In the app represented by the image below, I'm currently using three UIViewControllers: One master view controller, one for the main menu, and one for a settings screen which is launched by the main menu. As I'm learning more about how UIViewController works and what it's designed for, I'm questioning the wisdom of my architecture.
It seems to me that the main point of subclassing is to be able to override the methods which get called automatically during the life cycle of the controller: viewDidAppear, viewWillAppear, willRotateToInterfaceOrientation, etc. It appears that these methods are only called if the UIViewController (or subclass) is part of the UIViewController hierarchy. Therefore, there's no point in subclassing UIViewController unless I'm going to use one of the standard means of creating a viewcontroller hierarchy i.e. UINavigationController, [UIViewController presentModalViewController] etc.
I'm wary of using the Cocoa-style means of adding view controllers to the hierarchy because they all seem to be very restrictive. For example, I could display my settings screen using [UIViewController presentModalViewController], but but I don't want it to obscure the entire screen. There's background animation which I want the user to be able to interact with even while the settings screen is visible.
Here are my questions:
1) Is it silly to subclass UIViewController unless I'm going to be adding it to the viewController hierarchy via one of Apple's techniques?
2) Am I correct in my assumption that the built-in means of displaying new views are too restrictive for me, and in order to have the flexibility I want, I'm going to need to just load views via [view addSubview]
3) If it's true that subclassing UIViewController makes no sense for my menu and settings views, how should I avoid having all of my code in one monster UIViewController subclass. Should I just subclass NSObject, add the appropriate IBOutlets and IBActions and pass that in as the File's Owner when I load the nib using [NSBundle loadNibNamed]?
Good question. First, a point of clarity: What you refer to as "one of Apple's techniques" is referred to in the UIViewController Programming Guide as "indirect presentation", and includes things like modal presentation, being pushed on a navigation stack, presenting a popover controller, etc. Basically all of these view controller methods are considered "indirect" presentation methods, while the use of -addSubview: (something like [someView addSubview:myViewController.view]) is considered "direct" presentation.
From said programming guide: (Giant Block Quote...)
It is recommended that you use only
the suggested techniques for
displaying the views of your view
controllers. In order to present and
manage views properly, the system
makes a note of each view (and its
associated view controller) that you
display directly or indirectly. It
uses this information later to report
view controller-related events to your
application. For example, when the
device orientation changes, a window
uses this information to identify the
frontmost view controller and notify
it of the change. If you incorporate a
view controller’s view into your
hierarchy by other means (by adding it
as a subview to some other view
perhaps), the system assumes you want
to manage the view yourself and does
not send messages to the associated
view controller object. (emphasis mine)
Apart from your setting up your
application’s initial interface, most
other views are presented indirectly
through their view controller objects.
All that is to say that you are correct in thinking that all of those UIViewController messages will be wasted if you if simply add the view to a view hierarchy directly, and take no other further action (key window being the exception). That quote also mentions that it is most common to use indirect presentation.
1) I hesitate to make a blanket statement and say "Yes, in all cases, it is silly to subclass UIViewController unless you're presenting it indirectly." I'm sure there is some good use for it somewhere. I'll settle for saying that I have personally never done so.
2) Absolutely, I would not use a UIViewController subclass here.
3) Allow me to direct your attention to another area of The Programming Guide:
In iPhone applications, the views in a
view hierarchy traditionally cover the
entire screen... If you want to divide
a view hierarchy into multiple
subareas and manage each one
separately, use generic controller
objects (custom objects descending
from NSObject) instead of view
controller objects to manage each
subarea. Then use a single view
controller object to manage the
generic controller objects.
That pretty clearly syncs up with what you're wanting to do here. You're dead on with your self suggested approach. That "Settings Screen launched by main menu" should be managed by a generic controller object descending from NSObject, which is in turn managed by your full-screen UIViewController subclass.
Related
Suppose I have tested a navigation controller at the root level.
- (void)applicationDidFinishLaunching:(UIApplication *)application
{
self.window.rootViewController = self.navController; //iOS4
}
Now I want to move it into one tab inside a tab controller (in a larger app). I feel I should be able to do an equivalent to the above:
self.rootViewController = self.navController; //pseudocode
inside say
- (void)viewDidLoad
just dropping the code in. What in fact is the correct/elegant way to go about this? Often books refer to the root controller of a controller, and I'm wondering how to access it as I can the one of the window. (It's possible my understanding of this is misplaced of course).
Revised answer:
You can indeed insert your main UIViewController's view elsewhere in the UI as desired.
The trick is to do it early enough, and/or in the correct fashion. viewDidLoad isn't the correct place -- by the time that method is called, you usually want your main UIViewController implementation(s) to be in place.
There are two very good places to do this sort of UI setting up:
1) Via interface builder (nib files)
2) By implementing loadView in your UIViewController (do read the Apple docs -- very good info there).
It's one or the other, don't try do both at the same time for one UIViewController!
So in your example, you could use interface builder to edit a nib containing a tab bar controller. Drag in a plain UIViewController as a child of the tab controller, and then edit the 'Class' property of the UIViewController to MySpecialViewController (i.e. your subclass of UIViewController). And that's it, your nib now causes your view controller to be added to the UI inside a tab.
To taking approach 2), you'd want to set the viewControllers property of the UITabBarController in your loadView method of the UIViewController that contains the tab bar controller UI.
(My original answer below)
There isn't a consistently named way to access the root view controller(s) across Apple's provided view controllers (such as UINavigationController etc.). But the docs give you the info about how to access them; e.g. the UINavigationController has a property called viewControllers which you can access.
Ripping out existing view controllers willy-nilly and inserting them in different places in your UI is really not a very good idea. You could end up with all kinds of grief if you go down that round (e.g. device orientation changes). It's not the sort of approach Apple want you to take.
A better approach is to have several different instances of the view controller you want in different places. If they need access to the same data, they share the same data source. But they're individual, different instances.
MyViewController.xib has File's Owner class set to MyViewController (a subclass of UIViewController) and File's Owner view connected to a UIView containing some subviews.
OtherViewController.xib has File's Owner class set to UIViewController and File's Owner view connected to an empty UIView.
Is it possible in Interface Builder to embed MyViewController's view inside the view in OtherViewController.xib?
I tried adding an instance of MyViewController into OtherViewController.xib, but I can't drop it inside the view (because it's not a UIView) and I can't get to the view that was associated with MyViewController in MyViewController.xib (only the view controller itself, and nothing it's connected to, makes it over to OtherViewController.xib).
You probably do not want to do this. Follow the warning in the View Controller Programming Guide:
Note: If you want to divide a view hierarchy into multiple subareas and manage each one separately, use generic controller objects (custom objects descending from NSObject) instead of view controller objects to manage each subarea. Then use a single view controller object to manage the generic controller objects.
A UIViewController subclass whose view does not fill the window will not behave as you might expect. It will not receive view controller lifecycle messages, rotation messages, or have its parentView/navigation/tabBarController properties set correctly.
A UITableViewCell should not be the view for a UIViewController. It might have some controller object responsible for managing its behavior (though I suspect this behavior can probably all be contained within the cell view itself) but that controller should not inherit from UIViewController.
This has changed since some of the other answers were posted - you want to take a look at the latest documentation for UIViewController, particularly the guide section "Presenting View Controllers from Other View Controllers" and the class reference guide section "Implementing a Container View Controller". Also, there's a video from WWDC 2012 covering the topic on iTunes: Session 236 - The Evolution of View Controllers on iOS. (The video is very useful, it's not just a general overview.)
You can put it all in one xib. For example, just put it all in your MainWindow.xib.
This can be done programmaticly by adding a reference in OtherViewController to MyViewController. This is perhaps a bit messy and does in some way lead me to ask why you would want to do this but... I will trust that you know what you're doing.
Warning. Because 'Other' will contain a reference to 'My' you will want retain My inside Other. but Do not, I repeat do not retain 'Other' inside of 'My' this kind of cycle will lead to errors.
Good luck and don't forget to vote
ps if you have a little more detail I may be able to help you sort out a better design so that this sort of thing can be avoided :)
The View controller programming guide states this regarding view controller's usage:
Each custom view controller object you
create is responsible for managing all
of the views in a single view
hierarchy. In iPhone applications, the
views in a view hierarchy
traditionally cover the entire screen,
but in iPad applications they may
cover only a portion of the screen.
The one-to-one correspondence between
a view controller and the views in its
view hierarchy is the key design
consideration. You should not use
multiple custom view controllers to
manage different portions of the same
view hierarchy. Similarly, you
should not use a single custom view
controller object to manage multiple
screens worth of content.
I understand that if we use multiple custom view controller's to control the parts of a view (i.e. a view controller to manage subViews of a main view which in turn is managed by a view controller) the default methods like:
didReceiveMemoryWarnings
viewWillAppear
viewWillDisappear
viewDidUnload
etc. etc. will not be called.
Apart from this, is there any other solid reason why we should not be using multiple view controllers to manage the respective subviews of a view?
The documentation also provide an alternative solution which reads as:
Note: If you want to divide a view
hierarchy into multiple subareas and
manage each one separately, use
generic controller objects (custom
objects descending from NSObject)
instead of view controller objects to
manage each subarea. Then use a single
view controller object to manage the
generic controller objects.
But there is no mention as to why multiple view controllers should not be preferred. My question is:
Why should not we prefer it this way?
I am concerned because I prefer using UIViewController's subclass to manage my views since I load them from nib each time and I segregate nibs for each view controllers. It becomes easy to cater the changes in later stages of the project. Is this wrong? Should I necessarily change my programming style, or is it ok if I go ahead with this approach?
Thanks,
Raj
Well, I'd say "as long as it works", you can keep on doing like you do !
But to keep things "cleaner", I'd use my own objects.
Since ViewControllers are designed with other general features in mind (like working with navigation controllers and tab bar controllers), which makes it a bit "heavy" for a simple usage, like you do.
Plus, like you mentioned, some events are only called when the viewController's view is added to the main window.
Can't you use your own objects with Interface Builder ? If you create one (or several) UIView IBOutlet(s), it should work the same.
I have an app that does use two UIViewControllers on a single screen. The child is a UITableViewController. I don't rely on any of the UIViewController behavior of the child -- only the UITableViewController methods. This is convenient because there are other cases where the child UITableViewController does manage the whole screen. And in that case, it does use the UIViewController methods. Questionable design? Maybe. It has worked fine for two years now. But I'm not sure I would recommend the pattern.
I have always sort of wondered when to use a UIView vs. a UIViewController on the iPhone.
I understand that you shouldn't use a UIViewController unless it's a full-screen view, but what other guidelines are there?
For example, I want to build a modal overlay - a screen that will slide into place over the current screen. If this modal overlay is full-screen, should it be a UIViewController? The last time I built something like this, I subclassed UIViewController, but now I wonder if that was correct.
From Apple's View Controller Programming Guide for iOS:
"The most important role of a view controller is to manage a hierarchy of views. Every view controller has a single root view that encloses all of the view controller’s content. To that root view, you add the views you need to display your content."
Also:
"There are two types of view controllers:
Content view controllers manage a discrete piece of your app’s content and are the main type of view controller that you create.
Container view controllers collect information from other view controllers (known as child view controllers) and present it in a way that facilitates navigation or presents the content of those view controllers differently.
Most apps are a mixture of both types of view controllers."
This is a great question.
My basic rule of thumb. Is that every major 'page' of an application gets it's own view controller. What I mean by that is that during the wire framing stage of application design, everything that exists as its own entity will eventually be managed by its own View Controller. If there is a modal screen that slides over an existing screen, I will consider that to be a separate 'page' and give it its own view controller. If there is a view that overlays and existing page (such as a loading screen or help popup.) I would treat those differently, implement them as UIView subclasses and keep the logic in that 'pages' view controller. It the popup has behavior I will communicate back to that pages View Controller using the delegate pattern.
I hope this helps. It is very much a philosophical and architectural question and much could be written about it.
I use UIViewController whenever a view is full screen and either has outlets/actions and/or subviews.
Put everything on a screen into a UIViewController until the view controller starts to have too much code, then break out the screen into multiple UIViewControllers contained by one master view controller...
To put that into context of your answer, make a view controller for that modal overlay. It will have one anyway if you are using a nav controller to present it (and you probably should).
I have a somewhat different approach:
Override UIView if you plan to do custom drawing in drawRect. Otherwise, subclass UIViewController and use [self.view addSubview: blah] to add the components of the page.
There are a few other special cases, but that handles about 95% of the situations.
(You still will often need a UIViewController with a custom UIView. But it's common to have a custom UIViewController with no corresponding custom UIView.)
Is the thing that slides in a self contained screen? I mean, does it directly interact with the parent? If so, make it a UIView, if not, probably recommend a UIViewController.
A UIView is part of the UIViewController see the view property of UIViewController for this. As you pointed out correctly UIViewController manages a complete screen and there should be only one visible UIViewController at a time. But in most cases you will have more UIViews or subclasses of UIView visible on the screen.
The example you gave would be a correct use in most cases. As you may have noticed you will get a lot of functionality when subclassing the UIViewController. Animating the appearance and dismissal of the UIViewController would be one of them.
As marcc pointed out if the thing you want to slide in is not a self contained screen you would be better off using a UIView.
As a conclusion I would say that if you want to use the functionality that comes with subclassing UIViewController than go for it make it a UIViewController. Otherwise a UIView might be better.
The itunes U Standford class has a great lecture on UIViewControllers I would recommend watching it, because it has a lot of information regarding UIViewControllers in general.
If you are familiar with the MVC pattern, then you should be able to understand the difference between UIVIew and UIViewController. To make a simple statement, UIView is for rendering UI elements on screen. UIView is the superclass of pretty much all Cocoa Touch UI elements. Those elements do not know what information they are supposed to display, what they should do when a user clicks a button, what happens when an async network request is completed and so on. UIViewController is for all that and more. The view controller is responsible for placing the UI elements in the correct locations on screen, setting the contents of the UI elements, handling button presses and other user inputs, updating the model when needed etc.
Conceptually, a single UIViewController controls the contents of the whole screen in an iPhone App and that is why it is often easy to think of things in terms of view controllers. If you need a view where the user can select ingredients for a food recipe, you'll need a UIViewController for that. I made this distinction for myself because coming from a Java background I wasn't used to the framework enforcing MVC. I would think of things in terms of UIViews, and start implementing them that way and then run into all sorts of trouble because of that. If you are going to stick to UIKit for your App, then the workflow Apple has made for you is: for each separate view in your App, create a UIViewController subclass and then use Interface Builder to place the UI elements and to create connections for buttons etc. It works wonders, saves a ton of time and lets you concentrate on making your App function well.
I use UIViewController for showing View on full Screen.
For better control on custom view I prefer subclass of UIViewController instead of UIView, earlier I was using UIView for making custom sub class.
I have a view that contains a UITableView and a UILabel which works perfectly as far as I can tell. I really don't want to manage the UIView and UITableView with the same controller as the UITableViewController handles a lot of housekeeping and according to the documentation:
If the view to be managed is a
composite view in which a table view
is one of multiple subviews, you must
use a custom subclass of
UIViewController to manage the table
view (and other views). Do not use a
UITableViewController object because
this controller class sizes the table
view to fill the screen between the
navigation bar and the tab bar (if
either are present).
Why does Apple warn against using it and what will happen if I ignore this warning?
Update: Originally I quoted the following from the Apple Documentation:
You should not use view
controllers to manage views that fill
only a part of their window—that is,
only part of the area defined by the
application content rectangle. If you
want to have an interface composed of
several smaller views, embed them all
in a single root view and manage that
view with your view controller.
While this issue is probably related to why UITableViewController was designed to be fullscreen, it isn't exactly the same issue.
The major practical reason to use only one view controller per screen is because that is the only way to manage navigation.
For example, suppose you have screen that has two separate view controllers and you load it with the navigation controller. Which of the two view controllers do you push and how do you load and reference the second one? (Not to mention the overhead of coordinating the two separate controllers simultaneously.)
I don't think using a single custom controller is a big of a hassle as you think.
Remember, there is no need for the TableviewDataSource and the TableViewDelegate to be in the actual controller. The Apple templates just do that for convenience. You can put the methods implementing both protocol in one class or separate them each into there own class. Then you simply link them up with the table in your custom controller. That way, all the custom controller has to do is manage the frame of tableview itself. All the configuration and data management will be in separate and self-contained objects. The custom control can easily message them if you need data from the other UI elements.
This kind of flexibility, customization and encapsulation is why the delegate design pattern is used in the first place. You can customize the heck out of anything without having to create one monster class that does everything. Instead, you just pop in a delegate module and go.
Edit01: Response to comment
If I understand your layout correctly, your problem is that the UITableViewController is hardwired to set the table to fill the available view. Most of the time the tableview is the top view itself and that works. The main function of the UITableViewController is to position the table so if you're using a non-standard layout, you don't need it. You can just use a generic view controller and let the nib set the table's frame (or do it programmatically). Like I said, its easy to think that the delegate and datasource methods have to be in the controller but they don't. You should just get rid of the tableViewController all together because it serves no purpose in your particular design.
To me, the important detail in Apple's documentation is that they advise you not to use "view controllers [i.e., instances of UIViewController or its subclasses] to manage views that fill only a part of their window". There is nothing wrong with using several (custom) controllers for non-fullscreen views, they just should not be UIViewController objects.
UIViewController expects that its view takes up the entire screen and if it doesn't, you might get strange results. The view controller resizes the view to fit the window (minus navigation bars and toolbars) when it appears, it manages device orientation (which is hard to apply correctly if its view does not take up the entire screen) etc. So given how UIViewController works, I think there is merit to Apple's advice.
However, that doesn't mean that you can't write your own controller classes to manage your subviews. Besides the things I mentioned above, interacting with tab bar and navigation controllers, and receiving memory warnings, there isn't really much that UIViewController does. You could just write your custom controller class (subclassed from NSObject), instantiate it in your "normal" fullscreen view controller and let it handle the interaction with your view.
The only problem I see is the responder chain. A view controller is part of the responder chain so that touch events that your views don't handle get forwarded to the view controller. As I see it, there is no easy way to place your custom controller in the responder chain. I don't know if this is relevant for you. If you can manage interaction with your view with the target-action mechanism, it wouldn't matter.
I have an application where I did use 2 separate UIViewController subclasses below another view controller to manage a table view and a toolbar. It 'kind of' works, but I got myself into a massive pickle as a result and now realize that I should not be using UIViewController subclasses for the sub controllers because they contain behavior that I don't need and that gets in the way.
The sort of things that went wrong, tended to be:
Strange resizing of the views when coming back from sub navigation and geometry calculations being different between viewWillLoad and viewDidLoad etc.
Difficulty in handling low memory warnings when I freed the subview controllers when I shouldn't have done.
Its the expectation that UIViewController subclasses won't be used like this, and the way they handle events, using the navigation controller etc that made trying to use more than one UIViewController subclass for the same page tricky because you end up spending more time circumventing their behaviour in this context.
In my opinion, The Apple Way is to provide you the "one" solution. This served the end-users very well. No choice, no headache.
We are programmers and we want to and need to customize. However, in some cases, Apple still doesn't want us to do too many changes. For example, the height of tab bar, tool bar and nav bar, some default sizes of the UI components(table view), some default behaviors, etc.. And when designing a framework and a suite of APIs, they need to nail down some decisions. Even if it's a very good and flexible design, there is always one programmer in the world wants to do something different and find it difficult to achieve against the design.
In short, you want a table view and a label on the same screen, but they don't think so. :)