When using static, type properties and methods from within the instance methods of the type, I'm often repeating the name of the type.
e.g.
class Foo
{
// Type properties, methods
static let kBrandColor = UIColor.red
static let kMeaning = 42
static func makeThing() -> Thing { ... }
// Instance method
func printStuff()
{
print("Brand Color is: \(Foo.kBrandColor)")
print("The meaning of life is: \(Foo.kMeaning)")
let thing = Foo.makeThing()
print("Thing is \(thing)"
}
...
}
These repeated references to "Foo" can (and often do) lead to bugs when copy-pasting, refactoring. It's very easy to forget to change a "Foo", and the code will still compile.
So, I've been using a pattern like this:
class Foo
{
fileprivate typealias _ThisClass = Foo
// Type properties, methods
static let kBrandColor = UIColor.red
static let kMeaning = 42
static func makeThing() -> Thing { ... }
// Instance method
func printStuff()
{
print("Brand Color is: \(_ThisClass.kBrandColor)")
print("The meaning of life is: \(_ThisClass.kMeaning)")
let thing = _ThisClass.makeThing()
print("Thing is \(thing)"
}
...
}
This approach has the advantage of some copy-and-paste safety, but at the expense of a bit of boilerplate.
Is there a better, cleaner solution to this issue? (I've attempted to search SO, but getting the search terms right for this kind of problem has been tricky.)
A protocol would work well here. You can define the properties the protocol requires, and then apply that to any class you want to use these in.
protocol Brandable {
var kBrandColor: UIColor { get }
var kMeaning: Int { get }
}
class Foo: Brandable {
let kBrandColor: UIColor = .red
let kMeaning: Int = 42
}
If you want to reuse the printStuff function, you can also put that in the protocol, and put a base implementation in an extension:
protocol Brandable {
var kBrandColor: UIColor { get }
var kMeaning: Int { get }
func printStuff()
}
extension Brandable {
func printStuff() {
print("Brand Color is: \(kBrandColor)")
print("The meaning of life is: \(kMeaning)")
}
}
class Foo: Brandable {
let kBrandColor: UIColor = .red
let kMeaning: Int = 42
}
class Bar: Brandable {
let kBrandColor: UIColor = .blue
let kMeaning: Int = 100
}
Foo().printStuff()
Bar().printStuff()
The same can be done with the makeStuff() function. Shared functionality goes in the protocol and its extension. If you need to change the behavior in some class, you only need to add your own printStuff or makeStuff function to override the protocol's default implementation.
Create a protocol like Identifiable with an identifier property. Then make any class that you want identifiable conform to it. It's the protocol oriented approach.
protocol Identifiable {
static var identifier: String { get }
}
extension Identifiable {
static var identifier: String {
return String(describing: self)
}
}
class X: Identifiable {}
You also don't need to refer to the class name. Just call type(of: instance).identifier.
I'm trying to work out an appropriate singleton model for usage in Swift. So far, I've been able to get a non-thread safe model working as:
class var sharedInstance: TPScopeManager {
get {
struct Static {
static var instance: TPScopeManager? = nil
}
if !Static.instance {
Static.instance = TPScopeManager()
}
return Static.instance!
}
}
Wrapping the singleton instance in the Static struct should allow a single instance that doesn't collide with singleton instances without complex naming schemings, and it should make things fairly private. Obviously though, this model isn't thread-safe. So I tried to add dispatch_once to the whole thing:
class var sharedInstance: TPScopeManager {
get {
struct Static {
static var instance: TPScopeManager? = nil
static var token: dispatch_once_t = 0
}
dispatch_once(Static.token) { Static.instance = TPScopeManager() }
return Static.instance!
}
}
But I get a compiler error on the dispatch_once line:
Cannot convert the expression's type 'Void' to type '()'
I've tried several different variants of the syntax, but they all seem to have the same results:
dispatch_once(Static.token, { Static.instance = TPScopeManager() })
What is the proper usage of dispatch_once using Swift? I initially thought the problem was with the block due to the () in the error message, but the more I look at it, the more I think it may be a matter of getting the dispatch_once_t correctly defined.
tl;dr: Use the class constant approach if you are using Swift 1.2 or above and the nested struct approach if you need to support earlier versions.
From my experience with Swift there are three approaches to implement the Singleton pattern that support lazy initialization and thread safety.
Class constant
class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance = Singleton()
}
This approach supports lazy initialization because Swift lazily initializes class constants (and variables), and is thread safe by the definition of let. This is now officially recommended way to instantiate a singleton.
Class constants were introduced in Swift 1.2. If you need to support an earlier version of Swift, use the nested struct approach below or a global constant.
Nested struct
class Singleton {
class var sharedInstance: Singleton {
struct Static {
static let instance: Singleton = Singleton()
}
return Static.instance
}
}
Here we are using the static constant of a nested struct as a class constant. This is a workaround for the lack of static class constants in Swift 1.1 and earlier, and still works as a workaround for the lack of static constants and variables in functions.
dispatch_once
The traditional Objective-C approach ported to Swift. I'm fairly certain there's no advantage over the nested struct approach but I'm putting it here anyway as I find the differences in syntax interesting.
class Singleton {
class var sharedInstance: Singleton {
struct Static {
static var onceToken: dispatch_once_t = 0
static var instance: Singleton? = nil
}
dispatch_once(&Static.onceToken) {
Static.instance = Singleton()
}
return Static.instance!
}
}
See this GitHub project for unit tests.
Since Apple has now clarified that static struct variables are initialized both lazy and wrapped in dispatch_once (see the note at the end of the post), I think my final solution is going to be:
class WithSingleton {
class var sharedInstance: WithSingleton {
struct Singleton {
static let instance = WithSingleton()
}
return Singleton.instance
}
}
This takes advantage of the automatic lazy, thread-safe initialization of static struct elements, safely hides the actual implementation from the consumer, keeps everything compactly compartmentalized for legibility, and eliminates a visible global variable.
Apple has clarified that lazy initializer are thread-safe, so there's no need for dispatch_once or similar protections
The lazy initializer for a global variable (also for static members of structs and enums) is run the first time that global is accessed, and is launched as dispatch_once to make sure that the initialization is atomic. This enables a cool way to use dispatch_once in your code: just declare a global variable with an initializer and mark it private.
From here
For Swift 1.2 and beyond:
class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance = Singleton()
}
With a proof of correctness (all credit goes here), there is little to no reason now to use any of the previous methods for singletons.
Update: This is now the official way to define singletons as described in the official docs!
As for concerns on using static vs class. static should be the one to use even when class variables become available. Singletons are not meant to be subclassed since that would result in multiple instances of the base singleton. Using static enforces this in a beautiful, Swifty way.
For Swift 1.0 and 1.1:
With the recent changes in Swift, mostly new access control methods, I am now leaning towards the cleaner way of using a global variable for singletons.
private let _singletonInstance = SingletonClass()
class SingletonClass {
class var sharedInstance: SingletonClass {
return _singletonInstance
}
}
As mentioned in the Swift blog article here:
The lazy initializer for a global variable (also for static members of
structs and enums) is run the first time that global is accessed, and
is launched as dispatch_once to make sure that the initialization is
atomic. This enables a cool way to use dispatch_once in your code:
just declare a global variable with an initializer and mark it
private.
This way of creating a singleton is thread safe, fast, lazy, and also bridged to ObjC for free.
Swift 1.2 or later now supports static variables/constants in classes. So you can just use a static constant:
class MySingleton {
static let sharedMySingleton = MySingleton()
private init() {
// ...
}
}
There is a better way to do it. You can declare a global variable in your class above the class declaration like this:
var tpScopeManagerSharedInstance = TPScopeManager()
This just calls your default init or whichever init and global variables are dispatch_once by default in Swift. Then in whichever class you want to get a reference, you just do this:
var refrence = tpScopeManagerSharedInstance
// or you can just access properties and call methods directly
tpScopeManagerSharedInstance.someMethod()
So basically you can get rid of the entire block of shared instance code.
Swift singletons are exposed in the Cocoa frameworks as class functions, e.g. NSFileManager.defaultManager(), NSNotificationCenter.defaultCenter(). So it makes more sense as a class function to mirror this behavior, rather than a class variable as some other solutions. e.g:
class MyClass {
private static let _sharedInstance = MyClass()
class func sharedInstance() -> MyClass {
return _sharedInstance
}
}
Retrieve the singleton via MyClass.sharedInstance().
Per the Apple documentation, it has been repeated many times that the easiest way to do this in Swift is with a static type property:
class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance = Singleton()
}
However, if you're looking for a way to perform additional setup beyond a simple constructor call, the secret is to use an immediately invoked closure:
class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance: Singleton = {
let instance = Singleton()
// setup code
return instance
}()
}
This is guaranteed to be thread-safe and lazily initialized only once.
Swift 4+
protocol Singleton: class {
static var sharedInstance: Self { get }
}
final class Kraken: Singleton {
static let sharedInstance = Kraken()
private init() {}
}
Looking at Apple's sample code I came across this pattern. I'm not sure how Swift deals with statics, but this would be thread safe in C#. I include both the property and method for Objective-C interop.
struct StaticRank {
static let shared = RankMapping()
}
class func sharedInstance() -> RankMapping {
return StaticRank.shared
}
class var shared:RankMapping {
return StaticRank.shared
}
In brief,
class Manager {
static let sharedInstance = Manager()
private init() {}
}
You may want to read Files and Initialization
The lazy initializer for a global variable (also for static members of
structs and enums) is run the first time that global is accessed, and
is launched as dispatch_once to make sure that the initialization is
atomic.
If you are planning on using your Swift singleton class in Objective-C, this setup will have the compiler generate appropriate Objective-C-like header(s):
class func sharedStore() -> ImageStore {
struct Static {
static let instance : ImageStore = ImageStore()
}
return Static.instance
}
Then in Objective-C class you can call your singleton the way you did it in pre-Swift days:
[ImageStore sharedStore];
This is just my simple implementation.
First solution
let SocketManager = SocketManagerSingleton();
class SocketManagerSingleton {
}
Later in your code:
func someFunction() {
var socketManager = SocketManager
}
Second solution
func SocketManager() -> SocketManagerSingleton {
return _SocketManager
}
let _SocketManager = SocketManagerSingleton();
class SocketManagerSingleton {
}
And later in your code you will be able to keep braces for less confusion:
func someFunction() {
var socketManager = SocketManager()
}
final class MySingleton {
private init() {}
static let shared = MySingleton()
}
Then call it;
let shared = MySingleton.shared
Use:
class UtilSingleton: NSObject {
var iVal: Int = 0
class var shareInstance: UtilSingleton {
get {
struct Static {
static var instance: UtilSingleton? = nil
static var token: dispatch_once_t = 0
}
dispatch_once(&Static.token, {
Static.instance = UtilSingleton()
})
return Static.instance!
}
}
}
How to use:
UtilSingleton.shareInstance.iVal++
println("singleton new iVal = \(UtilSingleton.shareInstance.iVal)")
The best approach in Swift above 1.2 is a one-line singleton, as -
class Shared: NSObject {
static let sharedInstance = Shared()
private override init() { }
}
To know more detail about this approach you can visit this link.
From Apple Docs (Swift 3.0.1),
You can simply use a static type property, which is guaranteed to be
lazily initialized only once, even when accessed across multiple
threads simultaneously:
class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance = Singleton()
}
If you need to perform additional setup beyond initialization, you can
assign the result of the invocation of a closure to the global
constant:
class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance: Singleton = {
let instance = Singleton()
// setup code
return instance
}()
}
I would suggest an enum, as you would use in Java, e.g.
enum SharedTPScopeManager: TPScopeManager {
case Singleton
}
Just for reference, here is an example Singleton implementation of Jack Wu/hpique's Nested Struct implementation. The implementation also shows how archiving could work, as well as some accompanying functions. I couldn't find this complete of an example, so hopefully this helps somebody!
import Foundation
class ItemStore: NSObject {
class var sharedStore : ItemStore {
struct Singleton {
// lazily initiated, thread-safe from "let"
static let instance = ItemStore()
}
return Singleton.instance
}
var _privateItems = Item[]()
// The allItems property can't be changed by other objects
var allItems: Item[] {
return _privateItems
}
init() {
super.init()
let path = itemArchivePath
// Returns "nil" if there is no file at the path
let unarchivedItems : AnyObject! = NSKeyedUnarchiver.unarchiveObjectWithFile(path)
// If there were archived items saved, set _privateItems for the shared store equal to that
if unarchivedItems {
_privateItems = unarchivedItems as Array<Item>
}
delayOnMainQueueFor(numberOfSeconds: 0.1, action: {
assert(self === ItemStore.sharedStore, "Only one instance of ItemStore allowed!")
})
}
func createItem() -> Item {
let item = Item.randomItem()
_privateItems.append(item)
return item
}
func removeItem(item: Item) {
for (index, element) in enumerate(_privateItems) {
if element === item {
_privateItems.removeAtIndex(index)
// Delete an items image from the image store when the item is
// getting deleted
ImageStore.sharedStore.deleteImageForKey(item.itemKey)
}
}
}
func moveItemAtIndex(fromIndex: Int, toIndex: Int) {
_privateItems.moveObjectAtIndex(fromIndex, toIndex: toIndex)
}
var itemArchivePath: String {
// Create a filepath for archiving
let documentDirectories = NSSearchPathForDirectoriesInDomains(NSSearchPathDirectory.DocumentDirectory, NSSearchPathDomainMask.UserDomainMask, true)
// Get the one document directory from that list
let documentDirectory = documentDirectories[0] as String
// append with the items.archive file name, then return
return documentDirectory.stringByAppendingPathComponent("items.archive")
}
func saveChanges() -> Bool {
let path = itemArchivePath
// Return "true" on success
return NSKeyedArchiver.archiveRootObject(_privateItems, toFile: path)
}
}
And if you didn't recognize some of those functions, here is a little living Swift utility file I've been using:
import Foundation
import UIKit
typealias completionBlock = () -> ()
extension Array {
func contains(#object:AnyObject) -> Bool {
return self.bridgeToObjectiveC().containsObject(object)
}
func indexOf(#object:AnyObject) -> Int {
return self.bridgeToObjectiveC().indexOfObject(object)
}
mutating func moveObjectAtIndex(fromIndex: Int, toIndex: Int) {
if ((fromIndex == toIndex) || (fromIndex > self.count) ||
(toIndex > self.count)) {
return
}
// Get object being moved so it can be re-inserted
let object = self[fromIndex]
// Remove object from array
self.removeAtIndex(fromIndex)
// Insert object in array at new location
self.insert(object, atIndex: toIndex)
}
}
func delayOnMainQueueFor(numberOfSeconds delay:Double, action closure:()->()) {
dispatch_after(
dispatch_time(
DISPATCH_TIME_NOW,
Int64(delay * Double(NSEC_PER_SEC))
),
dispatch_get_main_queue()) {
closure()
}
}
In swift, you can create a singleton class following way:
class AppSingleton: NSObject {
//Shared instance of class
static let sharedInstance = AppSingleton()
override init() {
super.init()
}
}
I prefer this implementation:
class APIClient {
}
var sharedAPIClient: APIClient = {
return APIClient()
}()
extension APIClient {
class func sharedClient() -> APIClient {
return sharedAPIClient
}
}
My way of implementation in Swift...
ConfigurationManager.swift
import Foundation
let ConfigurationManagerSharedInstance = ConfigurationManager()
class ConfigurationManager : NSObject {
var globalDic: NSMutableDictionary = NSMutableDictionary()
class var sharedInstance:ConfigurationManager {
return ConfigurationManagerSharedInstance
}
init() {
super.init()
println ("Config Init been Initiated, this will be called only onece irrespective of many calls")
}
Access the globalDic from any screen of the application by the below.
Read:
println(ConfigurationManager.sharedInstance.globalDic)
Write:
ConfigurationManager.sharedInstance.globalDic = tmpDic // tmpDict is any value that to be shared among the application
The only right approach is below.
final class Singleton {
static let sharedInstance: Singleton = {
let instance = Singleton()
// setup code if anything
return instance
}()
private init() {}
}
To Access
let signleton = Singleton.sharedInstance
Reasons:
static type property is guaranteed to be lazily initialized only once, even when accessed across multiple threads simultaneously, so no need of using dispatch_once
Privatising the init method so instance can't be created by other classes.
final class as you do not want other classes to inherit Singleton class.
After seeing David's implementation, it seems like there is no need to have a singleton class function instanceMethod since let is doing pretty much the same thing as a sharedInstance class method. All you need to do is declare it as a global constant and that would be it.
let gScopeManagerSharedInstance = ScopeManager()
class ScopeManager {
// No need for a class method to return the shared instance. Use the gScopeManagerSharedInstance directly.
}
func init() -> ClassA {
struct Static {
static var onceToken : dispatch_once_t = 0
static var instance : ClassA? = nil
}
dispatch_once(&Static.onceToken) {
Static.instance = ClassA()
}
return Static.instance!
}
Swift to realize singleton in the past, is nothing more than the three ways: global variables, internal variables and dispatch_once ways.
Here are two good singleton.(note: no matter what kind of writing will must pay attention to the init () method of privatisation.Because in Swift, all the object's constructor default is public, needs to be rewritten init can be turned into private, prevent other objects of this class '()' by default initialization method to create the object.)
Method 1:
class AppManager {
private static let _sharedInstance = AppManager()
class func getSharedInstance() -> AppManager {
return _sharedInstance
}
private init() {} // Privatizing the init method
}
// How to use?
AppManager.getSharedInstance()
Method 2:
class AppManager {
static let sharedInstance = AppManager()
private init() {} // Privatizing the init method
}
// How to use?
AppManager.sharedInstance
Swift 5.2
You can point to the type with Self. So:
static let shared = Self()
And should be inside a type, like:
class SomeTypeWithASingletonInstance {
static let shared = Self()
}
This is the simplest one with thread safe capabilities. No other thread can access the same singleton object even if they want. Swift 3/4
struct DataService {
private static var _instance : DataService?
private init() {} //cannot initialise from outer class
public static var instance : DataService {
get {
if _instance == nil {
DispatchQueue.global().sync(flags: .barrier) {
if _instance == nil {
_instance = DataService()
}
}
}
return _instance!
}
}
}
I required my singleton to allow inheritance, and none of these solutions actually allowed it. So I came up with this:
public class Singleton {
private static var sharedInstanceVar = Singleton()
public class func sharedInstance() -> Singleton {
return sharedInstanceVar
}
}
public class SubSingleton: Singleton {
private static var sharedInstanceToken: dispatch_once_t = 0
public class override func sharedInstance() -> SubSingleton {
dispatch_once(&sharedInstanceToken) {
sharedInstanceVar = SubSingleton()
}
return sharedInstanceVar as! SubSingleton
}
}
This way when doing Singleton.sharedInstance() first it will return the instance of Singleton
When doing SubSingleton.sharedInstance() first it will return the instance of SubSingleton created.
If the above is done, then SubSingleton.sharedInstance() is Singleton is true and the same instance is used.
The issue with this first dirty approach is that I cannot guarantee that subclasses would implement the dispatch_once_t and make sure that sharedInstanceVar is only modified once per class.
I will try to refine this further, but it would be interesting to see if anyone has strong feelings against this (besides the fact that it is verbose and requires to manually update it).
This is my implementation. It also prevents the programmer from creating a new instance:
let TEST = Test()
class Test {
private init() {
// This is a private (!) constructor
}
}
I use the following syntax:
public final class Singleton {
private class func sharedInstance() -> Singleton {
struct Static {
//Singleton instance.
static let sharedInstance = Singleton()
}
return Static.sharedInstance
}
private init() { }
class var instance: Singleton {
return sharedInstance()
}
}
This works from Swift 1.2 up to 4, and has several advantages:
Reminds the user not to subclass implementation
Prevents creation of additional instances
Ensures lazy creation and unique instantiation
Shortens syntax (avoids ()) by allowing to access instance as Singleton.instance
Is there a way to create an abstract class in the Swift Language, or is this a limitation just like Objective-C? I'd like to create a abstract class comparable to what Java defines as an abstract class.
There are no abstract classes in Swift (just like Objective-C). Your best bet is going to be to use a Protocol, which is like a Java Interface.
With Swift 2.0, you can then add method implementations and calculated property implementations using protocol extensions. Your only restrictions are that you can't provide member variables or constants and there is no dynamic dispatch.
An example of this technique would be:
protocol Employee {
var annualSalary: Int {get}
}
extension Employee {
var biweeklySalary: Int {
return self.annualSalary / 26
}
func logSalary() {
print("$\(self.annualSalary) per year or $\(self.biweeklySalary) biweekly")
}
}
struct SoftwareEngineer: Employee {
var annualSalary: Int
func logSalary() {
print("overridden")
}
}
let sarah = SoftwareEngineer(annualSalary: 100000)
sarah.logSalary() // prints: overridden
(sarah as Employee).logSalary() // prints: $100000 per year or $3846 biweekly
Notice that this is providing "abstract class" like features even for structs, but classes can also implement the same protocol.
Also notice that every class or struct that implements the Employee protocol will have to declare the annualSalary property again.
Most importantly, notice that there is no dynamic dispatch. When logSalary is called on the instance that is stored as a SoftwareEngineer it calls the overridden version of the method. When logSalary is called on the instance after it has been cast to an Employee, it calls the original implementation (it doesn't not dynamically dispatch to the overridden version even though the instance is actually a Software Engineer.
For more information, check great WWDC video about that feature: Building Better Apps with Value Types in Swift
Note that this answer is targeted at Swift 2.0 and above
You can achieve the same behaviour with protocols and protocol extensions.
First, you write a protocol that acts as an interface for all the methods that have to be implemented in all types that conform to it.
protocol Drivable {
var speed: Float { get set }
}
Then you can add default behaviour to all types that conform to it
extension Drivable {
func accelerate(by: Float) {
speed += by
}
}
You can now create new types by implementing Drivable.
struct Car: Drivable {
var speed: Float = 0.0
init() {}
}
let c = Car()
c.accelerate(10)
So basically you get:
Compile time checks that guarantee that all Drivables implement speed
You can implement default-behaviour for all types that conform to Drivable (accelerate)
Drivable is guaranteed not to be instantiated since it's just a protocol
This model actually behaves much more like traits, meaning you can conform to multiple protocols and take on default implementations of any of them, whereas with an abstract superclass you're limited to a simple class hierarchy.
I think this is the closest to Java's abstract or C#'s abstract:
class AbstractClass {
private init() {
}
}
Note that, in order for the private modifiers to work, you must define this class in a separate Swift file.
EDIT: Still, this code doesn't allow to declare an abstract method and thus force its implementation.
The simplest way is to use a call to fatalError("Not Implemented") into the abstract method (not variable) on the protocol extension.
protocol MyInterface {
func myMethod() -> String
}
extension MyInterface {
func myMethod() -> String {
fatalError("Not Implemented")
}
}
class MyConcreteClass: MyInterface {
func myMethod() -> String {
return "The output"
}
}
MyConcreteClass().myMethod()
After I struggled for several weeks, I finally realized how to translate a Java/PHP abstract class to Swift:
public class AbstractClass: NSObject {
internal override init(){}
public func getFoodToEat()->String
{
if(self._iAmHungry())
{
return self._myFavoriteFood();
}else{
return "";
}
}
private func _myFavoriteFood()->String
{
return "Sandwich";
}
internal func _iAmHungry()->Bool
{
fatalError(__FUNCTION__ + "Must be overridden");
return false;
}
}
public class ConcreteClass: AbstractClass, IConcreteClass {
private var _hungry: Bool = false;
public override init() {
super.init();
}
public func starve()->Void
{
self._hungry = true;
}
public override func _iAmHungry()->Bool
{
return self._hungry;
}
}
public protocol IConcreteClass
{
func _iAmHungry()->Bool;
}
class ConcreteClassTest: XCTestCase {
func testExample() {
var concreteClass: ConcreteClass = ConcreteClass();
XCTAssertEqual("", concreteClass.getFoodToEat());
concreteClass.starve();
XCTAssertEqual("Sandwich", concreteClass.getFoodToEat());
}
}
However I think Apple did not implement abstract classes because it generally uses the delegate+protocol pattern instead. For example the same pattern above would be better done like this:
import UIKit
public class GoldenSpoonChild
{
private var delegate: IStomach!;
internal init(){}
internal func setup(delegate: IStomach)
{
self.delegate = delegate;
}
public func getFoodToEat()->String
{
if(self.delegate.iAmHungry())
{
return self._myFavoriteFood();
}else{
return "";
}
}
private func _myFavoriteFood()->String
{
return "Sandwich";
}
}
public class Mother: GoldenSpoonChild, IStomach
{
private var _hungry: Bool = false;
public override init()
{
super.init();
super.setup(self);
}
public func makeFamilyHungry()->Void
{
self._hungry = true;
}
public func iAmHungry()->Bool
{
return self._hungry;
}
}
protocol IStomach
{
func iAmHungry()->Bool;
}
class DelegateTest: XCTestCase {
func testGetFood() {
var concreteClass: Mother = Mother();
XCTAssertEqual("", concreteClass.getFoodToEat());
concreteClass.makeFamilyHungry();
XCTAssertEqual("Sandwich", concreteClass.getFoodToEat());
}
}
I needed this kind of pattern because I wanted to commonize some methods in UITableViewController such as viewWillAppear etc. Was this helpful?
There is a way for simulating abstract classes using Protocols.
This is an example:
protocol MyProtocol {
func doIt()
}
class BaseClass {
weak var myDelegate: MyProtocol?
init() {
...
}
func myFunc() {
...
self.myDelegate?.doIt()
...
}
}
class ChildClass: BaseClass, MyProtocol {
override init(){
super.init()
self.myDelegate = self
}
func doIt() {
// Custom implementation
}
}
One more way how you can implement abstract class is to block initializer.
I've done it this way:
class Element:CALayer { // IT'S ABSTRACT CLASS
override init(){
super.init()
if self.dynamicType === Element.self {
fatalError("Element is abstract class, do not try to create instance of this class")
}
}
}
It's a really old question but still… Here's a snippet of actual code that compiles on Swift 5.2 and works as intended:
protocol Context {
init() throws
func out(_ aStr: String) throws
// Other stuff
}
class AbstractContext: Context {
required init() throws {
if Self.self === AbstractContext.self {
preconditionFailure("Call to abstract method \(Self.self).\(#function)")
}
}
func out(_ aStr: String) throws {
preconditionFailure("Call to abstract method \(Self.self).\(#function)")
}
// Other stuff
}
class CompileContext: AbstractContext {
required init() throws {}
override func out(_ aStr: String) throws {
print(aStr)
}
// Other stuff
}
And here's what I get once I remove CompileContext.out:
Fatal error: Call to abstract method CompileContext.out(_:): file swiftpg/contexts.swift, line 28
With the limitation of no dynamic dispatch, you could do something like this:
import Foundation
protocol foo {
static var instance: foo? { get }
func prt()
}
extension foo {
func prt() {
if Thread.callStackSymbols.count > 30 {
print("super")
} else {
Self.instance?.prt()
}
}
}
class foo1 : foo {
static var instance : foo? = nil
init() {
foo1.instance = self
}
func prt() {
print("foo1")
}
}
class foo2 : foo {
static var instance : foo? = nil
init() {
foo2.instance = self
}
func prt() {
print("foo2")
}
}
class foo3 : foo {
static var instance : foo? = nil
init() {
foo3.instance = self
}
}
var f1 : foo = foo1()
f1.prt()
var f2 : foo = foo2()
f2.prt()
var f3 : foo = foo3()
f3.prt()
I was trying to make a Weather abstract class, but using protocols wasn't ideal since I had to write the same init methods over and over again. Extending the protocol and writing an init method had it's issues, especially since I was using NSObject conforming to NSCoding.
So I came up with this for the NSCoding conformance:
required init?(coder aDecoder: NSCoder) {
guard type(of: self) != Weather.self else {
fatalError("<Weather> This is an abstract class. Use a subclass of `Weather`.")
}
// Initialize...
}
As for init:
fileprivate init(param: Any...) {
// Initialize
}
Move all references to abstract properties and methods of Base class to protocol extension implementation, where Self constraint to Base class. You will gain access to all methods and properties of Base class. Additionally compiler check implementation of abstract methods and properties in protocol for derived classes
protocol Commom:class{
var tableView:UITableView {get};
func update();
}
class Base{
var total:Int = 0;
}
extension Common where Self:Base{
func update(){
total += 1;
tableView.reloadData();
}
}
class Derived:Base,Common{
var tableView:UITableView{
return owner.tableView;
}
}