I tend to regularly use self.property in my Objective C code when accessing variables as I understand that this makes use of the getter/setter methods (either explicitly coded or automatically generated).
Another coder told me recently that it's best to use _property instead, throughout the code. But my understanding is that _property is really only for use in init and dealloc methods.
Today I found a bug in some code that uses initWithCoder. I was using _property in the initWithCoder method and had to change it to self.property. This was when setting an NSData object. Here is the original code:
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSData *data;
- (id)initWithCoder:(NSCoder *)decoder {
self = [super init];
if (!self) {
return nil;
}
_data = [decoder decodeObjectForKey:#"data"];
return self;
}
And I had to change it to this, to get it to work:
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSData *data;
- (id)initWithCoder:(NSCoder *)decoder {
self = [super init];
if (!self) {
return nil;
}
self.data = [decoder decodeObjectForKey:#"data"];
return self;
}
My question is - why is initWithCoder the exception here? If it's generally accepted that it's best to use _property in an init method, then why is initWithCoder different?
It seems now like the general rule is:
Use self.property except in init/dealloc methods, where _property should be used (except in initWithCoder, where self.property should be used).
Is this correct?
I do not think it is generally true that you must use properties in initWithCoder:. I have a lot of code (and have seen a lot) where ivar access is used in initWithCoder:, if that may help as a hint.
If you were not using ARC, then your implementation setting _data would have a problem in that the object would be soon autorelased. But under ARC your code is correct.
So, I tend to think that something different was causing the issue in your case. As an example, if you use KVO, then you should use properties, otherwise the KVO-related notifications are not generated. You should provide more information as to what exactly led you to think that the assignment to _data was the cause of the issue, and about the visible effect of that issue in other parts of your code.
Related
I'm a little confused about synthesized properties. I have an array that I want to be accessible from other classes so this is my code:
MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : CCLayer {
NSMutableArray *myArray;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableArray *myArray;
MyClass.m
#synthesize myArray;
-(id)init
{
myArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
}
-(void)dealloc
{
[myArray release];
myArray = nil;
}
I am a little confused now..is myArray the same as self.myArray? Do I have to release self.myArray as well? Thanks.
You declared your property as retain, it means that it will be retained automatically if you will set is using self.myArray. So, you can simply create autoreleased array in your init method and set it as
myArray = [NSMutableArray array];
self.myArray = myArray;
in this case you are not have to release it in the dealloc method or anything else. And as dasblinkenlight said you have to use #synthesize if you want to be sure that self.myArray is linked with your myArray instance.
Assuming that your #synthesize directive looks like this
#synthesize myArray;
you do not need to do anything in addition to what you are already doing: your property stores its value in the instance variable of the same name.
EDITED : Removed the alternative that suggests setting self.myArray in the dealloc method.
Yes you do, the best method is to set the property nil and release your variable.
-(void)dealloc{
self.myArray = nil;
[myArray release];
[super dealloc];
}
The code you provided is not really correct.
No, accessing a property and accessing the field itself are not the same.
My guess is that you are looking at old obj C examples where it was necessary to create the field with the property.
You also have no #synthesize directive in your code.
In current obj C code there is no need to declare a field to back the property, the field and the getter and setter will be autosynthesized (generated by the compiler) for you.
The default field generation is the name of your property with an underscore in front of it.
When you access the field directly via _myArray you will bypass any retain or release code that is contained in the generated getter/setter and have to manually manage memory in a non ARC project.
So to sum up, you dont need your field definition, and you dont need a synthesize directive.
You access your field directly with _myArray, or the property via self.myArray
They are not the same thing, one goes through generated code which obeys your property definition as to retain, assign, copy and accessing the field directly bypasses these semantics altogether.
If you define your property as retain you will need to release it in dealloc
You can use either
self.myArray = nil;
which will handle the release or
[_myArray release];
_myArray = nil;
Although someone in a previous post said setting the property to nil in dealloc might cause a problem Ive never seen it actually happen in my apps, ymmv
To answer your questions:
I am a little confused now..is myArray the same as self.myArray?
Yes, but no. Both point to the same object, the same area in memory. If you read myArray or self.myArray, they're identical in behavior minus the message send overhead for self.myArray.
However if you assign to myArray, the object will not be retained. It will only be retained if you assign to self.myArray.
Do I have to release self.myArray as well?
No.
You can also choose to either release or set the property to nil. As long as the property is #synthesize'd both examples do the same thing:
-(void) dealloc
{
[super dealloc];
[myArray release];
}
-(void) dealloc
{
[super dealloc];
self.myArray = nil;
}
See here for a discussion of the pros/cons to each approach.
From the question I think you're the developer who should really be using ARC. You'll have less to learn and fewer technical problems down the road. I can't understate how important using ARC is in these days, specifically if you don't have much ObjC experience. Read this how to enable ARC for cocos2d or just use Kobold2D to be able to work with an ARC-enabled cocos2d out of the box.
I understand that this may not necessarily apply to just #properties, but they would be the most common use case. If there is, for example:
#property (strong) NSObject *object;
...
#synthesize object = _object;
It is possible to initialise it in the init method of the class it is declared in like so:
- (id)init {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
_object = [[NSObject alloc] init];
}
}
or override the getter and initialise it upon first use:
- (NSObject *)object {
if (!_object) {
_object = [[NSObject alloc] init];
}
return _object;
}
Which of these is it better to use? Does this depend on the use scenario (e.g. does the object the property is declared in have multiple initialisers, or the type of the property, how it's used, etc.)?
The real advantage I see in overriding the getter is that the property will only be allocated when it is needed, but a disadvantage would be that the first access would be slower.
On a side note, when accessing properties in the init method, is it better to access them as self.object or _object?
Contrary to the accepted answer, Advanced Memory Management Programming Guide says you should use instance variables in the initializers and in the dealloc method. See 'Don’t Use Accessor Methods in Initializer Methods and dealloc'.
personally i find initializing in the init method is better, the life expectancy of the object is then more clear and also consider if the init fails for the object, isn't it better to get that at the init than when you do a get?
i also prefer to use self.object for properties because it uses the getter and setter of the object and the "self." makes it clear and to avoid situations where a retain is needed or not. sure in some cases like in your example it may cause a couple more lines of code but i rely on the compiler to optimize the code.
e.g.
yourobjclass* tmp = [[yourobjclass alloc] init];
self.object = tmp;
[tmp release];
I am having a very, very strange error, probably related to memory management (even though I'm using ARC).
I have a my AppDelegate, Foo, and SubFoo (which is a subclass of Foo).
Foo.h
#protocol FooDelegate <NSObject>
- (void)didReceiveDownloadRequest:(NSURLRequest *)downloadRequest;
#end
#interface Foo : NSObject {
__weak id <FooDelegate> delegate;
}
- (void)performRequest;
#property (nonatomic, weak) id <FooDelegate> delegate;
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *fileIdentifier;
Foo.m
#implementation Foo
#synthesize delegate, fileIdentifier;
- (id)init {
if ((self = [super init])) {
self.delegate = nil; // I tried leaving this line out, same result.
NSLog(#"I am %p.", self);
}
return self;
}
- (void)performRequest {
// Bah.
}
#end
SubFoo.h
#interface SubFoo : Foo {
WebView *aWebView;
}
SubFoo.m
- (void)performRequest {
if (self.fileIdentifier) {
aWebView = [[WebView alloc] init];
[aWebView setFrameLoadDelegate:self];
[[aWebView mainFrame] loadRequest:[NSURLRequest requestWithURL:[NSURL URLWithString:#"theURL"]];
}
}
- (void)webView:(WebView *)sender didFinishLoadForFrame:(WebFrame *)frame {
NSLog(#"Finished loading.");
// ...
NSLog(#"Class Name: %#", NSStringFromClass([self class]));
NSLog(#"Memory Location of delegate: %p", self.delegate);
// ...
}
Sometimes, the class name on webView:didFinishLoadForFrame: returns a completely different class (instead of SubFoo, it returns random classes, like NSSet, NSArray, it even sometimes returns CFXPreferencesSearchListSource), other times it just crashes there with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS, and when it returns a random class on Class Name: it returns that [randomClassName delegate] is an unrecognized selector.
EDIT: When self gets set to another thing, it gets set RIGHT on webView:didFinishLoadForFrame:, and on performRequest it is ALWAYS SubFoo.
Any help here would be appreciated.
First, even though you are using ARC zeroing weak references in your project (#property (weak)), other projects and frameworks may not be (and are probably not) using zeroing weak references.
In other words, assume that all delegates in frameworks are __unsafe_unretained unless:
The delegate property is declared weak in a header
The documentation/header explicitly states otherwise
That said, let's talk about your example. Your object ownership chart looks something like this:
(Note: I'm not entirely sure which class in your project uses SubFoo. Based on common practice, I'm assuming that you have a class with a strong reference to SubFoo, and that class is also set up to be a SubFooDelegate)
Ultimately, your instance of SubFoo is losing its last strong reference and is deallocating. In a perfect ARC-enabled world, the WebView's pointer to SubFoo would nil out at this time. However, it's not a perfect world yet, and WebView's frameLoadDelegate is __unsafe_unretained. Due to run loop interaction, the WebView is outliving SubFoo. The web request completes, and a dead pointer is dereferenced.
To fix this, you need to call [aWebView setFrameLoadDelegate:nil]; in SubFoo's dealloc method. You also need to call it when you reassign aWebView, as you are losing track of the old aWebView:
SubFoo.m
#implementation SubFoo
- (void)dealloc {
[aWebView setFrameLoadDelegate:nil];
// Also nil out any other unsafe-unretained references
}
- (void)performRequest {
if (self.fileIdentifier) {
[aWebView setFrameLoadDelegate:nil]; // Protects us if performRequest is called twice. Is a no-op if aWebView is nil
aWebView = [[WebView alloc] init];
[aWebView setFrameLoadDelegate:self];
[[aWebView mainFrame] loadRequest:[NSURLRequest requestWithURL:[NSURL URLWithString:#"theURL"]];
}
}
- (void)webView:(WebView *)sender didFinishLoadForFrame:(WebFrame *)frame {
// ...
}
Forget the self.delegate error for now, it is a red herring if [self class] is producing the wrong result! Your results suggest you are somehow clobbering self.
Breakpoint on webView:didFinishLoadForFrame: check the self value and step through.
Comment Followup
For self to be wrong on the first statement of an instance method is, let's say, unusual (but not impossible).
It is important when an object is set as another's delegate that you make sure the delegate object's lifetime is at least as long as the one it is acting as a delegate to. Introducing ARC can make previously working code fail as it may release the delegate earlier than the code did under MRC. When this happens the call to the delegate usually fails.
However your error does not fail on the call to the delegate; the call starts - you end up in webView:didFinishLoadForFrame: - and then you find self is invalid. To actually invoke an instance method usually requires a valid value for self as it is used to determine the method implementation to call. Hence it is usual for self to be valid at the start of a method!
But note the "usually"...
So despite you having successfully reach your method, your error might be down to not having a strong reference to your SubFoo instance, you pass it as a delegate to aWebView, and by the time webView:didFinishLoadForFrame: is called your SubFoo has gone.
Make sure you're keeping a strong ref to your SubFoo instance. If you just want to test (this is not a recommended general solution!) if this is your problem you can just assign it to a local static (static SubFoo *holdMe say declared inside performRequest) in performRequest, which will keep a strong reference around at least until the next call to performRequest. If this does prove to be the problem you then need to come up with a good way to maintain the reference that fits your design.
Here's the real problem: You're creating a SubFoo object within the context of a method. So after the method completes, SubFoo is being released (before its WebView has time to load).
To fix this, you'll need to assign the SubFoo object you're creating to something persistent, like a instance variable of the class you're creating it from. That way the object will persist beyond the scope of the method it was created in and all will work as expected.
As CRD mentioned, I would say an incorrect object/bad access returned is a sign of an object being released. Sometimes it's replaced by another object, sometimes it's not so you get the bad access exception. Regarding how this could happen to self, I would imagine that this is a concurrency weird case (object is being freed on another thread).
The best way to confirm this is to run your code in Instrument's NSZombie template, it'll show you as soon as you access a freed object. It also shows when it's been retained/released so you don't have to guess.
Regarding your above comment.
SubFoo *theClass = [[SubFoo alloc] init];
You must store theClass in a
#property (strong) SubFoo *mySubFoo;
If you declare it as such:
{
SubFoo *theClass = [[SubFoo alloc] init];
}
It gets released at the closing bracket. This part of the point of ARC when that variable moves out of scope, it gets released. If you want to let it float in the ether you could use
{
__weak SubFoo *theClass = [[SubFoo alloc] init];
}
and it won't get released, but this will lead to a memory leak unless you carefully manage all the weak references. In the case of it not being released at -performRequest I'm assuming the request looks like this:
{
SubFoo *theClass = [[SubFoo alloc] init];
[theClass performRequest];
}
wheras -webView:didFinishLoadForFrame: is called at some indiscriminate time in the future.
I have read a number of snippets that mention you should never use dot-notation within your init or dealloc methods. However, I can never seem to find out why. One post did mention in passing that it has to do with KVO, but no more.
#interface MyClass : NSObject {
SomeObject *object_;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) SomeObject *object;
#end
This implementation is bad?
#implementation MyClass
#synthesize object = object_;
- (id)initWithObject:(SomeObject *)object {
if (self = [super init]) {
self.object = object;
}
return self;
}
#end
But this is good?
#implementation MyClass
#synthesize object = object_;
- (id)initWithObject:(SomeObject *)object {
if (self = [super init]) {
object_ = [object retain];
}
return self;
}
#end
What are the pitfalls of using dot-notation inside your init?
Firstly, it's not the dot notation specifically, it's the accessors that you shouldn't use.
self.foo = bar;
is identical to
[self setFoo: bar];
and they are both frowned upon within init/dealloc.
The main reason why is because a subclass might override your accessors and do something different. The subclass's accessors might assume a fully initialised object i.e. that all the code in the subclass's init method has run. In fact, none of it has when your init method is running. Similarly, the subclass's accessors may depend on the subclass's dealloc method not having run. This is clearly false when your dealloc method is running.
The reasons I've heard mainly crop up due to when you write your own setters/getters. When using the default #synthesized versions of the methods it won't cause much of an issue. When you write your own setter though, it is generally going to have a sideeffect on your class. This sideeffect is probably not wanted in the init, or even is going to cause issues if it references other ivars that haven't been created yet. Same issue in the dealloc, if you have a sideeffect, it has potential to blow up.
I'm a objective c newbie, and i'm having a bit of problems with memory management, I've read the apple's memory management policies, however i need a bit of clarification here, this is pretty simple i guess, but i would like to ask you if I'm right:
Given this property:
#interface Test : NSObject {
NSArray *property1;
}
#property (nonatomic,retain) NSArray* property1;
#end
...
//And its implementation:
#implementation Test
#synthetize property1;
-(id) init {
if (self=[super init]) {
self.property1=[[[NSArray alloc] initWithCapacity:5] autorelease];
}
return self;
}
-(void) dealloc {
[super dealloc];
[property1 release];
}
#end
Is it right to issue an Autorelease message to the allocated object in the init method?, i do this cause in apple's document, says that every allocated object should be released by the developer, then, I think, alloc sets retain count to 1, then the property (nonatomic, retain) adds 1, so retain==2, then autorelease substracts 1, and when the dealloc method is called, property1 is released and retain count==0, am I right?
You have your memory management right, though Apple (and a lot of other people) generally recommend not using accessors in your initialization methods because accessors can have side effects beyond simply setting an instance variable that your class might not be set up to handle yet. And in that case, you wouldn't want to autorelease since you'd want ownership of the object.
one side note: in your dealloc, you need to release the property before calling [super dealloc], because [super dealloc] eventually deallocates the memory of the object, which includes the memory containing the property1 variable, so it is invalid to refer to that variable after you call [super dealloc]. It should be:
-(void) dealloc {
[property1 release];
[super dealloc];
}
One of the nice things about using properties is that you can encapsulate all of your "releasing" behavior regardless of whether your property is set to retain, copy, assign, or whatever by just doing this:
self.property1 = nil;
Personally I've gotten in the habit of setting all properties to nil (using self.property, not just accessing the member variable directly) in dealloc so that even if I change how the memory management works for the member variable it works correctly.