Lets imagine that we have two classes:
#interface First : NSObject
#end
#interface Second : NSObject
#end
#implementation First
+(void)load
{
NSLog(#"This must be called first");
}
#end
#implementation Second
+(void)load
{
NSLog(#"And this must be called second");
}
#end
We have +load methods in each class. If we run this code, This must be called first will be first and And this must be called second will be second.
What determines the order in which the +load methods of this classes are called? In my experiment, if I move #implementation of second class before #implementation of first class - And this must be called second is printed first and This must be called first is printed second. Is this means that +load order depends only from order in source code?
In my real case I have precompiled framework with custom +load (some code are called before main() and I see logs from it), and I need to execute my code before this code (and as I understand - I can place it into +load, but I don't know how to change order). Or may be I can call my code before framework code with some other technique?
You really can't rely on order, nor can you effectively control order. By design. +load should happen before the +initialize of that class, but they order of the two is seemingly indeterminate across multiple classes (which I find slightly surprising, but well within the rules).
This is a big part of why you shouldn't do any heavy lifting in +load or +initialize. They really should only be used sparingly and only for initializing a small bit of highly localized state. Touching other significant subsystems is dangerous because you'll be changing initialization order and behavior in ways that might break the system. Shouldn't, but it might, it can, and it has in the past.
Instead, you really should try to have a "start here" point in your framework code that the client explicitly calls into.
+load methods are invoked by the objc runtime as part of the image loading process (you can see this by breaking in your load method and printing a stacktrace).
The order in which +load methods are invoked seems to depend on the order of the objc class lists generated by clang.
If you look at the source code of the objc runtime, you'll see that load_images (the function called by dyld), calls prepare_load_methods to get a list of all objc classes in an image. prepare_load_methods calls _getObjc2NonlazyClassList, which fetches the objc classlist from the __objc_nlclslist section in the image.
load_images then calls call_load_methods, which goes through all loaded classes and invokes their +load methods.
Related
Just reading an excerpt from this website.
Because +initialize runs lazily, it's obviously not a good place to
put code to register a class that otherwise wouldn't get used. For
example, NSValueTransformer or NSURLProtocol subclasses can't use
+initialize to register themselves with their superclasses, because you set up a chicken-and-egg situation.
I understand that +initialize is run once per class when the first message is sent to that class. Also, if any of the subclasses do not implement their own +initialize, the +initialize method will be run again in the superclass.
I am just not 100% on why registering a subclass with its superclass in its own +initialize method would present a chicken and egg problem.
Is it because the superclass may have never had its +initialize invoked, and you are trying to register your subclass with its superclass in a method that depends on the superclass calling its +initialize first?
Just a little bit of further clarification would go a long way for me, thank you.
Take the example of NSURLProtocol. The way it's used is that registered subclasses are asked, in turn, if they can handle a request. The first to answer yes gets an instance created and the request is handed off.
The initialize method is only called if a message is sent to the class. Since only registered subclasses are asked to handle a request, you can't register in initialize because it won't ever be invoked.
Two extracts from the documentation on the initialize method:
The runtime sends initialize to each class in a program just before the class, or any class that inherits from it, is sent its first message from within the program. The runtime sends the initialize message to classes in a thread-safe manner. Superclasses receive this message before their subclasses.
...
Because initialize is called in a thread-safe manner and the order of initialize being called on different classes is not guaranteed, it’s important to do the minimum amount of work necessary in initialize methods. Specifically, any code that takes locks that might be required by other classes in their initialize methods is liable to lead to deadlocks. Therefore you should not rely on initialize for complex initialization, and should instead limit it to straightforward, class local initialization.
The initialize message is sent to a class the first time the runtime encounters it, for example the first time you need to allocate that class or the first time you access its sharedInstance method (in case of a singleton), and it acquires some locks in order to guarantee the thread safety. If you make references to subclasses from within this method, you can get into a deadlock situation, as both the base class and the subclass will lock onto the same thing.
For example, let's consider the scenario of a superclass MyClass and one of it's children MySubclass:
#interface MyClass
#end
#interface MySubclass: MyClass
#end
#implementation MyClass
+ (void)initialize {
[MySubclass doSomething];
}
When the runtime encounters the first usage of MyClass, it acquires a lock, and calls the class method initialize. Now, when executing the method it realises that this is also the first time it encounters MySubclass, and must also intialize it before the class can do some actual work. And what does this trigger? Yes, you've guessed, another call to +[MyClass initialize].
This how we end up in the chicken-egg situation, or to put it more technical - the deadlock, or the recursion. MyClass calls on MySubclass, this means that MySubclass needs to be initialized before MyClass is used. However MySubclass is a child of MyClass, so MyClass should be initialized first. So, which one the two should be first initialized?
Problem
For certain classes, I would like to explicitly call the +initialize method when my program starts, rather than allowing the runtime system to call it implicitly at some nondeterministic point later when the class happens to first be used. Problem is, this isn't recommended.
Most of my classes have little to no work to do in initialization, so I can just let the runtime system do its thing for those, but at least one of my classes requires as much as 1 second to initialize on older devices, and I don't want things to stutter later when the program is up and running. (A good example of this would be sound effects — I don't want sudden delay the first time I try to play a sound.)
What are some ways to do this initialization at startup-time?
Attempted solutions
What I've done in the past is call the +initialize method manually from main.c, and made sure that every +initialize method has a bool initialized variable wrapped in a #synchronized block to prevent accidental double-initialization. But now Xcode is warning me that +initialize would be called twice. No surprise there, but I don't like ignoring warnings, so I'd rather fix the problem.
My next attempt (earlier today) was to define a +preinitialize function that I call directly instead +initialize, and to make sure I call +preinitialize implicitly inside of +initialize in case it is not called explicitly at startup. But the problem here is that something inside +preinitialize is causing +initialize to be called implicitly by the runtime system, which leads me to think that this is a very unwise approach.
So let's say I wanted to keep the actual initialization code inside +initialize (where it's really intended to be) and just write a tiny dummy method called +preinitialize that forces +initialize to be called implicitly by the runtime system somehow? Is there a standard approach to this? In a unit test, I wrote...
+ (void) preinitialize
{
id dummy = [self alloc];
NSLog(#"Preinitialized: %i", !!dummy);
}
...but in the debugger, I did not observe +initialize being called prior to +alloc, indicating that +initialize was not called implicitly by the runtime system inside of +preinitialize.
Edit
I found a really simple solution, and posted it as an answer.
The first possible place to run class-specific code is +load, which happens when the class is added to the ObjC runtime. It's still not completely deterministic which classes' +load implementations will be called in what order, but there are some rules. From the docs:
The order of initialization is as follows:
All initializers in any framework you link to.
All +load methods in your image.
All C++ static initializers and C/C++ __attribute__(constructor)
functions in your image.
All initializers in frameworks that link to you.
In addition:
A class’s +load method is called after all of its superclasses’ +load
methods.
A category +load method is called after the class’s own +load method.
So, two peer classes (say, both direct NSObject subclasses) will both +load in step 2 above, but there's no guarantee which order the two of them will be relative to each other.
Because of that, and because metaclass objects in ObjC are generally not great places to set and maintain state, you might want something else...
A better solution?
For example, your "global" state can be kept in the (single) instance of a singleton class. Clients can call [MySingletonClass sharedSingleton] to get that instance and not care about whether it's getting its initial setup done at that time or earlier. And if a client needs to make sure it happens earlier (and in a deterministic order relative to other things), they can call that method at a time of their choosing — such as in main before kicking off the NSApplication/UIApplication run loop.
Alternatives
If you don't want this costly initialization work to happen at app startup, and you don't want it to happen when the class is being put to use, you have a few other options, too.
Keep the code in +initialize, and contrive to make sure the class gets messaged before its first "real" use. Perhaps you can kick off a background thread to create and initialize a dummy instance of that class from application:didFinishLaunching:, for example.
Put that code someplace else — in the class object or in a singleton, but in a method of your own creation regardless — and call it directly at a time late enough for setup to avoid slowing down app launch but soon enough for it to be done before your class' "real" work is needed.
There are two problems here. First, you should never call +initialize directly. Second, if you have some piece of initialization that can take over a second, you generally shouldn't run it on the main queue because that would hang the whole program.
Put your initialization logic into a separate method so you can call it when you expect to. Optionally, put the logic into a dispatch_once block so that it's safe to call it multiple times. Consider the following example.
#interface Foo: NSObject
+ (void)setup;
#end
#implementation Foo
+ (void)setup {
NSLog(#"Setup start");
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
NSLog(#"Setup running");
[NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:1]; // Expensive op
});
}
#end
Now in your application:didFinishLaunchingWithOptions: call it in the background.
- (BOOL)application:(UIApplication *)application didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:(NSDictionary *)launchOptions {
NSLog(#"START");
// Here, you should setup your UI into an "inactive" state, since we can't do things until
// we're done initializing.
dispatch_group_t group = dispatch_group_create();
dispatch_group_async(group, dispatch_get_global_queue(0, 0), ^{
[Foo setup];
// And any other things that need to intialize in order.
});
dispatch_group_notify(group, dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
NSLog(#"We're all ready to go now! Turn on the the UI. Set the variables. Do the thing.");
});
return YES;
}
This is how you want to approach things if order matters to you. All the runtime options (+initialize and +load) make no promises on order, so don't rely on them for work that needs that. You'll just make everything much more complicated than it needs to be.
You may want to be able to check for programming errors in which you accidentally call Foo methods before initialization is done. That's best done, IMO, with assertions. For example, create an +isInitialized method that checks whatever +setup does (or create a class variable to track it). Then you can do this:
#if !defined(NS_BLOCK_ASSERTIONS)
#define FooAssertInitialized(condition) NSAssert([Foo isInitialized], #"You must call +setup before using Foo.")
#else
#define FooAssertInitialized(condition)
#endif
- (void)someMethodThatRequiresInitialization {
FooAssertInitialized();
// Do stuff
}
This makes it easy to mark methods that really do require initialization before use vs ones that may not.
Cocoa provides a setup point earlier than +initialize in the form of +load, which is called very shortly after the program's start. This is a weird environment: other classes that rely on +load may not be completely initialized yet, and more importantly, your main() has not been called! That means there's no autorelease pool in place.
After load but before initialize, functions marked with __attribute__((constructor)) will be called. This doesn't allow you to do much that you can't do in main() so far as I know.
One option would be to create a dummy instance of your class in either main() or a constructor, guaranteeing that initialize will be called as early as possible.
Answering my own question here. It turns out that the solution is embarrassingly simple.
I had been operating under the mistaken belief that +initialize would not be called until the first instance method in a class is invoked. This is not so. It is called before the first instance method or class method is invoked (other than +load, of course).
So the solution is simply to cause +initialize to be invoked implicitly. There are multiple ways to do this. Two are discussed below.
Option 1 (simple and direct, but unclear)
In startup code, simply call some method (e.g., +class) of the class you want to initialize at startup, and discard the return value:
(void)[MyClass class];
This is guaranteed by the Objective-C runtime system to call [MyClass initialize] implicitly if it has not yet been called.
Option 2 (less direct, but clearer)
Create a +preinitialize method with an empty body:
+ (void) preinitialize
{
// Simply by calling this function at startup, an implicit call to
// +initialize is generated.
}
Calling this function at startup implicitly invokes +initialize:
[MyClass preinitialize]; // Implicitly invokes +initialize.
This +preinitialize method serves no purpose other than to document the intention. Thus, it plays well with +initialize and +deinitialize and is fairly self-evident in the calling code. I write a +deinitialize method for every class I write that has an +initialize method. +deinitialize is called from the shutdown code; +initialize is called implicitly via +preinitialize in the startup code. Super simple. Sometimes I also write a +reinitialize method, but the need for this is rare.
I am now using this approach for all my class initializers. Instead of calling [MyClass initialize] in the start up code, I am now calling [MyClass preinitialize]. It's working great, and the call stack shown in the debugger confirms that +initialize is being called exactly at the intended time and fully deterministically.
How can I prevent a method from getting overridden in a subclass, missing a call to its superclass' implementation within?.
I know calling [super methodName]; will solve my problem sometimes.
But if somebody else was to use my parent class and overrode my method, accidentally missing to call super, what can I do?
Some more explanations:
I create a viewcontroller VC1 which has a method -(void)indexDidChange:(int)index { }. I write some actions there which I need to perform every time. and I subclass this viewcontroller named as SVC1 in it I need -(void)indexDidChange:(int)index { } for doing some other actions but at the same time the VC1 -(void)indexDidChange:(int)index { } action also need to perform. So I need to call like,
-(void)indexDidChange:(int)index {
[super indexDidChange:index];
}
So I decide to change VC1 function like,
-(void)indexDidChange:(int)index {
[self currentIndexDidChange:(int)index];
}
-(void)currentIndexDidChange:(int)index { }
And I need -(void)currentIndexDidChange:(int)index { } to override and prevent -(void)indexDidChange:(int)index { } from overriding.
Is it possible?
Edit: After OP rephrased the question it is clear that OP is actually NOT looking for final methods, despite the questions initial phrasing, which implied just this.
New (updated) answer to OP's question on method overriding safety:
According to your rephrased question you are not looking for protecting a method from being overridden at all, but rather worried about one of your subclasses overriding a method and accidently missing to include a call to super in its new implementation.
This however is a fairly common and widespread issue and something you're dealing with on a daily basis, without paying much attention to it.
Every Objective-C programmer is familiar with the following method, right?
- (void)dealloc {
[iVar release], iVar = nil;
[super dealloc]; //skipping this call to super is fatal!
}
And we al know that skipping the [super dealloc]; makes things get uncomfortable. (afaik the clang compiler issues a warning if dealloc lacks the call to super, …pretty handy.)
Despite the fact that a bad overriding of this method can have fatal consequences Apple did not choose to put any kind of security system in place here.
Instead Apple did this (as done with any other method requiring calls to super):
Add a note to the method's documentation:
After performing the class-specific
deallocation, the subclass method
should incorporate superclass versions
of dealloc through a message to
super
Expect you, the programmer, to be a grown-up and responsible for what you do. And for playing by the rules (as defined by the documentation).
Keep in mind that - (void)dealloc is by no means an exception. There are dozens and dozens of methods of this type in Cocoa. (Take just about any derivative of - (id)init, most of the KVO observing methods, etc. just to name a few.)
So what you should do is:
Write a good documentation for your
method. (better for your entire project, actually)
Add a big loud note to your method's documentation, explaining its rules.
Add a note to each of your subclasses' overridden method implementations, right above the line that's calling super, telling the reader/dev to look up documentation, when in doubt of the rules. (optional)
Code responsibly. Otherwise, you shouldn't be coding in first place. It's your customers who will suffer from it, eventually.
Old (pre-rephrasing) answer on archieving pseudo-final methods:
What you are asking for is the equivalent of a final function, as known from Java or C++.
Unlike Java or C++, however there are no final methods in Objective-C.
Depending on your situation there are solutions that might bring your at least near to what you're aiming for. All you'll get though is slightly better separation. You won't get any significant security from them. In Objective-C you cannot even be sure about the origin of your methods. Method swizzling allows you to exchange methods at will. With code injection you an even inject code into processes at runtime. All this is by design of Objective-C. Objective-C allows you to saw off the branch you're sitting on. Thus it demands you to act like a grown-up. As such there are no private methods either. If a method is proclaim private you as a dev are expected to behave accordingly.
Now to possible "solutions":
If only your super class if supposed to call the given (final) method anyway:
Then Macmade's solution of making your method a pseudo-private method would work quite well. The downside of hiding method declarations though is, that calling your hidden method from subclasses will give you a compiler warning, basically preventing*(sic!)* you from calling it. (It will not prevent you from calling the method though. It will only avoid you from doing so, by throwing compiler warnings.)
If subclasses however are expected to call the given (final) method:
Use a delegation pattern and by this only make those methods public that are allowed to be overridden.
To prevent overriding at all you could use the class cluster & abstract factory patterns, which hides your implementation classes and thus preventing overriding entirely. (Apple's NSArray, NSDictionary, NSSet classes do this)
However you might notice that with Objective-C lack of protection one usually can only choose between the two: openness, protectedness, not intermix them.
You can use categories in the implementation, so your methods aren't exposed in your header file.
MyClass.m
#interface MyClass( Private )
- ( void )myMethod;
#end
#implementation MyClass( Private )
- ( void )myMethod
{}
#end
#implementation MyClass
/* ... */
#end
If you don't declare your function in the ".h file" then its not listed, I think.
I think that i have noticed moving certain methods around causes errors when i compile that are remedied by putting the method back where it was.
am i making this up? is there are rhyme or reason to the order that these need to be in? is decided by the order of my .h? what about delegate methods and inherited methods?
Yes, but only if you reference a method in an earlier place without declaring it elsewhere. You may want to declare your method in your main #implementation or stick it into a class extension in your implementation (.m) file.
I have just started to develop for the iPhone and am in the process of learning Objective-C. I have seen some code that implements a method in the #implementation side of a class like this:
-(void)myMethod; {
// method body
}
What makes this interesting is that there is no mention of myMethod in the #interface for the class. I tried a sample project with this and when I compile I get a warning from XCode that myMethod may not be seen by the calling code.
Can anyone tell me what is going on?
Thanks!
It's just like functions in C. You don't need a declaration (i.e. it doesn't have to be in the #interface) but if there's no declaration, any code before the method definition will generate that warning. Code after the method definition will not generate a warning.
In ObjC, method calls are resolved dynamically (dynamic binding), meaning that when you do [obj myMethod];, internally the ObjC runtime software will go through the class methods at that point in time and if it finds one called "myMethod" it will then call it.
Also it is possible to add methods to an object at runtime.
The method declarations in an #interface section is only there to help the compiler determine what methods are publicly available for a given class. If you do add a method in your #implementation only, the compiler may warn you about that, but the code will still compile and work.
I sometimes use this to add internal methods to my objects, which are only called from other methods after it, and never from outside. Though I don't remember seeing warnings about it... Make sure that the calling code is placed after the method implementation in the same file.