Please help, if you have any experience, our time is thicking.
I have this structure.
AppDelegate...
...Owns a _root ViewController (its view added to window)
...what owns the _main ViewController (its view added to _root's view)
...that has a Navigation controller (its view added to _main's view)
...then different viewControllers travels in this navigation stack.
But viewDidAppear/viewWillAppear methods don't get called in the innermost views. I don't know why.
As I read the documentation, it says "when added to a window". Are they works with windows? Don't think so. What should I do? Why don't these CRUTIAL methods get invoked?
Nesting view controllers is not allowed by the framework.
Yes, Apple does do it (for instance, by letting you embed one of your UIViewControllers in a tab/navigation view controller), but then they would be the ones to know how to do it.
It's still possible, by forwarding the right messages from your outer view controllers to your inner view controllers, but it takes a lot of care and is probably not very future-proof. It might save you this time, though! I.e. if you get a viewWillAppear in your _root, forward that to its sub-viewcontrollers, etc. If you manage to do this correctly for all appearances/disappearances, rotations, memory management then you're good.
Two years have passed and nesting view controllers is now supported: http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#featuredarticles/ViewControllerPGforiPhoneOS/CreatingCustomContainerViewControllers/CreatingCustomContainerViewControllers.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40007457-CH18-SW6
Related
I want to hear developers opinions on the best way to swap views on the iphone.
For example, I have a tab bar and one of its tabs defaults to a login view. When The user logs in the view changes to a logged in view.
I was going to just use one view controller and have all the content in one xib hiding and showing content as needed but this seems in no way elegant.
Secondly I was considering having one viewcontroller and simply swapping the xib. I'm a litle reluctant to try this as I've read in an article or 2 that it can lead to memory leaks.
Finally I was considering using 2 view controllers with with 2 seperate xibs. My gut tells me this would probably be the "proper" solution but I so far have failed to hunt down any sample code on the correct way to do it.
Can you offer advice on the best way to solve this problem?
Is there a technique that I have not listed?
Thanks.
I would keep the logic for which view to show in the view controller. The XIB is the view itself, and should have no objects in it that are transient or not always visible for that particular view.
Your second approach (of swapping the views) seems to be the right approach to me, and is always something I, personally, do in these situations. I am not aware of any memory issues if you do it right (remove from superview, followed by loading the new view as a subview of the controller's view). You could perform any custom initialization once the new XIB has been loaded and before showing it to the user.
Multiple view controllers just seems superfluous as then you would ideally require another top level controller to manage the two view controllers.
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.
I'm tinkering with an iPad app that (like many iPad apps) doesn't use the UINavigation root view control system, so I don't have natural ownership for each app "view". I essentially have two basic views: a document list view, and a document edit view.
I'm playing with UIView animation for getting from a selected document to the edit view.
I also have a toolbar on top that exists (with different buttons) in both "views".
Because I don't have UINavigation running the show for me, I have a tendency to just throw more and more stuff into one NIB and one view controller that owns the whole container. But now I'm trying to figure out how to segue from the document list view to the edit view if the edit view lives inside a different NIB, preserving the toolbar too.
Anyone have thoughts or experience on app structures like this? I find the docs lacking on best practices around code/UI structure for anything except trivial one-screen apps or full-on navigation apps.
You're not "supposed" to have parent/child view controllers owning subcomponents of the same "screen" according to the docs, but this implies one massive honking view controller that basically contains the whole app, and that can't be right.
Not sure if there's a "right answer" to this; I'm looking for some intelligent examples or suggestions. Nobody's touched this question in months, so I'm adding a bounty to generate good chatter. :)
Thanks!
UPDATE: I'm not talking about a split view, which is clearly well handled by a split view controller. Instead, take a look at Apple's iWork apps (e.g. Pages) which have a document list view and an independent edit view, but these are related by animation.
Maybe the real question here is: how would you (or could you even?) build a "container" view controller like the split view or navigation controller, yourself? Are you required to build the whole damn thing from scratch? I sense that you are, because seems to be hidden wiring in the interaction between view controllers. If so, thoughts on this?
I think the only hidden wiring in view controllers is setting parentViewController, which is required to support the categories declared for split and navigation.
View controllers are designed to be nested, with each controller owning a part of the view hierarchy. The only design goal is that no view controller reach into the view hierarchy of another controller. A parent view controller will usually have some call for adding child controllers so that it can set the frame of the view within the view hierarchy it owns. A child view controller should not do anything to the superview of the view it controls, as that is owned by another controller. Not should it set the center or frame of the view it controls.
For example, a navigation controller has a push method, in which it removes the previous controller view, adds the new controller view, and sets the frame of the newly added view. In general, a parent view controller is free to set the frame of the view of a child controller, but not the bounds.
If you want to change the animation of a navigation controller, I think you would start by implementing every method with an animated: argument. Set up your animation then call super with the animated flag off before committing the animation.
I haven't tried the multiple-view-controllers thing outside of the UIKit-provided ones (navigation/tab-bar/modal/etc) but I don't see why it shouldn't work. Under the hood, everything is a view, though I'll note that UIKit has special views for view controllers which no doubt have some kind of special handling by the system (UIViewController has a wrapper view, UINavigationController has a UINavigationTransitionView or something, ...).
I'd advise not worrying too much about "best practice" — just code something which does what you want. A couple of options:
Stick logic into view classes (ewwww!). One of our apps does this so it can handle rotation in a custom way (views slide in/out instead of rotating). We should've probably implemented our own view controller logic instead.
Break the model into components which correspond to views. Make each view know how to load its component and recursively load subcomponents. Then the view controller only needs to worry about "big picture" stuff.
Also note that you can load multiple nibs into the same view controller by e.g. connecting it to an outlet called editView.The big difference is that it's not done automatically by -[UIViewController loadView] so you need to do something like
-(EditView*)editView {
if (!editView) {
// Loads EditView into the outlet editView
[NSBundle loadNibNamed:#"EditView" owner:self];
}
return editView;
}
You'll also need to worry about adding it to your view hierarchy, unloading it on -(void)viewDidUnload (iPhone OS 3.0+), setting it up in -(void)viewDidLoad in case there was a memory warning during editing mode, etc...
It's not easy, but UI never is.
You need a master-detail view implemented with a split-view/popover-view and controlled with a UISplitViewController.
The master view is the document list and the detail view is the edit view. Each has its own controller. The two controllers themselves are managed by the UISplitViewController.
If you don't use the splitview controller you will just end up hand coding something that works very much like it. This is really the only way to do what you want easily in the API and it is the layout that iPad users will expect.
See Creating a Split View Interface in the iPad programming guide for details.
I am trying to wrap my head around controllers in Cocoa Touch. The main problem is that I would like to have more than one controller “on screen” at once – I want to have a large view (with controller A) composed of smaller views controlled by their own controllers (say B). I’d like to have it this way because the division makes the code much cleaner. What’s bad is that the additional controllers (of type B) are not “first-class citizens” on the screen, for example they do not receive the autorotation queries and notifications. (And cannot easily display modal controllers, they have to send the presentModal… message to their parent controller.)
What is the difference between the A and B controllers from Cocoa viewpoint? Does the system keep some kind of pointer to the “frontmost controller”, a privileged one to which it sends notifications and such stuff? Why don’t the other controllers receive them, even though their views are on the screen? Is having multiple controllers “on screen” considered a hack? Or is it supported and I am just missing some point? Thank you.
More about the problem I am trying to solve: I am writing a simple photo browser. Photos are displayed in full screen, user can swipe left or right to change photos. The A controller takes care of the scrolling part and the B controllers take care of each photo itself.
Isolating B seemed like a good idea, since the photos are loaded from network and there is a lot that can happen, like the network might be down et cetera. In the B controller the code is fairly simple, since B only works with one particular photo. If I moved the code to the A controller, things would get messy.
The only thing I don’t like about the current solution is that I have to manually work around B not being a “first-class” controller. I have to pass some calls manually through A to B and when B wants to display a modal dialog, it has to send the presentModal… to A. Which is ugly.
There is now a first-class support for this scenario since iOS 5, it’s called controller containment.
swift controller containment
objc controller containment.
It's not closely related to the original question but important. Apple clearly states in View Controller Programming Guide that a view controller is responsible for controlling exactly one screen's content:
"Each custom view controller object you create is responsible for managing exactly one screen’s worth of content. The one-to-one correspondence between a view controller and a screen is a very important consideration in the design of your application. You should not use multiple custom view controllers to manage different portions of the same screen. Similarly, you should not use a single custom view controller object to manage multiple screens worth of content.
Note: If you want to divide a single screen into multiple areas and manage each one separately, use generic controller objects (custom objects descending from NSObject) instead of view controller objects to manage each subsection of the screen. Then use a single view controller object to manage the generic controller objects. The view controller coordinates the overall screen interactions but forwards messages as needed to the generic controller objects it manages."
However in iPad Programming Guide they also say that there may be container view controllers:
"A view controller is responsible for a single view. Most of the time, a view controller’s view is expected to fill the entire span of the application window. In some cases, though, a view controller may be embedded inside another view controller (known as a container view controller) and presented along with other content. Navigation and tab bar controllers are examples of container view controllers."
Up to my current knowledge I would not use sub-view controllers in a view controller but try to subclass NSObject and send messages to them from my main view controller.
Also check this thread:
MGSplitViewController discussion
First, and this is important, view controllers don't get "on screen" -- views do. Your "top level" controller can certainly pass along the kinds of messages you're describing to its "sub-view-controllers". In fact, this is how most apps work. Consider an app that has a tab bar, and where the views use navigation controllers. You actually have several view controllers "running" at the same time, each with its own view on screen at once -- your "root" view controller will be an instance (or subclass) of UITabBarController, which then has several nested UINavigationControllers, each which will display nested view controllers (like an instance or a subclass of UITableViewController).
You might want to read up a bit on how responder chains work. Consider a touch event. It will be generated for the view closest to the top of the stack, that can receive events, which is also underneath the tap. If that view can't handle it, it gets passed up the view hierarchy food chain until something deals with it (and then eats it).
As to the specifics of your question, on the whole, I'm not sure exactly what the strategy you describe is really doing to benefit you in terms of complexity. It depends on how exactly you're implementing things, but having separate view controllers for each little subview may require more bookkeeping code than just having one view controller that knows about all its sub-view components.
This is a pretty old question, but since I guess there are people who might face the same problem today I'd like to share my solution.
I was writing this application that had this one screen with a lot of information, pagination, controls etc. Since according to Apple's MVC documentation on the role of ViewControllers, you should not implement the logic in view itself, or access the data model directly from it, I had to choose between having a Massive ViewController with a few thousand lines of code which was both hard to maintain and debug(even with unit tests) or find a new way.
My solution was to use UIContainerView like below:
this way, you can implement each part's logic in it's own ViewController, and the parent view controller takes care of constraints and sizing of the views.
Note: This answer is just a guide to show the way, you can find a good and detailed explanation on how it works and how to implement it HERE
Actually you can make it work earlier than iOS 5, since most of us are targeting 4.x and 5.x at the same time. I've created a solution that works in both, and it works great, few apps in appstore use it :) Read my article about this or just download and use a simple class that I've created for this purpose.
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. :)