I've run into a frustrating feature of KVO: all notifications are funneled through a single method (observeValueForKeyPath:....), requiring a bunch of IF statements if the object is observing numerous properties.
The ideal solution would be to pass a method as an argument to the method that establishes the observing in the first place, but it seems this isn't possible. Does a solution exist to this problem? I initially considered using the keyPath argument (addObserver:forKeyPath:options:context:) to call a method via NSSelectorFromString, but then I came across the post KVO Dispatcher pattern with Method as context and the article it linked to which offers a different solution in order to pass arguments along as well (although I haven't gotten that working yet).
I know a lot of people have come up against this issue. Has a standard way of handling it emerged?
OP asks:
Has a standard way of handling it emerged?
No, not really. There are a lot of different approaches out there. Here are some:
https://github.com/sleroux/KVO-Blocks
http://pandamonia.github.io/BlocksKit
http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2012-03-02-key-value-observing-done-right-take-2.html
https://github.com/ReactiveCocoa/ReactiveCocoa
http://blog.andymatuschak.org/post/156229939/kvo-blocks-block-callbacks-for-cocoa-observers
Seriously, there are a ton of these... Google "KVO blocks"
I can't say that any of the options I've seen seem prevalent enough to earn the title "standard way". I suspect most folks who feel motivated to conquer this issue just pick one and go with it, or write their own -- it's not as if adapting KVO to use block based callbacks is rocket science. The Method-based approach you link to doesn't seem like a step forward for simplicity. I get that you're trying to take the uncertainty of the string-based-key-path <-> method conversion out of the equation, but that kind of falls down because not all observable keys/keyPaths are methods. (If nothing else, you can observe arbitrary keys on NSMutableDictionaries and get notifications.)
It sure would be nice if Apple would release a new blocks-based KVO API, but I'm not holding my breath. But in the meantime, like I said, just pick one you like and use it or write your own and use that.
Related
I have heard people describe dynamic patching as a bit of a hack or at risk of breaking in future releases of Pd. This is reasonable enough, but it seems to imply that there are alternatives when building abstractions.
Dynamic patching seems to be useful for both instantiating a variable number of objects and connecting up to a variable number (a number defined at creation time - I personally don't need it to change after the fact, at this stage) of inlets and outlets within an abstraction.
Now I understand that the [clone] object can solve the problem of creating objects. I can see too that looping through send and receive objects would solve much of the connection issues with careful planning but what I do not understand is how objects like [trigger], [route] and [select] can be adjusted or replaced in some way? I fail to see how you would avoid using dynamic patching to, for example, create a [trigger f f] when the creation arg to your abstraction is 2, and a [trigger f f f] when the creation arg is 3. Again, the same with [route] and [select] and similar objects.
EDIT: The original question was perceived as too vague. I later posed a follow-up question in the comments which should really be here instead. As it happens, the answer to the follow-up provided a good answer to the original question, in my opinion. So to summarise and hopefully clarify, I was after a few "tools" to use when building abstractions so that I could limit my use of dynamic patching, if possible. These tools turned out to be:
using send and receive instead of inlets and outlets (although [initbang] can be used for creating inlets and outlets at instantiation).
using [clone]
chaining trigger, route and select objects using send and receive - for example, using [t b b] - [t b b] instead of [t b b b]. This means that the number of arguments in these objects can be defined at creation time with the help of [clone] for example. This is discussed in the Pd mailing list.
using [initbang] as indicated in the answer below.
After having attempted to build a drum machine with presets and an arbitrary number of tracks with my limited knowledge of dynamic patching techniques, I realised that there must be many ways of avoiding the problems I had when doing this, which were several! Of course, some things have to be done with dynamic patching and that's fine. It's just about creating manageable code.
This is really an answer to "follow-up question" in the comment¹, rather than the original question (which I consider too broad to be answered),
Is there a way to define an abstraction that has an argument that defines how many outlets the abstraction exposes?
Sure, just use $1 for that.
E.g. [gates 10] could create 10 outlets...
Presumably it could dynamically patch itself, but that doesn't seem like a good idea.
well, if you want an abstraction to have a dynamic API (that is: a variable number of inlets/outlets), then there is no way around dynamic patching.
Is this a good case for building your own external?
depends on what you actually want the external to do.
the iemguts library (disclaimer: of which I am the author) has everything in place to allow you to dynamically patch what you need.
Most important, there is [initbang], to create iolets before Pd tries to connect them (if you use [loadbang], the iolets will be created after Pd failed to connect to them).
It also includes a [canvasargs] object which allows you to get all the arguments to the abstraction (e.g. which simplifies the task of having the number of outlets equal the number of arguments - like [trigger] or [pack])
if instead you want to wrap the entire functionality of your abstraction into an external, that's of course also possible (and pretty simple in the realm of C).
Also keep in mind that other's might have already coded what you need.
¹ please don't abuse the comment field for follow-up questions. either update your original question (if the follow-up is a mere clarification of the original question) or post a new one.
I'm looking for an end to end example using dojo.store with dijit.Tree over REST.
There are many existing examples that use the older dojo api, dojo.data.api, but a dearth of ones using the dojo.store api.
Is the reason that dijit.Tree doesn't fully support dojo.store yet?
If so, do I need to use the dojo.data.ObjectStore wrapper to encapsulate dojo.store for use with dijit.tree?
I saw one example of working around this by extending StoreFileCache:
http://dojo-toolkit.33424.n3.nabble.com/New-object-store-and-dijit-Tree-td2680201.html
Is that the recommended option, or should I
a) stick to dojo.data.api until dijit.Tree supports dojo.store directly, or
b) use the dojo.data.ObjectStore wrapper
Thanks
There is now a tutorial on the DTK website that seems to cover pretty much exactly this topic.
http://staging.dojotoolkit.org/documentation/tutorials/1.6/store_driven_tree/
However, as I know linking to something without giving an answer is considered a poor practice, the general idea is that rather than using a dojo.data.ObjectStore to wrap around it and then potentially shoving it through a ForestStoreModel, you can simply augment your dojo.store-based store to add the methods that the Tree will look for. Here's a simple example from the tutorial:
usGov = new dojo.store.JsonRest({
target:"data/",
mayHaveChildren: function(object){
// see if it has a children property
return "children" in object;
},
getChildren: function(object, onComplete, onError){
// retrieve the full copy of the object
this.get(object.id).then(function(fullObject){
// copy to the original object so it has the children array as well.
object.children = fullObject.children;
// now that full object, we should have an array of children
onComplete(fullObject.children);
}, onError);
},
getRoot: function(onItem, onError){
// get the root object, we will do a get() and callback the result
this.get("root").then(onItem, onError);
},
getLabel: function(object){
// just get the name
return object.name;
}
});
It's worth noting that in this case, we're making some assumptions about what the data looks like. You'd need to know how your children relate and customize the methods below for that purpose, but it's hopefully fairly clear as to how to do that for yourself.
You can also just stick to dojo.data APIs for now, but this approach definitely feels more lightweight. It takes a couple of layers out of the stack and working with customizing a dojo.store-based store is much easier.
Given the two options you outlined, I'd say it's a matter of how well you know the different APIs.
dojo.store is more light-weight, and perhaps easier to understand, but the wrapper adds some overhead. If you think your project will live for a long time, this is probably the best way to go.
dojo.data is a legacy API, which will phased out eventually. If your project is short-lived, and only based on dijit.Tree, this might be your best option for now.
Personally, I'd go with dojo.store and write my own TreeStoreModel to get the best of both worlds. This approach is very similar to Brian's suggestion.
In case you're interested, I've written up a two-series post on how to use dijit.Tree with the ObjectStore wrapper, and implementing a JsonRest backend in PHP.
Maybe its because I've been coding around two semesters now, but the major stumbling block that I'm having at this point is converting the professor's project description and requirements to actual code. Since I'm currently in Algorithms 101, I basically do a bottom-up process, starting with a blank whiteboard and draw out the object and method interactions, then translate that into classes and code.
But now the prof has tossed interfaces and abstract classes into the mix. Intellectually, I can recognize how they work, but am stubbing my toes figuring out how to use these new tools with the current project (simulating a web server).
In my professors own words, mapping the abstract description to Java code is the real trick. So what steps are best used to go from English (or whatever your language is) to computer code? How do you decide where and when to create an interface, or use an abstract class?
So what steps are best used to go from English (or whatever your language is) to computer code?
Experience is what teaches you how to do this. If it's not coming naturally yet (and don't feel bad if it doesn't, because it takes a long time!), there are some questions you can ask yourself:
What are the main concepts of the system? How are they related to each other? If I was describing this to someone else, what words and phrases would I use? These thoughts will help you decide what classes are useful to think about.
What sorts of behaviors do these things have? Are there natural dependencies between them? (For example, a LineItem isn't relevant or meaningful without the context of an Order, nor is an Engine much use without a Car.) How do the behaviors affect the state of the other objects? Do they communicate with each other, and if so, in what way? These thoughts will help you develop the public interfaces of your classes.
That's just the tip of the iceberg, of course. For more about this thought process in general, see Eric Evans's excellent book, Domain-Driven Design.
How do you decide where and when to create an interface, or use an abstract class?
There's no hard and fast prescriptions; again, experience is the best guide here. That said, there's certainly some rules of thumb you can follow:
If several unrelated or significantly different object types all provide the same kind of functionality, use an interface. For example, if the Steerable interface has a Steer(Vector bearing) method, there may be lots of different things that can be steered: Boats, Airplanes, CargoShips, Cars, et cetera. These are completely unrelated things. But they all share the common interface of being able to be steered.
In general, try to favor an interface instead of an abstract base class. This way you can define a single implementation which implements N interfaces. In the case of Java, you can only have one abstract base class, so you're locked into a particular inheritance hierarchy once you say that a class inherits from another one.
Whenever you don't need implementation from a base class, definitely favor an interface over an abstract base class. This would also be handy if you're operating in a language where inheritance doesn't apply. For example, in C#, you can't have a struct inherit from a base class.
In general...
Read a lot of other people's code. Open source projects are great for that. Respect their licenses though.
You'll never get it perfect. It's an iterative process. Don't be discouraged if you don't get it right.
Practice. Practice. Practice.
Research often. Keep tackling more and more challenging projects / designs. Even if there are easy ones around.
There is no magic bullet, or algorithm for good design.
Nowadays I jump in with a design I believe is decent and work from that.
When the time is right I'll implement understanding the result will have to refactored ( rewritten ) sooner rather than later.
Give this project your best shot, keep an eye out for your mistakes and how things should've been done after you get back your results.
Keep doing this, and you'll be fine.
What you should really do is code from the top-down, not from the bottom-up. Write your main function as clearly and concisely as you can using APIs that you have not yet created as if they already existed. Then, you can implement those APIs in similar fashion, until you have functions that are only a few lines long. If you code from the bottom-up, you will likely create a whole lot of stuff that you don't actually need.
In terms of when to create an interface... pretty much everything should be an interface. When you use APIs that don't yet exist, assume that every concrete class is an implementation of some interface, and use a declared type that is indicative of that interface. Your inheritance should be done solely with interfaces. Only create concrete classes at the very bottom when you are providing an implementation. I would suggest avoiding abstract classes and just using delegation, although abstract classes are also reasonable when two different implementations differ only slightly and have several functions that have a common implementation. For example, if your interface allows one to iterate over elements and also provides a sum function, the sum function is a trivial to implement in terms of the iteration function, so that would be a reasonable use of an abstract class. An alternative would be to use the decorator pattern in that case.
You might also find the Google Techtalk "How to Design a Good API and Why it Matters" to be helpful in this regard. You might also be interested in reading some of my own software design observations.
Also, for the coming future, you can keep in pipeline to read the basics on domain driven design to align yourself to the real world scenarios - it gives a solid foundation for requirements mapping to the real classes.
I am battling to understand why a post compiler, like PostSharp, should ever be needed?
My understanding is that it just inserts code where attributed in the original code, so why doesn't the developer just do that code writing themselves?
I expect that someone will say it's easier to write since you can use attributes on methods and then not clutter them up boilerplate code, but that can be done using DI or reflection and a touch of forethought without a post compiler. I know that since I have said reflection, the performance elephant will now enter - but I do not care about the relative performance here, when the absolute performance for most scenarios is trivial (sub millisecond to millisecond).
Let's try to take an architectural point on the issue. Say you are an architect (everyone wants to be an architect ;)
You need to deliver the architecture to your team:
a selected set of libraries, architectural patterns, and design patterns. As a part of your design, you say: "we will implement caching using the following design pattern:"
string key = string.Format("[{0}].MyMethod({1},{2})", this, param1, param2 );
T value;
if ( !cache.TryGetValue( key, out value ) )
{
using ( cache.Lock(key) )
{
if (!cache.TryGetValue( key, out value ) )
{
// Do the real job here and store the value into variable 'value'.
cache.Add( key, value );
}
}
}
This is a correct way to do tracing. Developers are going to implement this pattern thousands of times, so you write a nice Word document telling how you want the pattern to be implemented. Yeah, a Word document. Do you have a better solution? I'm afraid you don't. Classic code generators won't help. Functional programming (delegates)? It works fairly well for some aspects, but not here: you need to pass method parameters to the pattern. So what's left? Describe the pattern in natural language and trust developers will implement them.
What will happen?
First, some junior developer will look at the code and tell "Hm. Two cache lookups. Kinda useless. One is enough." (that's not a joke -- ask the DNN team about this issue). And your patterns cease to be thread-safe.
As an architect, how do you ensure that the pattern is properly applied? Unit testing? Fair enough, but you will hardly detect threading issues this way. Code review? That's maybe the solution.
Now, what is you decide to change the pattern? For instance, you detect a bug in the cache component and decide to use your own? Are you going to edit thousands of methods? It's not just refactoring: what if the new component has different semantics?
What if you decide that a method is not going to be cached any more? How difficult will it be to remove caching code?
The AOP solution (whatever the framework is) has the following advantages over plain code:
It reduces the number of lines of code.
It reduces the coupling between components, therefore you don't have to change much things when you decide to change the logging component (just update the aspect), therefore it improves the capacity of your source code to cope with new requirements over time.
Because there is less code, the probability of bugs is lower for a given set of features, therefore AOP improves the quality of your code.
So if you put it all together:
Aspects reduce both development costs and maintenance costs of software.
I have a 90 min talk on this topic and you can watch it at http://vimeo.com/2116491.
Again, the architectural advantages of AOP are independent of the framework you choose. The differences between frameworks (also discussed in this video) influence principally the extent to which you can apply AOP to your code, which was not the point of this question.
Suppose you already have a class which is well-designed, well-tested etc. You want to easily add some timing on some of the methods. Yes, you could use dependency injection, create a decorator class which proxies to the original but with timing for each method - but even that class is going to be a mess of repetition...
... or you can add reflection to the mix and use a dynamic proxy of some description, which lets you write the timing code once, but requires you to get that reflection code just right -which isn't as easy as it might be, especially if generics are involved.
... or you can add an attribute to each method that you want timed, write the timing code once, and apply it as a post-compile step.
I know which seems more elegant to me - and more obvious when reading the code. It can be applied even in situations where DI isn't appropriate (and it really isn't appropriate for every single class in a system) and with no other changes elsewhere.
AOP (PostSharp) is for attaching code to all sorts of points in your application, from one location, so you don't have to place it there.
You cannot achieve what PostSharp can do with Reflection.
I personally don't see a big use for it, in a production system, as most things can be done in other, better, ways (logging, etc).
You may like to review the other threads on this matter:
Anyone with Postsharp experience in production?
Other than logging, and transaction management what are some practical applications of AOP?
Aspect Oriented Programming: What do you use PostSharp for?
etc (search)
Aspects take away all the copy & paste - code and make adding new features faster.
I hate nothing more than, for example, having to write the same piece of code over and over again. Gael has a very nice example regarding INotifyPropertyChanged on his website (www.postsharp.net).
This is exactly what AOP is for. Forget about the technical details, just implement what you are being asked for.
In the long run, I think we all should say goodbye to the way we are writing software now. It's tedious and plainly stupid to write boilerplate code and iterate manually.
The future belongs to declarative, functional style being held together by an object oriented framework - and the cross cutting concerns being handled by aspects.
I guess the only people who will not get it soon are the guys who are still payed for lines of code.
Currently I am making some decisions for my first objective-c API. Nothing big, just a little help for myself to get things done faster in the future.
After reading a few hours about different patterns like making categories, singletons, and so on, I came accross something that I like because it seems easy to maintain for me. I'm making a set of useful functions, that can be useful everywhere.
So what I did is:
1) I created two new files (.h, .m), and gave the "class" a name: SLUtilsMath, SLUtilsGraphics, SLUtilsSound, and so on. I think of that as kind of "namespace", so all those things will always be called SLUtils******. I added all of them into a Group SL, which contains a subgroup SLUtils.
2) Then I just put my functions signatures in the .h file, and the implementations of the functions in the .m file. And guess what: It works!! I'm happy with it, and it's easy to use. The only nasty thing about it is, that I have to include the appropriate header every time I need it. But that's okay, since that's normal. I could include it in the header prefix pch file, though.
But then, I went to toilet and a ghost came out there, saying: "Hey! Isn't it better to make real methods, instead of functions? Shouldn't you make class methods, so that you have to call a method rather than a function? Isn't that much cooler and doesn't it have a better performance?" Well, for readability I prefer the functions. On the other hand they don't have this kind of "named parameters" like methods, a.f.a.i.k..
So what would you prefer in that case?
Of course I dont want to allocate an object before using a useful method or function. That would be harrying.
Maybe the toilet ghost was right. There IS a cooler way. Well, for me, personally, this is great:
MYNAMESPACECoolMath.h
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#interface MYNAMESPACECoolMath : NSObject {
}
+ (float)randomizeValue:(float)value byPercent:(float)percent;
+ (float)calculateHorizontalGravity:(CGPoint)p1 andPoint:(CGPoint)p2;
// and some more
#end
Then in code, I would just import that MYNAMESPACECoolMath.h and just call:
CGFloat myValue = [MYNAMESPACECoolMath randomizeValue:10.0f byPercent:5.0f];
with no nasty instantiation, initialization, allocation, what ever. For me that pattern looks like a static method in java, which is pretty nice and easy to use.
The advantage over a function, is, as far as I noticed, the better readability in code. When looking at a CGRectMake(10.0f, 42.5f, 44.2f, 99.11f) you'll may have to look up what those parameters stand for, if you're not so familiar with it. But when you have a method call with "named" parameters, then you see immediately what the parameter is.
I think I missed the point what makes a big difference to a singleton class when it comes to simple useful methods / functions that can be needed everywhere. Making special kind of random values don't belong to anything, it's global. Like grass. Like trees. Like air. Everyone needs it.
Performance-wise, a static method in a static class compile to almost the same thing as a function.
Any real performance hits you'd incur would be in object instantiation, which you said you'd want to avoid, so that should not be an issue.
As far as preference or readability, there is a trend to use static methods more than necessary because people are viewing Obj-C is an "OO-only" language, like Java or C#. In that paradigm, (almost) everything must belong to a class, so class methods are the norm. In fact, they may even call them functions. The two terms are interchangeable there. However, this is purely convention. Convention may even be too strong of a word. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using functions in their place and it is probably more appropriate if there are no class members (even static ones) that are needed to assist in the processing of those methods/functions.
The problem with your approach is the "util" nature of it. Almost anything with the word "util" it in suggests that you have created a dumping ground for things you don't know where to fit into your object model. That probably means that your object model is not in alignment with your problem space.
Rather than working out how to package up utility functions, you should be thinking about what model objects these functions should be acting upon and then put them on those classes (creating the classes if needed).
To Josh's point, while there is nothing wrong with functions in ObjC, it is a very strongly object-oriented language, based directly on the grand-daddy of object-oriented languages, Smalltalk. You should not abandon the OOP patterns lightly; they are the heart of Cocoa.
I create private helper functions all the time, and I create public convenience functions for some objects (NSLocalizedString() is a good example of this). But if you're creating public utility functions that aren't front-ends to methods, you should be rethinking your patterns. And the first warning sign is the desire to put the word "util" in a file name.
EDIT
Based on the particular methods you added to your question, what you should be looking at are Categories. For instance, +randomizeValue:byPercent: is a perfectly good NSNumber category:
// NSNumber+SLExtensions.h
- (double)randomizeByPercent:(CGFloat)percent;
+ (double)randomDoubleNear:(CGFloat)percent byPercent:(double)number;
+ (NSNumber *)randomNumberNear:(CGFloat)percent byPercent:(double)number;
// Some other file that wants to use this
#import "NSNumber+SLExtensions.h"
randomDouble = [aNumber randomizeByPercent:5.0];
randomDouble = [NSNumber randomDoubleNear:5.0 byPercent:7.0];
If you get a lot of these, then you may want to split them up into categories like NSNumber+Random. Doing it with Categories makes it transparently part of the existing object model, though, rather than creating classes whose only purpose is to work on other objects.
You can use a singleton instance instead if you want to avoid instantiating a bunch of utility objects.
There's nothing wrong with using plain C functions, though. Just know that you won't be able to pass them around using #selector for things like performSelectorOnMainThread.
When it comes to performance of methods vs. functions, Mike Ash has some great numbers in his post "Performance Comparisons of Common Operations". Objective-C message send operations are extremely fast, so much so that you'd have to have a really tight computational loop to even see the difference. I think that using functions vs. methods in your approach will come down to the stylistic design issues that others have described.
Optimise the system, not the function calls.
Implement what is easiest to understand and then when the whole system works, profile it and speed up what's slow. I doubt very much that the objective-c runtime overhead of a static class is going to matter one bit to your whole app.