I mean the fundamental runtime. How is method dispatching implemented (via a selector hashtable?). What is a selector anyway? How is the object model as you can add methods later with some low level API etc.
I need to look at it from a compiler programming point of view, not a simple user of the language.
Use the source.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/objc4/objc4-437/
And for parsing, look to Clang:
http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html
Here's a few docs to get you started (should help you google the right questions):
http://www.mulle-kybernetik.com/artikel/Optimization/opti-9.html
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/ObjCRuntimeRef/index.html
Related
I'm aware this might be a broad question (there's no specific code for you to look at), but I'm hoping I'd get some insights as to what to do, or how to approach the problem.
To keep things simple, suppose the compiler that I'm writing performs these three steps:
parse (and bind all variables)
typecheck
codegen
Also the language that I'm building the compiler for wants to support late-analysis/late-binding (ie., it has a function that takes a String, which is to be compiled and executed as a piece of source-code during runtime).
Now during parse-phase, I have a piece of context that I need to keep around till run-time for the sole benefit of the aforementioned function (because it needs to parse and typecheck its argument in that context).
So the question, how should I do this? What do other compilers do?
Should I just serialise the context object to disk (codegen for it) and resurrect it during run-time or something?
Thanks
Yes, you'll need to emit the type information (or other context, you weren't very specific) in your object/executable files, so that your eval can read it at runtime. You might look at Java's .class file format for inspiration; Java doesn't have eval as such, but you can dynamically spin new bytecode at runtime that must be linked in a type-safe manner. David Conrad's comment is spot-on: this information can also be used to implement reflection, if your language has such a feature.
That's as much as I can help you without more specifics.
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.
This guy came up with a pretty neat tool to generate a class dependency graph - however, it relies on parsing your source code and looking for #import directives.
http://seriot.ch/blog.php?article=20110124
https://github.com/nst/objc_dep/blob/master/objc-dep.py
This is neat, but I have a number of problems with this. Not least of which is it doesn't take into account imports of imports nor prefix headers nor whether-or-not the class(es) in the file referenced by the import are actually being used.
I'd like to do something more akin to class-dump and examine the Objective-C metadata stored in the Mach-O file to generate an in-memory representation of the class dependencies.
I'd rather not do this from scratch, so I'm wondering:
Has it already been done?
Is there an open-source library which would provide me with the foundational tools I need to extract this information (a library which examines the Mach-O file and creates a façade of the Objective-C information contained within - such that I could iterate over all of the classes, their methods, properties, ivars, etc and scan for references to other classes) I figure class-dump's source would be a good place to start.
If you have experience in this sort of thing, is what I'm trying to accomplish feasible?
What roadblocks will I need to overcome?
Has it already been done?
Not that I know of.
Is there an open-source library which would provide me with the
foundational tools I need to extract this information?
At the core of class-dump is libMachObjC which does exatly what you want, i.e. parse all classes/methods/ivars and more. The API is very clean, it should be very easy to use.
If you have experience in this sort of thing, is what I'm trying to
accomplish feasible?
Unfortunately, no because some classes don't declare the real class but use id instead. For example, here is the information that can be extracted from a class-dump of UIKit:
#interface UITableView : UIScrollView <NSCoding>
{
int _style;
id <UITableViewDataSource> _dataSource;
id _rowData;
...
The _rowData ivar type information is id but if you check at runtime you will see that _rowData is an instance of the UITableViewRowData class. This information is not present in the Mach-O binary so you have no way to find the relation between UITableView and UITableViewRowData. The same applies for method parameters.
Here's a solution that relies on information in mach.o files, and generates graph dependency based on that information: https://github.com/PaulTaykalo/objc-dependency-visualizer
Has it already been done?
yes - but i can't recommend a good public implementation
Is there an open-source library which would provide me with the foundational tools I need to extract this information (a library which examines the Mach-O file and creates a façade of the Objective-C information contained within - such that I could iterate over all of the classes, their methods, properties, ivars, etc and scan for references to other classes) I figure class-dump's source would be a good place to start.
most use cases would benefit by using the objc runtime facilities objc/... rather than examining the binary.
If you have experience in this sort of thing, is what I'm trying to accomplish feasible?
yes. i've done something similar using the objc runtime.
What roadblocks will I need to overcome?
that depends largely on the level of detail you want... implementation time if you find no such implementation, but i figure you will find a few options if you google the more esoteric functions in the objc runtime; perhaps you would find one in an (open) language binding or bridge?
if you do end up writing one yourself, you can get registered objc classes using objc_getClassList, then access the properties/information you want from there.
will some body explain me in detail that what is SYNTHESIZE_SINGLETON_FOR_CLASS and why we should use it. actually i have search on net that it allow us to access a data without creating object but we can do that by using static method.
so plz if someone can provide me a ref where i can get complete detatil of SYNTHESIZE_SINGLETON_FOR_CLASS from zero.
Do you mean http://cocoawithlove.com/2008/11/singletons-appdelegates-and-top-level.html?
SYNTHESIZE_SINGLETON_FOR_CLASS is just a C macro defined that produce the same code template described in Apple's Creating a Singleton Instance section of the Cocoa Fundamentals Guide. This link already provides the detail what each method does.
To implement "method-missing"-semantics and such in C# 4.0, you have to implement IDynamicObject:
public interface IDynamicObject
{
MetaObject GetMetaObject(Expression parameter);
}
As far as I can figure out IDynamicObject is actually part of the DLR, so it is not new. But I have not been able to find much documentation on it.
There are some very simple example implementations out there (f.x. here and here), but could anyone point me to more complete implementations or some real documentation?
Especially, how exactly are you supposed to handle the "parameter"-parameter?
The short answer is that the MetaObject is what's responsible for actually generating the code that will be run at the call site. The mechanism that it uses for this is LINQ expression trees, which have been enhanced in the DLR. So instead of starting with an object, it starts with an expression that represents the object, and ultimately it's going to need to return an expression tree that describes the action to be taken.
When playing with this, please remember that the version of System.Core in the CTP was taken from a snapshot at the end of August. It doesn't correspond very cleanly to any particular beta of IronPython. A number of changes have been made to the DLR since then.
Also, for compatibility with the CLR v2 System.Core, releases of IronPython starting with either beta 4 or beta 5 now rename everything in that's in the System namespace to be in the Microsoft namespace instead.
If you want an end to end sample including source code, resulting in a dynamic object that stores value for arbitrary properties in a Dictionary then my post "A first look at Duck Typing in C# 4.0" could be right for you. I wrote that post to show how dynamic object can be cast to statically typed interfaces. It has a complete working implementation of a Duck that is a IDynamicObject and may acts like a IQuack.
If you need more information contact me on my blog and I will help you along, as good as I can.
I just blogged about how to do this here:
http://mikehadlow.blogspot.com/2008/10/dynamic-dispatch-in-c-40.html
Here is what I have figured out so far:
The Dynamic Language Runtime is currently maintained as part of the IronPython project. So that is the best place to go for information.
The easiest way to implement a class supporting IDynamicObject seems to be to derive from Microsoft.Scripting.Actions.Dynamic and override the relevant methods, for instance the Call-method to implement function call semantics. It looks like Microsoft.Scripting.Actions.Dynamic hasn't been included in the CTP, but the one from IronPython 2.0 looks like it will work.
I am still unclear on the exact meaning of the "parameter"-parameter, but it seems to provide context for the binding of the dynamic-object.
This presentation also provides a lot of information about the DLR:
Deep Dive: Dynamic Languages in Microsoft .NET by Jim Hugunin.