问题
This is a relatively common design pattern:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/17015041/743957
It allows you to return a subclass from your init calls.
I'm trying to figure out the best method of achieving the same thing using Swift.
I do know that it is very likely that there is a better method of achieving the same thing with Swift. However, my class is going to be initialized by an existing Obj-C library which I don't have control over. So it does need to work this way and be callable from Obj-C.
Any pointers would be very much appreciated.
回答1:
I don't believe that this pattern can be directly supported in Swift, because initialisers do not return a value as they do in Objective C - so you do not get an opportunity to return an alternate object instance.
You can use a type method as an object factory - a fairly contrived example is -
class Vehicle
{
var wheels: Int? {
get {
return nil
}
}
class func vehicleFactory(wheels:Int) -> Vehicle
{
var retVal:Vehicle
if (wheels == 4) {
retVal=Car()
}
else if (wheels == 18) {
retVal=Truck()
}
else {
retVal=Vehicle()
}
return retVal
}
}
class Car:Vehicle
{
override var wheels: Int {
get {
return 4
}
}
}
class Truck:Vehicle
{
override var wheels: Int {
get {
return 18
}
}
}
main.swift
let c=Vehicle.vehicleFactory(4) // c is a Car
println(c.wheels) // outputs 4
let t=Vehicle.vehicleFactory(18) // t is a truck
println(t.wheels) // outputs 18
回答2:
The "swifty" way of creating class clusters would actually be to expose a protocol instead of a base class.
Apparently the compiler forbids static functions on protocols or protocol extensions.
Until e.g. https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/247 (factory initializers) is accepted and implemented, the only way I could find to do this is the following:
import Foundation
protocol Building {
func numberOfFloors() -> Int
}
func createBuilding(numberOfFloors numFloors: Int) -> Building? {
switch numFloors {
case 1...4:
return SmallBuilding(numberOfFloors: numFloors)
case 5...20:
return BigBuilding(numberOfFloors: numFloors)
case 21...200:
return SkyScraper(numberOfFloors: numFloors)
default:
return nil
}
}
private class BaseBuilding: Building {
let numFloors: Int
init(numberOfFloors:Int) {
self.numFloors = numberOfFloors
}
func numberOfFloors() -> Int {
return self.numFloors
}
}
private class SmallBuilding: BaseBuilding {
}
private class BigBuilding: BaseBuilding {
}
private class SkyScraper: BaseBuilding {
}
.
// this sadly does not work as static functions are not allowed on protocols.
//let skyscraper = Building.create(numberOfFloors: 200)
//let bigBuilding = Building.create(numberOfFloors: 15)
//let smallBuilding = Building.create(numberOfFloors: 2)
// Workaround:
let skyscraper = createBuilding(numberOfFloors: 200)
let bigBuilding = createBuilding(numberOfFloors: 15)
let smallBuilding = createBuilding(numberOfFloors: 2)
回答3:
Since init() doesn't return values like -init does in Objective C, using a factory method seems like the easiest option.
One trick is to mark your initializers as private, like this:
class Person : CustomStringConvertible {
static func person(age: UInt) -> Person {
if age < 18 {
return ChildPerson(age)
}
else {
return AdultPerson(age)
}
}
let age: UInt
var description: String { return "" }
private init(_ age: UInt) {
self.age = age
}
}
extension Person {
class ChildPerson : Person {
let toyCount: UInt
private override init(_ age: UInt) {
self.toyCount = 5
super.init(age)
}
override var description: String {
return "\(self.dynamicType): I'm \(age). I have \(toyCount) toys!"
}
}
class AdultPerson : Person {
let beerCount: UInt
private override init(_ age: UInt) {
self.beerCount = 99
super.init(age)
}
override var description: String {
return "\(self.dynamicType): I'm \(age). I have \(beerCount) beers!"
}
}
}
This results in the following behavior:
Person.person(10) // "ChildPerson: I'm 10. I have 5 toys!"
Person.person(35) // "AdultPerson: I'm 35. I have 99 beers!"
Person(35) // 'Person' cannot be constructed because it has no accessible initializers
Person.ChildPerson(35) // 'Person.ChildPerson' cannot be constructed because it has no accessible initializers
It's not quite as nice as Objective C, since private means all the subclasses need to be implemented in the same source file, and there's that the minor syntax difference Person.person(x) (or Person.create(x) or whatever) instead of simply Person(x), but practically speaking, it works the same.
To be able to instantiate literally as Person(x), you could turn Person into a proxy class which contains a private instance of the actual base class and forwards everything to it. Without message forwarding, this works for simple interfaces with few properties/methods but it gets unwieldy for anything more complex :P
回答4:
I think actually the Cluster pattern can be implemented in Swift using runtime functions. The main point is to replace the class of your new object with a subclass when initializing. The code below works fine though I think more attention should be paid to subclass' initialization.
class MyClass
{
var name: String?
convenience init(type: Int)
{
self.init()
var subclass: AnyClass?
if type == 1
{
subclass = MySubclass1.self
}
else if type == 2
{
subclass = MySubclass2.self
}
object_setClass(self, subclass)
self.customInit()
}
func customInit()
{
// to be overridden
}
}
class MySubclass1 : MyClass
{
override func customInit()
{
self.name = "instance of MySubclass1"
}
}
class MySubclass2 : MyClass
{
override func customInit()
{
self.name = "instance of MySubclass2"
}
}
let myObject1 = MyClass(type: 1)
let myObject2 = MyClass(type: 2)
println(myObject1.name)
println(myObject2.name)
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24014122/custom-class-clusters-in-swift