I'm encountering a strange situation with NSWindowController. I want the window controller to be released but it will not. It doesn't seem to be following my expectations for ARC behavior.
I've created a simple window controller subclass, PlainWindowController. Its interface and implementation are empty:
#import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h>
#interface PlainWindowController : NSWindowController
#end
#implementation PlainWindowController
#end
I created with it a default windowController xib named PlainWindowController.xib, which has a window with delegate and windowController connections already set.
In a test, I've written this code:
PlainWindowController *strongWindowController = [[PlainWindowController alloc] initWithWindowNibName:#"PlainWindowController"];
__weak PlainWindowController *weakWindowController = strongWindowController;
[strongWindowController showWindow:nil];
strongWindowController = nil;
STAssertNil(weakWindowController, #"The window controller should have been deleted, wasn't");
When this test runs, the weak reference is not nil.
If I leave out the showWindow it is nil. If I use init instead of initWithWindowNibName, it is nil.
Does anyone know what's going on here? Thank you in advance for any guidance.
There’s no guarantee that an object under ARC hasn’t been added to the autorelease pool, in which case it won’t be freed until the end of the current event.
In your case, I strongly suspect somewhere within initWithWindowNibName: the controller gets retained and autoreleased.
If you really want to ensure your object is being freed, just subclass the -dealloc method and add an NSLog to it or break on it.
You generally shouldn't harbor "expectations" about when objects are deallocated if they've ever been passed to other code which you don't control.
Cocoa might have retained and then autoreleased the controller. Cocoa may retain the window controllers of any windows which are showing.
In general, when it comes to Cocoa memory management, you are supposed to make sure your own code follows the rules (which ARC largely does for you) and you should assume that other code follows the rules, but you can't assume that other code doesn't retain objects beyond where your interest ends. You should basically not care about what the other code is doing with respect to memory management.
If you really want to know what's happening, run your app under the Allocations instrument and explore the retain/release/autorelease history of your object after the point where you expected it to have been deallocated.
I had a similar issue when first using ARC. I unfortunately don't remember the details as this was more than a year ago. I eventually tracked it down as a circular retain problem using Instruments to monitor retain values, although not without losing a lot of hair.
I think the actual problem was with the delegate which I fixed with #property (unsafe_unretained) id delegate;
I ran into a similar issue yesterday with an ARC based project - a NSWindowController subclass would not deallocate, nor did -dealloc fire. I worked with Zombies, Allocations to no avail. The problem was very simple. There was a subclassed control within the window, and in that controls subclass .h header file a property was defined as:
#property id delegate;
correcting it to
#property (nonatomic, weak) id delegate;
fixed the issue.
Related
I am developing exclusively for iOS 5 using ARC. Should IBOutlets to UIViews (and subclasses) be strong or weak?
The following:
#property (nonatomic, weak) IBOutlet UIButton *button;
Would get rid of all of this:
- (void)viewDidUnload
{
// ...
self.button = nil;
// ...
}
Are there any problems doing this? The templates are using strong as are the automatically generated properties created when connecting directly to the header from the 'Interface Builder' editor, but why? The UIViewController already has a strong reference to its view which retains its subviews.
WARNING, OUTDATED ANSWER: this answer is not up to date as per WWDC 2015, for the correct answer refer to the accepted answer (Daniel Hall) above. This answer will stay for record.
Summarized from the developer library:
From a practical perspective, in iOS and OS X outlets should be defined as declared properties. Outlets should generally be weak, except for those from File’s Owner to top-level objects in a nib file (or, in iOS, a storyboard scene) which should be strong. Outlets that you create will therefore typically be weak by default, because:
Outlets that you create to, for example, subviews of a view controller’s view or a window controller’s window, are arbitrary references between objects that do not imply ownership.
The strong outlets are frequently specified by framework classes (for example, UIViewController’s view outlet, or NSWindowController’s window outlet).
#property (weak) IBOutlet MyView *viewContainerSubview;
#property (strong) IBOutlet MyOtherClass *topLevelObject;
The current recommended best practice from Apple is for IBOutlets to be strong unless weak is specifically needed to avoid a retain cycle. As Johannes mentioned above, this was commented on in the "Implementing UI Designs in Interface Builder" session from WWDC 2015 where an Apple Engineer said:
And the last option I want to point out is the storage type, which can
either be strong or weak. In general you should make your outlet
strong, especially if you are connecting an outlet to a subview or to
a constraint that's not always going to be retained by the view
hierarchy. The only time you really need to make an outlet weak is if
you have a custom view that references something back up the view
hierarchy and in general that's not recommended.
I asked about this on Twitter to an engineer on the IB team and he confirmed that strong should be the default and that the developer docs are being updated.
https://twitter.com/_danielhall/status/620716996326350848
https://twitter.com/_danielhall/status/620717252216623104
While the documentation recommends using weak on properties for subviews, since iOS 6 it seems to be fine to use strong (the default ownership qualifier) instead. That's caused by the change in UIViewController that views are not unloaded anymore.
Before iOS 6, if you kept strong links to subviews of the controller's view around, if the view controller's main view got unloaded, those would hold onto the subviews as long as the view controller is around.
Since iOS 6, views are not unloaded anymore, but loaded once and then stick around as long as their controller is there. So strong properties won't matter. They also won't create strong reference cycles, since they point down the strong reference graph.
That said, I am torn between using
#property (nonatomic, weak) IBOutlet UIButton *button;
and
#property (nonatomic) IBOutlet UIButton *button;
in iOS 6 and after:
Using weak clearly states that the controller doesn't want ownership of the button.
But omitting weak doesn't hurt in iOS 6 without view unloading, and is shorter. Some may point out that is also faster, but I have yet to encounter an app that is too slow because of weak IBOutlets.
Not using weak may be perceived as an error.
Bottom line: Since iOS 6 we can't get this wrong anymore as long as we don't use view unloading. Time to party. ;)
I don't see any problem with that. Pre-ARC, I've always made my IBOutlets assign, as they're already retained by their superviews. If you make them weak, you shouldn't have to nil them out in viewDidUnload, as you point out.
One caveat: You can support iOS 4.x in an ARC project, but if you do, you can't use weak, so you'd have to make them assign, in which case you'd still want to nil the reference in viewDidUnload to avoid a dangling pointer. Here's an example of a dangling pointer bug I've experienced:
A UIViewController has a UITextField for zip code. It uses CLLocationManager to reverse geocode the user's location and set the zip code. Here's the delegate callback:
-(void)locationManager:(CLLocationManager *)manager
didUpdateToLocation:(CLLocation *)newLocation
fromLocation:(CLLocation *)oldLocation {
Class geocoderClass = NSClassFromString(#"CLGeocoder");
if (geocoderClass && IsEmpty(self.zip.text)) {
id geocoder = [[geocoderClass alloc] init];
[geocoder reverseGeocodeLocation:newLocation completionHandler:^(NSArray *placemarks, NSError *error) {
if (self.zip && IsEmpty(self.zip.text)) {
self.zip.text = [[placemarks objectAtIndex:0] postalCode];
}
}];
}
[self.locationManager stopUpdatingLocation];
}
I found that if I dismissed this view at the right time and didn't nil self.zip in viewDidUnload, the delegate callback could throw a bad access exception on self.zip.text.
IBOutlet should be strong, for performance reason. See Storyboard Reference, Strong IBOutlet, Scene Dock in iOS 9
As explained in this paragraph, the outlets to subviews of the view
controller’s view can be weak, because these subviews are already
owned by the top-level object of the nib file. However, when an Outlet
is defined as a weak pointer and the pointer is set, ARC calls the
runtime function:
id objc_storeWeak(id *object, id value);
This adds the pointer
(object) to a table using the object value as a key. This table is
referred to as the weak table. ARC uses this table to store all the
weak pointers of your application. Now, when the object value is
deallocated, ARC will iterate over the weak table and set the weak
reference to nil. Alternatively, ARC can call:
void objc_destroyWeak(id * object)
Then, the object is
unregistered and objc_destroyWeak calls again:
objc_storeWeak(id *object, nil)
This book-keeping associated
with a weak reference can take 2–3 times longer over the release of a
strong reference. So, a weak reference introduces an overhead for the
runtime that you can avoid by simply defining outlets as strong.
As of Xcode 7, it suggests strong
If you watch WWDC 2015 session 407 Implementing UI Designs in Interface Builder, it suggests (transcript from http://asciiwwdc.com/2015/sessions/407)
And the last option I want to point out is the storage type, which can either be strong or weak.
In general you should make your outlet strong, especially if you are connecting an outlet to a sub view or to a constraint that's not always going to be retained by the view hierarchy.
The only time you really need to make an outlet weak is if you have a custom view that references something back up the view hierarchy and in general that's not recommended.
So I'm going to choose strong and I will click connect which will generate my outlet.
In iOS development NIB loading is a little bit different from Mac development.
In Mac development an IBOutlet is usually a weak reference: if you have a subclass of NSViewController only the top-level view will be retained and when you dealloc the controller all its subviews and outlets are freed automatically.
UiViewController use Key Value Coding to set the outlets using strong references. So when you dealloc your UIViewController, the top view will automatically deallocated, but you must also deallocate all its outlets in the dealloc method.
In this post from the Big Nerd Ranch, they cover this topic and also explain why using a strong reference in IBOutlet is not a good choice (even if it is recommended by Apple in this case).
One thing I wish to point out here, and that is, despite what the Apple engineers have stated in their own WWDC 2015 video here:
https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2015/407/
Apple keeps changing their mind on the subject, which tells us that there is no single right answer to this question. To show that even Apple engineers are split on this subject, take a look at Apple's most recent
sample code, and you'll see some people use weak, and some don't.
This Apple Pay example uses weak:
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/samplecode/Emporium/Listings/Emporium_ProductTableViewController_swift.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40016175-Emporium_ProductTableViewController_swift-DontLinkElementID_8
As does this picture-in-picture example:
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/samplecode/AVFoundationPiPPlayer/Listings/AVFoundationPiPPlayer_PlayerViewController_swift.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40016166-AVFoundationPiPPlayer_PlayerViewController_swift-DontLinkElementID_4
As does the Lister example:
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/samplecode/Lister/Listings/Lister_ListCell_swift.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014701-Lister_ListCell_swift-DontLinkElementID_57
As does the Core Location example:
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/samplecode/PotLoc/Listings/Potloc_PotlocViewController_swift.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40016176-Potloc_PotlocViewController_swift-DontLinkElementID_6
As does the view controller previewing example:
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/samplecode/ViewControllerPreviews/Listings/Projects_PreviewUsingDelegate_PreviewUsingDelegate_DetailViewController_swift.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40016546-Projects_PreviewUsingDelegate_PreviewUsingDelegate_DetailViewController_swift-DontLinkElementID_5
As does the HomeKit example:
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/samplecode/HomeKitCatalog/Listings/HMCatalog_Homes_Action_Sets_ActionSetViewController_swift.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40015048-HMCatalog_Homes_Action_Sets_ActionSetViewController_swift-DontLinkElementID_23
All those are fully updated for iOS 9, and all use weak outlets. From this we learn that A. The issue is not as simple as some people make it out to be. B. Apple has changed their mind repeatedly, and C. You can use whatever makes you happy :)
Special thanks to Paul Hudson (author of www.hackingwithsift.com) who gave me the clarification, and references for this answer.
I hope this clarifies the subject a bit better!
Take care.
From WWDC 2015 there is a session on Implementing UI Designs in Interface Builder. Around the 32min mark he says that you always want to make your #IBOutlet strong.
Be aware, IBOutletCollection should be #property (strong, nonatomic).
It looks like something has changed over the years and now Apple recommends to use strong in general. The evidence on their WWDC session is in session 407 - Implementing UI Designs in Interface Builder and starts at 32:30. My note from what he says is (almost, if not exactly, quoting him):
outlet connections in general should be strong especially if we connect a subview or constraint that is not always retained by the
view hierarchy
weak outlet connection might be needed when creating custom views that has some reference to something back up in the view hierarchy
and in general it is not recommended
In other wards it should be always strong now as long as some of our custom view doesn't create a retain cycle with some of the view up in the view hierarchy
EDIT :
Some may ask the question. Does keeping it with a strong reference doesn't create a retain cycle as the root view controller and the owning view keeps the reference to it? Or why that changed happened?
I think the answer is earlier in this talk when they describe how the nibs are created from the xib. There is a separate nib created for a VC and for the view. I think this might be the reason why they change the recommendations. Still it would be nice to get a deeper explanation from Apple.
I think that most important information is:
Elements in xib are automatically in subviews of view. Subviews is NSArray. NSArray owns it's elements. etc have strong pointers on them. So in most cases you don't want to create another strong pointer (IBOutlet)
And with ARC you don't need to do anything in viewDidUnload
I have a class that retrieves JSON from a URL and returns the data via the protocol/delegate pattern.
MRDelegateClass.h
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#protocol MRDelegateClassProtocol
#optional
- (void)dataRetrieved:(NSDictionary *)json;
- (void)dataFailed:(NSError *)error;
#end
#interface MRDelegateClass : NSObject
#property (strong) id <MRDelegateClassProtocol> delegate;
- (void)getJSONData;
#end
Note that I'm using strong for my delegate property. More about that later...
I am trying to write a 'wrapper' class that implements getJSONData in a block-based format.
MRBlockWrapperClassForDelegate.h
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
typedef void(^SuccessBlock)(NSDictionary *json);
typedef void(^ErrorBlock)(NSError *error);
#interface MRBlockWrapperClassForDelegate : NSObject
+ (void)getJSONWithSuccess:(SuccessBlock)success orError:(ErrorBlock)error;
#end
MRBlockWrapperClassForDelegate.m
#import "MRBlockWrapperClassForDelegate.h"
#import "MRDelegateClass.h"
#interface DelegateBlock:NSObject <MRDelegateClassProtocol>
#property (nonatomic, copy) SuccessBlock successBlock;
#property (nonatomic, copy) ErrorBlock errorBlock;
#end
#implementation DelegateBlock
- (id)initWithSuccessBlock:(SuccessBlock)aSuccessBlock andErrorBlock:(ErrorBlock)aErrorBlock {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
_successBlock = aSuccessBlock;
_errorBlock = aErrorBlock;
}
return self;
}
#pragma mark - <MRDelegateClass> protocols
- (void)dataRetrieved:(NSDictionary *)json {
self.successBlock(json);
}
- (void)dataFailed:(NSError *)error {
self.errorBlock(error);
}
#end
// main class
#interface MRBlockWrapperClassForDelegate()
#end
#implementation MRBlockWrapperClassForDelegate
+ (void)getJSONWithSuccess:(SuccessBlock)success orError:(ErrorBlock)error {
MRDelegateClass *delegateClassInstance = [MRDelegateClass new];
DelegateBlock *delegateBlock = [[DelegateBlock alloc] initWithSuccessBlock:success andErrorBlock:error];
delegateClassInstance.delegate = delegateBlock; // set the delegate as the new delegate block
[delegateClassInstance getJSONData];
}
#end
I've come to the objective-c world relatively recently (only lived in ARC times, and still coming to terms with blocks) and admittedly my understanding of memory management is on the slimmer side of things.
This code seems to work fine, but only if I have my delegate as strong. I understand that my delegate should be weak to avoid potential retain-cycles. Looking in instruments, I find that allocations do not continue to grow with continued calls. However, I believe 'best practice' is to have weak delegates.
Questions
Q1) is it ever 'ok' to have strong delegates
Q2) how could I implement the block-based wrapper leaving the delegate of the underlying class as weak delegate (ie. prevent the *delegateBlock from being deallocated before it receives the protocol methods)?
Q1 - Yes. As you point out yourself having delegate properties being weak is a recommendation to help avoid retain cycles. So there is nothing wrong per se with having a strong delegate, but if the clients of your class expect it to be weak you may cause them surprises. The better approach is to keep the delegate weak and for the server side (the class with the delegate property) to keep a strong reference internally for those periods it needs one. As #Scott points out Apple documents doing this for NSURLConnection. Of course that approach doesn't solve your issue - where you want the server to retain the delegate for you...
Q2 - Looked at from the client side the problem is how to keep a delegate alive as long as a server with a weak reference to it requires it. There is a standard solution to this problem called associated objects. In brief the Objective-C runtime essentially allows a key-collection of objects to be associated with another object, along with an association policy which states how long that association should last. To use this mechanism you just need to pick your own unique key, which is of type void * - i.e. an address. The following code outline shows how to use this using NSOpenPanel as an example:
#import <objc/runtime.h> // import associated object functions
static char myUniqueKey; // the address of this variable is going to be unique
NSOpenPanel *panel = [NSOpenPanel openPanel];
MyOpenPanelDelegate *myDelegate = [MyOpenPanelDelegate new];
// associate the delegate with the panel so it lives just as long as the panel itself
objc_setAssociatedObject(panel, &myUniqueKey, myDelegate, OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN);
// assign as the panel delegate
[panel setDelegate:myDelegate];
The association policy OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN will retain the passed in object (myDelegate) for as long as the object it is associated with (panel) and then release it.
Adopting this solution avoids making the delegate property itself strong and allows the client to control whether the delegate is retained. If you are also implementing the server you can of course provide a method to do this, maybe associatedDelegate:?, to avoid the client needing to define the key and call objc_setAssociatedObject itself. (Or you can add it to an existing class using a category.)
HTH.
It entirely depends on the architecture of your objects.
When people use weak delegates, it's because the delegate is usually some kind of "parent" object, which retains the thing that has the delegate (let's call the "delegator"). Why does it have to be a parent object? It doesn't have to be; however, in most use cases it turns out to be the most convenient pattern. Since the delegate is a parent object that retains the delegator, the delegator can't retain the delegate or it will have a retain cycle, so it holds a weak reference to the delegate.
However, that is not the only use situation. Take, for example, UIAlertView and UIActionSheet in iOS. The usual way that they are used is: inside a function, create an alert view with a message and add buttons to it, set its delegate, perform any other customization, call -show on it, and then forget it (it is not stored anywhere). It's a kind of "fire and forget" kind of mechanism. Once you show it, you don't need to retain it or anything and it will still be displayed on screen. It's possible in some cases you might want to store the alert view around so you can programmatically dismiss it, but that is rare; in the vast majority of use cases, you simply show and forget it, and just handle any delegate calls.
So in this case, the proper style would be a strong delegate, because 1) the parent object does not retain the alert view, so there is no issue with a retain cycle, and 2) the delegate needs to be kept around, so that when some button is pressed on the alert view, someone will be around to respond to it. Now, a lot of times, #2 isn't a problem because the delegate (parent object) is some kind of view controller or something that is otherwise retained by something else. But this is not always the case. For example, I can simply have a method that is not part of any view controller, which anyone can call to show an alert view, and if the user presses Yes, uploads something to the server. Since it's not part of any controller, it likely is not retained by anything. But it needs to stay around long enough until the alert view is done. So ideally the alert view should have a strong reference to it.
But as I've mentioned before, this is not always what you want for an alert view; sometimes you want to keep it around and dismiss it programmatically. In this case, you want a weak delegate or it will cause a retain cycle. So should an alert view have a strong or weak delegate? Well, the caller should decide! In some situations the caller wants strong; in others the caller wants weak. But how is this possible? The alert view delegate is declared by the alert view class, and must be declared as either strong or weak.
Fortunately, there is a solution that does let the caller decide -- a blocks-based callback. In a blocks-based API, the block essentially becomes the delegate; but the block is not the parent object. Usually the block is created in the calling class and captures self so that it can perform actions on the "parent object". The delegator (alert view in this case) always has a strong reference to the block. However, the block may have a strong or weak reference to the parent object, depending on how the block is written in the calling code (to capture a weak reference to the parent object, don't use self directly in the block, and instead, create a weak version of self outside the block, and let the block use that instead). In this way, the calling code fully controls whether the delegator has a strong or weak reference to it.
You are correct in that delegates are usually weakly referenced. However, there are use cases where a strong reference is preferred, or even necessary. Apple uses this in NSURLConnection:
During a download the connection maintains a strong reference to the delegate. It releases that strong reference when the connection finishes loading, fails, or is canceled.
An NSURLConnection instance can only be used once. After it finishes (either with failure or success), it releases the delegate, and since the delegate is readonly, it can't be (safely) reused.
You can do something similar. In your dataRetrieved and dataFailed methods, set your delegate to nil. You probably don't need to make your delegate readonly if you want to reuse your object, but you will have to assign your delegate again.
As other said it's about architecture. But I'll walk you through it with several examples:
Retry upon failure
Suppose you've made a URLSession, and are waiting for a network call you made through a viewController, sometimes it doesn't matter if it failed, but at other times it does. e.g. you're app is sending a message to another user, then you close that viewcontroller and somehow that network request fails. Do you want it to retry again? If so then that viewController has to remain in memory, so it can resubmit the request again.
Writing to disk
Another case would be when a request succeeds you may want to write something to the disk, so even after the viewcontroller has its UI updated you might still want to sync your local database with the server.
Large background tasks
The original use case for NSURLSession was to power background network task execution, large file downloads and things of that nature. You need something in memory to handle the finalization of those tasks to indicate execution is complete and the OS can sleep the app.
Associating the lifecycle of downloading large files to a certain view is a bad idea…it needs to be tied to some more stable/persistent e.g. the session itself…
Normally if I’m going to use the delegate based system rather than URLSession’s newer block-based API, I have a helper object that encapsulates all the logic necessary to handle failure and success cases that I may require that way, I don’t have to rely on a heavy VC to do the dirty works
This is answer was entirely written thanks to a conversation I had with MattS
I have an iOS (Obj-C) project that uses ARC (Automatic Reference Counting). According to Apple Documentation, and pure experimentation, you cannot have statements such as:
[UIThingamabob release];
This was previously the way to release items after being allocated or retained. Now I do know that you have to manage how IB objects are created in the
#property (nonatomic, retain) IBOutlet ...
portion of your header file.
I've been using the above statement as it is (with the nonatomic and retain (or strong- what's the difference anyway, how are they used?) properties) for all of my IB items. When I test on an iOS Device, I'll randomly get a UIAlertView (that I created for debugging purposes) that only displays when the didRecieveMemoryWarning event is fired.
Some of my BETA testers are bombarded with these views nonstop until they manage to quit the app.
My question is, what do I put in the didRecieveMemoryWarning event since I can't release objects? If there isn't anything to put there, then are these errors occurring due to the way I create my objects with the #property function?
You should use #property (nonatomic, weak) IBOutlet... for all of your IBOutlets. If you use strong, the outlet is retained by the view controller and by it's superview. When the view disappears, the view controller still has a reference to that outlet which is no longer visible. You could set the outlet property to nil in -viewDidUnload or by using weak setting the pointer to nil is done automatically when the view disappears.
You should not use retain in the #property statement. The ARC options are assign, weak and strong. For more details, see here:
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#releasenotes/ObjectiveC/RN-TransitioningToARC/Introduction/Introduction.html
In particular, check the part on Property Attributes!
edit: Thanks for the comments, both retain and strong seem to be equivalent right now.
It is impossible to know what to do without seeing your project but you can do things like:
Clear out arrays of data that you can regenerate later. Clear buffers. Set currently unused objects to nil (which will release them if they are not retained elsewhere).
I persist to be a little confused about when to put something in a viewController and when to put it inside an AppDelegate, and if it is ok to reference viewController methods from the AppDelegate (i know you can but that doesn't mean it is encouraged).
Really, I wouldn't be confused if it weren't for all this multi-tasking stuff that seems to complicate the concepts for me. First, if anyone knows of a good, thorough and easy to read overview of how to deal with multitasking, I'd love to know.
Here's the deal: there are things I need my app to do when it loads, whether loading fresh or loading from the background. Stuff like perform a network reachability test, setup the interface based on data received from the internet, and this or that.
One of my main questions relates to how the viewcontroller's view interacts with background states. If the app resumes from the background and the view is immediately present without loading, then I assume it is still in memory and I have verified that viewDidLoad was not called with a basic NSLog. So, is it safe to say that any and all objects retained by my viewcontroller (like the data models and all subviews) are thus still in memory? If not, what's the best practice discovering which objects need to be re-loaded, what are still there, etc?
I think it's safe to assume that the standard memory management rules apply, even in a multi-tasking environment. That means that your controller, and anything you've got a reference to in your controller should still be valid until either:
You explicitly deallocate your controller/objects
Your app terminates
It seems like your assumption is that the system is going to mess with your objects behind your back, which (I hope) can't happen. Those methods are there in the app delegate in case you want to explicitly do anything when those particular events occur.
Regarding the viewDidLoad question, you could implement viewDidUnload or check the isViewLoaded method to make sure your view wasn't unloaded due to a low memory condition or otherwise. More on this in the UIViewController documentation.
One way to approach this problem is with lazily-loaded properties. In your .h file:
#interface YourViewController : NSObject
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSArray *exampleObject;
#end
And in your .m file:
#implementation YourViewController
#synthesize exampleObject = _exampleObject;
- (NSArray *)exampleObject {
// reload only if necessary
if (!_exampleObject) {
_exampleObject = [[NSArray alloc] init];
// do whatever other setup you need to
}
return _exampleObject;
}
#end
In the book I'm studying from for iPhone dev, they utilize IBOutlet instances using the Interface Builder. An example would be a UIButton. So they add a thing in the struct like this:
IBOutlet UIButton *whateverButton;
Then they add a #property for each of these in the .h, and a #synthesize in the .m.
Then they include a release in the dealloc of the .m. Two questions:
Is the release necessary? Aren't all properties already handled automatically?
How can I check the ref count to see what's happening, for debug purposes...?
Is the release necessary? Aren't all
properties already handled
automatically?
If the property is retained, the release is necessary. When you declare a #property and #synthesize it, all you get is the accessors, there is no special automatic behaviour in dealloc.
Also, there is nothing magical about IBOutlet – it’s just a marker for Interface Builder to see which properties you would like to appear in IB. It’s simply an empty macro, Cmd-click the IBOutlet keyword to see its definition:
#ifndef IBOutlet
#define IBOutlet
#endif
Same thing goes for IBAction which expands to void.
How can I check the ref count to see
what's happening, for debug
purposes...?
When I need to debug memory management, I usually simply set up a breakpoint in the dealloc method or log a string there. It is also helpful to log the retainCount of an object around the calls that might do something fishy with it.
It might also help to see how the #synthesize directive creates the accessors. When you declare a retained #property and ask the compiler to #synthesize them, you get something like this:
#property(retain) NSString *foo;
#synthesize foo;
- (void) foo {
return foo;
}
- (void) setFoo: (NSString*) newFoo {
// Try to think what would happen if this condition wasn’t
// here and somebody called [anObject setFoo:anObject.foo].
if (newFoo == foo)
return;
[foo release];
foo = [newFoo retain];
}
This isn’t exactly the thing, but it’s close enough. Now it should be more clear why you should release in dealloc.
Properties are not "handled automatically." The closest that comes to being true is that synthesized accessors handle their memory management responsibilities properly. But that is just those accessors. Properties are just a way of declaring accessible "things" on your class. They don't get much special treatment beyond that. It doesn't turn on some sort of garbage collection. So yes, release is necessary.
And you should use the debugging tools like Instruments if you want to inspect a running app for leaks or memory that doesn't get released. I would not look at the ref count directly, because it's almost dangerously useless — there's no guarantee that the ref count will be what you expect at any point, and that doesn't necessarily indicate a problem.
You should read Apple's memory management rules for Cocoa. It's pretty simple once you've absorbed that. I wouldn't necessarily recommend reading other guides first, because subtle misstatements can lead you down the wrong path (for instance, the idea that properties will be released for you probably came from hearing somebody misstate how they work).
Is the release necessary? Aren't all
properties already handled
automatically?
It depends on how the property is implemented. If it is auto-implemented (#synthesize'd), the property will retain its value in the setter and release it if set to another value. If you just got into Obj-C and Cocoa, you should read about the conventions for memory management. I have put up a post on my blog about them, there are plenty of resources elsewhere too.
How can I check the ref count to see
what's happening, for debug
purposes...?
You can check the NSObject retainCount property. Information on that is here. For advanced debugging purposes, there is the NSZombieEnabled environment flag that will cause all release message to not decrement the reference count but log an error when an object that would have normally been released is accessed.