Quick question, my data model is a singleton object and it contains a list of names that I want to archive. My idea is to make the model responsible for loading and saving it's own data. The model's load method will be called by the ViewController's viewDidLoad method and save by the ViewController's applicationWillTerminate. I could do the load/save directly within the ViewController, but this would be messy as the list of names are an instance variable of the model.
gary
You could just load and save in the init and dealloc methods (although it's common to call a save method explicitly). It's a good idea to encapsulate it within the model class. If you're loading from the network you might want to have a separate loadData method or something, rather than doing it from init.
Apple recommends using lazy initialization wherever possible, so I think you're heading down the right path, though you might want to consider making the method name something that looks like a property accessor, e.g. -names rather than -load (especially since there's a class method named +load that means something quite different).
Related
Each view class has multiple init methods - ones already included as part of UIView, and then additional ones - and each of them set up the same elements in the same way. I therefore usually have them all running a [self initialSetup]; method, which includes the setting up of all of these elements.
The problem i've ran into is that if a subclass also has an initialSetup method, it would override the superclass initialSetup method, and thus the superclass would have to have the method be public in order to still function. This causes problems with organisation, as the method should never be called other than from init, so has no reason to be public.
You've hit upon a problem that there's no perfect fix for. What you'd ideally have is a method that can't be subclassed in the normal sense, that's accessible only to instances of that exact type of class.
Where this is a risk, the normal practice seems to be to incorporate the class name into the setup method. So instead of initialSetup you'd have something like myViewSubclassInitialSetup.
You can also add something like this at the top of your method:
NSAssert([self isMemberOfClass:[ThisClass class]],
#"IniitalSetup called by sub- or superclass")
Then your debug builds will raise an exception if a subclass or superclass ends up calling your init method. That'll give you a place for a breakpoint and a stacktrace that should allow you to find the problem very quickly.
It won't add any code to your release builds.
Change the name of initialSetup to something like initialSetupClassName - subclasses, even if they accidentally used the same pattern, would not use the same name as they had a different class name.
You can also use an "_" prefix for private methods you would rather not be called, but the subclasser may do that also.
It sounds like you are missing a designated initializer. Designate one initializer as the official one that actually performs the setup, and have all the others just call that with some degree of customization. Usually the designated initializer will be the one with the most detail — for example, if you have init, initWithName:, initWithName:age: and initAsFiveYearOldNamed:, the designated initializer will be initWithName:age: and the other initializers would just call that method with the arguments filled in appropriately.
Unfortunatly Objective C doesn't provide a way to achieve that in a "clean" way. The ideal solution would be a protected method. But that's not possible in Objective C
Apple had this problem, when they were creating the UIGestureRecognizer. There were some methods they really didn't want to get called by somebody, but which had to be overwritten by subclasses. The way they chose to deal with this, was to create a seperate header file (UIGestureRecognizerSubclass.h), that contains a category to the original UIGestureRecognizer with those "protected" methods. The additional header is only to be imported by subclasses (i.e. for subclassing purposes). See UIGestureRecognizer Class Reference for some details.
Of course that doesn't prevent anybody from misusing the additional header file, but at least it clearly states your intention and keeps your code well structured. Also you won't be "bothered" by autocompletion for the additional methods, when just using the class.
Personally I only use an additional header, if it is extremely important that nobody calls it directly. In most cases I think it's ok to use public methods and make a note for what it's inteded. The iOS Framework also has many of these cases. F.e. many methods of UIViewController's viewDidLoad etc.
I couldn't find anything about this topic. I have NSManagedObjects that I don't use insertNewObject... I use alloc init, and then add them to array sort them alphabetically, and then I want to add them to entities and save the context. Any ideas on how to add them to entities, without making entirely new objects?
This may be more proper as a comment, but it is, in fact, the answer.
Do not do that. First, read the documentation, then use the API as directed.
Directly from the documentation for NSManagedObject:
It is important that a managed object is properly configured for use
with Core Data. If you instantiate a managed object directly, you must
call the designated initializer
(initWithEntity:insertIntoManagedObjectContext:).
Then, from the documentation for initWithEntity:insertIntoManagedObjectContext:
Important This method is the designated initializer for
NSManagedObject. You must not initialize a managed object simply by
sending it init.
Note, that the above statement is actually highlighted in an attention-getting box in the documentation.
Hi
Normally all the methods like
'- (NSFetchedResultsController *)fetchedResultsController '
are placed in the code of view controllers. I find it a bit messy to write Data Fetching code along with lifecycle methods or table delegate methods.
So my point is should I refactor the CoreData methods to some other helper class say DataLoader and then call them in view controllers?
Is this a wrong thing to do or am I going to loose some coding benefits of Core Data methods.
I would say moving the fetchedResultsController to a helper class is a good idea.
A problem I encounter often is to get the spelling of attributes right.
For example I do a predicate and want to filter on an attribute called #"isSelected". There is no check by the compiler nor by the linker to check the string isSelected. I will have to double check each line where the string has been used.
A search&replace won't work on the misspellings because I don't know what bugs have been introduced.
When I get the predicate wrong then no results will be fetched. Problem is that I don't know if there are no matching rows or if I have filtered wrong. I will need to check at runtime and that consumes time.
For predicates the saved templates exist, so predicates are not a perfect example. But think about value forKey: and we are at square one.
Now if all the fetchedResultsController are in one file then checking would become easier. At least it reduces the possibility of missing that little misspelling in a far away and rarely used class.
...or am I going to loose some coding benefits of Core Data methods.
I tend to say no, but other please feel free to jump in.
#Mann yes of course you can do that without loosing any coding benefits.....if u don't want to write Data Fetching code in you view Controller do not write there.....Make any other class lets say it DataLoader and write the fetching code in method of this class......and call this method by making the object of DataLoader class ....u will be able to fetch data from database
Hope u get it!
I understand that in Objective-C you declare an array in the header file and interact with it in a class. So far I'm adding things and fetching them fine within a single function. I'm new to the language however and can't figure out how to share that array across other functions.
I'd like to initialize array data in my viewDidLoad and access it from various functions later on. Is this possible and if so what's the best way to do it?
Like you said, declare the array in the view controller's header file and make it a #property. Use alloc-init in the implementation's -viewDidLoad method to set it up. Deallocate it in the dealloc method. Use its property setter (self.array) to retain or assign another array, depending on the #property attribute. Access it directly (array) throughout your methods in your class implementation, and via its property getter (obj.array) from other classes.
I apologise if this has been asked before but I can't find the info I need.
Basically I want a UITableView to be populated using info from a server, similar to the SeismicXML example. I have the parser as a separate object, is it correct to alloc, init an instance of that parser & then tell RootViewController to make it's table data source a copy of the parser's array.
I can't include code because I haven't written anything yet, I'm just trying to get the design right before I start. Perhaps something like:
xmlParser = [[XMLParser alloc] init];
[xmlParser getXMLData];
// Assuming xmlParser stores results in an array called returnedArray
self.tableDataSource = xmlParser.returnedArray
Is this the best way of doing it?
No, you don't want to do this. You don't want your view controller directly accessing the array of the data-model. This would work in the technical sense but it would be fragile and likely to fail as the project scaled.
As the projects grow in complexity, you will want to increasingly wrap your data model object (in this case the xmlParser) in protective layers of methods to control and verify how the data model changes. Eventually, you will have projects with multiple views, multiple view controllers as well as information entering from both the user and URLs. You need to get into the habit of using the data-model object not just a dumb store you dump stuff into but as an active manager and verifier of your data.
In a situation like this I would have my data-model's array completely wrapped by making it a #protected or #private property. Then I would have dedicated methods for fetching or inserting data into the actual array inside the data-model class itself. No objects outside of the data-model should actually have direct access to the array or have knowledge of its indexes.
So, in this case your data-model would have something like:
- (NSString *) textForLineAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *) anIndexPath{
//... do bounds checking for the index
NSString *returnString=[self.privateArray objectAtIndex:anIndexPath.row];
if (returnString=='sometest'){
return returnString;
}
return #""; //return an empty string so the reciever won't nil out and crash
}
as well as a setTextForLineAtPath: method for setting the line if you need that.
The general instructional materials do not spend enough (usually none) time talking about the data-model but the data-model is actually the core of the program. It is where the actual logic of the application resides and therefore it should be one of the most complex and thoroughly tested class in your project.
A good data-model should be interface agnostic i.e. it should work with a view based interface, a web based interface or even the command line. It should neither know nor care that its data will be displayed in a tableview or any other interface element or type.
When I start a new project, the first thing I do is comment out the '[window makeKeyAndVisible];' in the app delegate. Then I create my data-model class and test it old-school by loading data and logging the outputs. Only when it works exactly how I wish it to do I then proceed to the user interface.
So, think real hard about what you want the app to do on an abstract level. Encode that logic in a custom class. Isolate the data from all direct manipulation from any other object. Verify all inputs to the data before committing.
It sounds like a lot of work and it is. It feels like overkill for a small project and in many cases it is. However, getting the habit early will pay big dividends very quickly as your apps grow in complexity.
Not quite. You want the data source to be an object that implements the UITableViewDataSource protocol; what I would do in this situation is create an object that implements that protocol and parses XML, so that you can alloc-init it, then set the data source to that object and have it update the table view as appropriate. So based off your code (and assuming you're running within the table view's controller):
XMLParserAndDataSource xpads = [[XMLParserAndDataSource alloc] init];
[xpads getXMLData];
self.tableView.dataSource = xpads;
It's probably a good idea to give this class itself a reference to an NSXMLParser object, so you can use that to parse the XML, then provide convenience methods (like getXMLData) as well as the UITableViewDataSource methods for your own use. (If you go this route, you should also make your XMLParserAndDataSource class implement the more useful of the NSXMLParser delegate methods, and use them as appropriate to update your table view.)
I'm a Mac programmer and not an iPhone programmer; but on the mac,
self.tableDataSource = xmlParser.returnedArray is not correct. You are supposed to either bind the table's content to an Array Controller (if iPhone has one?) or set the datasource outlet to your RootViewController.
In your rootview controller, you would implement the methods:
– tableView:cellForRowAtIndexPath:
– tableView:numberOfRowsInSection:
For – tableView:cellForRowAtIndexPath: you would return a UITableViewCell with the data you received from the XML parsing according to the index path like so:
UITableCell *myCell = [UITableCell new];
myCell.textLabel.text = [parsedXMLArray objectAtIndex:[indexPath indexAtPosition:indexPath.length-1]];
return myCell;
(Something people don't know is that you can use the + new class method on all NSObject subclasses which automatically call alloc/init.)
For – tableView:numberOfRowsInSection just return the count of the data array:
return parsedXMLArray.count;
Can't edit my question nor post replies, can only post my response as answer.
#TechZen: I'm somebody who tries to form analogies, helps me understand. What you're saying is something like: My original idea was like going into the file room & dumping all the originals on my desk to work on where as you suggest the object be more like an organised file clerk who will search through the data for me and only return the specific datum that I need while being the only one with direct access to that data.
Have I understood correctly?
#Tim: What if I later need the parser to get data for something which is not a table? That's why I thought to dump it into an array & let the caller decide what to do with the data. Would you suggest a second object that would supply the data in the newly required form? (Am I sort of one the right track here or way off?)