I'd like to ask a theoretical question pertaining to good code practice and the MVC model, Here is the case:
The design contains a RootViewController and a singleton class. The singleton acts as a controller with a timer objects that should be available throughout the app. The timer object consists of a UISwitch and an NSTimer, they are both owned by the singleton controller so the UISwitch can be added to new viewControllers on demand and the timer object is accessible throughout the app.
In order to update the RootViewController's screen with the current timer's count i created a pointer in the singleton to the RootViewController and have the RootViewController set itself to that pointer, similar to [singeltonOBject setDelegate:self].
Using this design the UILabel of the RootViewController can be accessed and updated from the singleton when the timer ticks. I chose to do that because i didn't have time to implement a regular delegate.
Note that the RootViewController is owned by the AppDelegate and the the singleton class is obviously NOT owned by the RootViewController. Therefore there is no retain cycle.
Question:
Is the setting of a pointer from the singleton to the RootViewController and updating the UILable from the singleton controller a violation of good coding practice, are there any basic principles that are not fulfilled?
Thanks for your answer!
Problem
Generally when something doesn't feel quite right, thats because it's not.
While your code will work it is not going to be easy to maintain in the future and is liable to breaking. Even if you never plan on looking at this code again, it is always good to practice good coding conventions.
I recommend reading The Pragmatic Programmer which contains lots of tips for programmers on how to write better code. One of those tips is Minimize Coupling Between Modules. Right now your RootViewController knows about your Singleton and your Singleton knows about your RootViewController so they are both coupled to each other. In the future, when you change one you are likely to have to change the other one as well.
What if you want to add another label?
You will have to add the label in the RootViewController and then change your singleton to update that label as well.
What if you remove the label altogether? Lets say you go back to this in a years time and remove the label, suddenly there is another class that is not compiling and you might not remember why. You have broken code in a completely separate part of your application.
As for following MVC, this is in violation of that. Your view is being modified by something separate. If MVC is setup correctly you should be able to put on as many views as you want without having to change any code that is controlling data, in this case your timer.
Now as for memory management, your RootViewController is now being retained by this Singleton. Singleton's exist for the entire life of an application. You are right that you do not technically have a retain cycle however your RootViewController will now never be deallocated. In most applications this does not matter as the RootViewController always remains at the bottom of the stack but it is a coincidence and thus cannot be reliably programmed on. This is actually another tip from The Pragmatic Programmer, Don’t Program by Coincidence.
Solution
A better solution would be to use a notifications if you really need a global timer like you say (another story is that your global timer singleton does not sound like a good idea). Whenever you were updating your label from within your singleton you can fire a notification instead. Your RootViewController will receive this notification and can update its label. You can pass data in a notification if needs be. Now in the future if you make a change to the view and want to update something else you only need to change code in one location (The RootViewController).
Related
Usually I just put together an app in any random way, as long as it works, but this means I don't pay any attention to any design patterns. My application currently makes extensive use of global variables (I carry an instance of my AppDelegate in every view controller to access properties I declared in my AppDelegate.h). Although it does what I want it to do, I've read this is not a good design practice.
So I want to start making my code "legit". However, I can't imagine my app right now without global variables. They are so important to the well-being of the app, but this must mean I'm doing something wrong, right? I just can't imagine how else I'd do some things. Take for example this:
You have two view controllers here, a SideViewController and a MainViewController. Using global variables, such as say if the entire application had one shared instance of SideViewController and MainViewController (appDelegate.sideViewController and appDelegate.mainViewController), I can easily communicate between the two view controllers, so that if I press "News Feed" in my SideViewController, I can tell my MainViewController to reload it's view.
I can't imagine, however, how this would be done if these were not global variables? If an event occurs in my SideViewController, how would I notify my MainViewController, in a way that is in accordance with design standards?
I can't imagine, however, how this would be done if these were not
global variables? If an event occurs in my SideViewController, how
would I notify my MainViewController, in a way that is in accordance
with design standards?
The same way you do it now, except that the SideViewController gets its reference to the MainViewController from a different place.
How are these two view controllers created? It's likely that it happens in one of two ways:
One of the objects creates the other. In this case, maybe the MainViewController creates the SideViewController.
Some other object, such as the app delegate or another view controller, creates them both.
In the first case, the MainViewController has a reference to the SideViewController as soon as it creates it. It can store that reference in one of its own instance variables, so that it can always send messages to the SideViewController that it created. Similarly, the MainViewController can give the SideViewController a reference to itself (that is, to the MainViewController), and the SideViewController can store that and use it in the future to talk to its MainViewController.
The second case is similar -- if the app delegate (or some other object) creates both MainViewController and SideViewController, that object knows about both objects and can configure each with a reference to the other.
In both cases, the objects in question are able to communicate with each other just as easily as they ever did and there's no need for a global variable.
What I've explained above is perhaps the simplest way to accomplish what you asked for -- communication between two objects. There are a number of patterns that can be used to refine the relationship between those objects to make your code even better:
delegation: Give SideViewController a delegate property, and define some protocol that establishes what SideViewController expects of its delegate. Implement that protocol in MainViewController. Make your MainViewController instance the SideViewController's delegate. SideViewController doesn't need to know exactly what type its delegate is -- it only cares that it's delegate implements the required protocol. This makes it easy to use SideViewController with something other than MainViewController if that opportunity arises, or to use it in a different project.
notifications: SideViewController may not even need a delegate -- it can simply broadcast notifications about certain events to any object that happens to be listening. This is particularly effective if more than one object might need to know about something that happens in SideViewController, or if the objects that care about SideViewController's actions might change.
MVC: Instead of telling MainViewController that something has changed, SideViewController just changes the data in the model. Whenever the MainViewController's view appears (or any other view controller's view, for that matter), the controller reads the data from the model and redisplays itself.
If you're interested, you might want to pick up a copy of Erik Buck's Cocoa Design Patterns, which explains these patterns and many others in great detail. Don't feel like you have to learn it all at once, or that it's all too much trouble. Learn a little bit at a time and see how it improves (or doesn't) your projects.
I'm new to Objective-C and the iPhone and thought I was getting the hang of it until, after many play apps, I ran into a really basic problem around MVCs, NIBs and IB. Are there any really clear explained examples of how to follow this framework that I could go back to?
#interface test1ViewController : UIViewController {
IBOutlet myView *myview;
IBOutlet myModel *mymodel;
}
Both the views and models are linked in by IBOutlets but instantiating the model object either kills the application or produces an object which does not respond to any messages.
I am also unclear as to where to carry best out initialisations. I currently do this over viewDidLoad in the view controller. Is there a standard way to do this and does the simulator actually always start up in the same way? Should one use awakeFromNib? Does it make any difference if I use plain code or the IB? And if I have use the IB, should it include a model object?
The MVC idea would make good sense for me here because I have potentially several views and view controllers all feeding back into - and sharing - one common central data model. Any references or advance on this newbie problem would be more than welcome!
I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about the 'classic' definition of MVC. iOS follows it, but there's a lot of confusing terminology. ("View Controller")
You say trying to use model kills your app. Are you retaining myModel? You have to retain all IBOutlets.
nibs are collections of "Freeze-Dried" objects. When you load a nib, the objects in it are "rehydrated", if you will. This means they spring back to life with all of their properties set to whatever they were when you froze them. So you talk of "instantiating" and "initializing" but this does not apply to IB. The objects are ALREADY instantiated and initialized. Imagine that compiling the nib 'pauses' the objects. When you load the nib, the objects resume doing whatever they were doing when frozen. They will get an awakeFromNib message, so that's a good place to put some code to check on what the state of the app is, see if you have to do stuff with your object to bring it up to speed.
viewDidLoad seems like an "initialization" method but don't be fooled. It's part of the view controller life cycle and it can be called more than once! (If your controller's view is purged as part of a low memory warning, viewDidLoad might be called again if the view has to be... wait for it... reloaded.) So, it's appropriate to put view setup stuff in viewDidLoad, but not other initialization type things.
For the "common data" thing, I like to create a singleton data model class. Your various views can set properties on the model, or send notifications. You can also use KVO (key value observing) to watch for changes in the model.
IB makes functionality invisible. I don't like it and I don't use IB any more, preferring to have everything in code. Then when you look at code you see what is going on - all the navigation controllers, all the formatters etc. - without switching over to IB. Maybe Xcode4 will make it better with integrated IB but I probably won't go back. Lots of people do like IB so try both methods and see what you like best.
IBOutlet/IBAction actually mean nothing to the compiler but they let IB recognise the ivars it can send messages to or that will write to elements in a xib. Your use of it here is a bit simplistic unless you really do have a model that only communicates one way with the xib. What you more usually have is a range of controls in the xib linked to the view object, the view communicating directly with the controller. The controller communicates with the model. Very loosely speaking, model is your internal representation of data and logic, view is what you see, controller is the glue between them.
The MVC line can be fuzzy and you just have to get comfortable with it. If you have a slider control with a value representing some value in your model then it can be hard to think of it as part of the interface especially when you persist the value and use it as a central part of your model. I like the Stanford iPhone class introduction of it. They don't spend a heap of time on it because it can be difficult to follow exactly and there are situations where it isn't best.
Notes from that class - you can find the video on iTunes to follow along.
Your use of viewDidLoad is correct, that's your chance to perform initialization on views and their objects. If using IB you will probably not have much to do there because you can set most properties in the xib. If not using IB you will use it a lot more.
A lot of times something like your model would be wired at runtime by your application delegate or by the view controller itself.
IB is generally used more to link views and controllers together, with the application handing around model(s).
That said, you should be able to have IB create an instance of your model and assign it in an IBOutlet. Was your model OK with just being created without the classic init method being called? Did it implement NSCoding properly?
I have been using Objective-C for a while and pretty much understand most of its features. However, the concept of delegates eludes me. Can someone please give a succinct and easy to comprehend explanation of what delegates are, how they are used in the iPhone SDK, and how I can best make use of them in my own code?
Thank you!
There are a couple main reasons to use delegates in Objective-C, which are subtly different:
Enhancing the base functionality of a framework class. For example, a UITableView is pretty boring on its own, so you can give it a delegate to handle the interesting bits (creating table cells, adding text to section headers, what have you). This way, UITableView never changes, but different table views can look and act very differently.
Communicating to parent objects in your dependency hierarchy. For example, you may have a view with a button that the user may push to do something that affects other views. The view will have to send a message to its parent view, or perhaps the view controller, so that it can create or destroy or modify other views. To do this you'd pass the parent object into your view, most likely through a protocol, as a weak reference (in Objective-C, an assign property). The view could then send any message declared in the protocol to the parent, or delegate, object.
This approach need not involve views. For example NSURLConnection passes event back to its delegate, which may be the object that created it, using this mechanism.
Essentially, all a delegate is, is an object that accepts feedback from another object. Put simply, when stuff happens to an object, it tells its delegate (assuming it has one).
For instance, lets say I have a UIViewController with a UITextView placed in the middle of the view. I set up my UIViewController to be the delegate of the UITextView. Then, when certain actions are performed on the text view (begin editing, text changes, end editing, etc), it tells it's delegate so it can do whatever logic it needs to do, like spell checking every time characters change, or dismissing the keyboard when it receives a return key press.
Delegate methods perform a similar function to callback functions in C.
Hope that makes sense :)
Best and simple concept I got from a Lynda.com Tutorial was: When you set a Delegate it means you have been given work to do. So, if you want to use methods that are written in a protocol method, you must implement them by searching in the Delegate Class Reference and using them. I hope it helped.
By the way, Delegates are excellents. They are your friends. They have been made to make your life as a programmer much easier.
I think I have a basic question that is sort of hard to look up, I think.
Objective-C for Iphone.
I want to create two view controller instances that message and update an instance of a Model Class. How do you do this? I would prefer no using singletons. It's basically an "I really want to learn from you guys because this is awesome and I want to be awesome too!" question.
I would prefer we keep app delegate, singletons, nsnotification center out of the picture. App delegate specifically in that I dont think I wnat to have my data object created by app delegate, but I may have to.
The way, as I understand it, this works is sort of like this. Navigation Controller creates instance of FirstLevelViewController. My FirstLevelViewController creates instances of my SecondLevelViewControllers and then when told to pushes them onto the navcontroller stack.
I have my Model Instance being created by my firstlevelviewcontroller instance. Is that wrong? I think I need a reference to the instance passed to my secondlevelviewcontroller, but I'm having trouble because I can't figure out what the instance name of the firstlevelviewcontroller is (I think NavController instantiated it).
Help is so very much appreciated.
Assuming the model stays the same object (it can be mutable but not deallocated within the lifetime of BOTH view controllers), one might use a separate variable in each view controller to point to the same model class, with each view controller not knowing about the other. This is of course dependent on your application specific logic -- if one view controller 'knows about' the other than of course it makes sense to have the model be 'owned' but the independent one, and accessible to the dependent one via properties. However this considered bad because it promotes code coupling and dependency, which is looked at as poor coding. As to how both view controllers get the same model instance, typically it would be set (preferably in initialization) by whatever knows about them both, such as a higher level view controller, or if they are root view controllers, the app delegate.
So I'm trying to use a UITableViewController (let's call it homeView) in my iPhone application to display a simple table with only a few rows of text which are loaded from an NSArray in the controller. I want to display the table in the grouped style in a subview of a subview (let's call it subSubView) of my main controller. When I try the following: [subSubView addSubview:homeView.view], my app crashes on launch. However, when I allocate the object without adding it to any views, it launches fine.
What's the best way (or rather a working way) to display the table generated by my UITableViewController?
There isn't enough to tell for sure what is going on, but if I had to guess I would think that you probably aren't retaining homeView. Normally I would say that as a comment to your question, since it is not really an answer, but I have a completely separate answer:
Just use a UITableView, not a UITableViewController. Instead of trying to embed a controller within a controller (which is quite difficult since Apple doesn't expose the necessary tools to actually modify the view controller hierarchy), just make the VC you are writing support the appropriate delegate/dataSource methods and directly create the view.
While it might make some logical sense to try to embed VCs inside of each other, with the exception of the builtin container VCs (UINavigationController, UITabBarController) it Really Doesn't Work™. The technical reason for this is that internally some of the event routing and messaging depends on parentViewController being correct, but since you can't set it (setParentViewController: is private) tons of latent bugs in UIKit start rearing their head. The internal collection classes can set the parentViewController correctly, so everything works right.
Also, one last thing. In your question you named your view controller homeView. Please, please on't do that. A view controller and a view are separate things, call it homeViewController. Aside from the fact that a lot of new iPhone developers get confused about what the distinction is, there is nothing more aggravating then tracing through someone else's code and realizing that something you are assuming is one type is another.