• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Method Replacement (was "swizzling") not airtight?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Method Replacement (was "swizzling") not airtight?


  • Subject: Re: Method Replacement (was "swizzling") not airtight?
  • From: Jerry Krinock <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:29:05 -0700

I changed the title of this thread after realizing that what Antonio is doing was called "Method Replacement" in Apple Sample Code

On 2012 Mar 12, at 09:57, Greg Parker wrote:

> If you want to be absolutely sure your swizzling is performed early on during application startup, use a +load method instead of a +initialize method.

Indeed, that is where the Apple's Sample Code said to do it.

However, when I tried to recheck that documentation [1] I now read this:

"This document has been retired.  Current information on this Developer Library topic can be found here:"

And then it links to the Mac OS X Developer Library :(

Does anyone know why this Sample Code has been retired?  I still use Method Replacement in one place and have not seen any trouble, so far.

Thanks,

Jerry


[1] https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#samplecode/MethodReplacement/Introduction/Intro.html
_______________________________________________

Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)

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:

This email sent to email@hidden

References: 
 >Forcing subclass creation through method swizzling not airtight? (From: Antonio Nunes <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Forcing subclass creation through method swizzling not airtight? (From: Greg Parker <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Forcing subclass creation through method swizzling not airtight?
  • Next by Date: Re: Forcing subclass creation through method swizzling not airtight?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Forcing subclass creation through method swizzling not airtight?
  • Next by thread: Re: Forcing subclass creation through method swizzling not airtight?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread