Observer Pattern in Swift - swift

I want to implement an observer pattern, but I do not find the proper programming language constructs in Swift (also 2.0). The main problems are:
protocol and extension does not allow stored properties.
In classes we could add stored properties, but we can not force a subclass to override some of its inherited methods.
This is what I want:
{class|protocol|extension|whathaveyou} Sensor {
var observers = Array<Any>() // This is not possible in protocol and extensions
// The following is does not work in classes
func switchOn()
func switchOff()
var isRunning : Bool {
get
}
}
class LightSensor : Sensor {
//...
override func switchOn() {
// turn the sensor on
}
}
// In the class C, implementing the protocol 'ObserverProtocol'
var lightSensor = LightSensor()
lightSensor.switchOn()
lightSensor.registerObserver(self) // This is what I want
And here comes what is possible to my knowledge:
class Sensor {
private var observers = Array<Observer>()
func registerObserver(observer:ObserverDelegate) {
observers.append(observer)
}
}
protocol SensorProtocol {
func switchOn()
func switchOff()
var isRunning : Bool {
get
}
}
class LightSensor : Sensor, SensorProtocol {
func switchOn() {
//
}
func switchOff() {
//
}
var isRunning : Bool {
get {
return // whatever
}
}
}
But this is not very convenient, because both Sensor and SensorProtocol should come hand in hand, and are both requirements the subclass LightSensor has to fulfill.
Any ideas?

A protocol is an abstract set of requirements shared across a number of (potentially very different) other objects. As such, it's illogical to store data in a protocol. That would be like global state. I can see that you want to define the specification for how the observers are stored though. That would also allow 'you' to remove 'someone else' from being an observer, and it's very restrictive about how the observers are stored.
So, your protocol should expose methods to add and remove 'yourself' as an observer. It's then the responsibility of the object implementing the protocol to decide how and where the observers are stored and to implement the addition and removal.
You could create a struct to work with your protocols, something like:
protocol Observer: class {
func notify(target: Any)
}
protocol Observable {
mutating func addObserver(observer: Observer)
mutating func removeObserver(observer: Observer)
}
struct Observation: Observable {
var observers = [Observer]()
mutating func addObserver(observer: Observer) {
print("adding")
observers.append(observer)
}
mutating func removeObserver(observer: Observer) {
print("removing")
for i in observers.indices {
if observers[i] === observer {
observers.removeAtIndex(i)
break
}
}
}
func notify(target: Any) {
print("notifying")
for observer in observers {
observer.notify(target)
}
}
}
struct ATarget: Observable {
var observation = Observation()
mutating func addObserver(observer: Observer) {
observation.addObserver(observer)
}
mutating func removeObserver(observer: Observer) {
observation.removeObserver(observer)
}
func notifyObservers() {
observation.notify(self)
}
}
class AnObserver: Observer {
func notify(target: Any) {
print("notified!")
}
}
let myObserver = AnObserver()
var myTarget: Observable = ATarget()
myTarget.addObserver(myObserver)
if let myTarget = myTarget as? ATarget {
myTarget.notifyObservers()
}

This is my solution in Swift 3
import UIKit
class ViewController: UIViewController {
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
var objectToObserve = ObjectToObserve()
let observer = Observer()
let observer1 = Observer()
objectToObserve.add(observer: observer, notifyOnRegister: true)
objectToObserve.add(observer: observer1, notifyOnRegister: true)
}
}
//
// MARK: Protocol
//
protocol Observing: class {
func doSomething()
func doSomethingClosure(completion: () -> Void)
}
protocol Observable {
}
extension Observable {
private var observers: [Observing] {
get {
return [Observing]()
}
set {
//Do nothing
}
}
mutating func add(observer: Observing, notifyOnRegister: Bool) {
if !observers.contains(where: { $0 === observer }) {
observers.append(observer)
if notifyOnRegister {
observer.doSomething()
observer.doSomethingClosure(completion: {
print("Completion")
})
}
}
}
mutating func remove(observer: Observing) {
observers = observers.filter({ $0 !== observer })
}
}
//
// MARK: Observing
//
class ObjectToObserve: Observable {
init() {
print("Init ObjectToObserve")
}
}
class Observer: Observing {
init() {
print("Init Observer")
}
func doSomething() {
print("Do something")
}
func doSomethingClosure(completion: () -> Void) {
print("Do something Closure")
completion()
}
}

All answers above incorrectly use an array for retaining the observers, which may create retain cycles because of the strong references.
Also in general you may not want to allow the same observer to register itself twice.
The presented solutions also are not general purpose or lack type safety. I reference my blog post here which presents a full solution in a Swifty manner:
https://www.behindmedia.com/2017/12/23/implementing-the-observer-pattern-in-swift/

Well, you can certainly overcome the restriction of not having stored properties on extensions.
Maybe that way you can complement one of the proposed solutions with an extension that helps you avoid creating the observer list in each subclass / protocol implementation.
Although extensions can't have stored properties, you can actually get them by using the Objective-C Runtime. Assuming you have a base class for your sensors (BaseSensor) and a protocol for observers (SensorObserver):
import Foundation
import ObjectiveC
private var MyObserverListKey: UInt8 = 0
extension BaseSensor {
var observers:[SensorObserver] {
get {
if let observers = objc_getAssociatedObject( self, &MyObserverListKey ) as? [SensorObserver] {
return observers
}
else {
var observers = [SensorObserver]()
objc_setAssociatedObject( self, &MyObserverListKey, observers, objc_AssociationPolicy(OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC) )
return observers
}
}
set(value) {
objc_setAssociatedObject( self, &MyObserverListKey, observers, objc_AssociationPolicy(OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC) )
}
}
}
To be clear, even though you would need BaseSensor and all Sensors to inherit from it in order to have this property, BaseSensor wouldn't actually implement the Sensor protocol.
It's a bit weird, but I think it would suit your needs:
class BaseSensor {
}
protocol Sensor {
func switchOn()
}
class LightSensor: BaseSensor, Sensor {
func switchOn() {
// whatever
}
}
With Swift 2.0 this would be much simpler, since you can use Protocol Extensions, so you could simply do this:
protocol Sensor {
func switchOn()
}
extension Sensor {
// Here the code from the previous implementation of the extension of BaseSensor
}
class LightSensor : Sensor {
func switchOn() {
// whatever
}
}
Way better.

Related

Add object to an array that confirm to the protocol that has associated type in it

I have a problem to write the code that puts objects into the observers array. The objects that are problematic implement the Observer protocol.
Here is the code that shows what I want to do:
protocol Observer {
associatedtype ValueType
func update(value: ValueType)
}
struct Subject<T> {
private var observers = Array<Observer>()
mutating func attach(observer: Observer) {
observers.append(observer)
}
func notyfi(value: T) {
for observer in observers {
observer.update(value: value)
}
}
}
If your deployment target is at least a late 2022 release (iOS 16, macOS 13, etc.), you can use a constrained existential:
protocol Observer<ValueType> {
associatedtype ValueType
func update(value: ValueType)
}
struct Subject<T> {
private var observers = Array<any Observer<T>>()
mutating func attach(observer: any Observer<T>) {
observers.append(observer)
}
func notify(value: T) {
for observer in observers {
observer.update(value: value)
}
}
}
If your deployment target is earlier, the Swift runtime doesn't support constrained existentials. (From SE-0353: “It is worth noting that this feature requires revisions to the Swift runtime and ABI that are not backwards-compatible nor backwards-deployable to existing OS releases.”) But you can use closures instead:
protocol Observer<ValueType> {
associatedtype ValueType
func update(value: ValueType)
}
struct Subject<T> {
private var observers: [(T) -> Void] = []
mutating func attach<O: Observer>(observer: O)
where O.ValueType == T
{
observers.append { observer.update(value: $0) }
}
func notify(value: T) {
for observer in observers {
observer(value)
}
}
}
Why don't you use the Observer as the generic parameter?
struct Subject<O: Observer> {
typealias T = O.ValueType
private var observers = Array<O>()
mutating func attach(observer: O) {
observers.append(observer)
}
func notyfi(value: T) {
for observer in observers {
observer.update(value: value)
}
}
}

Weak reference implementing a (generic) protocol

I want to create an array of weak references implementing a protocol for observable functionality.
If possible this protocol should have an associated type, so I would not need to create identical ones for each type.
However in Swift 4 this does not seem to work, what I want is basically this:
protocol DelegateBase: AnyObject {
associatedtype Item
func onDataUpdated(data: [Item])
}
protocol Delegate : DelegateBase where Item == Int {
// Will have func onDataUpdated(data: [Int])
}
// T should be a class implementing Delegate, but cannot find a way to
// define T in a way that the Swift compiler accepts it
class WeakListener<T> {
weak var listener : T?
init(listener: T) {
self.listener = listener
}
}
class Implementation {
val listeners = [WeakListener<Delegate>]()
}
If I define everything as non-generic I can make it work, but I would like the convenience of not having to copy paste a concrete version of DelegateBase for each type I want to support.
// This works but is clunky
protocol DelegateA {
func onDataUpdated(data: [Int])
}
// DelegateB with type Double, DelegateC with type X
class WeakListenerA {
weak var listener : DelegateA?
init(listener: DelegateA) {
self.listener = listener
}
}
// WeakListenerB with type Double, WeakListenerC with type X
class ImplementationA {
val listeners = [WeakListenerA]()
}
// ImplementationB with type Double, ImplementationC with type X
EDIT: Intended usage
Basically I want to implement remote-backed repository where UIViewControllers can listen in on events happening inside the repository even though they aren't actively requesting data.
I want the listener to be generic, so I don't need to clone everything for each type. I want weak references since then no manual work is needed for managing them apart from adding listeners.
protocol DelegateBase: AnyObject {
associatedtype Item
func onDataModified(data: [Item])
func onDataRefreshed(data: [Item])
}
protocol IntDelegate : DelegateBase where Item == Int {
// Will have
//func onDataModified(data: [Int])
//func onDataRefreshed(data: [Int])
}
// Listener should implement the delegate T, that extends DelegateBase
// with a type
class WeakListener<T : DelegateBase> {
weak var listener : T?
init(listener: T) {
self.listener = listener
}
}
class IntRepository {
var listeners = [WeakListener<IntDelegate>]()
var data = [Int]()
func addListener(_ listener: IntDelegate /* UIViewController implementing IntDelegate*/) {
listeners.add(listener)
}
func add() {
// data is updated, notify weak listeners
data.append(1)
for listener in listeners {
listener.listener?.onDataModified(data: data)
}
}
func refresh() {
// data refreshed from a remote source
for listener in listeners {
listener.listener?.onDataRefreshed(data: data)
}
}
fileprivate func cleanupListeners() {
self.listeners = self.listeners.filter({$0.listener != nil})
}
// Singleton for example
fileprivate static var _instance: IntImplementation!
public class func shared() -> IntImplementation {
if _instance == nil {
_instance = IntImplementation()
}
return _instance!
}
}
class IntViewController: UIViewController, IntDelegate {
override func viewDidLoad() {
IntImplementation.shared().addListener(self)
}
func onDataModified(data: [Int]) {
// update UI
}
func onDataRefreshed(data: [Int]) {
// update UI
}
}
Because the DelegateBase (and by extension, the Delegate) protocol has an associated type (unlike DelegateA), you cannot use it as a type; you can only use some concrete type that conforms to it.
For what you're trying to do, you don't actually need the Delegate protocol. You seem to want a WeakListener generic with respect to Item type, which you can declare like so:
class WeakListener<T: DelegateBase> {
weak var listener : T?
init(listener: T) {
self.listener = listener
}
}
In other words, the above works with some concrete T type that conforms to DelegateBase.
Let's say you had such a concrete type for Int:
class ConcreteIntDelegateA: DelegateBase {
func onDataUpdated(data: [Int]) {
// ...
}
}
Then you could create a WeakListener for ConcreteIntDelegateA because it conforms to DelegateBase and further specifies that an Item is Int
let listener: WeakListener<ConcreteIntDelegateA>
So, it works for a concrete type, but you cannot do this for a protocol DelegateBase, because DelegateBase doesn't conform to DelegateBase (protocols don't conform to protocols, including themselves):
let listener: WeakListener<DelegateBase> // ERROR
This gives you the ability to create array of listeneres for a specific concrete type, e.g. [WeakListener<ConcreteIntDelegateA>] or [WeakListener<ConcreteIntDelegateB>], but not mixed, because these types are unrelated even though both ConcreteDelegateX conform to DelegateBase.
To get around it is to create a type-erased type, e.g. class AnyDelegate<Item>: DelegateBase, which takes a concrete type in its init:
class AnyDelegate<Item>: DelegateBase {
private let onDataUpdated: ([Item]) -> Void
init<C: DelegateBase>(_ c: C) where C.Item == Item {
self.sonDataUpdated = c.onDataUpdated(data:)
}
func onDataUpdated(data: [Item]) {
onDataUpdated(data)
}
}
let anyIntA = AnyDelegate(ConcreteIntDelegateA())
let anyIntB = AnyDelegate(ConcreteIntDelegateB())
let anyIntListeners: [WeakListener<AnyDelegate<Int>>] = [anyIntA, anyIntB]
What I ended up doing was just throwing away the DelegateBase. To provide some type conformance I created a generic base repository and enforce the delegate type during runtime when adding listeners
import UIKit
protocol IntDelegate : AnyObject {
func onDataModified(data: [Int])
func onDataRefreshed(data: [Int])
}
class WeakListener {
weak var listener : AnyObject?
init(listener: AnyObject) {
self.listener = listener
}
}
class RepositoryBase<T> {
private var _listeners = [WeakListener]()
var listeners: [T] {
get {
// Remove dead listeners
self._listeners = self._listeners.filter({($0.listener as? T) != nil})
return self._listeners.map({ $0.listener as! T })
}
}
func addListener(_ listener: AnyObject) {
assert(listener is T)
_listeners.append(WeakListener(listener: listener))
}
}
class IntRepository : RepositoryBase<IntDelegate> {
var data = [Int]()
func add() {
// data is updated, notify weak listeners
data.append(1)
for listener in self.listeners {
listener.onDataModified(data: data)
}
}
func refresh() {
// data refreshed from a remote source
for listener in self.listeners {
listener.onDataRefreshed(data: data)
}
}
// Singleton for example
fileprivate static var _instance: IntRepository!
public class func shared() -> IntRepository {
if _instance == nil {
_instance = IntRepository()
}
return _instance!
}
}
class IntViewController: IntDelegate {
func viewDidLoad() {
IntRepository.shared().addListener(self)
IntRepository.shared().add()
}
func onDataModified(data: [Int]) {
print("modified")
}
func onDataRefreshed(data: [Int]) {
print("refreshed")
}
}
IntViewController().viewDidLoad() // Prints "modified"

Generic protocol for observing changes in Swift 5

Trying hard to code in Swift 5 the Java example below.
Generally, I want to have an Observable protocol which will be adopted by multiple other protocols. I need these protocols to be types in functions' arguments, so that these functions can add additional observers.
In Java, it is very easy to do. The code prints out:
Observer 1 changed to 10
Observer 2 changed to 10
,
interface Observable<O> {
void addObserver(O observer);
}
interface Settings extends Observable<SettingsObserver> {
void setInterval(int interval);
}
interface SettingsObserver {
void intervalChanged(int interval);
}
class AppSettings implements Settings {
private List<SettingsObserver> observers = new ArrayList<>();
#Override public void addObserver(SettingsObserver observer) { observers.add(observer); }
#Override public void setInterval(int interval) { observers.forEach(observer -> observer.intervalChanged(interval)); }
}
class Observer1 implements SettingsObserver {
#Override public void intervalChanged(int interval) {
System.out.println("Observer 1 changed to " + interval);
}
}
class Observer2 implements SettingsObserver {
#Override public void intervalChanged(int interval) {
System.out.println("Observer 2 changed to " + interval);
}
}
class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Observer1 observer1 = new Observer1();
Settings settings = new AppSettings();
settings.addObserver(observer1);
Main main = new Main();
main.run(settings);
}
void run(Settings settings) {
Observer2 observer2 = new Observer2();
settings.addObserver(observer2);
settings.setInterval(10);
}
}
While it's simple to create a generic wrapper to which you can add your own observables, there are two native solutions that you should use instead.
Notifications.
When value is changed, send a notification using NotificationCenter.default. Observers should listen to these notifications. Notification are a crucial part of the ecosystem:
class AppSettings {
enum Notifications {
static let intervalChanged = Notification.Name("AppSettingsIntervalChangedNotification")
}
var interval: TimeInterval = 0 {
didSet {
NotificationCenter.default.post(name: Notifications.intervalChanged, object: self)
}
}
}
let settings = AppSettings()
let observer = NotificationCenter.default.addObserver(
forName: AppSettings.Notifications.intervalChanged,
object: settings,
queue: nil
) { [weak settings] _ in
guard let settings = settings else { return }
print(settings.interval)
}
settings.interval = 10
Key-value observing (KVO)
If you inherit your objects from NSObject, you can simply add a direct observer to any Obj-C compatible value:
class AppSettings: NSObject {
#objc dynamic var interval: TimeInterval = 0
}
let settings = AppSettings()
let observer: NSKeyValueObservation = settings.observe(\.interval, options: .new) { _, change in
print(change.newValue)
}
settings.interval = 10
See https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/cocoa_design_patterns/using_key-value_observing_in_swift
Just for completeness a simple generic observer here:
class Observable<ValueType> {
typealias Observer = (ValueType) -> Void
var observers: [Observer] = []
var value: ValueType {
didSet {
for observer in observers {
observer(value)
}
}
}
init(_ defaultValue: ValueType) {
value = defaultValue
}
func addObserver(_ observer: #escaping Observer) {
observers.append(observer)
}
}
class AppSettings {
let interval: Observable<TimeInterval> = Observable(0)
}
let settings = AppSettings()
settings.interval.addObserver { interval in
print(interval)
}
settings.interval.value = 10
Note that all my observers are simple closures. The reason why Java uses objects as observers is mostly historical due to Java limitations. There is no need for Observable or Observer protocols in Swift.
Depending on your needs, you may be able to get by with property observers in Swift. It allows you to take action when a property is going to be changed or has changed. It is also less complicated than a full observerable type.
Here is Apple's example from the Swift manual:
class StepCounter {
var totalSteps: Int = 0 {
willSet(newTotalSteps) {
print("About to set totalSteps to \(newTotalSteps)")
}
didSet {
if totalSteps > oldValue {
print("Added \(totalSteps - oldValue) steps")
}
}
}
}
let stepCounter = StepCounter()
stepCounter.totalSteps = 200
// About to set totalSteps to 200
// Added 200 steps
stepCounter.totalSteps = 360
// About to set totalSteps to 360
// Added 160 steps
stepCounter.totalSteps = 896
// About to set totalSteps to 896
// Added 536 steps
You would want to use the didSet() function. You could also call another function within the observer.
You could also use the property observers to write a simple observable-like class if you do not want to use a framework such as RxSwift or Apple's new Combine.
Here is a simple example that just uses closures instead of classes:
class ClassToWatch {
typealias ObservingFunc = (ClassToWatch) -> Void
private var observers: [ObservingFunc] = []
func addObserver(_ closure: #escaping ObservingFunc) {
observers.append(closure)
}
private func valueChanged() {
observers.forEach { observer in
observer(self)
}
}
var value1: Int = 0 {
didSet {
valueChanged()
}
}
var value2: String = "" {
didSet {
valueChanged()
}
}
}
var myclass = ClassToWatch()
myclass.addObserver { object in
print("Observer 1: \(object.value1) \(object.value2)")
}
myclass.addObserver { object in
print("Observer 2: \(object.value1) \(object.value2)")
}
myclass.value1 = 3
myclass.value2 = "Test"
Your Java code could be directly translated into Swift code. Here is my translation, with some degree of "Swiftification":
protocol Observable {
associatedtype ObserverType
func addObserver(_ observer: ObserverType)
}
protocol Settings : Observable where ObserverType == SettingsObserver {
var interval: Int { get set }
}
protocol SettingsObserver {
func intervalDidChange(newValue: Int)
}
class Observer1 : SettingsObserver {
func intervalDidChange(newValue: Int) {
print("Observer 1 changed to \(newValue)")
}
}
class Observer2 : SettingsObserver {
func intervalDidChange(newValue: Int) {
print("Observer 2 changed to \(newValue)")
}
}
class AppSettings: Settings {
var interval: Int = 0 {
didSet {
observers.forEach { $0.intervalDidChange(newValue: interval) }
}
}
private var observers: [SettingsObserver] = []
func addObserver(_ observer: SettingsObserver) {
observers.append(observer)
}
}
let settings = AppSettings()
settings.addObserver(Observer1())
settings.addObserver(Observer2())
settings.interval = 10
Although Observable cannot be used as a parameter type, the protocols that derive from it that also specifies the associated type, can.
You could go one step further and make SettingsObserver a typealias of (Int) -> Void. This way you don't need all those different ObserverX classes.
typelias SettingsObserver = (Int) -> Void
The addObserver calls would then become:
settings.addObserver { print("Observer 1 changed to \($0)") }
settings.addObserver { print("Observer 2 changed to \($0)") }
And the call in didSet would change to:
observers.forEach { $0(interval) }
Also, I don't understand why Settings exist. Can't you just conform AppSettings directly to Observable? I mean, I know the idea of program to interface and all that, but IMO this is a bit too much...

Swift best practice for multiply inheriting inits and deinits?

I have two classes that ideally would have code in their inits and deinits, e.g.:
class Tappable {
init() { Registry.register(tappable: self) }
deinit { Registry.deregister(tappable: self) }
}
class Resizable {
init() { Registry.register(resizable: self) }
deinit { Registry.deregister(resizable: self) }
}
Ideally I would inherit from both, e.g.:
class UIElement: Tappable, Resizable {}
But of course I can't in Swift. My current solution is to make one a protocol and put a note in to remind me to write init and deinit with calls to the Registry, e.g.:
//: Classes that implememt `Resizable` must call `Registry.register(resizable: self)` in all `init`s and have `deinit { Registry.deregister(resizable: self) }`.
protocol Resizable {}
class UIElement: Tappable, Resizable {
override init() {
super.init()
Registry.register(resizable: self)
}
deinit { Registry.deregister(resizable: self) }
}
Is there a better way?
You could create a composite class and store your Registry classes as variables, it could look something like this:
protocol Register {
init(_ target: UIElement)
func deregister(target: UIElement)
}
class Tappable: Register {
required init(_ target: UIElement) { Registry.register(tappable: target) }
func deregister(target: UIElement) { Registry.deregister(tappable: target) }
}
class Resizable: Register {
required init(_ target: UIElement) { Registry.register(resizable: target) }
func deregister(target: UIElement) { Registry.deregister(resizable: target) }
}
class UIElement {
var traits: [Register]!
override init() {
self.traits = [Tappable(self), Resizable(self)]
}
deinit {
self.traits.forEach { $0.deregister(self) }
}
}
This way, when deinit is called on the UIElement object, all of the traits of UIElement will be deregistered.
You can test this out in a Swift Playground by adding the following at the bottom. This will create the UIElement class, have it register for the traits, and then deallocate it and have it deregister!
var test: UIElement! = UIElement()
test = nil
You could have each protocol define a required initializer:
protocol Tappable {
init(r:Registry)
}
Then any class that inherits the protocol will have to implement that initializer, which you'd hope would remind you what needed to happen there.
That doesn't work particularly-well for UIView subclasses, which need to implement UIView's designated initializers, also.
Here's another solution, which replaces your two superclasses with a single superclass, and an OptionSet. Obviously, this gets a bit unwieldy if you need to do a lot of case-specific initialization and de-initialization, but it works okay for the example given.
class Registry {
class func register(resizeable: Any) {
}
class func register(tappable: Any) {
}
}
struct ViewTraits: OptionSet {
let rawValue: Int
init(rawValue: Int) { self.rawValue = rawValue }
static let Tappable = ViewTraits(rawValue: 1)
static let Resizeable = ViewTraits(rawValue: 2)
}
protocol Traits {
var traits:ViewTraits { get }
}
class TraitedView: NSView, Traits {
var traits:ViewTraits {
get {
fatalError("Must implement a getter for Traits")
}
}
private func register() {
if (traits.contains(.Tappable)) {
Registry.register(tappable: self)
}
if (traits.contains(.Resizeable)) {
Registry.register(resizeable: self)
}
}
override init(frame:NSRect) {
super.init(frame: frame)
register()
}
required init?(coder: NSCoder) {
super.init(coder: coder)
register()
}
}
class MyView: TraitedView {
override var traits: ViewTraits {
get {
return [ViewTraits.Resizeable, ViewTraits.Tappable]
}
}
}
I have pinched everyones ideas in the playground below. Thanks.
var sequence = ""
enum Registry {
static func register(tappable _: Tappable) { sequence += "reg. tap.\n" }
static func deregister(tappable _: Tappable) { sequence += "dereg. tap.\n" }
static func register(resizable _: Resizable) { sequence += "reg. res.\n" }
static func deregister(resizable _: Resizable) { sequence += "dereg. res.\n" }
}
class Registrar {
init() {
if let tappable = self as? Tappable {
Registry.register(tappable: tappable)
}
if let resizable = self as? Resizable {
Registry.register(resizable: resizable)
}
}
deinit {
if let tappable = self as? Tappable {
Registry.deregister(tappable: tappable)
}
if let resizable = self as? Resizable {
Registry.deregister(resizable: resizable)
}
}
}
protocol Tappable {
func tap()
}
extension Tappable {
func tap() { sequence += "tap\n" }
}
protocol Resizable {
func resize()
}
extension Resizable {
func resize() { sequence += "resize\n" }
}
class UIElement: Registrar, Tappable, Resizable {
}
var uie: UIElement! = UIElement()
uie.tap()
uie.resize()
uie = nil
sequence // "reg. tap.\nreg. res.\ntap\nresize\ndereg. tap.\ndereg. res.\n"

Ambiguous functions in multiple protocol extensions?

I have multiple protocols that have the same function name. Some protocols have associated types, where I can't figure out how to call the functions as I do in non-generic protocols. I get the error: Protocol 'MyProtocol1' can only be used as a generic contraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
Here's what I'm trying to do:
protocol Serviceable {
associatedtype DataType
func get(handler: ([DataType] -> Void)?)
}
struct PostService: Serviceable {
func get(handler: ([String] -> Void)? = nil) {
print("Do something...")
}
}
protocol MyProtocol1: class {
associatedtype ServiceType: Serviceable
var service: ServiceType { get }
}
extension MyProtocol1 {
func didLoad(delegate: Self) {
print("MyProtocol1.didLoad()")
}
}
protocol MyProtocol2: class {
}
extension MyProtocol2 {
func didLoad(delegate: MyProtocol2) {
print("MyProtocol2.didLoad()")
}
}
class MyViewController: UIViewController, MyProtocol1, MyProtocol2 {
let service = PostService()
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
didLoad(self as MyProtocol1) // Error here: Protocol 'MyProtocol1' can only be used as a generic contraint because it has Self or associated type requirements
didLoad(self as MyProtocol2)
}
}
How can I specifically call the function from a generic protocol extension?
It's simple to achieve by turning the protocol into a generic (see below), or by creating a type eraser for these protocols, but this very strongly suggests that you have a design problem and you should redesign your classes and/or extensions. A collision like this suggests strongly that MyStruct is doing too many things itself because it's being pulled in multiple directions by MyProtocol1 and MyProtocol2. There should likely be two objects here instead. (Composition rather than inheritance.)
class MyStruct: MyProtocol1, MyProtocol2 {
let service = PostService()
func prot1Load<T: MyProtocol1>(t: T) {
t.didLoad()
}
func prot2Load<T: MyProtocol2>(t: T) {
t.didLoad()
}
init() {
prot1Load(self)
prot2Load(self)
}
}
To your particular example in the comments, I would use composition rather than inheritance. You're treating protocols like multiple-inheritance, which is almost never right. Instead compose out of things that conform to a protocol.
protocol LoadProviding {
func load()
}
struct MyLoader1: LoadProviding {
func load() {
print("MyLoader1.didLoad()")
}
}
struct MyLoader2: LoadProviding {
func load() {
print("MyLoader2.didLoad()")
}
}
protocol Loader {
var loaders: [LoadProviding] { get }
}
extension Loader {
func loadAll() {
for loader in loaders {
loader.load()
}
}
}
class MyStruct: Loader {
let service = PostService()
let loaders: [LoadProviding] = [MyLoader1(), MyLoader2()]
init() {
loadAll()
}
}
Of course you don't really have to have LoadProviding be a full struct. It could just be a function if that's all you need:
typealias LoadProviding = () -> Void
func myLoader1() {
print("MyLoader1.didLoad()")
}
func myLoader2() {
print("MyLoader2.didLoad()")
}
protocol Loader {
var loaders: [LoadProviding] { get }
}
extension Loader {
func loadAll() {
for loader in loaders {
loader()
}
}
}
class MyStruct: Loader {
let service = PostService()
let loaders: [LoadProviding] = [myLoader1, myLoader2]
init() {
loadAll()
}
}
If you have time to wade through a video on the subject, you may be interested in the Beyond Crusty: Real World Protocols talk from dotSwift. It's about this and similar problems.