An NSCollectionViewItem is derived from NSViewController. I use it as a prototype in an NSCollectionView. It has a property called RepresentedObject. Normally, I would use something like
var set = this.CreateBindingSet<DevViewController, DevViewModel> ();
set.Bind (devTextField).To (vm => vm.Text);
set.Bind (devTextView).To (vm => vm.BigText);
to bind UI elements with the vm. In the case of the NSCollectionViewItem, I want to bind to properties in the RepresentedObject. How do I do this?
NSCollectionView.Content takes NSObject[]. I'm currently taking my List and making an NSObject[] where each item in there is NSObject.FromObject(myClass) - which itself may not be the right approach.
Thanks in advance!
Update. It seems that if I can make my NSObject a KVO'd object ala http://cocoa-mono.org/archives/153/kvc-kvo-and-cocoa-bindings-oh-my-part-1/ that the bindings would automatically work.
The general approach of MvvmCross and its binding layer is that:
it tries to work with native controls,
but it also tries to encourage you to keep your ViewModel objects independent and unaware of any native choices.
So if you're trying to use a native control which requires you to supply a NSObject[] array, and you want to display (say) a list of customers, then a reasonable design choice within MvvmCross would be:
within the ViewModel:
to use a Customer object which provides INotifyPropertyChanged
to supply a List<Customer> as a parameter on your ViewModel
within the View:
to supply a NSObject[]
somewhere between the two
find:
a way of mapping your List<> to an []
and find a way of mapping your Customer to an NSObject
this can be found either:
using inheritance of the View and providing a custom C# property for binding
or using a custom binding
or using a value converter
The challenge of mapping the Customer to an NSObject is a particularly interesting one. If your end view is looking for KVO type functionality then I believe the conversion can be done by using a small Converter class which maps ValueForKey/SetValueForKey to their .Net reflection equivalent, and which maps INotifyPropertyChanged events to their DidChangeValue NSObject equivalent. I've not personally done this... but it feels like it should be doable, and (with a little caching of PropertyInfo objects) it should probably be reasonably efficient too.
Some final notes:
if you are marshalling a lot of calls between KVO and .Net reflection and this does impact your application's performance, then you may find using Rio style Field binding might be a faster experience, or you may find that it's faster to write hard-coded non-reflection based wrappers for your specific types.
if your ViewModel collection is mutable - e.g. it supports INotifyCollectionChanged then there may also be other interesting and reasonably efficient ways you can respond to the collection change events - although your view may not support these particularly 'beautifully' without some additional animation work.
Related
I am mapping some pre-existing Business Objects to our database using Entity Framework. These object were originally using a home-grown data access method, but we wanted to try out Entity Framework on it now that it is using Code-First. It was my expectation that this would be fairly simple, but now I am having some doubts.
I am trying to use only attributes to accomplish this so that I don't have some of the mapping here, some of it there, and still more of it over there....
When I query for entities, I am getting System.Data.Entity.DynamicProxies.MyClass_23A498C7987EFFF2345908623DC45345 and similar objects back. These objects have the data from the associated record there as well as related objects (although those are DynamicProxies also).
What is happening here? Is something going wrong with my mapping? Why is it not bringing back MyBusinessObject.MyClass instead?
That has nothing to do with mapping. Those types you see are called dynamic proxies. EF at runtime derives class from every type you map and use it instead of your type. These classes has some additional internal logic inside overriden property setters and getters. The logic is needed for lazy loading and dynamic change tracking of attached entities.
This behaviour can be turned off in context instance:
context.Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
Your navigation properties will not be loaded automatically once you do this and you will have to use eager loading (Include method in queries) or explicit loading.
Here is the problem statement: Calling a setter on the object should result in the object to change to an object of a different class, which language can support this?
Ex. I have a class called "Man" (Parent Class), and two children namely "Toddler" and "Old Man", they are its children because they override a behaviour in Man called as walk. ( i.e Toddler sometimes walks using both his hands and legs kneeled down and the Old man uses a stick to support himself).
The Man class has a attribute called age, I have a setter on Man, say setAge(int ageValue). I have 3 objects, 2 toddlers, 1 old-Man. (The system is up and running, I guess when we say objects it is obvious). I will make this call, toddler.setAge(80), I expect the toddler to change to an object of type Old Man. Is this possible? Please suggest.
Thanks,
This sounds to me like the model is wrong. What you have is a Person whose relative temporal grouping and some specific behavior changes with age.
Perhaps you need a method named getAgeGroup() which returns an appropriate Enum, depending on what the current age is. You also need an internal state object which encapsulates the state-specific behavior to which your Person delegates behavior which changes with age.
That said, changing the type of an instantiated object dynamically will likely only be doable only with dynamically typed languages; certainly it's not doable in Java, and probably not doable in C# and most other statically typed languages.
This is a common problem that you can solve using combination of OO modelling and design patterns.
You will model the class the way you have where Toddler and OldMan inherit from Man base class. You will need to introduce a Proxy (see GoF design pattern) class as your access to your Man class. Internally, proxy hold a man object/pointer/reference to either Toddler or OldMan. The proxy will expose all the interfaces that is exposed by Man class so that you can use it as it is and in your scenario, you will implement setAge similar to the pseudo code below:
public void setAge(int age)
{
if( age > TODDLER_MAX && myMan is Toddler)
myMan = new OldMan();
else
.....
myMan.setAge(age);
}
If your language does not support changing the classtype at runtime, take a look at the decorator and strategy patterns.
Objects in Python can change their class by setting the __class__ attribute. Otherwise, use the Strategy pattern.
I wonder if subclassing is really the best solution here. A property (enum, probably) that has different types of people as its possible values is one alternative. Or, for that matter, a derived property or method that tells you the type of person based on the age.
Javascript can do this. At any time you can take an existing object and add new methods to it, or change its existing methods. This can be done at the individual object level.
Douglas Crockford writes about this in Classical Inheritance in JavaScript:
Class Augmentation
JavaScript's dynamism allows us to add
or replace methods of an existing
class. We can call the method method
at any time, and all present and
future instances of the class will
have that method. We can literally
extend a class at any time.
Inheritance works retroactively. We
call this Class Augmentation to avoid
confusion with Java's extends, which
means something else.
Object Augmentation
In the static object-oriented
languages, if you want an object which
is slightly different than another
object, you need to define a new
class. In JavaScript, you can add
methods to individual objects without
the need for additional classes. This
has enormous power because you can
write far fewer classes and the
classes you do write can be much
simpler. Recall that JavaScript
objects are like hashtables. You
can add new values at any time. If the
value is a function, then it becomes a
method.
Common Lisp can: use the generic function CHANGE-CLASS.
I am surprised no one so far seemed to notice that this is the exact case for the State design pattern (although #Fadrian in fact described the core idea of the pattern quite precisely - without mentioning its name).
The state pattern is a behavioral software design pattern, also known as
the objects for states pattern. This pattern is used in computer
programming to represent the state of an object. This is a clean way for an
object to partially change its type at runtime.
The referenced page gives examples in Java and Python. Obviously it can be implemented in other strongly typed languages as well. (OTOH weakly typed languages have no need for State, as these support such behaviour out of the box.)
Part of our core product is a website CMS which makes use of various page widgets. These widgets are responsible for displaying content, listing products, handling event registration, etc. Each widget is represented by class which derives from the base widget class. When rendering a page the server grabs the page's widget from the database and then creates an instance of the correct class. The factory method right?
Private Function WidgetFactory(typeId)
Dim oWidget
Select Case typeId
Case widgetType.ContentBlock
Set oWidget = New ContentWidget
Case widgetType.Registration
Set oWidget = New RegistrationWidget
Case widgetType.DocumentList
Set oWidget = New DocumentListWidget
Case widgetType.DocumentDisplay
End Select
Set WidgetFactory = oWidget
End Function
Anyways, this is all fine but as time has gone on the number of types of widgets has increased to around 50 meaning the factory method is rather long. Every time I create a new type of widget I go to add another couple of lines to the method and a little alarm rings in my head that maybe this isn't the best way to do things. I tend to just ignore that alarm but it's getting louder.
So, am I doing it wrong? Is there a better way to handle this scenario?
I think the question you should ask yourself is: Why am I using a Factory method here?
If the answer is "because of A", and A is a good reason, then continue doing it, even if it means some extra code. If the answer is "I don't know; because I've heard that you are supposed to do it this way?" then you should reconsider.
Let's go over the standard reasons for using factories. Here's what Wikipedia says about the Factory method pattern:
[...], it deals with the problem of creating objects (products) without specifying the exact class of object that will be created. The factory method design pattern handles this problem by defining a separate method for creating the objects, whose subclasses can then override to specify the derived type of product that will be created.
Since your WidgetFactory is Private, this is obviously not the reason why you use this pattern. What about the "Factory pattern" itself (independent of whether you implement it using a Factory method or an abstract class)? Again, Wikipedia says:
Use the factory pattern when:
The creation of the object precludes reuse without significantly duplicating code.
The creation of the object requires access to information or resources not appropriate to contain within the composing object.
The lifetime management of created objects needs to be centralised to ensure consistent behavior.
From your sample code, it does not look like any of this matches your need. So, the question (which only you can answer) is: (1) How likely is it that you will need the features of a centralized Factory for your widgets in the future and (2) how costly is it to change everything back to a Factory approach if you need it in the future? If both are low, you can safely drop the Factory method for the time being.
EDIT: Let me get back to your special case after this generic elaboration: Usually, it's a = new XyzWidget() vs. a = WidgetFactory.Create(WidgetType.Xyz). In your case, however, you have some (numeric?) typeId from a database. As Mark correctly wrote, you need to have this typeId -> className map somewhere.
So, in that case, the good reason for using a factory method could be: "I need some kind of huge ConvertWidgetTypeIdToClassName select-case-statement anyway, so using a factory method takes no additional code plus it provides the factory method advantages for free, if I should ever need them."
As an alternative, you could store the class name of the widget in the database (you probably already have some WidgetType table with primary key typeId anyway, right?) and create the class using reflection (if your language allows for this type of thing). This has a lot of advantages (e.g. you could drop in DLLs with new widgets and don't have to change your core CMS code) but also disadvantages (e.g. "magic string" in your database which is not checked at compile time; possible code injection, depending on who has access to that table).
The WidgetFactory method is really a mapping from a typeId enumeration to concrete classes. In general it's best if you can avoid enumerations entirely, but sometimes (particularly in web applications) you need to round-trip to an environment (e.g. the browser) that doesn't understand polymorphism and you need such measures.
Refactoring contains a pretty good explanation of why switch/select case statements are code smells, but that mainly addresses the case where you have many similar switches.
If your WidgetFactory method is the only place where you switch on that particular enum, I would say that you don't have to worry. You need to have that map somewhere.
As an alternative, you could define the map as a dictionary, but the amount of code lines wouldn't decrease significantly - you may be able to cut the lines of code in half, but the degree of complexity would stay equivalent.
Your application of the factory pattern is correct. You have information which dictates which of N types is created. A factory is what knows how to do that. (It is a little odd as a private method. I would expect it to be on an IWidgetFactory interface.)
Your implementation, though, tightly couples the implementation to the concrete types. If you instead mapped typeId -> widgetType, you could use Activator.CreateInstance(widgetType) to make the factory understand any widget type.
Now, you can define the mappings however you want: a simple dictionary, discovery (attributes/reflection), in the configuration file, etc. You have to know all the types in one place somewhere, but you also have the option to compose multiple sources.
The classic way of implementing a factory is not to use a giant switch or if-ladder, but instead to use a map which maps object type name to an object creation function. Apart from anything else, this allows the factory to be modified at run-time.
Whether it's proper or not, I've always believed that the time to use a Factory is when the decision of what object type to create will be based upon information that is not available until run-time.
You indicated in a followup comment that the widget type is stored in a database. Since your code does not know what objects will be created until run-time, I think that this is a perfectly valid use of the Factory pattern. By having the factory, you enable your program to defer the decision of which object type to use until the time when the decision can actually be made.
It's been my experience that Factories grow so their dependencies don't have to. If you see this mapping duplicating itself in other places then you have cause for worry.
try categories your widgets, maybe based on their functionality.
if few of them are logically depending on each other, create them with single construction
I've been trying lately to implement some clean coding practices in AS3. One of these has been to not give away references to Arrays from a containing object. The point being that I control addition and removal from one Class and all other users of the Array receive read only version.
At the moment that read only version is a ArrayIterator class I wrote, which implements a typical Iterator interface (hasNext, getNext). It also extends Proxy so it can be used in for each loops just as a Array can.
So my question is should this not be a fundamental feature of many languages? The ability to pass around references to read only views of collections?
Also now that there is improved type safety for collections in AS3 , in the form of the Vector class, when I wrap a a Vector in a VectorIterator I lose typing for the sake of immutability. Is there a way to implement the two desires, immutability and typing in AS3?
It seems that using an Iterator pattern is the best way currently in AS3 to pass a collection around a system, while guaranteeing that it will not be modified.
The IIterator interface I use is modeled on the Java Iterator, but I do not implement the remove() method, as this is considered a design mistake by many in the Java community, due to it allowing the user to remove array elements. Below is my IIterator implemention:
public interface IIterator
{
function get hasNext():Boolean
function next():*
}
This is then implemented by classes such as ArrayIterator, VectorIterator etc.
For convenience I also extend Proxy on my concrete Iterator classes, and provide support for the for-each loops in AS3 by overriding the nextNameIndex() and nextValue() methods. This means code that typically used Arrays does not need to change when using my IIterator.
var array:Array = ["one", "two", "three"]
for each (var eachNumber:String in array)
{
trace(eachNumber)
}
var iterator:IIterator = new ArrayIterator(array)
for each (var eachNumber:String in iterator)
{
trace(eachNumber)
}
Only problem is... there is no way for the user to look at the IIterator interface and know that they can use a for-each loop to iterate over the collection. They would have to look at the implementation of ArrayIterator to see this.
Some would argue that the fact that you can implement such patterns as libraries is an argument against adding features to the language itself (for example, the C++ language designers typically say that).
Do you have the immutability you want via the proxy object or not? Note, you can have the VectorIterator constructor take a mandatory Class parameter. Admittedly this is not designer friendly at the moment, but lets hope things will improve in the future.
I have created a small library of immutable collection classes for AS3, including a typed ordered list, which sounds like it would meet your needs. See this blog post for details.
Something I do to achieve this is to have the class that maintains the list only return a copy of that list in a getter via slice(). As an example, my game engine has a class Scene which maintains a list of all the Beings that have been added to it. That list is then exposed as a copy like so:
public function get beings():Vector.<Being>
{
return _beings.slice();
}
(Sorry to revive an old thread, I came across this while looking for ways to implement exactly what Brian's answer covers and thought I would throw my 2 cents in on the matter).
I was confused when I first started to see anti-singleton commentary. I have used the singleton pattern in some recent projects, and it was working out beautifully. So much so, in fact, that I have used it many, many times.
Now, after running into some problems, reading this SO question, and especially this blog post, I understand the evil that I have brought into the world.
So: How do I go about removing singletons from existing code?
For example:
In a retail store management program, I used the MVC pattern. My Model objects describe the store, the user interface is the View, and I have a set of Controllers that act as liason between the two. Great. Except that I made the Store into a singleton (since the application only ever manages one store at a time), and I also made most of my Controller classes into singletons (one mainWindow, one menuBar, one productEditor...). Now, most of my Controller classes get access the other singletons like this:
Store managedStore = Store::getInstance();
managedStore.doSomething();
managedStore.doSomethingElse();
//etc.
Should I instead:
Create one instance of each object and pass references to every object that needs access to them?
Use globals?
Something else?
Globals would still be bad, but at least they wouldn't be pretending.
I see #1 quickly leading to horribly inflated constructor calls:
someVar = SomeControllerClass(managedStore, menuBar, editor, sasquatch, ...)
Has anyone else been through this yet? What is the OO way to give many individual classes acces to a common variable without it being a global or a singleton?
Dependency Injection is your friend.
Take a look at these posts on the excellent Google Testing Blog:
Singletons are pathologic liars (but you probably already understand this if you are asking this question)
A talk on Dependency Injection
Guide to Writing Testable Code
Hopefully someone has made a DI framework/container for the C++ world? Looks like Google has released a C++ Testing Framework and a C++ Mocking Framework, which might help you out.
It's not the Singleton-ness that is the problem. It's fine to have an object that there will only ever be one instance of. The problem is the global access. Your classes that use Store should receive a Store instance in the constructor (or have a Store property / data member that can be set) and they can all receive the same instance. Store can even keep logic within it to ensure that only one instance is ever created.
My way to avoid singletons derives from the idea that "application global" doesn't mean "VM global" (i.e. static). Therefore I introduce a ApplicationContext class which holds much former static singleton information that should be application global, like the configuration store. This context is passed into all structures. If you use any IOC container or service manager, you can use this to get access to the context.
There's nothing wrong with using a global or a singleton in your program. Don't let anyone get dogmatic on you about that kind of crap. Rules and patterns are nice rules of thumb. But in the end it's your project and you should make your own judgments about how to handle situations involving global data.
Unrestrained use of globals is bad news. But as long as you are diligent, they aren't going to kill your project. Some objects in a system deserve to be singleton. The standard input and outputs. Your log system. In a game, your graphics, sound, and input subsystems, as well as the database of game entities. In a GUI, your window and major panel components. Your configuration data, your plugin manager, your web server data. All these things are more or less inherently global to your application. I think your Store class would pass for it as well.
It's clear what the cost of using globals is. Any part of your application could be modifying it. Tracking down bugs is hard when every line of code is a suspect in the investigation.
But what about the cost of NOT using globals? Like everything else in programming, it's a trade off. If you avoid using globals, you end up having to pass those stateful objects as function parameters. Alternatively, you can pass them to a constructor and save them as a member variable. When you have multiple such objects, the situation worsens. You are now threading your state. In some cases, this isn't a problem. If you know only two or three functions need to handle that stateful Store object, it's the better solution.
But in practice, that's not always the case. If every part of your app touches your Store, you will be threading it to a dozen functions. On top of that, some of those functions may have complicated business logic. When you break that business logic up with helper functions, you have to -- thread your state some more! Say for instance you realize that a deeply nested function needs some configuration data from the Store object. Suddenly, you have to edit 3 or 4 function declarations to include that store parameter. Then you have to go back and add the store as an actual parameter to everywhere one of those functions is called. It may be that the only use a function has for a Store is to pass it to some subfunction that needs it.
Patterns are just rules of thumb. Do you always use your turn signals before making a lane change in your car? If you're the average person, you'll usually follow the rule, but if you are driving at 4am on an empty high way, who gives a crap, right? Sometimes it'll bite you in the butt, but that's a managed risk.
Regarding your inflated constructor call problem, you could introduce parameter classes or factory methods to leverage this problem for you.
A parameter class moves some of the parameter data to it's own class, e.g. like this:
var parameterClass1 = new MenuParameter(menuBar, editor);
var parameterClass2 = new StuffParameters(sasquatch, ...);
var ctrl = new MyControllerClass(managedStore, parameterClass1, parameterClass2);
It sort of just moves the problem elsewhere though. You might want to housekeep your constructor instead. Only keep parameters that are important when constructing/initiating the class in question and do the rest with getter/setter methods (or properties if you're doing .NET).
A factory method is a method that creates all instances you need of a class and have the benefit of encapsulating creation of the said objects. They are also quite easy to refactor towards from Singleton, because they're similar to getInstance methods that you see in Singleton patterns. Say we have the following non-threadsafe simple singleton example:
// The Rather Unfortunate Singleton Class
public class SingletonStore {
private static SingletonStore _singleton
= new MyUnfortunateSingleton();
private SingletonStore() {
// Do some privatised constructing in here...
}
public static SingletonStore getInstance() {
return _singleton;
}
// Some methods and stuff to be down here
}
// Usage:
// var singleInstanceOfStore = SingletonStore.getInstance();
It is easy to refactor this towards a factory method. The solution is to remove the static reference:
public class StoreWithFactory {
public StoreWithFactory() {
// If the constructor is private or public doesn't matter
// unless you do TDD, in which you need to have a public
// constructor to create the object so you can test it.
}
// The method returning an instance of Singleton is now a
// factory method.
public static StoreWithFactory getInstance() {
return new StoreWithFactory();
}
}
// Usage:
// var myStore = StoreWithFactory.getInstance();
Usage is still the same, but you're not bogged down with having a single instance. Naturally you would move this factory method to it's own class as the Store class shouldn't concern itself with creation of itself (and coincidentally follow the Single Responsibility Principle as an effect of moving the factory method out).
From here you have many choices, but I'll leave that as an exercise for yourself. It is easy to over-engineer (or overheat) on patterns here. My tip is to only apply a pattern when there is a need for it.
Okay, first of all, the "singletons are always evil" notion is wrong. You use a Singleton whenever you have a resource which won't or can't ever be duplicated. No problem.
That said, in your example, there's an obvious degree of freedom in the application: someone could come along and say "but I want two stores."
There are several solutions. The one that occurs first of all is to build a factory class; when you ask for a Store, it gives you one named with some universal name (eg, a URI.) Inside that store, you need to be sure that multiple copies don't step on one another, via critical regions or some method of ensuring atomicity of transactions.
Miško Hevery has a nice article series on testability, among other things the singleton, where he isn't only talking about the problems, but also how you might solve it (see 'Fixing the flaw').
I like to encourage the use of singletons where necessary while discouraging the use of the Singleton pattern. Note the difference in the case of the word. The singleton (lower case) is used wherever you only need one instance of something. It is created at the start of your program and is passed to the constructor of the classes that need it.
class Log
{
void logmessage(...)
{ // do some stuff
}
};
int main()
{
Log log;
// do some more stuff
}
class Database
{
Log &_log;
Database(Log &log) : _log(log) {}
void Open(...)
{
_log.logmessage(whatever);
}
};
Using a singleton gives all of the capabilities of the Singleton anti-pattern but it makes your code more easily extensible, and it makes it testable (in the sense of the word defined in the Google testing blog). For example, we may decide that we need the ability to log to a web-service at some times as well, using the singleton we can easily do that without significant changes to the code.
By comparison, the Singleton pattern is another name for a global variable. It is never used in production code.