I'm writing a simple iOS app that uses a table view to display information from a set of model objects (each is an instance of "NTTrip"). I'm deciding between using a single subclass of UITableViewController to manage both the view and the set of model objects or whether I should separate the logic of managing the model objects into a new object that would act as a data source to the table view (i.e., sort of split up the logic into a "view controller" and a "model controller"). Is this a good idea or would I be adding extra complexity into a system that doesn't necessarily need it?
In general I like to split specific responsibilities like a UITableView's datasource out into non-UIViewController controllers. I think that that separation makes it easier to test and maintain my controllers.
However that doesn't always make sense. If you're considering using a UITableViewController then that implies that you expect your table view to fill the screen and here are probably not many other behaviors your UIViewController subclass would be responsible for. I think multiple controllers would be unnecessarily complicated if there are not clear independent responsibilities for each controller.
One alternative might be to have a single UIViewController subclass which acts as the table view's delegate and datasource. That controller can call out to some NTTripService controller which can be responsible for loading and persisting your NTTrip objects and make them available to many UIViewController subclasses for display.
Controllers are typically the most complex part of your app and are expected to talk with the data and manage the view. In iOS you typically don't have data controllers. As such, your table view controller should also communicate with your model to display the proper data for your table view. By having another data controller talk to the data model and act as a datasource, what else would your original controller do? The other extreme, of course, is to parcel every bit of work into a separate controller…but you see the problem with that.
Bottom line—your single table view controller should manage both your data and your table view—that's what the controller is meant to do.
A wrench though—if your same data is managed (edited, used) by other controllers, you may want to factor that out into a service as Jonah suggests. Otherwise, it's just unnecessary work and complication.
Related
If I have a bunch of ViewControllers that are only ever going to deal with a single view, or even if my ViewController is going to deal with multiple views, why should I use another ViewControllers to manage the other ViewControllers? Why wouldn't I just change out ViewControllers at the ApplicationDelegate level?
Maybe I'm thinking about ViewController the wrong way? I'm used to writing in the MVC pattern with Ruby/.NET. For an example, if I were working with widgets I'd probably have a WidgetController and a List view, and a Detail view for the WidgetController.
What is the analogous iPhone MVC construction? I'd assume the WidgetController would subclass the ViewController and I'd have a couple different views depending on how I wanted to look at the widget data. Then, when I wanted to deal with Wodgits I'd make a WodgitController with its associated views and swap the window's subview out with the new Wodgit ViewController.
I don't see what having a RootViewController to control my controllers buys me. Where is the value? What am I missing?
I'll focus on one aspect: Compartmentalization is a very useful design principal. If you separate concerns and put things where they "belong", they will be easier to find, maintain, build upon, and co-opt for new purposes.
Consider this:
All the pipes in your house go to the same place. Do you urinate in your sink, or do you use the fixture designed for that purpose?
In the case of your app, the application delegate is responsible for responding to application events and managing universal application resources. The root view controller is responsible for managing your views and view controllers. As a view controller it has special abilities to do so with navigation control, the ability to present modal views, act as a delegate, etc. While you could create a view controller and manipulate it completely in the application delegate, the task will become exponentially more difficult as you multiply the number of views you are managing, especially if you wish to be a text field delegate, data source, etc. On the other hand, it is easy to split the root view controller into its own class. There is very little cost.
Why pee in the sink when the toilet is a step away?
Any advice on where to store the main list data for an iPhone application like the following?
NavigationController based
Level 1 (main screen) is a List of Items. Hence it uses a table view (table of items)
Level 2_EDIT: Is a view you can get to from the main screen by clicking EDIT. Here you can add text to be added to the main view list
Level 2_DETAIL: Is a view you can get to from the main screen by clicking on a cell.
Now assuming the implementation is (rough overview):
* MainView - appDelegate (holds UIWindow & UINavigationController)
* RootViewController - table view of the main items list (? variables here ?)
* EditViewController - input text to add to main list
* DetailViewController - shows detail of record
Question - Where to hold the NSArray that keeps the main list of items? Should it be in the RootViewController where the Table View exists that displays it? Or should it be higher up in the ApplicationDelegate? I note that when you go from RootViewController to EditViewController, then in this edit view you would have to ADD items to the array, so would it be easier for the code in the EditViewController to access the main array from the AppDelegate (as opposed to the RootViewController)?
(Note - still haven't made an app that has a specific model object, re MVC, yet, so not sure if this should come into the picture.)
Your data becomes the table view's data source, and although it doesn't have to, the view controller that contains the table view often does the data source's role. The view controller can also be a delegate for the EditViewController, so the EditViewController sends a message to it so it can update the array.
Apple's CoreDataBooks sample project show similar architecture. You may want to take a look.
Having the array in the application delegate is often not a great idea. Although it can give you a little bit of convenience, now your classes totally depend on your application delegate unnecessarily.
Your table view shows your data. This corresponds to View in the MVC design pattern. I assume RootViewController is the view controller of the table view, which acts as a Controller in the pattern. Your data, the location of which is not decided yet, corresponds to Model. The role of RootViewController becomes connecting the Model and View.
The ideal, or the reason of the MVC pattern is to isolate the model and the view, so the model can work with other views with appropriate controllers, and the view can also work with other models with appropriate controllers. For example, your RootViewController will provide the table view with data. It will specify the data in the language of table view, e.g. the number of sections and rows, the contents of cells, etc. If you want to present the data in a different way, for example a graph, your controller will access the same data (model) and provide the graph view with a different representation of the same data. The model need not change, neither do the views. You write only the controller, for each combination of a model and a view.
Ideally, therefore, you will have a different class for the model. In this class, you will store the array, and provide a general interface for controllers can interact with the data.
However, it's often not that necessary, either because it's unlikely that you will use the model class often again, or because the model itself is way too simple so it can be easily implemented anywhere. For example, if your data for the table is a simple array, an NSArray object is often sufficient for the model's role. Therefor, here comes an idea that to combine the controller and the model into a single object.
This is why it makes sense that your table view controller often acts as the data source of the table view.
However, storing the data in the application delegate is a completely different idea. Now the application delegate becomes your model, but which does not make sense, because the application delegate is only used for the specific application. Why would you have a separate model object that totally depends on a single application? Also, if your table view directly interacts with the application delegate, it means that now your view cannot work for other applications either because it now depends on the specific application's application delegate.
Often the reason why people are tempted to have data in the application delegate is, that the application delegate is easily accessible by any objects in the application by using [UIApplication sharedApplication].delegate. The M-V-C relationship is not always very simple. For example, your EditViewController also need to access the same model. To do this, you have to write some code to make the model accessible by both the table view and the edit view. If you have the data in the application delegate, you don't need to do anything, because you can magically access the array by accessing the application delegate.
But that's all. A few minute's saving in your coding time, for the price of ruining your software architecture. I'm not a fundamentalist, and I do sometimes use application delegate to store some data when I'm absolutely sure that it's not worth to provide well-formed interfaces, but it's rare.
So how should you connect your edit view to the data merged into the table view controller? There could be multiple ways. What I suggested before is let the edit view controller has a weak reference to the table view controller (delegate) and send a defined message, for example - (void)editViewController:(EditViewController *editViewController) didFinishEditing:(id) someData. In this way, you can use this edit view controller with some other view controllers as long as they use the same protocol. But others may implement different interfaces for it.
You need to store in the appDelegate,as you can acees the data in anyviewcontroller then.But if you use rootviewController,then you can only send data to next ViewController then,not to the 2nd or 3rd ViewController directly.
Hope it will help you.
Good Luck
I'm currently working on an app that uses a UINavigationController inside UITabBars. The tab bars correspond to both UITableViews as well as a Map View. However, the root view controller of the app is not the parent, or direct parent, of the UITableView custom controllers and map view controller. I also have a p-list that creates NSDictionary objects; it is the datasource that I am using to populate entries in the tables and the map.
So, without a root view controller, how should I create the NSDictionary objects from the data source? It seems to me that the easiest way is to simply recreate the object in each view controller for a view that needs the data. Because I don't have that many views and the p-list isn't that long, memory shouldn't be an issue. However, I do know that this is all very inefficient.
Is there any alternative implementation so that I don't have to recreate the NSDictionary in each view controller?
This tutorial featuring the singleton guide neatly explains everything:
http://www.cocoanetics.com/2009/05/the-death-of-global-variables/
My only worry now is if multiple view controllers each call the singleton, wouldn't they all be generating multiple instances of the NSDictionary, and couldn't that conceivably still take up a lot of memory?
You need a data model object that stores the data for application.
A data model is a customized, standalone object accessible from anywhere in the application. The data model object knows nothing about any views or view controllers. It just stores data and the logical relationships between that data.
When different parts of the app need to write or read data, they right and read to the data model. In your case, view1 would save its data to the data model when it unloads and then view2 would read that data from the data model when it loads (or vice versa.)
In a properly designed app, no two view controllers should have access to the internal data of another controller. (The only reason a view controllers needs to know of the existence of another controller is if it has to trigger the loading of that other controller.)
The quick and dirty way to create a data model is to add attributes to the app delegate and then call the app delegate from the view controllers using:
MyAppDelegateClass *appDelegate=[[UIApplication sharedApplicaton] delegate];
myLocalProperty=appDelegate.someDataModelProperty;
This will work for small project but as your data grows complex, you should create a dedicated class for your data model.
Placing the data in an init method or a viewDidLoad won't work because in a tabbar the users can switch back and forth without unloading the view or reinitializing the view controller.
The best place to retrieve changing data is in the viewWillAppear controller method. That way the data will be updated every time the user switches to that tab.
In practical terms, a data model is usually either placed in some kind of a singleton (either your own, or the app delegate which is a kind of singleton).
You should read up on Model-View-Controller (MVC) architecture. Specifically, you'll probably want to introduce a data model where you would create and populate the dictionary during initialization and then access it from all of your view controllers.
I'm building my second app, and I'm trying to learn from the places I stubbed my toes on the first one.
Just as in the last app, I have sections of my app that feature a view with buttons along the bottom (basically a custom tab bar) that trigger the switching of the contents of the main, big area of the screen. One is a map view, one is a table view, one is a grid view, looking at the same objects in three different ways.
In my last app, I had each of the content options be a separate view, managed by separate ViewControllers. That worked, but there were places it was awkward. Passing data among those VCs was a little tricky (especially passing back upstream), and I was totally confused by my nested view controllers not having access to self.navigationController, for instance. It could be argued that I now know how to work with that scheme (and I do), but I'm interested in a Better Way.
I'm now thinking, maybe that whole thing should be ONE view controller, and it should have separate top-level UIView objects that it swaps in and out when the tabs at the bottom are clicked.
Problem is, two of my nested views have tables on them. So I'd need to either write REALLY complex UITableViewDelegate methods to figure out which table I'm talking about, or create separate UITableViewController subclasses to manage my table data. Either way, this just eliminated most of the simplicity I was hoping to achieve by keeping it all in one View Controller.
The other thing is, having those content views be UIViews inside the same view controller has some ramifications. There's no load time to swap views, but I'm burning memory I don't need to, if the user never visits one or more of those view alternatives.
Thoughts?
Problem is, two of my nested views have tables on them. So I'd need to either write REALLY complex UITableViewDelegate methods to figure out which table I'm talking about, or create separate UITableViewController subclasses to manage my table data.
A table view datasource/delegate does not need to be a view controller, it can be any object. So you could write two custom classes that acts as datasource/delegate for the table views.
The other thing is, having those content views be UIViews inside the same view controller has some ramifications. There's no load time to swap views, but I'm burning memory I don't need to, if the user never visits one or more of those view alternatives.
You should load the views lazily in that case, i.e. do not load anything before is is needed. And release stuff that is not needed at the moment when you receive a memory warning.
I'm currently building a tabbed iPhone application where each tab's view controller is an instance of UINavigationController, and where every subcontroller of every one of the UINavigationController instances is an instance of UITableViewController. Ideally, I'd like to subclass UINavigationController so that the controller for each tab is a subclass of UINavigationController that (in addition to having all the standard UINavigationController functionality, obviously) serves as the datasource and the delegate for each of the table views associated with its subcontrollers. Trying to do this seems to break the basic UINavigationController functionality in the subclass.
Seeing as Apple says in their iPhone documentation that one shouldn't subclass UINavigationController, and things seem to break when one does, I'm wondering how I should go about extending UINavigationController's functionality without subclassing, and generally speaking, how one should work around subclassing limitations when doing Cocoa development.
Thanks!
Why on earth do you want the UINavigationController to act as a datasource for the table? The whole point of UITableViewController is that you subclass it, and it acts as the datasource for the UITableView that it also places in, and fills, the parent view.
For reference, note that since iOS 6, UINavigationController can be subclassed legally.
This class is generally used as-is but may be subclassed in iOS 6 and later.
UINavigationController Class Reference
Of course, that doesn't mean you always should. But you can.
I'm going to go ahead and say your idea has some merit, if at every level you are truly using the same kind of data and each level perhaps has a different delegate to handle cell creation.
Basically there's no reason you cannot subclass UINavigation controller to add a totally orthogonal layer of data atop it, because it has nothing to do with the UI or behavior that UINavigationController is managing (which is what Apple is concerned you will be messing with). To those opposed to the idea, think of it as a per-tab data store that all pages in a tab can access instead of every page in the system having to go to the AppDelegate, or have a bunch of singletons. Well basically it's a singleton, but at least one that is already there and gets the reference passed around automatically.
All that said, I'll end with an alternate design proposal - I think what you are probably wanting to do is drill down through multiple layers reusing the same code to generate cells and such because you have the same kinds of data at each layer. A better approach to handle that is to have one view controller that you feed the subset of data to display, and when a user drills down it simply creates another instance of the same view controller with that new subset of data. That approach is much better than the idea of having the navigation controller act as a table delegate for each level, because you'd have to do a ton of rewiring moving back and forth and it would require even more work to remember scroll position at each level to boot. That's why you want to keep drill-downs using multiple instances of view controllers, but multiple instances doesn't have to mean multiple classes.
As I understand it, subclassing is not encouraged because Objective C allows a subclass too much access to the internal workings of its superclass.
The suggested alternative to writing a subclass is to write a delegate, in this case a UINavigationControllerDelegate. You can then encapsulate the specific behavior you want to extend into this delegate class, and link it up to the UINavigationController whenever you need it.
If the available controller heirarchy does not serve your needs in terms of handling data (my assumption, since we don't know why you want one object to be the datasource for multiple views), you can always create additional data and/or controller classes (subclasses of NSObject at least).
You can have a data or other object persist while changing views in various ways. (1) a property of your application delegate class. Any object in your app can get your app delegate instance with
[[UIApplication sharedApplication] delegate]
Use this sparingly since it's essentially creating globals.
(2) You can pass data or other objects from controller to controller as you push view controller subclasses or bring them up within tabs.
(3) Core Data is another way but requires a lot of Cocoa under your belt, and you still have to manage the context instance(s).
Because they want to avoid the UI inconsistency that plagues every other platform.