I'm trying to implement a protocol that itself inherits multiple protocols that both have a delegate member. Is there a clean way to do this without needing different names for the delegate of each protocol?
protocol ProtocolOne {
var delegate: ProtocolOneDelegate?
}
protocol ProtocolTwo {
var delegate: ProtocolTwoDelegate?
}
protocol CombinedProtocol: ProtocolOne, ProtocolTwo {
}
protocol CombinedDelegate: ProtocolOneDelegate, ProtocolTwoDelegte {
}
class ProtocolImpl: CombinedProtocol {
// How can I implement delegate here?
// I've tried the following options without success:
var delegate: CombinedDelegate?
var delegate: protocol<ProtocolOneDelegate, ProtocolTwoDelegate>?
}
You should be able to combine them in one:
var delegate: (ProtocolOneDelegate & ProtocolTwoDelegate)?
You can now use both protocols.
In your code, delegate is just a normal property. You can have multiple protocols declaring a property with the same name and same type, and have a class directly or indirectly implement it.
If different protocols define a property with the same name but different type, you won't be able to make it compile, because the compiler will complain for redeclaration of a property and class not confirming to one of the protocols.
There are 2 possible solution. The most obvious one is to avoid using names having high probability of being used in other protocols - delegate is a typical case. Use a different naming convention, such as protocol1Delegate, dataSourceDelegate, apiCallDelegate, etc.
The 2nd solution consists of replacing properties with methods. For example:
protocol P1 {
func test() -> String?
}
protocol P2 {
func test() -> Int?
}
protocol P3: P1, P2 {
}
class Test : P3 {
func test() -> String? { return nil }
func test() -> Int? { return nil }
}
Swift consider functions with the same parameters list but different return type as overloads. Note however that if 2 protocols use the same function signature (name, parameters and return type), when implementing in the class you will implement that function once - that might be the wanted behavior in some cases, but unwanted in other cases.
A solution might be to use protocol extensions (check extension Combined). The benefit is that Combined only declares delegate and oneDelegate and twoDelegate are computed cross-implementation. Unfortunately, it's a requirement to have the three variables exposed out of the class, that might be inconvenient.
// MARK: - Delegates protocols
protocol OneDelegate {
func oneDelegate(one: One)
}
protocol TwoDelegate {
func twoDelegate(two: Two)
}
protocol CombinedDelegate: OneDelegate, TwoDelegate {
func combinedDelegate(combined: Combined)
}
// MARK: - Model protocols
protocol One: class {
var oneDelegate: OneDelegate? { get }
}
protocol Two: class {
var twoDelegate: TwoDelegate? { get }
}
protocol Combined: One, Two {
var delegate: CombinedDelegate? { get }
}
extension Combined {
var oneDelegate: OneDelegate? {
return delegate
}
var twoDelegate: TwoDelegate? {
return delegate
}
}
// MARK: - Implementations
class Delegate: CombinedDelegate {
func oneDelegate(one: One) {
print("oneDelegate")
}
func twoDelegate(two: Two) {
print("twoDelegate")
}
func combinedDelegate(combined: Combined) {
print("combinedDelegate")
}
}
class CombinedImpl: Combined {
var delegate: CombinedDelegate?
func one() {
delegate?.oneDelegate(self)
}
func two() {
delegate?.twoDelegate(self)
}
func combined() {
delegate?.combinedDelegate(self)
}
}
// MARK: - Usage example
let delegate = Delegate()
let protocolImpl = CombinedImpl()
protocolImpl.delegate = delegate
protocolImpl.one()
protocolImpl.two()
protocolImpl.combined()
Related
Let's say I have a class that implements a beautiful subject-observer pattern thus. (This is Swift 3; Swift 2 would be no different in essence.)
protocol Delegate : class
{
func method()
}
class Subject
{
private typealias WeakDelegate = WeakReference< Delegate >
private var nextAvailableDelegateId = 0
private var delegates = [ Int : WeakDelegate ]()
#discardableResult
public func addDelegate( _ delegate: Delegate ) -> Int
{
let id = nextAvailableDelegateId
nextAvailableDelegateId += 1
delegates[ id ] = WeakDelegate( value: delegate )
return id
}
public func removeDelegate( _ idForDelegate: Int )
{
delegates.removeValue( forKey: idForDelegate )
}
fileprivate func eachDelegate( fn: (Delegate) -> Void )
{
for (key, weakDelegate) in delegates
{
// Has this weak delegate reference become nil?
//
guard let delegate = weakDelegate.value else
{
// Yes. Remove it.
delegates.removeValue( forKey: key )
continue
}
fn( delegate )
}
}
private func exampleNotifier()
{
eachDelegate{ $0.method() }
}
}
(I'm taking the idiomatic Swift term "delegate" as roughly equivalent to the design pattern concept "observer".)
The WeakReference type above isn't strictly speaking part of this question, but in case you're curious:
public class WeakReference< T >
{
public var value: T?
{
return abstractValue as? T
}
public init( value: T )
{
abstractValue = value as AnyObject
}
private weak var abstractValue: AnyObject?
}
Now I want to create another class analogous to Subject with another delegate protocol analogous to Delegate. How do I use the implementation I've already written for Subject in the new class?
One answer is to copy and paste the code. Not a good answer.
In C++ we could create a true mixin, a class that contains all the code and data necessary to implement the Subject, templated on a generic Delegate type, and inherit from it wherever we want to make some other class act as a Subject. Quite trivial.
Protocols, protocol extensions, and generics seem to have some of the machinery necessary for this kind of code reuse, but I can't work out how to accomplish it.
Help?
You can use protocol inheritance and generics to derive from some basic protocol.
Each new delegate will inherit from a parent class:
protocol Delegate: class {
func method()
}
protocol DelegateA: Delegate { }
protocol DelegateB: Delegate { }
Your parent subject class can be implemented using a generic conforming to your parent protocol.
class Subject<T: Delegate> {
private typealias WeakDelegate = WeakReference<T>
private var nextAvailableDelegateId = 0
private var delegates = [Int: WeakDelegate]()
#discardableResult
public func addDelegate(_ delegate: T) -> Int {
let id = nextAvailableDelegateId
nextAvailableDelegateId += 1
delegates[id] = WeakDelegate( value: delegate )
return id
}
public func removeDelegate(_ idForDelegate: Int) {
delegates.removeValue(forKey: idForDelegate)
}
fileprivate func eachDelegate( fn: (T) -> Void ) {
for (key, weakDelegate) in delegates {
// Has this weak delegate reference become nil?
guard let delegate = weakDelegate.value else {
// Yes. Remove it.
delegates.removeValue( forKey: key )
continue
}
fn( delegate )
}
}
private func exampleNotifier() {
eachDelegate{ $0.method() }
}
}
Each new subject can be instantiated as a generic conforming to your child delegates.
class SubjectA<T: DelegateA>: Subject<T> { }
class SubjectB<T: DelegateB>: Subject<T> { }
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.
Is it possible to add the same methods to different classes?
Example:
class FilterableTable: UITableViewController { ... }
class FilterableCollection: UICollectionViewController { ... }
extension FilterableTable, FilterableCollection { // I know this line is wrong
func filterItems(){ print('filtered!') }
}
How can I add the same Foo method to a UICollectionViewController?
Protocols allow to declare only needed methods signatures, but I need exactly the same method (with body), to avoid copy-paste...
You can use the Protocol Extensions to do what you need. Extensions are new and allow for a default implementation of the protocol methods. I modified your code just a bit so it would compile.
class FilterableTable: FilterType {
init() {}
}
class FilterableCollection: FilterType {
init() {}
}
protocol FilterType {
func filterItems()
}
extension FilterType { // I know this line is wrong
func filterItems(){ print("filtered!") }
}
let a = FilterableTable()
a.filterItems()
let b = FilterableCollection()
b.filterItems()
Check out the section on Protocol Extensions. Swift Programming Guide
Actual answer: Use the Delegates, Luke!
class FilterableTable: UITableViewController {
var filterDelegate: FilterDelegate!
func viewDidLoad(){
filterDelegate = Filter()
}
}
class FilterableCollection: UICollectionViewController {
var filterDelegate: FilterDelegate!
func viewDidLoad(){
filterDelegate = Filter()
}
}
protocol FilterDelegate {
func filterItems()
}
class Filter: FilterDelegate {
func filterItems() {
print("Hooray!")
}
}
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;
}
}
I have a class that needs to call out to a delegate when one of its properties changes. Here are the simplified class and protocol for the delegate:
protocol MyClassDelegate: class {
func valueChanged(myClass: MyClass)
}
class MyClass {
weak var delegate: MyClassDelegate?
var currentValue: Int {
didSet {
if let actualDelegate = delegate {
actualDelegate.valueChanged(self)
}
}
}
init(initialValue: Int) {
currentValue = initialValue
}
}
This all works just fine. But, I want to make this class generic. So, I tried this:
protocol MyClassDelegate: class {
func valueChanged(genericClass: MyClass)
}
class MyClass<T> {
weak var delegate: MyClassDelegate?
var currentValue: T {
didSet {
if let actualDelegate = delegate {
actualDelegate.valueChanged(self)
}
}
}
init(initialValue: T) {
currentValue = initialValue
}
}
This throws two compiler errors. First, the line declaring valueChanged in the protocol gives: Reference to generic type 'MyClass' requires arguments in <...>. Second, the call to valueChanged in the didSet watcher throws: 'MyClassDelegate' does not have a member named 'valueChanged'.
I thought using a typealias would solve the problem:
protocol MyClassDelegate: class {
typealias MyClassValueType
func valueChanged(genericClass: MyClass<MyClassValueType>)
}
class MyClass<T> {
weak var delegate: MyClassDelegate?
var currentValue: T {
didSet {
if let actualDelegate = delegate {
actualDelegate.valueChanged(self)
}
}
}
init(initialValue: T) {
currentValue = initialValue
}
}
I seem to be on the right path, but I still have two compiler errors. The second error from above remains, as well as a new one on the line declaring the delegate property of MyClass: Protocol 'MyClassDelegate' can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or associated type requirements.
Is there any way to accomplish this?
It is hard to know what the best solution is to your problem without having more information, but one possible solution is to change your protocol declaration to this:
protocol MyClassDelegate: class {
func valueChanged<T>(genericClass: MyClass<T>)
}
That removes the need for a typealias in the protocol and should resolve the error messages that you've been getting.
Part of the reason why I'm not sure if this is the best solution for you is because I don't know how or where the valueChanged function is called, and so I don't know if it is practical to add a generic parameter to that function. If this solution doesn't work, post a comment.
You can use templates methods with type erasure...
protocol HeavyDelegate : class {
func heavy<P, R>(heavy: Heavy<P, R>, shouldReturn: P) -> R
}
class Heavy<P, R> {
typealias Param = P
typealias Return = R
weak var delegate : HeavyDelegate?
func inject(p : P) -> R? {
if delegate != nil {
return delegate?.heavy(self, shouldReturn: p)
}
return nil
}
func callMe(r : Return) {
}
}
class Delegate : HeavyDelegate {
typealias H = Heavy<(Int, String), String>
func heavy<P, R>(heavy: Heavy<P, R>, shouldReturn: P) -> R {
let h = heavy as! H // Compile gives warning but still works!
h.callMe("Hello")
print("Invoked")
return "Hello" as! R
}
}
let heavy = Heavy<(Int, String), String>()
let delegate = Delegate()
heavy.delegate = delegate
heavy.inject((5, "alive"))
Protocols can have type requirements but cannot be generic; and protocols with type requirements can be used as generic constraints, but they cannot be used to type values. Because of this, you won't be able to reference your protocol type from your generic class if you go this path.
If your delegation protocol is very simple (like one or two methods), you can accept closures instead of a protocol object:
class MyClass<T> {
var valueChanged: (MyClass<T>) -> Void
}
class Delegate {
func valueChanged(obj: MyClass<Int>) {
print("object changed")
}
}
let d = Delegate()
let x = MyClass<Int>()
x.valueChanged = d.valueChanged
You can extend the concept to a struct holding a bunch of closures:
class MyClass<T> {
var delegate: PseudoProtocol<T>
}
struct PseudoProtocol<T> {
var valueWillChange: (MyClass<T>) -> Bool
var valueDidChange: (MyClass<T>) -> Void
}
Be extra careful with memory management, though, because blocks have a strong reference to the object that they refer to. In contrast, delegates are typically weak references to avoid cycles.