I've been using mogenerator for a while now, and while there is a reasonable Getting Started Guide and a Stack Exchange article on the command line options, I haven't found a good guide for all of the functionality it provides.
In short: what, above and beyond the classes that Core Data provides for you, what does mogenerator actually generate?
(Frankly, I kept finding little pleasant surprises in the headers/implementations that I didn't realize were in there and I decided to step through the mogenerator templates and code and document what I found in a Stack Exchange Q&A. I'd love to see additional answers and edits, however. )
In addition to its core feature of a two class system, mogenerator helps you by automatically implementing a number of best practices regarding Core Data in your machine header and implementation files.
Property Accessors
Methods to access the attributes of your Entities are the core of what mogenerator generates. But there are some nice features implemented in the accessors above and beyond what the out of the box Xcode class generator provides to you.
Scalar Accessors
Xcode's built in generator gives you the option of "use scalar properties for primitive data types". This option gives you choice of having Xcode create properties with NSTimeIntervals instead of NSDates for date types, BOOLs instead of NSNumbers for boolean types, and int16_t (or similar) rather than NSNumbers.
I find this infuriating because most of the time I prefer the primitive types, but not for NSDates which are much more useful than a NSTimeInterval. So Core Data is giving me the choice of objects, in which case I will be constantly unboxing stuff and making stupid mistakes like if(myBooleanAttribute) (which is always YES because myBooleanAttribute is a NSNumber, not a BOOL). Or I can have scalars, but in that case, I get NSTimeIntervals that I'll always have to convert to NSDates. Or I can hand edit all of the generated files by hand to give me my desired mix of NSDates and BOOLs.
On the other hand, mogenerator provides you with both options. For example, you will get both a myBooleanAttribute getter that gives you an NSNumber (for easy storage in an NSArray) and a myBooleanAttributeValue getter that gives you an actual BOOL. Same with integers and floats. (Mogenerator does not generate NSTimeInterval accessors: only NSDates.)
Typed Transformable Properties
If you have a transformable property, you can set a specific UserInfo key ( attributeValueClassName ) in the attribute that will specify the class that your property will return/accept. (And it will properly forward declare the class etc.) The only place I found this documented was on Verious.
In contrast, the Xcode code generator will only type these transformable attributes as id types.
Validation Declaration
While mogenerator does not automatically generate any validation methods, it does include the proper signature as a comment in the machine h file. The seems to largely be for historical reasons, but it does mean that it is easy to copy and paste the signature if you decide to implement it in your human file implementation. (I wouldn't actually uncomment the declaration as you aren't supposed to call validation directly.)
Primitive Accessors
Core Data already provides you these accessors to the primitive values, but for some reason doesn't include them in its Xcode generated headers. Having mogenerator include them in its header files makes it much easier to access a primitive value.
Fetched Properties
mogenerator will generate accessors for fetched properties. As far as I can tell there is no way to have the Xcode generator do this.
Helper methods
Automatic NSFetchedResultsController generation
If you have a to many relationship in your Entity and you pass --template-var frc=true into mogenerator, mogenerator will automatically generate a method to create a fetch request for the child objects associated with a parent object. It even automatically generates a unique cache name, and isolates everything inside an #if TARGET_OS_IPHONE preprocessor macro.
Even if this doesn't fit your particular needs, it is a great example of how the templates can be extended.
+fetchMyFetchRequest:moc_
If you like defining your fetch requests in the model, this is a lot better way to retrieve them than hardcoded strings.
-MyEntitySet
Mogenerator uses the magic of KVC to give you a NSMutableSet proxy into your relationships.
+entityName
Need to provide a entity name to a NSFetchRequest or other Core Data method? It's easy to avoid hard coded strings by using this simple method that returns the name of the entity as an NSString.
+insertInManagedObjectContext: and entityInManagedObjectContext:
Another way to avoid hardcoding entity names is to use these helper methods.
Typed object ids
Each of your headers and implementations also includes a MyEntityID class. They are empty interfaces and implementations that merely subclass the NSManagedObjectID class. Also, each model class has a helper method called objectID that overrides the standard objectID method in NSManagedObject. The helper method does nothing but cast the superclass's return value to the MyEntityID type.
The net result: the compiler can catch your mistakes if you ever accidentally interchange your object ids from different entities.
Miscellaneous
Subclassing a Custom Superclass
One of the command line options is --base-class: which allows you to specify a base class that all of your generated classes will inherit from. This is very useful, either so that you can have a base class where you define convenience methods (which, given Core Data, you probably should) or so you can use an off the shelf Core Data toolkit like SSDataKit (or both).
includem
A simple little thing, but if you specify a --includem argument, mogenerator will generate a header file that includes all of your model header files. Convenient if you want to include all of your headers in a PCH, or something some other standard header you include.
Const Definitions of All Attributes, Relationships, Fetched Properties
An extern declaration of a struct is included in the header that has an NSString defined for every attribute and relationship defined in your Entity. This allows you to define predicates and other parameters, without baking the names of your entities into your strings. For example,
req.predicate = [NSPredicate predicateWithFormat:
#"(%K == YES) AND (%K <= %#)",MyObject.favorite, MyObject.availableDate, [NSDate date]];
(This type of struct used for "namespaced" constants is described My Mike Ash on his blog
const Definitions of User Info Keys/Values
Similarly an extern declaration of a struct is defined in the header that includes the keys as members of the struct, and the values as a values. i.e.
NSLog(#"User info for key my key is %#",MyObjectInfo.mykey) //will log "myvalue"
Alternate Templates
One of the interesting things about mogenerator is that in building mogenerator its author (Wolf Rentzsch) has basically built a generic parser and templating engine for the xcdatamodel files produced by Xcode. So you don't need to use the mogenerator templates. You can provide your own with a simple command line argument. There are lots of user contributed templates on the GitHub site.
In fact, you don't even have to use Core Data. Many of the contributed templates allow you to generate a series of ordinary NSObject model classes based on the data model. (So called PONSOs: "plain old nsobjects"). Want to use the data modeler in Xcode, but some other persistence mechanism? mogenerator can help you there.
You don't even need to generate objects at all: another interesting submitted template just provides a diff of two different model versions.
Related
If I want to handle many parameters from for example a web request and pass it between classes (layers) - what is the preferred way?
I know it is easy to pass optional numbers of parameters through the constructor as a map.
I can also pass a map directly and if the keys match the receiving objects property names it should work in a similar way
Or I could just pass the map and then instantiate for example domain classes from that
I could use a special class as data carrier with given number of properties
I have a domain class (not database domain but business domain) that needs data from the user interface.
What is the best way to pass data through the layers and how do I know that all required data is being passed if using a data structure - like a map - with key values? If I would have a more static constructor with a given number of parameters, then I would know that the parameters are being passed. But how do I secure this when using a more dynamic approach? With unit tests?
Well in Grails command objects are an excellent choice. You can pass them up to various layers without issues. They are pretty analogous to domain classes, only without the whole persistence functionality.
Otherwise I would recommend using plain old Groovy classes (POGOs). Groovy allows you to keep your code very short (compared to Java and many other languages as well) and offers very handy transforms for common design patterns you might need (e.g. Canonical, Immutable, IndexedProperty, DelegatesTo...).
Compared to command objects POGOs do require you to write e.g. validation code by yourself, but this can be as simple as
boolean isValid() {
name && lastName && countryCode in ['US', 'CA']
}
You can keep static factories in a POGO to help you construct them in the various circumstances. Plus you can define more than one class in a file so you can keep the POGO code wherever it makes most sense. I would definitely prefer this approach to simple maps because the code is better encapsulated, POGOs can be unit tested & documented.
I am trying to get my head wrapped around "key-value coding".
Apple's docs say:
This document describes the NSKeyValueCoding informal protocol, which
defines a mechanism allowing applications to access the properties of
an object indirectly by name (or key), rather than directly through
invocation of an accessor method or as instance variables.
Few thing are confusing me
Accessor methods are automatically generated for properties, and provide several benefits like memory management, custom validations, etc. When we access a property without the accessor methods as the Apple doc says, does that mean we are losing the benefits of accessor methods?
If KVC is so good and it reduces code, why should I use accessor methods, or why are accessor methods still around?
I have never seen in any tutorial or books, or code on GitHub using KVC. Why is it not adopted that widely?
No, it just means that you aren't explicitly calling the accessor in your code. The accessor is called for you by the KVC implementation.
KVC doesn't necessarily reduce code, rather it allows a different way of interacting. It allows more runtime flexibility and it can allow the use of key paths. You shouldn't look at it as a full replacement, just as an alternative which is appropriate in some cases.
It is used widely, you need to look for calls to valueForKey:, setValue:forKey: (the methods of the protocol - there are many more than just these couple).
We're looking for a way to document Core Data entities. So far the only real options I've come up with are:
Document externally using UML or some other standard
Create NSManagedObject subclasses for every entity and use code comments
Use the User Info dictionary to create a key value pair that holds a string comment
Option 1 feels like too much extra work and something that will almost certainly be out of date 99% of the time.
Option 2 feels natural and more correct than option 1. The biggest con here is that those comments could potentially be lost if this model class is regenerated using Xcode.
Option 3 feels a little less correct than option 2, but has the added advantage of adding automation possibilities with regards to meta data extraction. For instance, in one of our apps we need to keep a real close eye on what we're storing locally on the device as well as syncing to iCloud. Using the user info dictionary it's pretty easy to automate the creation of some form of artefact which can be checked both internally and externally (by the client) for compliance
So my question is whether it would be inappropriate to use the user info dictionary for this purpose? And are there any other options I'm missing?
Option 2 is what I use every time. If you look at your core data model (something.xcdatamodeld or something.xcdatamodel) you will see something like the picture below.
You can tie your entity to whatever class you want and then put the comments in there. It helps if you keep your entity name the same as your class name to make it obvious what you've done.
Additionally this also gives you the ability to add automation. You can do this by creating custom getters and setters (accessor methods) and a custom description method.
I use option 2 and categories. I'll let XCode generate the NSManagedObject subclasses and use a categorie on each of these subclasses. With the categories I do not loose my changes made in the categories, can document, make custom getter and setters and I am still able to use generated subclasses.
If we speak only about documenting (i.e. writing more or less large amounts of text which is intended to be read by humans) your classes, I'd use the option 2.
If you are concerned with the possibility of Xcode overwriting your classes in the option 2, you may consider creating two classes for each entity: one which is generated by Xcode and always could be replaced (you generally do not touch this file) and one other which inherits from the generated one and in which you put all your customizations and comments.
This two-class approach is proposed by the mogenerator.
Although if you need to store some metadata with the entities which will be processed programmatically, the userInfo is perfectly suitable for this.
Property 'Latitude' is a scalar type on class 'LatitudeLongitude'. Cannot generate a setter method for it.
When I generated codes for my managed object, I got a message whether I want scalar properties for primitive data type. should I use it? I want to make this application compatible with iPhone 3 - 5
is there any issues with this problem?
When you use scalar properties you have to provide implementations of getters and setters for those properties by yourself, as described in documentation:
"You can declare properties as scalar values, but for scalar values Core Data cannot dynamically generate accessor methods—you must provide your own implementations (see “Managed Object Accessor Methods”). Core Data automatically synthesizes the primitive accessor methods (primitiveLength and setPrimitiveLength:), but you need to declare them to suppress compiler warnings."
Documentation
At this place I would recommend you to check this post core-data-scalars.
I hope I have helped.
This is not true, scalars have been supported in Core Data out of the box for a long time. You do not have to implement custom accessors as many blog posts out there indicate.
I'm trying to figure out how to decide when to use NSDictionary or NSCoder/NSCoding?
It seems that for general property lists and such that NSDictionary is the easy way to go that generates XML files that are easily editable outside of the application.
When dealing with custom classes that holds data or possibly other custom classes nested inside, it seems like NSCoder/NSCoding would be the better route since it will step through all the contained object classes and encode them as well when an archive command is used.
NSDictionary seems like it would take more work to get all the properties or data characteristics to a single level to be able to save it, where as NSCoder/NSCoding would automatically encode nested custom classes that implement the NSCoding interface.
Outside of it being binary data and not editable outside of your application is there a real reason to use one over the other? And along those lines is there an indicator of which way you should lean between the two? Am I missing something obvious?
Apple's documentation on object graphs has this to say:
Mac OS X serializations store a simple hierarchy of value objects, such as dictionaries, arrays, strings, and binary data. The serialization only preserves the values of the objects and their position in the hierarchy. Multiple references to the same value object might result in multiple objects when deserialized. The mutability of the objects is not maintained.
…
Mac OS X archives store an arbitrarily complex object graph. The archive preserves the identity of every object in the graph and all the relationships it has with all the other objects in the graph. When unarchived, the rebuilt object graph should, with few exceptions, be an exact copy of the original object graph.
The way I interpret this is that, if you want to store simple values, serialization (using an NSDictionary, for example) is a fine way to go. If you want to store an object graph of arbitrary types, with uniqueness and mutability preserved, using archives (with NSCoder, for example) is your best bet.
You may also want to read Apple's Archives and Serializations Programming Guide for Cocoa, of which the aforelinked page on object graphs is a part, as it covers this topic well.
I am NOT a big fan of using NSCoding/NSCoder/NSArchiver (we need to pick a name!) to serialise an object graph to a file.
Archives created in this way are incredibly fragile. If you save an object of class Foo then by golly you need to make sure when you load the data back in you have a class Foo in your application.
This makes NSCoder based serialisation difficult from the perspective of sharing files with other applications or even forwards compatibility with your future application.
I forgot to list what I would recommend.
NSCoding can be ok in certain situations: if you're just doing something quick and simple (although you do have to write a lot of code - two methods per class to be serialised). It can also be ok if you're not worried about compatibility with other applications.
Export/import via property lists (perhaps using the NSPropertyListSerializaion class) is a fine solution. XML based plists are easy to create and edit. Main advantage to plists is that you're not tying the file format to just your application.
You can also create your own XML based file format and read/write to it using NSXMLDocument API and friends. This really isn't much more work than using property lists.
I think you're a bit confused, NSDictionary is a data structure, it also happens to implement the NSCoding protocol. So in essence, you could either put all your data into a NSDictionary and have that encode itself later on, or you can implement the NSCoding protocol and encode your object tree using the NSCoder API. Based on the type of NSCoder object passed in to the encodeWithCoder: method, is the output of your encoding.