I'm not sure if I should create an abstract class and a series of descendants that inherit this abstract class, or define a protocol. What's the best practice in Cocoa?
It depends.
The abstract class + descendants pattern is known as a class cluster in Cocoa terminology. Well-known examples are NSString and NSArray. The main advantage of this approach is that you can implement methods on the base class that work in terms of a core set of methods and are inherited; for instance, a subclass of NSString only needs to implement -length and -characterAtIndex: for all public NSString instance methods to work (although it won’t be very efficient).
The downside of this pattern is that implementations must inherit from the base class, which can be a severe restriction in a single-inheritance language.
A protocol, on the other hand, can be adopted by any class, but can’t provide a base implementation. It’s a lot like a statically-checked version of duck typing; by adopting a protocol you claim you can quack, and by requiring a protocol you can restrict a parameter to quack-capable classes without requiring a specific base class.
If you’re planning to provide a standard set of implementations for your abstraction, you probably want a class cluster. If you want to communicate with an open set of objects implementing your abstraction, you probably want a protocol.
Allow me to recommend a book called Cocoa Design Patterns it is a very nice book to look up how the Cocoa framework works and what paradigms are used.
Cocoa Design Patterns on Amazon
Related
I understand what purpose protocols serve (to have a type conform to a set list of methods or/and properties), but I don't understand what the purpose is of a protocol with all optional methods. One example would be UITextFieldDelegate.
If all methods are optional in a protocol, why would you conform to the protocol instead of just writing the methods from scratch in your class? I don't see what the benefit or purpose of conforming to the protocol is in this case.
Are the optional methods there just as suggestions of functionality that could be implemented?
Historically, for delegates and data sources in Cocoa, informal protocols were used. Informal protocol was implemented trough a category for NSObject class:
#interface NSObject (NSTableViewDelegate)
- (int)numberOfRowsInTableView:(NSTableView *)tableView;
// ...
#end
Later, optional methods in protocols were introduced. This change leads to better documenting of class responsibilities. If you see in code, that class conforms to NSTableViewDelegate, you suspect that somewhere exists a table view, that managed by instance of this class.
Also, this change leads to stronger checks in compile time. If programmer accidentally assign wrong object to delegate or dataSource properties, compiler will warn.
But your assumption is also correct. Optional methods are also suggestions for possible functionality.
By default, all methods in a protocol are required. Each method has to be marks as optional if the nor required for everything to function correctly.
If all methods are optional in a protocol, why would you conform to the protocol instead of just writing the functions from scratch in your class?
Conforming to a protocol allow your class to tell another object the methods it has without the other object needing to know about your class. This is really useful when using Delegation as it allows the delegate to decide what information they wish to receive/provide to another class.
For example,the UIScrollViewDelegate protocol only defines optional methods. Lets say we have a class Foo that we want to know when things change with a UIScrollView.
If we decided to throw that protocol away and implement the functions from scratch, how would we tell UIScrollView which methods we implement and which methods to call when certain event occur? There is no good way it could find out. When UIScrollView was built, it didn't know about Foo so it can't know what methods it implements. Also, Foo has no way of knowing what methods can be called on it by the UIScrollView.
However, when UIScrollView was built, it did know about UIScrollViewDelegate. So if Foo conforms the the UIScrollViewDelegate protocol, there is now a common definition that both Foo and UIScrollView can follow. So Foo can implement any methods it cares about, like scrollViewDidScroll: and the UIScrollView just needs to check if the delegate implemented the methods in UIScrollViewDelegate.
The protocol establishes a contract for the interface between one object and another. The fact that the methods are optional simply says that you don't have to implement that particular method, but you can if your app calls for it.
Generally, if you're conforming to a protocol for which all of the methods are optional, though, you're doing that for a reason, namely that you plan on implementing one or more of those methods. Just because all of the protocol's methods are optional doesn't mean you will not implement any of them, but rather simply that you can elect which are relevant in your particular situation.
For example, consider the UITextFieldDelegate protocol. You'd generally conform to that because you want to specify, for example, whether certain characters should be allowed to be inserted into the text field or what to do when the return key is pressed. Sometimes you only want to implement the former. Sometimes you only want to implement the latter. Sometimes you do both. But just because you choose to implement one or the other doesn't mean you necessarily want to do other one (but you can if you want). Frankly, though, if you really didn't want to implement any of the methods, you probably wouldn't even bother to specify the delegate of the text field, nor bother to specify that you're conforming to the protocol.
Bottom line, the protocol that consists solely of optional methods basically says "if you need it, this is the documented interface for the methods you may elect to implement". The protocol still is very useful to establish the possible interfaces, but doesn't force you to implement those methods you do not need.
What are the similarities & differences between traits, mixins and interfaces. I am trying to get a deeper understanding of these concepts but I don't know enough programming languages that implement these features to truly understand the similarities and differences.
For each of traits, mixins and interfaces
What is the problem being solved?
Is the definition of the concept consistent across programming languages?
What are the similarities between it and the others?
what are the differences between it and the others?
Every reference type in Java, except Object, derives from one single superclass.
By the way, Java classes may implement zero or more interfaces.
Generally speaking, an interface is a contract that describes the methods an implementing class is forced to have, though without directly providing an implementation.
In other words, a Java class is obliged to abide its contract and thus to give implementation to method signatures provided by the interfaces it declares to implement.
An interface constitutes a type. So you can pass parameters and have return values from methods declared as interface types, requiring that way that parameters and return types implement particular methods without necessarily providing a concrete implementation for them.
This sets the basis for several abstraction patterns, like, for example, dependency injection.
Scala, on its own, has traits. Traits give you all the features of Java interfaces, with the significant difference that they can contain method implementations and variables.
Traits are a smart way of implementing methods just once and - by means of that - distribute those methods into all the classes that extend the trait.
Like interfaces for Java classes, you can mix more than one trait into a Scala class.
Since I have no Ruby background, though, I'll point you to an excerpt from David Pollak's "Beginning Scala" (amazon link):
Ruby has mixins, which are collections of methods that can be mixed into any class. Because Ruby does not have static typing and there is no way to declare the types of method parameters, there’s no reasonable way to use mixins to define a contract like interfaces. Ruby mixins provide a mechanism for composing code into classes but not a mechanism for defining or enforcing parameter types.
Interfaces can do even more than is described in this post; as the topic can be vast, I suggest you to investigate more in each one of the three directions, while if you even have Java background, Scala and therefore traits are affordable to learn.
I'm learning MVP patter. In some examples, I saw this! Any one could demonstrate why programmers use this name convention?
Usually I is there to indicate an Interface. Without the I is it a class. Personally I am not a fan of this. I think it is more common in dot net. I havent seen it too much in Java
Reasons why I dislike:
IDEs now show icons that indicate whether a class is an interface or not.
If I want to change the interface to an abstract class I then have to rename the class
It hurts readability.
'I' stands for interface. It's a common naming convention to distinguish interfaces from classes / structures.
Interfaces are not classes - they define behaviour and classes provide implementation.
Read this article on MSDN for more info: Choosing Between Classes and Interfaces
An interface defines the signatures for a set of members that
implementers must provide. Interfaces cannot provide implementation
details for the members. For example, the ICollection interface
defines members related to working with collections. Every class that
implements the interface must supply the implementation details for
theses members. Classes can implement multiple interfaces.
It is an artifact from age when Hungarian notation was thought to be a good idea. It lets the user know that the name is for an interface.
Also, it is an extremely stupid practice.
Name of the interface should reflect what sort of contract between classes it signifies. It should not tell you to which class it has been tied to.
It should be class PDF extends Document implements Printable because it lets you know that class implements print() method for some reason (in a real world it would be actually a bad API design, but this is an example) instead of class PDF extends Document implements IDocument .. because this tell you nothing.
I'm starting developing for ios, and now i'm studying core-data.
One thing was not clear for me, when i was studying a lot of people was managing core-data entitys on the controller.
For me this isn't MVC, since core-data is from Model layer.
So i think will be nice to implement core-data using DAO pattern, but before i wanna know if there is any core-data pattern or if there's some cons implementing DAO using core-data?
It is indeed correct to avoid implementing data look-up methods in the controller. This way the philosophy of the MVC design pattern is adhered to: the controller should just be calling high-level "glue" code and therefore acting as a document that describes how the view is interacting with the model.
With regards to persistent objects, there are two main approaches to this:
Use the ActiveRecord pattern
Use the Data Access Object pattern.
A Data Access Object (DAO) is an interface dedicated to the persistence of a model/domain object to a data-source.
The ActiveRecord pattern puts the persistence methods on the model object itself, whereas the DAO defines a discrete interface. The advantage of the DAO pattern is:
Its easy to define another style of persistence, eg moving from a Database to cloud, without changing the interface and thus effecting other classes.
The persistence concerns are modularized away from the main model object concerns.
The advantage of the ActiveRecord pattern is simplicity.
ActiveRecord for CoreData
At the present time the ActiveRecord pattern seems to be a lot more popular among Objective-C developers. The following project provides ActiveRecord for CoreData: https://github.com/magicalpanda/MagicalRecord
DAO for CoreData
I'm not familiar with a widely used library that provides the DAO pattern for CoreData. However, it could be quite easily applied without the assitance of a library:
Define all your data methods for a particular entity - findByName, save, delete, etc on a protocol.
Implement the protocol by calling the appropriate CoreData methods.
NB: The example project for the Typhoon framework will soon include some examples of applying the DAO pattern with CoreData.
You are looking for something like Core Date Persistence Framework
This framework allows you doing like:
DAOFactory *factory = [DAOFactory factory];
DAO *dao = [factory createRuntimeDAO:#"EntityName"];
NSArray *items = [dao findAll];
And a lot of more interesting things.
In Spring MVC, one can define interceptors that can perform work before and after a particular controller is invoked. This can be used, for example, to do logging, authentication etc.
The programmer who wishes to write a custom interceptor is supposed to implement the HandlerInterceptor interface. To aid this task, the HandlerInterceptorAdaptor abstract base class has been provided, which provides default implementations of all the methods specified in the interface. So, if just wants to do some pre processing, one can just extend HandlerInterceptorAdaptor and #Override public boolean preHandle(...), and not worry about implementing the postHandle function.
My doubt concerns the name. From what I understand of the Adapter pattern, it adapts syntactic impedance mismatches between interfaces.
Is that so? If yes, should the class providing the boilerplate implementations be called HandlerInterceptorDefaultImpl, or something along those lines?
Is there a different nomenclature/pattern for what is happening here?
Is the fact that we need a boilerplate class a code smell, and could be removed by refactoring the HandlerInterceptor interface into two: HandlerPreInterceptor and HandlerPostInterceptor? Or is that overkill?
From GOF book about the Adapter pattern:
Adapters vary in the amount of work they do to adapt Adaptee to the Target Interface. There is a spectrum of possible work, from simple interface conversion-for example,changing the names of operations-to supporting an entirely different set of operations. The amount of work Adapter does depends on how similar the Target interface is to Adaptee's.
The boilerplate class that you are referring to is called skeletal implementation class. This is mentioned in Effective Java by Joshua Bloch. From the book:
You can combine the virtues of interfaces and abstract classes by providing an abstract skeletal implementation class to go with each nontrivial interface that you export. The interface still defines the type, but the skeletal implementation takes all of the work out of implementing it.
By convention, skeletal implementations are called AbstractInterface, where Interface is the name of the interface they implement. For example, the Collections Framework provides a skeletal implementation to go along with each main collection interface: AbstractCollection, AbstractSet, AbstractList, and
AbstractMap. Arguably it would have made sense to call them SkeletalCollection, SkeletalSet, SkeletalList, and SkeletalMap, but the Abstract convention is now firmly established.