I have some NSMutableArray , that i am adding object to in another thread (async) , with :
#synchronized(array)
{
[array addObject:backImageView];
}
Than, there is another place where i remove objects from him, in the main thread,
//remove from array
for(UIImageView *image in array)
if( (image.tag< page-numPagesLoads || image.tag> page+numPagesLoads) && image.tag!=-11)
[array removeObject:image];
Question is, that i want to give a better priority to the place who adds the object to him, so no matter what, stop the use of this array , add new object, and if in the next time you try to remove object you dont interrupted by the "add object" , and remove .
How would you do that ?
The adding and removing objects from an array will happen quickly enough that there will be no discernible advantage to adding some complicated prioritization logic here. Usually you'd just adopt the simple and logical "first come, first serve" approach inherent in all locks/queues/etc.
FYI, I don't see you using #synchronized in your second example, but I assume you were using it there, too, but that it was omitted for the sake of brevity. When using locks to synchronize objects across multiple threads, you have to use those locks everywhere you use this object.
Personally, because (a) you're dealing with such a trivial and fast operation; and (b) you're dealing with an array of UI objects, I'd be inclined to suggest you cut the Gordian knot, and just dispatching all the manipulation of this array (and the corresponding UIKit objects) to the main queue, which simplifies your task.
Related
In Crashlytics, I'm seeing a crash that my users are experiencing quite infrequently. The offending code looks like this...
- (void)updateIsAnsweredField:(NSArray *)moduleItemsList
{
if (moduleItemsList && self.answeredItems && self.answeredItems.count > 0) {
for (ModuleItem * item in moduleItemsList) { // "Collection was mutated while being enumerated"
if ([item isKindOfClass:[ModuleItem class]] && [item shouldCheckIfAnswered]) {
item.answered = [self isAnsweredItem:item.moduleID];
}
}
}
}
The error given by Crashlytics can be seen in a comment in the code snippet above.
I assume there are a few ways to go about solving this.
1) wrap everything inside the function in #synchronized(moduleItemsList) {}. Is this the ideal way to solve? I've heard #synchronized is very slow and to avoid it when possible.
2) Create a copy a la NSMutableArray *copyModuleItemsList = [moduleItemsList mutableCopy];. Then enumerate that. Would this solve the issue? I would assume it would solve this particular issue, but there would be another problem no? That being... at the end when we go to assign our copy back to our original a la moduleItemsList = copyModuleItemsList;, moduleItemsList may have changed in the meantime on a different thread.
3) Trace the passed in :(NSArray *)moduleItemsList to whomever holds it as a property. Then overwrite the getter to use dispatch_sync, and the setter to use dispatch_barrier_async. However, there is no guarantee that the original array is a property of any class whose getter and setter can be overridden. And actually, none of this makes sense since we wouldn't be specifically changing that array would we?
I'm a bit confused. Can anyone assist in this matter? Is #1 the option I want?
EDIT: Adding more code
[item shouldCheckIFAnswered]:
This just checks a #property value that exists on the ModuleItem class. if self.moduleType == ModuleTypeSuchAndSuch
isAnsweredItem::
- (BOOL)isAnsweredItem:(NSString *)moduleID
{
if (!self.answeredItems) {
return NO;
}
return [self.answeredItems containsObject:moduleID];
}
From your post, it sounds like the moduleItemsList is getting modified in another thread. The "correct" way to fix this is going to depend on what the desired relationship between the state in the other thread and the state in this thread is.
If you use #synchronized(moduleItemsList) in both this code, and in the code that modifies the collection in the other thread, then when this code runs, it'll always have an "up to date" view of moduleItemsList.
If you copy the moduleItemsList into another object, then when this code runs, it might set the answered value on an item that's no longer in the moduleItemsList, or it might fail to set the answered flag on an item that was recently added to moduleItemsList.
In general, the #synchronized version is the easier way to get "correct" behavior. You'd only want to use copy if you're sure that it doesn't matter that the two threads may disagree about the current contents of moduleItemsList.
I've heard #synchronized is very slow and to avoid it when possible.
This is terrible advice, in general. #synchronized is just as slow as it needs to be to ensure consistent state between threads, and to provide a re-entrant lock. You don't want to just throw #synchronized around everything, willy-nilly, but it's a fine solution to synchronizing data access between threads - that's what it's for, after all.
This seems like a very strange interaction to me but at the same time it not only works but throws no warnings or errors in the process. Just looking to get some better understanding of blocks in general and why something like this could be right or wrong.
Is there any reason why something like this shouldn't be done?
NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:^{NSLog(#"Block 1");}, ^{NSLog(#"Block 2");}, ^{NSLog(#"Block 3");}, nil];
for (id block in array) {
[block invoke];
}
Putting Blocks into NSArrays is fine; they're objects. In fact, they inherit from NSObject.
You do need to copy, them, however. Those Blocks are created on the stack and need to be moved to the heap in order to live past the end of the current method. If you're using ARC, this is easy:
NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:[^{NSLog(#"Block 1");} copy], ...
Under MRR, you need to balance that copy, so you have two unpleasant options: use temps, or enumerate the array right after creating it and send release to all its members.
Sending invoke, on the other hand, isn't completely kosher, because that's a private method. The only fully-API-compliant way to invoke a Block is with function-call syntax:
typedef GenericBlock dispatch_block_t;
for( GenericBlock block in array ){
block();
}
Sure, that's fine. Why wouldn't it be fine?
In languages like JavaScript this technique is commonplace when registering event handlers.
object.clickHandlers.push(function() { doStuff() });
object.clickHandlers.push(function() { doMoreStuff() });
I see no reason that similar techniques couldn't be used with ObjC blocks, as they are real objects.
The more interesting question to me though, is if this pattern is the best choice for whatever your goal is. Which you haven't really told us.
Blocks in Objective-C are "first-class citizen" objects. Whatever you can do to a regular object, be it passing as a parameter, storing in an array or a dictionary, and so on, you can do it to block objects as well.
For example, an array of block objects may be useful to encode a sequence of actions that is not known at compile time; a dictionary of block objects keyed by strings could be useful in implementing a scripting language, and so on.
The best way to call a block retrieved from a collection is casting it to its proper type, and using the regular block invocation syntax on it.
In my application there is searchBar. when we input a text, it will do functionGrab (grab data from internet and save it to coredata), example :
if we input "Hallo"
if([[dict objectForKey:#"Category"] isNotEmpty] && [[[dict objectForKey:#"Category"] objectAtIndex:0] class]!=[NSNull class]){
NSMutableArray * DownloadedTags =[dict objectForKey:#"Category"];
NSMutableSet * TagsReturn=[NSMutableSet set];
for(int i=0;i<[DownloadedTags count];i++){
NSString * Value=[DownloadedTags objectAtIndex:i];
Tag * thisTag= (Tag*)[GrabClass getObjectWithStringOfValue:Value fromTable:#"Tag" withAttribut:#"Name"];
[TagsReturn addObject:thisTag];
}
NSMutableSet * manyManagedObjects = [BusinessToSave mutableSetValueForKey:#"Tags"];
[self removeDifferenceBetween2MutableManagedObjectSets:manyManagedObjects withDownloadedVersion:TagsReturn];
}
So each biz has many categories. WHat happen in multi threaded application is one thread put category. The other thread also put the same category before committing.
So, [GrabClass getObjectWithStringOfValue:Value fromTable:#"Tag" withAttribut:#"Name"]; gives a new object even though some other thread already created the same object without knowing it.
If I synchronized the whole thing that the code would run serially and that'll be slow.
functionGrab:"H"
functionGrab:"Ha"
functionGrab:"Hal"
functionGrab:"Hall"
functionGrab:"Hallo"
something like,it do that functionGrab 5 times
I want to make functionGrab at background, but the problem is when I do that function without synchronized it will save more than one of data, so the result is there are 5 hallo words in my coredata, but if I do that with synchronized, it spent so much time, so slow..
is there any way to help my problem?
I do not recommended having more than one thread "creating" the same types of data for the exact reason you are running into.
I would suggest you queue all of your "creates" into a single thread and a single NSManagedObjectContext to avoid merge or duplication issues.
The other option would be to make the app Lion only and use the parent/child NSManagedObjectContext design and then your children will be more "aware" of each other.
Is there an equivalent to [NSOperationQueue currentQueue] or [NSThread currentThread] for NSOperation?
I have a fairly complex domain model where the heavy processing happens quite deep down in the call stack. In order to timely cancel an operation I would need to pass the NSOperation as a parameter to every method until I get to the point where I want to interrupt a longer running loop. Using threads I could use [[NSThread currentThread] isCancelled] so it would seem convenient if there is an equivalent for NSOperation, unfortunately there is only the seemingly useless [NSOperationQueue currentQueue].
Came up with an extension in swift that returns the running operations
extension NSOperationQueue {
public var runningOperations: [NSOperation] {
return operations.filter {$0.executing && !$0.finished && !$0.cancelled}
}
}
You can then pick up the first one
if let operation = aQueue.runningOperations.first {}
No, there's no method to find the currently executing operation.
Two ways to solve your problem:
Operations are objects. If you need object A to talk to object B, you'll need to arrange for A to have a reference to B. There are lots of ways to do that. One way is to pass the operation along to each object that needs to know about it. Another is to use delegation. A third is to make the operation part of some larger "context" that's passed along to each method or function. If you find that you need to pass a reference from one object through several others just to get it to the object that will finally use it, that's a clue that you should think about rearranging your code.
Have the "heavy lifting" method return some value that gets passed up the call chain. You don't necessarily need the heavy lifting method to call [currentOperation cancel] to accomplish your goal. In fact, it would be better to have it return some value that the operation will understand to mean "work is done, stop now" because it can check that return value and exit immediately rather than having to call -isCancelled once in a while to find out whether it has been cancelled.
This isn't a good idea. Operations are usually canceled by their queue. Within the operation's main() method, you can periodically check if self is cancelled (say, every n trips through a loop, or at the start of every major block of commands) and abort if so.
To respond to a cancellation (say, some UI element tied to the operation's or queue's status), you use key value observing (KVO) to have your controller observe the operations' started, completion, and cancelled properties (as needed), then set your UI's state (always on the main thread) when those keys are updated. Per JeremyP's comments, it's important to note the KVO notifications come from the op's thread and UI should (almost) always be manipulated on the main thread, so you'll need to use -performSelectorOnMainThread... methods to update your actual UI when you receive a state change KVO note about your operations.
What are you really trying to do? That is, why do you feel other parts of your app need to know directly about the current operation?
You could store the current operation in the thread dictionary. Just remember to get rid of it before you exit. You can safely use the thread dict if you created the object.
You can use a combination of [NSOperationQueue currentQueue] & [NSThread currentThread] to accomplish this.
Essentially, you need to loop through the operations on the currentQueue and find the operation running on the currentThread.
NSOperation doesn't provide access to the thread it is running on, so you need to add that property yourself and assign it.
You're probably already subclassing NSOperation and providing a main, so add a 'thread' property to that subclass:
#interface MyOperation : NSOperation
#property(nonatomic,strong) NSThread *thread ;
#end
Then, in your 'main' assign the current thread to that property
myOperation.thread = [NSThread currentThread]
You can then add a 'currentOperation' method:
+(MyOperation *)currentOperation
{
NSOperationQueue *opQueue = [NSOperationQueue currentQueue] ;
NSThread *currentThread = [NSThread currentThread] ;
for( MyOperation *op in opQueue.operations ) {
if( [op isExecuting] && [op respondsToSelector:#selector(thread)] ) {
if( op.thread == currentThread ) {
return ( op ) ;
}
}
}
}
return nil ;
}
How do you know which operation you want to cancel?
When you get to the point that you want to cancel, just call [myQueue operations] and go through the operations until you find ones that you now want to cancel. I guess if you have millions of operations (or thousands) this might not work.
[myQueue operations] is thread safe - a snapshot of the Queue contents. You can dive through it pretty quick cancelling at will.
Another way:
NSOperationQueue is not a singleton, so you can create a Q that has say 200 jobs on it, and then cancel all 20 by just getting that Q and cancelling them all. Store the Q's in a dictionary on the main thread, and then you can get the jobs you want canceled from the dict and cancel them all. i.e. you have 1000 kinds of operations and at the point in the code where you realize you don't need a certain task, you just get the Q for that kind, and look through it for jobs to cancel.
In Objective C, is there a one-liner or something small to remove (shorten by one) and return the first element of an array, regardless of its index?
I don't know of a method that returns the item removed, but you can do this using a combination of NSArray#objectAtIndex:0 and NSMutableArray#removeObjectAtIndex:0. I suppose you could introduce a new method category on NSMutableArray that implements a shift method.
That would be a poor thing to do.
Objective-C on the iPhone can actually use most of the performance perks of C.
If you look at some of my other posts, you'll see I'm ADAMANTLY against premature optimization, but when you are coding at the C level, there are just some things you don't do unnecessarilly.
Move memory
Duplicate structures
Allocate sparsely populated memory blocks
Inner loops
... (There are lots more, but my C-life is rusty and, as I said, I'm anti-optimization)
What you probably want is a well-implemented queue. Something that pre-allocates a large enough circular memory structure and then has two pointers that track the first and last bytes.
I'd be pretty surprised to hear that Objective-C didn't have a queue data structure.
Also, don't strive for the one-liners. All the stuff about terse code is overrated. If it makes more sense to call a method, so be it.
It's certainly too late to assist the original poster, but if you have a plain NSArray and not an NSMutableArray, this works well:
id myData = myArray.firstObject;
myArray = [myArray subarrayWithRange:NSMakeRange(1, myArray.count - 1)];
Cocoa array objects (NSArray/NSMutableArray) do not provide a one-line equivalent — you would have to read the object first, then remove it. The fact that these classes provide the methods -lastObject and -removeLastObject but not -firstObject and -removeFirstObject should be a reminder that removing from the front of an array is usually an inefficient operation, since the contents must be shifted (copied) one position forward. This is particular true for arrays in C, which are intrinsically tied with pointers.
If you're working with anything but primitive data types and/or very small arrays, you might want to consider that the behavior of "shifting off" the first element is indicative of a queue data structure. For details on how you might create a queue for objects, see this SO question. Personally, my opinion for that question is that a real queue class provides the cleanest programming idiom. You can even define your own method (perhaps as a category on NSMutableArray or another class) that does provide a one-liner to do what you want:
#interface NSMutableArray (QueueOneLiner)
- (id) removeAndReturnFirstObject; // Verbose, but clearer than "shift"
#end
#implementation NSMutableArray (QueueOneLiner)
- (id) removeAndReturnFirstObject {
id object = [[self objectAtIndex:0] retain];
[self removeObjectAtIndex:0];
return [object autorelease];
}
#end
However, by that point the solution will likely cause more overhead than it's worth, depending on the importance you place on simplicity versus performance of the code that uses it.
If you have an array obj *arr where obj is a class/typename and arr is the array, you can just say arr+1 to get the array without the first element.
Use this code,
[arrayName removeObjectAtIndex:0];
this may help you