I have a class called GameScene, with is a subclass of a cocos2d Scene.
In there I have two layers. GameLayer and ControlsLayer. You can probably tell already that I want the ControlsLayer to move stuff around in the GameLayer. To be precise, I'm trying to control a cPBody in the GameLayer from the ControlsLayer.
At the moment, I'm trying to route the instructions from the ControlsLayer, back up into the GameScene and then back down into the GameLayer. If that makes sense. Anyway, I can't get it to work. I have a PHP background so I think I'm incorrectly applying my PHP experience to Obj-C.
My thinking is, I should be able to access a property inside a class/object using something like
aThing *someThing = someInstance->aThing;
From the sample code I've been looking at, it looks like this should work. But it doesn't. Here's the code, stripped down to as much as possible http://pastebin.com/d49c9d0be
Rather than knowing how to fix this particular issue, The question is, what don't I understand?
In Objective-C you need to define accessor methods to get at the instance variable, you can't directly access it like that unless you're calling it from the same class type (for instance when you're implementing the NSCopying protocol and need to set private variables, but don't worry about that now).
The easiest way to do that is to define a property in your header using #property(retain) SomeClass *name;, and have Objective-C generate it by putting #synthesize name = instanceVariable; in your implementation. You can then access the variable outside of that class using object.name; or [object name];. For more information take a look in the documentation for properties and Object Oriented programming.
You're not exposing the gameLayer.myBody property in any shape. You'd have to use the #property declaration (assuming objective-c 2.0) (here's an example).
I don't have any PHP background, so I don't know how it may be different in PHP.
The correct way to access a property in an object is as follows:
aThing * someThing = someInstance.aThing; // new style
or
aThing * someThing = [someInstance aThing]; // old style
If you were coding in c, the -> operator would make sense. In objective-c, however, objects are always passed around through pointers. No objective-c variable ever actually holds an object, they just hold pointers to objects. The language designers simply decided to use the [] or . syntax to access members, so that's what we have to do!
Related
After importing the objective C robbiehanson/XMPPFramework into a swift project (setting up build setting, bridging header, etc). I am able to call normal methods in the imported classes and set properties directly.
However, certain instance methods that set properties cause immediate errors as if they don't exist in the instances I'm calling them on. For example:
- (void)setMyJID:(XMPPJID *)newMyJID
{
[self setMyJID_setByClient:newMyJID];
}
Or even the setMyJID_setByClient:newMyJID method which actually does the setting.
In two separate objective c example projects I have looked at, the setMyJID method is being called from other classes. However, while I am able to call other instance methods on the class, I can't call this one. Since I am not very familiar with objective c, I though this might be because it wasn't declared in the header file, causing some swift specific problem, but attempts to add a declaration for it did not help.
I am able to set the relevant property directly, but this is not only undesirable, I also would like to understand why I am not able to call certain methods.
I am attempting to make the call on an instance of the XMPPStream class like this
//This shows immediate error: XMPPStream does not have a member named 'setMyJID'
stream.setMyJID(XMPPJID.jidWithString(someXMPPAddress)
// This works perfectly
stream.myJID = (XMPPJID.jidWithString(someXMPPAddress))
Any help would be appreciated.
In the XMPPStream class, myJID is declared as follows:
#property (readwrite, copy) XMPPJID *myJID;
In Objective-C, this means that there are actually two methods on the XMPPStream class that conform to the following signatures:
- (XMPPJID *)myJID;
- (void)setMyJID:(XMPPJID *)myJID;
So, from Objective-C code, you can call them like any other method. However, as you know, you also have the option of using the syntactic sugar in the language known as "dot notation":
// getter with dot notation
XMPPJID *jid = stream.myJID;
// setter with dot notation
stream.myJID = jid;
However, in Objective-C, these dot notation expressions are directly translated into calls to the getter and setter. They're just there to look nice.
Things are different in Swift. When you have a property, like this one:
var myJID: XMPPJID
this does not mean that there exist separate getter and setter methods, like you might be imagining:
func myJID() -> XMPPJID {}
func setMyJID(jid: XMPPJID) {}
In Swift, you must access properties using dot syntax.
Knowing this, your problem becomes obvious. When you tried:
stream.setMyJID(XMPPJID.jidWithString(someXMPPAddress)
Swift tried to run the instance method setMyJID of stream, and found, rightly, that it did not exist! This, of course:
stream.myJID = (XMPPJID.jidWithString(someXMPPAddress))
works perfectly, because you're setting a property as Swift requires.
As an educational aside, you may sometimes see cases where, when accessing Objective-C properties from Swift, you not only can, but must use the getter and setter methods - dot notation won't even work! This seems totally counterintuitive, but there's a good reason for why this happens. One example of this that I can think of off the top of my head is the verbosely-named UIView property translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints, used for view layout. If you try to use it in Swift, like so:
// Set translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints to false on self
translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
you would get a compilation error! Specifically,
Cannot assign to 'translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints' in 'self'
Why? The answer lies in the UIView headers:
- (BOOL)translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints NS_AVAILABLE_IOS(6_0); // Default YES
- (void)setTranslatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints:(BOOL)flag NS_AVAILABLE_IOS(6_0);
It turns out that this "property," like many others in the Cocoa frameworks, is actually just a pair of methods that look like property accessors. Because of how Objective-C translates dot notation into method calls, you'd never notice before. Now, though, Swift is stricter – to get and set this "property," you must call the appropriate methods.
I've seen examples of arrow notation used for structs. In one tutorial, I saw this syntax in a view controller implementation file:
self->webView.canGoBack) backButton.enabled = YES;
I have no idea why they did not use dot notation. No explanation was given. I tried this in a simple project that has a button and text field. Below is what I put in the button press method:
//header file
#property (strong, nonatomic) IBOutlet UITextField *myInputField;
//implementation file
self.myInputField.text = #"another test";
//self->_myInputField.text = #"text field test";
Either line of code works without issue. So why use one of the above lines over the other?
Also, notice that the arrow notation produces _myInputField.text. What is the significance of the underscore?
In Objective-C, objects are also c structs. If you're new to the language, that knowledge will get you in more trouble than it will help. But it helps explain what you're seeing.
An Objective-C property is a helpful construct that creates an ivar in the object (a new field in the class's struct) that defaults to the property name prefixed by an underscore. A property will also create getter and setter methods, e.g. - (UITextFeild *)myInputField and - (void)setMyInfputField.
Dot notation is Objective-C syntactic sugar that calls the Objective-C setter and getter methods. The -> arrow notation is C syntax that will dereference the object's pointer and access the struct field for the object's ivar.
It is important to understand that the dot syntax is actually generating calls to these methods, so you don't try and override those methods and inadvertently include calls to themselves.
The default implementation of a generated method like - (UITextFeild *)myInputField looks something like this
- (UITextFeild *)myInputField {
return self->_myInputField;
}
But Objective-C has yet another syntactic helper allowing you to access _myInputField without writing out self->. So the following implementation is identical.
- (UITextFeild *)myInputField {
return _myInputField;
}
There are some good reasons for using direct ivar access -- the biggest reasons being implementation of custom setters and getters, performance, and careful control over KVO language features. But in modern Objective-C it should be avoided unless you really know what you're doing.
If you want to learn more, read Apple's documentation on Objective-C
self.myInputField.text = #"another test";
That code calls the myInputField getter method. There can be good reason for doing this, so it is usually safest.
self->_myInputField.text = #"text field test";
That code directly accesses the _myInputField instance variable.
The myInputField getter method in this case also accesses the _myInputField instance variable, which is why the two calls seem to do the same thing. But that is just an implementation detail; it is perfectly possible for a getter method to access a differently named instance variable, to perform other actions (side effects), or to access no instance variable at all.
this question is about "style", because i think this is a very common problem and i'm looking for an elegant solution.
I have created some "advanced" UIView and i try to make them very customizable.
Usually i create the UIView structure inside a custom init method, but i need to know the value of all customizable parameter inside init method so sometimes i need a very long init method like:
initWithFrame:color:font:verticalspace:verylonglist:
I tried to use delegate design pattern but i need also to pass delegate inside init method.
My actual best solution is to leave empty the init method and move everything about layout inside a "configure" method. everytime i chance a property like background color or font i will call this method and i will rebuild the view.
I think there is a best way to solve this problem...
I'd be curious to see the code of UITableView Class, because with that class you can pass a delegate outside init method.
Check out something like a UIButton or UILabel. They both have tons of configurable aspects, however to simply create an instance of one of those objects, they need very little information.
In general, provide init methods that allow the consumer of your class to specify the least amount of information for the class to work.
If you do want to give the consumer a way to initialize the class with a bunch of values, consider using some sort of initWithDictionary: method that takes an NSDictionary of parameters. This keeps your method names short and allows the user to customize an arbitrary number of settings for your class.
You could also consider providing a way for the consumer to request an instance with some standard set of values. UITableViewCell, for example, has an initWithStyle:reuseIdentifier: method. The important part is the style - UITableViewCell provides several default styles like UITableViewCellStyleDefault and UITableViewCellStyleSubtitle.
I don't know if it is the standard/best practices way but I use a dictionary in cases like this and pass that to an initWithDictionaryinitializer. Would be possible too to create a class method that returns a 'default settings' type dictionary which can then be customized (and delegate set), so that not every param needs to be specified whenever the class is used.
In my controller class, I initialize two instances of a model class (whose header is properly imported into controller class) with an NSButton. The model is really simple, just 4 members and one method - attack(). Making a silly text game!
- (IBAction)startGame:(id)sender {
Combatant *hero = [[Combatant alloc] init];
Combatant *enemy = [[Combatant alloc] init];
[console insertText:#"You have created a hero! An enemy approaches...\n"];
}
So now I have these two objects sitting there. Or do I? Because this other button, the one that's supposed to make them fight, has no idea what hero and enemy are, or that they have a class method that makes em' fight!
- (IBAction)attack:(id)sender{
[hero attack:enemy]; //Use of undeclared identifier, blah blah.
[console insertText:#"You attack the enemy! Woah!\n"];}
I get that if I initialized those objects in the attack method, then I could use them, so I gather this is something to do with scope. But I don't like the idea of sending model objects to controller methods, that seems silly.
Let me apologize: yes, this is a stupid, high-level question about the structure of Cocoa. Sorry. But I figure one of you will know exactly what I am not doing and tell me to do it!
In short, what is the Cocoa way of doing things in this situation? Thanks in advance.
-Alec
When you declare a variable in a method, it is a local variable, which means it only exists in that method. The same goes for variables you declare in functions.
If you want the variable to exist in all instance methods in the class, you need to make it an instance variable, which you do by declaring it in that { … } section in the class's #interface.
Note that any objects you store in instance variables, the instance should own. This means three things:
You'll need to either retain the object (and thereby own it) or make a copy (which you will then own) before assigning it to the instance variable.
Since you own it, you'll need to release it in the instance's dealloc method.
If you decide to replace it with a different object, you'll need to release the former object (since you still own it) and retain or copy the new object (in order to own it).
See the Objective-C Programming Language and the Memory Management Programming Guide for more information.
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.