Use class interface/header for TyphooonAssistedFactoryProvider

[jasperblues]

Instead of having to create a separate protocol for TyphoonAssistedFactoryProvider, could we just use the class' interface/header ?

[jasperblues]

Consider the following duplication:

/**
* Factory for returning a controller with delegate.
*/
@protocol VBRequestRVIControllerFactory

@property(nonatomic, strong, readonly) VBRequestRVIView* rviView;

- (VBRequestRVIViewController*)controllerWithDelegate:(id <VBRequestRVIControllerDelegate>)delegate;

@end


/**
* Controller to solicit required or voluntary (RVI) information before proceeding to checkout.
*/
@interface VBRequestRVIViewController : UIViewController

@property(nonatomic, strong) VBRequestRVIView* rviView;
@property(nonatomic, weak, readonly) id <VBRequestRVIControllerDelegate> delegate;

- (instancetype)initWithRviView:(VBRequestRVIView*)rviView delegate:(id <VBRequestRVIControllerDelegate>)delegate;

@end

[drodriguez]

Initially, no. The trick of using the protocols simplifies the process (and the code) a lot, because we know that the protocol only have creation methods, and the readonly properties are dependencies.

For your case, for example, if we only have the @interface, how will we know the name of the convenience method?… We might take the last word of the class, for example, but that not always work. And how many parts of initWith we should take out? In either case, the user of the class will not have the selector name anywhere, so the compiler will warn everytime, and the autocomplete will not help at all (and those methods should be class methods). The readonly properties also help, because they “reduce” the number of methods present on the @protocol, so wiring up the virtual class is so much easier.

Possible? Yes, but I think sticking to a more traditional approach, even if it implies a little bit of repetition, gives a better solution. Anyway, if you give me an example of how the final usage of the only @interface version of the factory works (how the final user will build instances in code), I may be see what you are getting to.

[jasperblues]

I see. . . let's close this then.

I don't have anything to suggest at this stage . . . was just raising a random (probably dumb) question.