Question 68246 in IOS Swift Question posted in
The official documentation can be found here.

Delegate protocol implementation on Swift (kinda conceptual) – Ios swift

I came across this scenario today and wondered if something like this already exists: a built in way to automatically delegate a protocol implementation in Swift.

I know it’d be only syntax sugar on the code, but I’m actually more curious than in need of this feature.
Here’s how it goes:

Because of bad architecture on my company’s project, I ended up having to do something like this:

protocol Cat {
    func bark()
}

class A: Cat {
    func bark() {
        print("I love prog rock")
    }
}

class B: Cat {
    private let a = A()
    // all of Cat implementation on B should return A implemention of Cat
    func bark() {
        a.bark()
    }
}

In the real case, there are several protocol functions that I’m having to use A’s implementation on B implementation :S (not just one, as illustrated).

So, I’m not asking what would be a better approach so that I don’t have to delegate all of B’s Cat implementation to A’s Cat implementation. No.

What I’d like to know is:

  1. given I have to do this, would there be a better way to do it?
  2. Is there some built in solution, like, inside B scope: self.CatImpl = a.CatImpl.
  3. Can you imagine any scenario where this would be actually useful (and not just a workaround for bad architecture management)?

What are your thoughts?

Tags:

2

Answers


  1. 0

    To me, this implementation sounds pretty similar to the Proxy Design Pattern, where B proxies access to A. I has it’s uses. Fixing bad architectural decisions is not one of them lol. If B always calls A and does nothing else, I’d consider adding tests to B and refactoring to replace it with A

    Login or Signup to reply.
  2. 0

    I am not entirely sure what it is your are trying to do, or what exactly your question is. I get that you are doing this because of "bad architecture", though I do not now what that bad architecture might be. But given that you have to do this, you could get the same effect by subclassing A in B. This would eliminate the need to have B’s bark() method call A’s bark() method. It would also eliminate the creation of an instance of A every time an instance of B was created, and hence would take up less memory, and run faster as well. I would see that as something like this;

    protocol Cat {
  func bark()
}

class A: Cat {
  func bark() {
    print("I love prog rock")
  }
}

class B: A {
}

let a = A()
let b = B()

a.bark()
b.bark()

    I do not know if that would fit your needs, but the output we be identical.

    Login or Signup to reply.
Please signup or login to give your own answer.

Back To Top
Search