of the methods is not working as I expected. I tried to search for the implementation of the method, but all I found was a a header file and the method declaration; I didn't find the implementation anywhere. Neither did I find the .m file corresponding to that class.
So I have some questions:
How can a class exist without it's implementation and still its methods perform certain operations?
What is the purpose of writing this kind of classes.
In this kind of situations where should be the methods implemented?
Note
The open source project is FastPdfKit and the method is wholeTextForPage:
Well, those methods are somewhere, so it's not that they don't exist, you just can't see them.
Try for example to open UITableView.h, you can see the methods definition, but not the implementation. The implementation is hidden in the library, but you can't see it.
In a nutshell, developers do this to hide the details of the implementation of a class to other users. You just receive a header that tells you which methods you can use, and how, but the details about how are they implemented are hidden for you.
For example, Apple doesn't want you to see how they implemented UITableView, but they want you to know how you can use it.
Here you can find a tutorial about how to create a library for Objective-C:
Creating Static Libraries for Objective-C
After I updated to 4.3.3 Xcode started to jump to interfaces instead implementations. Same with open quickly it doesn't show me implementation files, only headers.
Is there same way to fix it?
I don't know of a way to choose whether Xcode jumps directly to either the interface or the implementation.
However, if you are looking at the interface, you can jump to the implementation by command-clicking the name in the interface. If you are looking at the implementation, you can jump to the interface by command-clicking the name in the implementation.
This works for both class names and selectors. Thus you are never more than two command-clicks from both the interface and the implementation (if Xcode knows where to find them).
ObjC has a very unique way of overriding methods. Specifically, that you can override functions in OSX's own framework. Via "categories" or "Swizzling". You can even override "buried" functions only used internally.
Can someone provide me with an example where there was a good reason to do this? Something you would use in released commercial software and not just some hacked up tool for internal use?
For example, maybe you wanted to improve on some built in method, or maybe there was a bug in a framework method you wanted to fix.
Also, can you explain why this can best be done with features in ObjC, and not in C++ / Java and the like. I mean, I've heard of the ability to load a C library, but allow certain functions to be replaced, with functions of the same name that were previously loaded. How is ObjC better at modifying library behaviour than that?
If you're extending the question from mere swizzling to actual library modification then I can think of useful examples.
As of iOS 5, NSURLConnection provides sendAsynchronousRequest:queue:completionHandler:, which is a block (/closure) driven way to perform an asynchronous load from any resource identifiable with a URL (local or remote). It's a very useful way to be able to proceed as it makes your code cleaner and smaller than the classical delegate alternative and is much more likely to keep the related parts of your code close to one another.
That method isn't supplied in iOS 4. So what I've done in my project is that, when the application is launched (via a suitable + (void)load), I check whether the method is defined. If not I patch an implementation of it onto the class. Henceforth every other part of the program can be written to the iOS 5 specification without performing any sort of version or availability check exactly as if I was targeting iOS 5 only, except that it'll also run on iOS 4.
In Java or C++ I guess the same sort of thing would be achieved by creating your own class to issue URL connections that performs a runtime check each time it is called. That's a worse solution because it's more difficult to step back from. This way around if I decide one day to support iOS 5 only I simply delete the source file that adds my implementation of sendAsynchronousRequest:.... Nothing else changes.
As for method swizzling, the only times I see it suggested are where somebody wants to change the functionality of an existing class and doesn't have access to the code in which the class is created. So you're usually talking about trying to modify logically opaque code from the outside by making assumptions about its implementation. I wouldn't really support that as an idea on any language. I guess it gets recommended more in Objective-C because Apple are more prone to making things opaque (see, e.g. every app that wanted to show a customised camera view prior to iOS 3.1, every app that wanted to perform custom processing on camera input prior to iOS 4.0, etc), rather than because it's a good idea in Objective-C. It isn't.
EDIT: so, in further exposition — I can't post full code because I wrote it as part of my job, but I have a class named NSURLConnectionAsyncForiOS4 with an implementation of sendAsynchronousRequest:queue:completionHandler:. That implementation is actually quite trivial, just dispatching an operation to the nominated queue that does a synchronous load via the old sendSynchronousRequest:... interface and then posts the results from that on to the handler.
That class has a + (void)load, which is the class method you add to a class that will be issued immediately after that class has been loaded into memory, effectively as a global constructor for the metaclass and with all the usual caveats.
In my +load I use the Objective-C runtime directly via its C interface to check whether sendAsynchronousRequest:... is defined on NSURLConnection. If it isn't then I add my implementation to NSURLConnection, so from henceforth it is defined. This explicitly isn't swizzling — I'm not adjusting the existing implementation of anything, I'm just adding a user-supplied implementation of something if Apple's isn't available. Relevant runtime calls are objc_getClass, class_getClassMethod and class_addMethod.
In the rest of the code, whenever I want to perform an asynchronous URL connection I just write e.g.
[NSURLConnection sendAsynchronousRequest:request
queue:[self anyBackgroundOperationQueue]
completionHandler:
^(NSURLResponse *response, NSData *data, NSError *blockError)
{
if(blockError)
{
// oh dear; was it fatal?
}
if(data)
{
// hooray! You know, unless this was an HTTP request, in
// which case I should check the response code, etc.
}
/* etc */
}
So the rest of my code is just written to the iOS 5 API and neither knows nor cares that I have a shim somewhere else to provide that one microscopic part of the iOS 5 changes on iOS 4. And, as I say, when I stop supporting iOS 4 I'll just delete the shim from the project and all the rest of my code will continue not to know or to care.
I had similar code to supply an alternative partial implementation of NSJSONSerialization (which dynamically created a new class in the runtime and copied methods to it); the one adjustment you need to make is that references to NSJSONSerialization elsewhere will be resolved once at load time by the linker, which you don't really want. So I added a quick #define of NSJSONSerialization to NSClassFromString(#"NSJSONSerialization") in my precompiled header. Which is less functionally neat but a similar line of action in terms of finding a way to keep iOS 4 support for the time being while just writing the rest of the project to the iOS 5 standards.
There are both good and bad cases. Since you didn't mention anything in particular these examples will be all-over-the-place.
It's perfectly normal (good idea) to override framework methods when subclassing:
When subclassing NSView (from the AppKit.framework), it's expected that you override drawRect:(NSRect). It's the mechanism used for drawing views.
When creating a custom NSMenu, you could override insertItemWithTitle:action:keyEquivalent:atIndex: and any other methods...
The main thing when subclassing is whether or not your behaviour completes re-defines the old behaviour... or extends it (in which case your override eventually calls [super ...];)
That said, however, you should always stand clear of using (and overriding) any private API methods (those normally have an underscore prefix in their name). This is a bad idea.
You also should not override existing methods via categories. That's also bad. It has undefined behaviour.
If you're talking about categories, you don't override methods with them (because there is no way to call original method, like calling super when subclassing), but only completely replace with your own ones, which makes the whole idea mostly pointless. Categories are only useful for safely extending functionality, and that's the only use I have even seen (and which is a very good, an excellent idea), although indeed they can be used for dangerous things.
If you mean overriding by subclassing, that is not unique. But in Obj-C you can override everything, even private undocumented methods, not just what was declared 'overridable' like in other languages. Personally, I think it's nice, as I remember in Delphi and C++ I used to “hack” access to private and protected members to workaround an internal bug in framework. This is not a good idea, but at some moments it can be a life saver.
There is also method swizzling, but that's not standard language feature, that's a hack. Hacking undocumented internals is rarely a good idea.
And regarding “how can you explain why this can best be done with features in ObjC”, the answer is simple — Obj-C is dynamic, and this freedom is common to almost all dynamic languages (Javascript, Python, Ruby, Io, a lot more). Unless artificially disabled, every dynamic language has it.
Refer to the wikipedia page on dynamic languages for longer explanation and more examples. For example, an even more miraculous things possible in Obj-C and other dynamic languages is that an object can change it's type (class) in place, without recreation.
Is there a tool that will take a list of Objective-C methods and produce the corresponding header definitions?
Often when writing code in my implementation file, I find I need to add, remove, or modify method definitions. This requires the tedious (and thoroughly-automatable) step of switching back to my header file and making the exact same changes, twice.
What ever happened to DRY? What kind of tools can I use to make life easier here? Thanks.
You can try Accessorizer:
http://www.kevincallahan.org/software/accessorizer.html
It automates most work regarding properties, it might work for methods too.
Sadly, it's not free.
I don't know of any existing tools (although Interface Builder does allow you to define outlets and actions, and then generate a header and implementation skeleton for you based on those). Remember though that the implementation file can contain information that should not go in the header (such as private methods and instance variables/properties), so it would be difficult for any tool to do this in any case.
For the moment, in Xcode, you can split the window and see both side by side (in Xcode 4, this is the Assistant). Alternatively, you can press Alt-Command-UpArrow to see the corresponding file.
Coming from an Eclipse / Java background, one of my favorite features is the ability to quickly stub out all the methods required by an interface. In Eclipse, I can choose 'Override / implement' from the source menu to generate stub methods for any method of the Interface.
I'd like to do the same thing in Objective-C. For instance, if I declare a class that implements the 'NSCoding' protocol, I'd like to have Xcode automatically generate the methods required to implement this Protocol. It's frustrating to have to look-up and then copy/paste the signatures of the required methods every Protocol that I'm trying to implement.
I've been trying for awhile to find out if this is possible, but haven't found anything promising yet. Is this possible in XCode?
I believe that Accessorizer will do what you want.
Accessorizer will write the encode and decode methods for ivars passed to it (NSCoding protocol and for NSDocument archiving). It will also generate string constants either static or #define with a custom prefix; copyWithZone:; and other things if you need - all from a simple shortcut via Services or from the toolbar. Accessorizer keyed archiving
Not the direсt answer, just hint:
Out of the box XCode can't.
But AppCode can.
It can do this things automatically (with your permission, of course).
If some methods of protocol marked as #required - AppCode will highlight the implementation and suggest to implement this methods.
#optional methods also available to implement automatically (shortcut: control + I).
Your can create scripts for the scripting menu item in AppleScript, Perl, Python, Ruby, or any other scripting language that go in the scripting menu.
Your could place the insertion point in the .m file and have the script look up the corresponding .h file. Locate the protocols supported and so forth...
MacTech ran an article in 2007 Xcode Menu Scripts
Xcode 3.2 will autocomplete known method implementations. In other words, if the method is declared somewhere (for example, in a protocol), when you start to type it in a .m file, Xcode 3.2 will autocomplete the method signature for you. This isn't quite what you asked for, but it is awfully handy.
I'm also looking for a way to generate method stubs for the protocols in my header file. I checked out Accessorizer and it looks to be a handy tool but unless I missed something I didn't find a way to get it to generate method stubs for a protocol.
Eric, If you found another solution please post what you found. It's amazing to me that XCode doesn't already have this built into the IDE.
Since the accepted answer's given link does not work anymore (and is redirected to an ad), here's another good explanation on how to use accessorizer to create protocol method stubs.
Based on AllanCraig's "Create #property, #synthesize & dealloc from Variable Declaration" ruby script, I made one to generate implementation stubs from interface ones: http://pastebin.com/4T2LTBh6
How to use?
Setup the script on your XCode (Shell Script) and assign a shortcut for it (e.g. CMD+5).
Select lines from your interface file in which you want to generate the implementation, and press the hotkey.
Your .m will contain your selected methods.
I know this is an old question but if you'd like to always see the latest definitions just right click on the class in question and Jump to Definition. Here lyes all the current non-deprecated functions so you aren't relying on a 3rd party to stay up to date.
In My case Below style helps me much, In a sense solved my problem.
Suppose you have following method declaration:
+(DBManager*)getSharedInstance;
From Implementation file you start typing +ge and xcode will automatically choose method
+(DBManager*)getSharedInstance;