On Dec 23, 2008, at 1:04 AM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:03 PM, WT <jrca...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course,
the proxy object's class has to share the same interface as the
class of the
objects it represents so that your code doesn't need to know
whether it's
dealing with a proxy or with the real thing.
This isn't true in Objective-C. Take a look at NSProxy, the canonical
implementation of the very pattern you're describing. To state this
is to completely miss the characteristics that define Objective-C.
One is not obligated to use NSProxy to implement the Proxy pattern. I
must admit not being all that familiar with NSProxy, but having the
proxy and the object it stands for share the same public API (by being
instances of subclasses of the same abstract class) seems to me to be
a good thing since the object and its proxy can be transparently
swapped in code. If I understand NSProxy correctly, you lose that
transparency when you use it, because NSProxy and NSObject are in
different inheritance trees.
Like Ken said, you're probably doing something very wrong.
Not me, but Dimitri. I agree, though, that his design can be improved
so he won't need to do what he described.
Wagner
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
