I have three quick questions I've seen conflicting answers to that hopefully someone can clear up.
Does [super init] need to be done all the way down to NSObject? (e.g if Foo inherits from NSObject, should Foo call [super init]? If not, does that hold for dealloc too?
Does any form of default-initialization occur for member variables in an object. E.g would an NSString* member be initialized to nil? float to 0.0?
If my object has an initFoo method, can I call [self init] within that function to perform common initialization?
Since starting with Objective-C I've pretty much assumed Yes for the first and No for the second two, but I'm hoping to save some typing :)
Thanks,
Just to add a little more to the three replies ahead of me:
Yes it does. In practice NSObject (probably) doesn't require it (now), but if that ever changed you're screwed if you haven't. It's best to get into the habit anyway (or use the code generation in XCode to drop an init template down). That said it's not always init that you should call (more soon).
As has been noted initialisation to defaults (by virtue of memcpy 0s, so 0, nil, etc) is guaranteed and it's reasonably idiomatic to rely on this. Some people still prefer to be explicit and that's fine.
Absolutely. Remember init, or any variation is just a normal method. It's only an initialiser by convention (albeit a very strong convention). You are free to call other methods, including other initialisers. Again, by convention, you should decide on a "designated initializer" and have all other initialisers call this. Think about this in relation to your first question. If you subclass, what will your subclass call? By default a subclass author will call your init - so if you have a different designated initializer then it is very important that you make that clear so subclass authors know to call it.
You can read more (authoritative) detail here in the Apple docs.
You always need to call the initialization method of the superclass and assign self to the result. You also definitely need to call super's implementation at the end of your implementation of -dealloc.
All instance variables are initialized to zero/nil by default, this is guaranteed.
Yes, you can call [self init] from a more specific initialization method:
- (id)initFoo
{
self=[self init];
if(self)
{
//do stuff
}
return self;
}
yes for init (not technically required, but best practice) definitely yes for dealloc
yes, all memory is initialized to 0 which is nil, 0.0, etc.
yes, and this is common
Yes, Otherwise the superclass objects wont get a chance to do their initialization.
don't know.
Yes. Create whatever init method you want. Document it. But be sure to call the super's proper init method: whatever it may be.
Related
Typically when I subclass from a UI class I will call the superclass initializer of interest. However, I'm not sure of the implementation details of NSObject, and it seems like there's not much going on in terms of member vars, so I wonder: do I need to call [super init] if my subclass extends NSObject?
Technically, no. The documentation for -[NSObject init] says that
The init method defined in the NSObject class does no initialization; it simply returns self.
Because it is documented and there's probably already a bunch of code that relies on it, that fact is highly unlikely to change in future versions of Mac OS X.
Edit: BoltClock's a Unicorn brings up a point that I would like to make more hyperbolic: the total time saved by not calling -[NSObject init] for everyone ever running your program is unlikely to ever exceed the debugging time that you'd incur if you ever change the superclass for your class to something other than NSObject and forget to add a call to [super init].
From the documentation, it doesn't appear to do any initialization at all:
The init method defined in the NSObject class does no initialization; it simply returns self.
I suppose it would be harmless not to call [super init], but there's no reason not to follow conventions and, you know, call it in your subclass anyway. For example, your subclass may end up inheriting from another class in future, which may contain initialization logic in its own -init method that your subclass will then require.
Just call through one of super's designated initializers in your implementation because you should just do what is clear and correct.
I know that this is rarely required to override the alloc or dealloc methods,but if required is it possible in iPhone programming?
You can and indeed, you should (if using manual memory management) override dealloc to release any resources you hold (not forgetting to call [super dealloc] when finished). Overriding alloc is possible but, as you say, rarely needed.
In general, overriding alloc is only done when you wish to, eg, allocate an object from a pool of available instances, or perhaps allocate a variable amount of storage for the object based on some external parameter. (In C++ you can access the new parameters and allocate based on them, but Objective-C does not give you access to the initXXX parameters.)
I've never attempted any of this, and I suspect that its a bit of a minefield -- you need to study up on the structures and be pretty careful.
As Adam said, you should ALWAYS (in a reference counted environment) override dealloc if there are any retained objects held by your object.
Update: An interesting thing you can do ... in RedClass or a superclass of it code something like:
+(id)alloc {
if (self == [RedClass class]) {
return [BlueClass alloc];
}
else {
return [super alloc];
}
}
The net result is that whenever you execute [RedClass alloc] a BlueCLass object will be returned. (NB: Presumably BlueClass is a subclass of RedClass, or things will get seriously mucked up shortly after the object is returned.)
Not saying that it's a good idea to do this, but it's possible (and I don't offhand know of any cases where it wouldn't work reliably for vanilla user-defined classes). And it does have a few possible uses.
Additional note: In some cases one might want to use [self isSubclassOf:[RedClass class]] rather than == (though that has some serious pitfalls).
I have a question about writing your own init methods in objective-c. I've read a few different books and have seen a couple of ways to do it but the consensus is the right way to do it is like this:
- (id)init
{
self = [super init];
if(self!=nil)
{
}
return self;
}
I'm a little confused about the line "self = [super init]". My understanding is that, there's no guarantee that [super init] will return the class that you expect it to. I think this is called "class clusters". But in the normal case, where it does return the class you expect it to, if I set self to point to a class that is returned to me, aren't I just saying that self is referring to an object of a different class rather than the class that I'm in the init method of?
To summarize, why set self to be the superclass vs the actual class I'm in?
From a blog I read:
The textbook reason is because [super
init] is permitted to do one of three
things:
1) Return its own receiver (the self
pointer doesn't change) with inherited
instance values initialized. 2) Return a
different object with inherited
instance values initialized. 3) Return
nil, indicating failure. In the first
case, the assignment has no effect on
self...
"The assignment has no effect on self" is what confuses me. Why does it have no effect? If I set something = to something else, shouldn't that have an effect?
There are different opinions on the proper way to write -init methods. There are two reasons that would make you think that self = [super init] is a good idea. (The assignment itself isn't anything special; Objective-C considers self to be a hidden parameter of the method, and you can reassign to parameters. The changed self only applies for the remainder of the method.)
Superclass -init returns instance of different class
As you suggested, some classes use the "class cluster" pattern. However, in the most common implementation of this pattern, it's the -alloc method on the base class that is likely to return an instance of a different class, and it's all the -init... methods on the placeholder class that are likely to return an instance of a different class. self = [super init] is not useful here.
Superclass -init returns a different instance of the same class
This is the reason that self = [super init] is recommended. Some classes have logic that allows -init to return a different instance than the one that it was called on. For example, some singleton classes in the Cocoa framework do this. But in almost every case, you need to know this behavior of the superclass in order to properly subclass it. Here's an argument by Wil Shipley that self = [super init] isn't actually very useful, because either [super init] returns self anyway, or the class you're subclassing is sufficiently complicated that reassigning self and then continuing with the initialization won't work anyway.
To summarize, why set self to be the superclass vs the actual class I'm in?
This is the Apple suggested way to do things, specifically due to the case of class clusters, as you say.
In general, you should not worry about the fact that self might be of a different class in the "normal" case.
self simply identifies the object you are, not the class (the class is actually a different object in the runtime). If you think of OO inheritance properties, it is at the same time an object of its class and of its superclass (if it is clear what I am trying to say). There is no contradiction in the "normal" case, since the value of self does not change.
Also, you can think of self as a special pointer to your object. In the cluster case, self can change, that is the reason why it can happen that its class change.
Hope this helps clarifying things. You will also find an interesting reading in this article by Wil Shipley.
How can I prevent a method from getting overridden in a subclass, missing a call to its superclass' implementation within?.
I know calling [super methodName]; will solve my problem sometimes.
But if somebody else was to use my parent class and overrode my method, accidentally missing to call super, what can I do?
Some more explanations:
I create a viewcontroller VC1 which has a method -(void)indexDidChange:(int)index { }. I write some actions there which I need to perform every time. and I subclass this viewcontroller named as SVC1 in it I need -(void)indexDidChange:(int)index { } for doing some other actions but at the same time the VC1 -(void)indexDidChange:(int)index { } action also need to perform. So I need to call like,
-(void)indexDidChange:(int)index {
[super indexDidChange:index];
}
So I decide to change VC1 function like,
-(void)indexDidChange:(int)index {
[self currentIndexDidChange:(int)index];
}
-(void)currentIndexDidChange:(int)index { }
And I need -(void)currentIndexDidChange:(int)index { } to override and prevent -(void)indexDidChange:(int)index { } from overriding.
Is it possible?
Edit: After OP rephrased the question it is clear that OP is actually NOT looking for final methods, despite the questions initial phrasing, which implied just this.
New (updated) answer to OP's question on method overriding safety:
According to your rephrased question you are not looking for protecting a method from being overridden at all, but rather worried about one of your subclasses overriding a method and accidently missing to include a call to super in its new implementation.
This however is a fairly common and widespread issue and something you're dealing with on a daily basis, without paying much attention to it.
Every Objective-C programmer is familiar with the following method, right?
- (void)dealloc {
[iVar release], iVar = nil;
[super dealloc]; //skipping this call to super is fatal!
}
And we al know that skipping the [super dealloc]; makes things get uncomfortable. (afaik the clang compiler issues a warning if dealloc lacks the call to super, …pretty handy.)
Despite the fact that a bad overriding of this method can have fatal consequences Apple did not choose to put any kind of security system in place here.
Instead Apple did this (as done with any other method requiring calls to super):
Add a note to the method's documentation:
After performing the class-specific
deallocation, the subclass method
should incorporate superclass versions
of dealloc through a message to
super
Expect you, the programmer, to be a grown-up and responsible for what you do. And for playing by the rules (as defined by the documentation).
Keep in mind that - (void)dealloc is by no means an exception. There are dozens and dozens of methods of this type in Cocoa. (Take just about any derivative of - (id)init, most of the KVO observing methods, etc. just to name a few.)
So what you should do is:
Write a good documentation for your
method. (better for your entire project, actually)
Add a big loud note to your method's documentation, explaining its rules.
Add a note to each of your subclasses' overridden method implementations, right above the line that's calling super, telling the reader/dev to look up documentation, when in doubt of the rules. (optional)
Code responsibly. Otherwise, you shouldn't be coding in first place. It's your customers who will suffer from it, eventually.
Old (pre-rephrasing) answer on archieving pseudo-final methods:
What you are asking for is the equivalent of a final function, as known from Java or C++.
Unlike Java or C++, however there are no final methods in Objective-C.
Depending on your situation there are solutions that might bring your at least near to what you're aiming for. All you'll get though is slightly better separation. You won't get any significant security from them. In Objective-C you cannot even be sure about the origin of your methods. Method swizzling allows you to exchange methods at will. With code injection you an even inject code into processes at runtime. All this is by design of Objective-C. Objective-C allows you to saw off the branch you're sitting on. Thus it demands you to act like a grown-up. As such there are no private methods either. If a method is proclaim private you as a dev are expected to behave accordingly.
Now to possible "solutions":
If only your super class if supposed to call the given (final) method anyway:
Then Macmade's solution of making your method a pseudo-private method would work quite well. The downside of hiding method declarations though is, that calling your hidden method from subclasses will give you a compiler warning, basically preventing*(sic!)* you from calling it. (It will not prevent you from calling the method though. It will only avoid you from doing so, by throwing compiler warnings.)
If subclasses however are expected to call the given (final) method:
Use a delegation pattern and by this only make those methods public that are allowed to be overridden.
To prevent overriding at all you could use the class cluster & abstract factory patterns, which hides your implementation classes and thus preventing overriding entirely. (Apple's NSArray, NSDictionary, NSSet classes do this)
However you might notice that with Objective-C lack of protection one usually can only choose between the two: openness, protectedness, not intermix them.
You can use categories in the implementation, so your methods aren't exposed in your header file.
MyClass.m
#interface MyClass( Private )
- ( void )myMethod;
#end
#implementation MyClass( Private )
- ( void )myMethod
{}
#end
#implementation MyClass
/* ... */
#end
If you don't declare your function in the ".h file" then its not listed, I think.
In my code, I have something that looks like this:
#implementation MyClass
- (id) initWithType:(NSInteger)type {
[self release];
if (type == 0) {
self = [[MyClassSubclass1 alloc] init];
} else {
self = [[MyClassSubclass2 alloc] init];
}
return self;
}
//...
#end
which I think handles any potential memory leaks. However, I have seen code out there that does something similar, except it doesn't release self before reassigning it to another newly allocated instance. Is it not necessary to release self here or is the other code I've seen incorrect?
Your code looks technically correct, from a memory management perspective. Replacing self with a different alloc'd object loses the pointer to the original object, and nobody else will be able to release it, which would cause a leak. Try commenting out the release call and run it with Leaks in Instruments.
Just be cautious about opening this particular can of worms — Foundation.framework (part of Cocoa) uses class clusters for collections and strings, but doing so is a fairly advanced concept. A better approach might be to have a class method for each subclass, using the AbstractFactory pattern.
In any case, determining the subclass type based on an integer is a bad idea — any change in mapping from type to class will break dependent code. If you're going that way, why not just pass in the class object itself?
This looks like poor use of object-oriented design.
If you're creating a different instance depending on a type variable, then why don't you have subclasses for those types?
It would be much cleaner to define a base class with all the common functionality, and a subclass for each "type" variation.
What does the class do? We might be able to point you in the right direction.
Code-wise, your example code is correct, but it's generally bad practice to replace the instance with a different instance. Unless the init method is a factory method re-using instances or a singleton initializer, avoid releasing self en-lieu of another instance.