I might be missing something obvious here, but I'm implementing NSCopying on one of my objects. That object has private instance variables that are not exposed via getters, as they shouldn't be used outside the object.
In my implementation of copyWithZone:, I need alloc/init the new instance, but also set up its state to match the current instance. I can obviously access current private state from inside copyWithZone:, but I can't set it into the new object, because there are no accessors for that state.
Is there a standard way around this while still keeping data privacy intact?
Thanks.
First, you should always have getters, even if they're private. Your object should only access even its own ivars using accessors (except in a very small number of cases). This will save you a great deal of suffering over memory management.
Second, Alex's suggestion of using -> is a standard approach, even though this violates the getters rule above. There are a small number of exceptions to that rule, and copy is one of. Using private setters here is still reasonable (and I used to do it that way exclusively), but I've found for various reasons that using -> often works out cleaner.
Be very careful to get your memory management correct. If you need to call [super copyWithZone:], then you should also read up on the complexities of NSCopyObject() and how it impacts you even if you don't use it yourself. I've discussed this at length in "NSCopyObject() considered harmful."
You can access the instance variables of the copy directly. You use the same pointer dereferencing syntax you would use with a struct. So, for example, if your class is this:
#interface MyCopyableClass : NSObject {
int anInstanceVariable;
}
#end
You can do this:
- (id)copyWithZone:(NSZone *)zone {
MyCopyableClass *theCopy = [[[self class] allocWithZone:zone] init];
theCopy->anInstanceVariable = anInstanceVariable;
return theCopy;
}
One option is to create a custom initializer that accepts the private iVar values. So you create it like:
-(id) initWithPropertyOne:(SomeClass *) anObject andPropertyTwo:(SomeClass *) anotherObject;
When you instantiate the copy, just use the custom initializer.
Related
I was trying to pass around variables between views in Swift, and ran into the rather abstract concept of protocols and delegates.
Then I tried storing a reference to the first view in a second view and call functions on that directly. This seems to work:
SCREEN 1
class Screen1: UIViewController {
var myName = "Screen1"
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
}
//
// checking if the segue to screen 2 is called and then passing a reference
//
override func prepareForSegue(segue: UIStoryboardSegue!, sender: AnyObject!) {
if segue.identifier == "screen2Segue"{
let vc = segue.destinationViewController as Screen2
vc.storedReference = self
}
}
func getName() -> String {
return myName
}
}
SCREEN 2
class Screen2: UIViewController {
var storedReference:Screen1!
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
}
func testReference() {
// calling a function on the stored reference to screen 1
var str = storedReference.getName()
println("Leaving screen 2, going to " + str)
}
}
My question: what's wrong with this code? Why use delegates and protocols if you can just pass around a reference directly?
Perhaps related: when does a view get un-initialized and replaced by an entirely new view instance? Am I calling 'getName()' on an old instance?
Protocols are useful for separating implementation from interface, which helps increase code reusability, understandability, and testability.
For example, perhaps you wish to store items in a List of some sort. Some possible implementations of a List include array-based implementations and node-based (linked-list) implementations. If you were to declare a protocol called List and have classes ArrayList and LinkedList that implemented that protocol, anything that required the use of a list (variable passed as a parameter to a method, a property, etc) could use List as the variable type, and be able to function without caring about whether a the list was an ArrayList or a LinkedList. You could change which type was used, or how they were implemented, and it would not matter to whatever was using them, because only the exposed interface declared in the protocol would be visible.
Protocols can also be useful for emulating something like multiple inheritance, as a class can inherit from a superclass, as well as implement one or more interfaces. (eg. A bat is both a mammal and winged, so it could be represented as a Bat class inheriting from a Mammal class that implements the Winged protocol).
The delegate pattern uses protocols to delegate some responsibilities to another object, which is especially good for code separation and reusability. For example, the UITableViewDelegate protocol in iOS allows a UITableView to react to things like cell selection by delegating another object to handle the event. This has probably been used by millions of objects in thousands of applications, without the developers at Apple who implemented UITableView and UITableViewDelegate having ever known anything about the objects that were implementing the protocol.
By directly passing a reference between your view controllers, you are forcing the second to be completely dependent upon the first. If you ever wished to change the flow of your application so that the second view controller could be accessed from somewhere else, you would be forced to rewrite that view controller to use the new origin. If you use a protocol instead, no changes to the second view controller would have to be made.
It is a basic design principle to not expose any more of a design than you have to. By passing the reference around you are exposing the whole object. Which means that others can call any of its functions and access any of its properties. And change them. This isn't good. Besides letting others use the object in ways it might not have intended, you will also run into issues if you try to change the object in the future and find out that it breaks somebody else who was using something you didn't intend. So, always a good idea to not expose anything that you don't have to. This is the purpose of delegates and protocols. It gives the object complete control over what is exposed. Much safer. Better design.
I think you didn't fully get the understanding what protocols are.
I always say protocols are like contracts.
The delegate object that implements a certain protocols promises that it can do things the delegator can't do.
In real world I have a problem with my house's tubes.
I (the delegator) call a plumber (the delegate) to fix it. The plumber promises (by contract) to be able to duo it. The promise is the protocol. I don't care how he do it, as long as he does it.
But these contracts are not only useful for delegation.
I am just writing a food ordering app. As it has a menu it need item to display in it.
I could go with basic inheritance and write a class MenuItem, that all sub classes must inherit from.
Or I write an protocol to express: «No matter what object you are, as long as you fulfill this contract we have a deal». this allows me to create many different classes or annotate existing classes in categories, although I don't have the tool of multiple inheritance.
Actually I do both: I write a protocol MenuItem and a class MenuItem that conforms to the protocol. Now I can use simple inheritance or use classes that do not inherit from the class MenuItem.
Code in Objective-C (sorry: I am still transitioning to Swift)
#protocol MenuItem <NSObject>
-(NSString *)name;
-(double) price;
-(UIColor *)itemColor;
#end
#interface MenuItem : NSObject <MenuItem>
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *name;
#property (nonatomic, assign) double price;
#property (nonatomic, strong) UIColor *itemColor;
#end
#import "MenuItem.h"
#implementation MenuItem
-(id)initWithCoder:(NSCoder *)decoder
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
self.name = [decoder decodeObjectForKey:#"name"];
self.price = [decoder decodeDoubleForKey:#"price"];
self.itemColor = [decoder decodeObjectForKey:#"itemColor"];
}
return self;
}
-(void)encodeWithCoder:(NSCoder *)encoder
{
[encoder encodeDouble:self.price forKey:#"price"];
[encoder encodeObject:self.name forKey:#"name"];
[encoder encodeObject:self.itemColor forKey:#"itemColor"];
}
#end
Apple uses the same Architecture for NSObject: there is a protocol and a class NSObject. This allows classes, that aren't intact inheriting from the class NSObject to act ash an NSObject. One famous example:NSProxy.
in your case Screen1 promises to be able to understand messages that are send by the detail view controller Screen2. These allows decoupling: any object that does understand Screen1's protocol can be used. Also it helps to maintain a sane object tree, as we don't have to have circular imports. But in general you have to keep in mind that the delegator (Screen2) must keep a weak reference to it's delegate, otherwise we have a retain circle.
Of course an important example it UITableView:
The table view object knows everything about rendering it's cells, handling scrolling and so one. But the engineer who wrote it couldn't now how you want your table view look like. That's why he introduced a delegate to give you the chance to create the right cell. As he couldn't also know what your data looks like, he also introduced the datasource - that works exactly like a delegate: you will be asked to provide all information about your data, that are needed.
This is mostly a matter of opinion so this question should probably be closed, but I think the developer community as a whole is in an agreement on this so I am going to answer it anyway.
An important concept in Software Architecture (the design of the structure of code) is called Separation of Concerns. The basic principle is that you should break down what your code has to do into small components that only have one distinct purpose. Each of these components should be able to stand mostly on their own without much concern with other components other than the ones it needs to directly be interacting with.
This helps greatly with code reuse. If you design a small component that is independent of most / if not all other components, you can easily plug that into other parts of your code or other applications. Take UITableView for example. By using the delegate pattern, every developer can easily create a table view and populate it with whatever data they want. Since that data source is a separate object (with the separate concern of coming up with the data) you can attach that same data source to multiple table views. Think of a contact list on iOS. You will want to access that same data in many ways. Instead of always rewriting a table view that loads the specific data and displays it in a specific way, you can reuse the data source with a different table view as many times as you want.
This also helps with the understandability of your code. It is tough for developers to keep too many thing in their head about the state of your app. If each of your code components are broken down into small, well defined responsibilities, a developer can understand each component separately. They can also look at a component, and make accurate assumptions about what it does without having to look at the specific implementation. This isn't such a big deal with small apps, but as code bases grow, this becomes very important.
By passing in a reference to your first view controller, you are making your second view controller completely dependent on the first. You cannot reuse the second view controller in another instance and its job becomes less clear.
There are lots of other benefits to separation of concerns but I believe those are two compelling and important ones.
I think the problem with the latter arises with multiple reuse of a single class.
Take for example a custom UITableViewCell called CustomTableViewCell. Let's say you have Class A and Class B which both have tableViews and both would want to use CustomTableViewCell as their cell. You now have two options. Would you rather:
A. Use a delegate/protocol for CustomTableViewCell called CustomTableViewCellDelegate. Declare a single object inside the class CustomTableViewCell named "delegate" which implements the mentioned protocol and call on that regardless of what class it calls on
or
B. Declare an object for each class (Class A, Class B) inside CustomTableViewCell so you can hold a reference to each of them.
If you need to use CustomTableViewCell for a number of classes, then I think you know which option to take. Declaring multiple objects for different classes inside CustomTableViewCell would be a pain to see from a software architecture standpoint.
Xcode 4.5 and later auto-synthesizes properties, making an instance variable with the underscore prepended on the property name. But how does this work in an NSManagedObject? They want you to use KVC primitive methods in your custom setters. So what happens if you set an instance variable via the underscore ivar inside the NSManagedObject? Won't that screw things up since it would bypass the KVC methods? Or is it safely doing this behind the scenes?
If you access the underscore instance variable directly, you are bypassing the work that NSManagedObject does for you. You should use the get and set accessor methods that NSManagedObject auto-generates for your attributes.
Apple's documentation states
When you access or modify properties of a managed object, you should
use these [accessor] methods directly.
You can implement your own accessor methods if required, but in that case, you have to do additional work beyond changing the value of the instance variable:
You must ensure that you invoke the relevant access and change
notification methods (willAccessValueForKey:, didAccessValueForKey:,
willChangeValueForKey:, didChangeValueForKey:,
willChangeValueForKey:withSetMutation:usingObjects:, and
didChangeValueForKey:withSetMutation:usingObjects:).
This should illustrate that you can't get the correct behavior simply by modifying the instance variable directly.
Note that unlike ordinary properties, NSManagedObject properties are not synthesized at compile time (hence the use of #dynamic for the implementation). Since compile-time synthesis isn't used, there are no synthesized instance variables available for you to set.
Instead, instances of NSManagedObject have a private internal instance of something similar to an NSMutableDictionary to store their state. The dynamically generated property accessors are wrappers for calls to KVC-like methods that access the private storage.
I am reading "Core Data Programming Guide". It contains this text:
You must, however, change attribute values in a KVC-compliant fashion.
For example, the following typically represents a programming error:
NSMutableString *mutableString = [NSMutableString stringWithString:#"Stig"];
[newEmployee setFirstName:mutableString];
[mutableString setString:#"Laura"];
For mutable values, you should either transfer ownership of the value
to Core Data, or implement custom accessor methods to always perform a
copy. The previous example may not represent an error if the class
representing the Employee entity declared the firstName property
(copy) (or implemented a custom setFirstName: method that copied the
new value). In this case, after the invocation of setString: (in the
third code line) the value of firstName would then still be “Stig” and
not “Laura”.
Question regarding text: "In this case" is which case--the one where property is declared as "copy" or when its not?
Question regarding copy and programming practice:
From what I have read here:
NSString property: copy or retain?
I understand
that using copy will ensure that firstName is "Stig", not Laura
it is wise to do so because "in almost all cases you want to prevent mutating an object's attributes behind its back"
I would really like to know what is the above quoted text trying to tell us in the context of Core Data. We have to use "copy" anyway whether using Core Data or not. Also, I would be glad if someone could throw more light on point "2" (it is wise to...) above as in what will be the consequences of mutating an object's attributes behind its back?
your "Question regarding text: "In this case" is which case--the one where property is declared as "copy" or when its not?"
mis-matched the point that Apple document wants to explain, I believe.
As Apple document points out, if custom-accessor-method is implemented normally, the default implementation does NOT copy attribute values. If the attribute value may be mutable and implements the NSCopying protocol (as is the case with NSString, for example), you can copy the value in a custom accessor to help preserve encapsulation (for example, in the case where an instance of NSMutableString is passed as a value).
Here is a copying setter snippet
#interface Department : NSManagedObject
{
}
#property(nonatomic, copy) NSString *name;
#end
#implementation Department
#dynamic name;
- (void)setName:(NSString *)newName
{
[self willChangeValueForKey:#"name"];
// NSString implements NSCopying, so copy the attribute value
NSString *newNameCopy = [newName copy];
[self setPrimitiveName:newNameCopy];
[self didChangeValueForKey:#"name"];
} #end
The issue is when to use (and how) immutable values.
Since core data use KVO heavily when detecting changes done to objects, if you use a mutable property that is changed directly through it object and not through the property, CoreData will not detect the change to the object and your changes might not persist to the store.
If you use mutable NSManagedObject attributes, override the setter/getter method and use only them to mutate the underlying object (this mean that you are responsible to let CoreData know that a change did happen to the object, and it must be persisted to the store.
Also, if you use transformable properties for complex objects, you must trigger the change notifications yourself in order for CoreData to realise that a change has occurred, and the object should be re-transformed and saved when the context saves.
I would highly recommend that when it comes to simple objects like strings, you use immutable property values which will force you to go through the object properties and trigger the default KVO notification (copy attributes will also force the KVO notifications).
I have a question about the best coding practice for lazy instantiation.
I have a custom class (MainClass) that consitutes the model of my view controller. One of the properties of MainClass is another custom class (SubClass).
Now let's say I want to acces and set some of the properties of SubClass from my view controller.
Should I lazy instantiate SubClass in MainClass?
Lazy instantiating SubClass in MainClass save me the trouble to check the existence of SubClass (and to create it if it doesn't exist) every time I want to set one of its properties.
On the other hand though I lose the ability to set variables in my views only if SubClass exists. Let me explain better. Let's say I want to set the stringValue of my textfield only if SubClass.name exists. Every time I ask for the existence of SubClass.name the MainClass will lazily instantiate SubClass which is a waste.
What's the best way to proceed?
You need to make up your mind about the aesthetics, if that's what's driving this question, or you need to explain the performance constraints.
Yes, lazy initialization has advantages and disadvantages.
ADVANTAGES
you don't pay for objects you never use
you don't need actually set fields on the object you won't ever use
if you need it, you can build the object at the last minute, which is usually preferable to building it at startup
DISADVANTAGES
(slight) complexity -- especially if you or colleagues aren't accustomed to the idiom
if you forget to call Initialize() or equivalent in an accessor, you may get tricky bugs in some languages, or crashes in others
A hybrid approach is possible. For important tasks, use lazy instantiation:
- (void) display {
[self initialize];
[self display];
}
and for unimportant tasks, simply check for initialization.
- (void) updateCaches {
if ([self isInitialized]) {
[self reloadCachedDataFrom: [self startDatabaseSession]];
}
}
You don't want to build your object just to update its caches, but perhaps, if the object is live, you would like to go ahead and keep the caches warm. So, you see if you've already instantiated the object, and reload the caches only if it already has been set up.
If I have a method with input that is used do I have to retain?
- (void) exampleMethod: (NSString *)input {
self.hey = [input retain];
}
What if I use input more than once?
Read the Memory Management Rules. If hey is a property with the retain or copy attributes set, then you do not need to invoke -retain on it (you can just do self.hey = input).
You don't need to retain a parameter that you only intend to use during the method. If you are going to keep a reference to it longer (as you seem to be in your example), then in most cases you should.
However, if you are using a property (which again you seem to be here), you should be managing the memory within the property setter itself, not calling retain explicitly when calling the setter.
In this case, the assignment to the .hey property a retain is implict in the accessor method.
Accessor Methods
If you want to continue using the string without using an accessor method, you may need to retain the string and the scope with which you need to have it available.