These days its much harder to find decent documentation compared to 10 years ago, so I'm gonna try my luck and see if anyone remembers the rules of aggregation because the MSDN docs aren't clear on it. In particular I'm questioning the following rule for the outer (aggregating) objects:
The outer object must call its controlling IUnknown Release method if it queries for a pointer to any of the inner object's interfaces. To free this pointer, the outer object calls its controlling IUnknown AddRef method, followed by Release on the inner object's pointer.
and it has a code sample
// Obtaining inner object interface pointer
pUnkInner->QueryInterface(IID_ISomeInterface, &pISomeInterface);
pUnkOuter->Release();
// Releasing inner object interface pointer
pUnkOuter->AddRef();
pISomeInterface->Release();
My question being: is that necessary? what scenario is it protecting against? how do you implement it when the pointer lives longer than a method call?
In particular I'm wondering, if the aggregating object exposes its inner objects interfaces (which is the whole point of aggregation), how is it going to perform this reference counting dance? If the aggregating object returns an interface to the inner object to its callers it passes ownership of the reference, it won't know when the caller is done with it, and the caller won't know he is dealing with an aggregate.
(I think this question should be self contained, but having people complain previously when I asked questions without concrete code, if you really need me to provide sample code of the aggregating class I'm working on for answering that I can add that. IMHO it shouldn't be necessary and doesn't add any value to the question, it is pretty standard COM and I'm just asking about the rules here.)
Related
I'm new to Objective-C and was wondering if anyone could provide any information to clarify this for me. My (possibly wrong) understanding of object instantiation in other languages is that the object will get it's own copies of instance variables as well as instance methods, but I'm noticing that all the literature I've read thus far about Objective-C seems to indicate that the object only gets copies of instance variables, and that even when calling an instance method, program control reverts back to the original method defined inside the class itself. For example, this page from Apple's developer site shows program flow diagrams that suggest this:
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/cocoa/conceptual/ProgrammingWithObjectiveC/WorkingwithObjects/WorkingwithObjects.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011210-CH4-SW1
Also in Kochan's "Programming in Objective-C", 6th ed., pg. 41, referring to an example fraction class and object, the author states that:
"The first message sends the setNumerator: message to myFraction...control is then sent to the setNumerator: method you defined for your Fraction class...Objective-C...knows that it's the method from this class to use because it knows that myFraction is an object from the Fraction class"
On pg. 42, he continues:
"When you allocate a new object...enough space is reserved in memory to store the object's data, which includes space for its instance variables, plus a little more..."
All of this would seem to indicate to me that there is only ever one copy of any method, the original method defined within the class, and when calling an instance method, Objective-C simply passes control to that original copy and temporarily "wires it" to the called object's instance variables. I know I may not be using the right terminology, but is this correct? It seems logical as creating multiple copies of the same methods would be a waste of memory, but this is causing me to rethink my entire understanding of object instantiation. Any input would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.
Your reasoning is correct. The instance methods are shared by all instances of a class. The reason is, as you suspect, that doing it the other way would be a massive waste of memory.
The temporary wiring you speak of is that each method has an additional hidden parameter passed to it: a pointer to the calling object. Since that gives the method access to the calling object, then it can easily access all of the necessary instance variables and all is well. Note that any static variable exists in only a single instance as well and if you are not aware of that, unexpected things can happen. However, regular local variables are not shared and are recreated for each call of a method.
Apple's documention on the topic is very good so have a look for more info.
Just think of a method as a set of instructions. There is no reason to have a copy of the same method for each object. I think you may be mistaken about other languages as well. Methods are associated with the class, not individual objects.
Yes, your thinking is more or less right (although it's simpler than that: behind the scenes in most such languages methods don't need to be "wired" to anything, they just take an extra parameter for self and insert struct lookups before references to instance variables).
What might be confusing you is that not all languages work this way, in their implementations and semantically. Object-oriented languages are (very roughly) divided into two camps: class-based, like Objective-C; and prototype-based, like Javascript. In the second camp of languages, a method or procedure really is an object in its own right and can often be assigned directly to an object's instance variables as well - there are no classes to lookup methods from, only objects and other objects, all with the same first-class status (this is an oversimplification, good languages still allow for sharing and efficiency).
I have ARC code of the following form:
NSMutableData* someData = [NSMutableData dataWithLength:123];
...
CTRunGetGlyphs(run, CGRangeMake(0, 0), someData.mutableBytes);
...
const CGGlyph *glyphs = [someData mutableBytes];
...
...followed by code that reads memory from glyphs but does nothing with someData, which isn't referenced anymore. Note that CGGlyph is not an object type but an unsigned integer.
Do I have to worry that the memory in someData might get freed before I am done with glyphs (which is actually just pointing insidesomeData)?
All this code is WITHIN the same scope (i.e., a single selector), and glyphs and someData both fall out of scope at the same time.
PS In an earlier draft of this question I referred to 'garbage collection', which didn't really apply to my project. That's why some answers below give it equal treatment with what happens under ARC.
You are potentially in trouble whether you use GC or, as others have recommended instead, ARC. What you are dealing with is an internal pointer which is not considered an owning reference in either GC or ARC in general - unless the implementation has special-cased NSData. Without that owning reference either GC or ARC might remove the object. The problem you face is peculiar to internal pointers.
As you describe your situation the safest thing to do is to hang onto the real reference. You could do this by assigning the NSData reference to either an instance variable or a static (method local if you wish) variable and then assigning nil to that variable when you've done with the internal pointer. In the case of static be careful about concurrency!
In practice your code will probably work in both GC and ARC, probably more likely in ARC, but either could conceivably bite you especially as compilers change. For the cost of one variable declaration and one extra assignment you avoid the problem, cheap insurance.
[See this discussion as an example of short lifetime under ARC.]
Under actual, real garbage collection that code is potentially a problem. Objects may be released as soon as there is no longer any reference to them and the compiler may discard the reference at any time if you never use it again. For optimisation purposes scope is just a way of putting an upper limit on that sort of thing, not a way of dictating it absolutely.
You can use NSAllocateCollectable to attach lifecycle calculation to C primitive pointers, though it's messy and slightly convoluted.
Garbage collection was never implemented in iOS and is now deprecated on the Mac (as referenced at the very bottom of this FAQ), in both cases in favour of automatic reference counting (ARC). ARC adds retains and releases where it can see that they're implicitly needed. Sadly it can perform some neat tricks that weren't previously possible, such as retrieving objects from the autorelease pool if they've been used as return results. So that has the same net effect as the garbage collection approach — the object may be released at any point after the final reference to it vanishes.
A workaround would be to create a class like:
#interface PFDoNothing
+ (void)doNothingWith:(id)object;
#end
Which is implemented to do nothing. Post your autoreleased object to it after you've finished using the internal memory. Objective-C's dynamic dispatch means that it isn't safe for the compiler to optimise the call away — it has no way of knowing you (or the KVO mechanisms or whatever other actor) haven't done something like a method swizzle at runtime.
EDIT: NSData being a special case because it offers direct C-level access to object-held memory, it's not difficult to find explicit discussions of the GC situation at least. See this thread on Cocoabuilder for a pretty good one though the same caveat as above applies, i.e. garbage collection is deprecated and automatic reference counting acts differently.
The following is a generic answer that does not necessarily reflect Objective-C GC support. However, various GC implementaitons, including ref-counting, can be thought of in terms of Reachability, quirks aside.
In a GC language, an object is guaranteed to exist as long as it is Strongly-Reachable; the "roots" of these Strong-Reachability graphs can vary by language and executing environment. The exact meaning of "Strongly" also varies, but generally means that the edges are Strong-References. (In a manual ref-counting scenario each edge can be thought of as an unmatched "retain" from a given "owner".)
C# on the CLR/.NET is one such implementation where a variable can remain in scope and yet not function as a "root" for a reachability-graph. See the Systems.Timer.Timer class and look for GC.KeepAlive:
If the timer is declared in a long-running method, use KeepAlive to prevent garbage collection from occurring [on the timer object] before the method ends.
As of summer 2012, things are in the process of change for Apple objects that return inner pointers of non-object type. In the release notes for Mountain Lion, Apple says:
NS_RETURNS_INNER_POINTER
Methods which return pointers (other than Objective C object type)
have been decorated with the clang compiler attribute
objc_returns_inner_pointer (when compiling with clang) to prevent the
compiler from aggressively releasing the receiver expression of those
messages, which no longer appear to be referenced, while the returned
pointer may still be in use.
Inspection of the NSData.h header file shows that this also applies from iOS 6 onward.
Also note that NS_RETURNS_INNER_POINTER is defined as __attribute__((objc_returns_inner_pointer)) in the clang specification, which makes it such that
the object's lifetime will be extended until at least the earliest of:
the last use of the returned pointer, or any pointer derived from it,
in the calling function;
or the autorelease pool is restored to a
previous state.
Caveats:
If you're using anything older then Mountain Lion or iOS 6 you will still need to use any of the methods discussed here (e.g., __attribute__((objc_precise_lifetime))) when declaring your local NSData or NSMutableData objects.
Also, even with the newest compiler and Apple libraries, if you use older or third party libraries with objects that do not decorate their inner-pointer-returning methods with __attribute__((objc_returns_inner_pointer)) you will need to decorate your local variables declarations of such objects with __attribute__((objc_precise_lifetime)) or use one of the other methods discussed in the answers.
I know that in Objective C, every object has first 4 bytes [depending upon type of processor ] as an isa pointer stored in it that tells which class it belongs to and what dispatch table to use to resolve a selector to address of a function.
What I wanted to know was , how are data members stored and accessed in these methods.
self is passed as an implicit object in each function being called.
We use setters n getters to handle data members in other member function as a good practice,
but when we directly refer to a data member in an initializer or an accesor, how are they accessed. Are they replaced by some address at compile time or something else ?
Actually afaik the memory layout is implementation specific, but http://algorithm.com.au/downloads/talks/objective-c-internals/objective-c-internals.pdf should give you a pretty good idea of the inner works of object data and object messaging.
When you use a direct member access, what basically happens is that you're fetching straight from the "struct" that is your actual object. That is, the compiler is basically just adding an offset to the address of your object/struct and reading the contents of that memory address.
Maybe I should add that this is reverse engineered from XCode and not written in any specification I can find, so depending on this behavior is most likely a bad idea. Since external access to the iVars is not allowed, the decision is basically up to the compiler and could be changed at any time.
Edit: as #FrederickCheung points out, Objective C 2.0 may have changed this behavior.
It's not as simple as a compile time offset calculation, at least not in objective C 2.0 on the 64bit OS X and iOS runtimes. These support stuff like superclasses changing their instance variable layout without breaking subclasses that were compiled against the old layout by adding a layer of indirection.
The runtime api docs describe the API one can use to set instance variables and so on but doesn't elaborate on their implementation.
I was reading Apple's documentation, The Objective-C Programming Language (PDF link). On pg. 18, under The Receiver’s Instance Variables, I saw this.
A method has automatic access to the receiving object’s instance
variables. You don’t need to pass them to the method as parameters.
For example, the primaryColor method illustrated above takes no
parameters, yet it can find the primary color for otherRect and return
it. Every method assumes the receiver and its instance variables,
without having to declare them as parameters.
This convention simplifies Objective-C source code. It also supports
the way object-oriented programmers think about objects and messages.
Messages are sent to receivers much as letters are delivered to your
home. Message parameters bring information from the outside to the
receiver; they don’t need to bring the receiver to itself.
I am trying to better understand what they are describing; is this like Python's self parameter, or style?
Objective-C is a strict superset of C.
So Objective-C methods are "just" function pointers, and instances are "just" C structs.
A method has two hidden parameters. The first one is self(the current instance), the second _cmd (the method's selector).
But what the documentation is describing in page 18 is the access to the class instance variables from a method.
It just says a method of a class can access the instance variables of that class.
It's pretty basic from an object-oriented perspective, but not from a C perspective.
It also say that you can't access instance variables from another class instance, unless they are public.
While I would not say that it is a "slam" against Python, it is most certainly referring to the Python style of Object Orientation (which, in honesty, is derived from the "pseudo-object orientation" available in C (whether it is truly OO or not is a debate for another forum)).
It is good to remember that Python has a very different concept of scope from the rest of the world — each method more or less exists in its own little reality. This is contrasted with more "self-aware" languages which either have a "this" variable or an implicit instance construct of some form.
As is common knowledge, calls to alloc/copy/retain in Objective-C imply ownership and need to be balanced by a call to autorelease/release. How do you succinctly describe where this should happen? The word "succinct" is key. I can usually use intuition to guide me, but would like an explicit principle in case intuition fails and that can be use in discussions.
Properties simplify the matter (the rule is auto-/release happens in -dealloc and setters), but sometimes properties aren't a viable option (e.g. not everyone uses ObjC 2.0).
Sometimes the release should be in the same block. Other times the alloc/copy/retain happens in one method, which has a corresponding method where the release should occur (e.g. -init and -dealloc). It's this pairing of methods (where a method may be paired with itself) that seems to be key, but how can that be put into words? Also, what cases does the method-pairing notion miss? It doesn't seem to cover where you release properties, as setters are self-paired and -dealloc releases objects that aren't alloc/copy/retained in -init.
It feels like the object model is involved with my difficulty. There doesn't seem to be an element of the model that I can attach retain/release pairing to. Methods transform objects from valid state to valid state and send messages to other objects. The only natural pairings I see are object creation/destruction and method enter/exit.
Background:
This question was inspired by: "NSMutableDictionary does not get added into NSMutableArray". The asker of that question was releasing objects, but in such a way that might cause memory leaks. The alloc/copy/retain calls were generally balanced by releases, but in such a way that could cause memory leaks. The class was a delegate; some members were created in a delegate method (-parser:didStartElement:...) and released in -dealloc rather than in the corresponding (-parser:didEndElement:...) method. In this instance, properties seemed a good solution, but the question still remained of how to handle releasing when properties weren't involved.
Properties simplify the matter (the rule is auto-/release happens in -dealloc and setters), but sometimes properties aren't a viable option (e.g. not everyone uses ObjC 2.0).
This is a misunderstanding of the history of properties. While properties are new, accessors have always been a key part of ObjC. Properties just made it easier to write accessors. If you always use accessors, and you should, than most of these questions go away.
Before we had properties, we used Xcode's built-in accessor-writer (in the Script>Code menu), or with useful tools like Accessorizer to simplify the job (Accessorizer still simplifies property code). Or we just typed a lot of getters and setters by hand.
The question isn't where it should happen, it's when.
Release or autorelease an object if you have created it with +alloc, +new or -copy, or if you have sent it a -retain message.
Send -release when you don't care if the object continues to exist. Send -autorelease if you want to return it from the method you're in, but you don't care what happens to it after that.
I wouldn't say that dealloc is where you would call autorelease. And unless your object, whatever it may be, is linked to the life of a class, it doesn't necessarily need to be kept around for a retain in dealloc.
Here are my rules of thumb. You may do things in other ways.
I use release if the life of the
object I am using is limited to the
routine I am in now. Thus the object
gets created and released in that
routine. This is also the preferred
way if I am creating a lot of objects
in a routine, such as in a loop, and
I might want to release each object
before the next one is created in the
loop.
If the object I created in a method
needs to be passed back to the
caller, but I assume that the use of
the object will be transient and
limited to this run of the runloop, I
use autorelease. Here, I am trying to mimic many of Apple's convenience routines. (Want a quick string to use for a short period? Here you go, don't worry about owning it and it will get disposed appropriately.)
If I believe the object is to be kept
on a semi-permanent basis (like
longer than this run of the runloop),
I use create/new/copy in my method
name so the caller knows that they
are the owner of the object and will
have to release the object.
Any objects that are created by a
class and kept as a property with
retain (whether through the property
declaration or not), I release those
in dealloc (or in viewDidUnload as
appropriate).
Try not to let all this memory management overwhelm you. It is a lot easier than it sounds, and looking at a bunch of Apple's samples, and writing your own (and suffering bugs) will make you understand it better.