NSOperationQueue INSIDE an NSOperation - objective-c

I created an NSOperation which goal is to download a few images (like 20) from 20 URLs.
So inside this NSOperation I create 20 AFImageRequestOperation add them in an NSOperationQueue and call -waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished on the queue.
Problem is, it doesn't wait, it returns instantly. Here is the code
- (void)main {
NSArray *array = [I have the 20 links stored in this array];
self.queue = [[NSOperationQueue alloc]init];
self.queue.maxConcurrentOperationCount = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < array.count; i++) {
NSURL *url = [NSURL URLWithString:[array objectAtIndex:i]];
NSURLRequest *request = [NSURLRequest requestWithURL:url];
AFImageRequestOperation *op = [AFImageRequestOperation imageRequestOperationWithRequest:request imageProcessingBlock:^UIImage *(UIImage *image) {
return image;
} success:^(NSURLRequest *request, NSHTTPURLResponse *response, UIImage *image) {
// SUCCESS BLOCK (not relevant)
} failure:^(NSURLRequest *request, NSHTTPURLResponse *response, NSError *error) {
// FAILURE BLOCK (not relevant)
}];
[self.queue addOperation:op];
}
[self.queue waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished]; // Here is the problem it doesn't wait
DDLogWarn(#"-- %# FINISHED --", self);
}
In the console, the DDLogWarn(#"-- %# FINISHED --", self); prints before every operations even started, so my guess was that the waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished didn't do its job and didn't wait, but the 20 Operations are still running after that which may means that the main didn't return yet, so I don't know what to think anymore.
EDIT 1 : Actually I'm wondering, if my DDLog inside the success and failure blocks because waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished is blocking the thread until all operations complete. That may explain why I don't see anything in happening and everything suddenly.

I have found it useful to create an NSOperation that contains other NSOperations for similar reasons to you, i.e. I have a lot of smaller tasks that make up a bigger task and I would like to treat the bigger task as a single unit and be informed when it has completed. I also need to serialise the running of the bigger tasks, so only one runs at a time, but when each big task runs it can perform multiple concurrent operations within itself.
It seemed to me, like you, that creating an NSOperation to manage the big task was a good way to go, plus I hadn't read anything in the documentation that says not to do this.
It looks like your code may be working after all so you could continue to use an NSOperation.
Depending on your circumstances blocking the thread may be reasonable. If blocking isn't reasonable but you wanted to continue using an NSOperation you would need to create a "Concurrent" NSOperation see Concurrency Programming Guide: Configuring Operations for Concurrent Execution
If you only allow one image download at a time, you could use #jackslashs suggestion to signal the end of the operation, or if you want to allow concurrent image downloads then you could use a single NSBlockOperation as the final operation and use -[NSOperation addDependency:] to make it dependant on all the other operations so it would run last.
When you get the signal that everything is finished and you can set the isFinished and isExecuting flags appropriately as described in the documentation to finalise your main NSOperation.
Admittedly this has some level of complexity, but you may find it useful because once that complexity is hidden inside an NSOperation the code outside may be simpler as was the case for me.
If you do decide to create a Concurrent NSOperation you may find the Apple sample code LinkedImageFetcher : QRunLoopOperation useful as a starting point.

This code doesn't need to be inside an NSOperation. Instead make a class, perhaps a singleton, that has an operation queue and make a method called
-(void)getImagesFromArray:(NSArray *)array
or something like that and your code above will work fine enqueueing onto that queue. You don't need to call waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished. Thats a blocking call. If your queue has a max operation count of 1 you can just add another operation to it once you have added all the network operations and then when it executes you know all the others have finished. You could just add a simple block operation on to the end:
//add all the network operations in a loop
[self.operationQueue addOperation:[NSBlockOperation blockOperationWithBlock:^{
//this is the last operation in the queue. Therefore all other network operations have finished
}]];

Related

Barrier operations in NSOperationQueue

How can we implement dispatch_barrier_async's equivalent behavior using NSOperationQueue or any user-defined data-structure based on NSOperationQueue?
The requirement is, whenever a barrier operation is submitted it should wait until all non-barrier operations submitted earlier finish their execution and blocks other operations submitted after that.
Non-barrier operations should be able to perform concurrently.
Barrier operations should execute serially.
NB: Not using GCD,as it doesn't provide(or atleast difficult) much access over the operations, like cancelling single operation, etc.
This is more or less what jeffamaphone was saying, but I put up a gist that should, in rough outline, do what you ask.
I create a NSMutableArray of NSOperationQueues, which serves as a "queue of queues". Every time you add a BarrierOperation object, you tack a fresh suspended op queue on the end. That becomes the addingQueue, to which you add subsequent operations.
- (void)addOperation:(NSOperation *)op {
#synchronized (self) {
if ([op isKindOfClass:[BarrierOperation class]]) {
[self addBarrierOperation:(id)op];
} else {
[[self addingQueue] addOperation:op];
}
}
}
// call only from #synchronized block in -addOperation:
- (void)addBarrierOperation:(BarrierOperation *)barrierOp {
[[self addingQueue] setSuspended:YES];
for (NSOperation *op in [[self addingQueue] operations]) {
[barrierOp addDependency:op];
}
[[self addingQueue] addOperation:barrierOp];
// if you are free to set barrierOp.completionBlock, you could skip popCallback and do that
__block typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
NSOperation *popCallback = [NSBlockOperation blockOperationWithBlock:^{
[weakSelf popQueue];
}];
[popCallback addDependency:barrierOp];
[[self addingQueue] addOperation:popCallback];
[[self addingQueue] setSuspended:NO];
NSOperationQueue *opQueue = [[NSOperationQueue alloc] init];
[opQueue setSuspended:YES];
[_queueOfQueues addObject:opQueue]; // fresh empty queue to add to
}
When one NSOperationQueue finishes, it gets popped and the next one starts running.
- (void)popQueue
{
#synchronized (self) {
NSAssert([_queueOfQueues count], #"should always be one to pop");
[_queueOfQueues removeObjectAtIndex:0];
if ([_queueOfQueues count]) {
// first queue is always running, all others suspended
[(NSOperationQueue *)_queueOfQueues[0] setSuspended:NO];
}
}
}
I might have missed something crucial. The devil's in the details.
This smells a bit like a homework assignment to me. If so, tell me what grade I get. :)
Addendum: Via abhilash1912's comment, a different but similar approach. That code is tested, so it already wins. But it is a bit stale (2 years or so as of today; some deprecated method usage). Moreover, I question whether inheriting from NSOperationQueue is the best path, though it has the virtue of retaining familiarity. Regardless, if you've read this far, it's probably worth looking over.
If you create or find the world's greatest BarrierQueue class, please let us know in the comments or otherwise, so it can be linked up.
Create an NSOperation that is your barrier, then use:
- (void)addDependency:(NSOperation *)operation
To make that barrier operation dependent on all the ones you want to come before it.
I don't think it's possible to create an NSOperation object that's gives you the same sort of functionality, barriers have more to do with the way the queue operates.
The main difference between using a barrier and the dependency mechanism of NSOperations is, in the case of a barrier, the thread queue waits until all running concurrent operations have completed, and then it runs your barrier block, while making sure that any new blocks submitted and any blocks waiting do not run until the critical block has passed.
With an NSOperationQueue, it's impossible to set up the queue in such a way that it'll enforce a proper barrier: all NSOperations added to the queue before your critical NSOperation must be explicitly registered as a dependency with the critical job, and once the critical job has started, you must explicitly guard the NSOperationQueue to make sure no other clients push jobs onto it before the critical job has finished; you guard the queue by adding the critical job as a dependency for the subsequent operations.
(In the case where you know there's only one critical job at a time, this sounds sorta easy, but there will probably be n critical jobs waiting at any one time, which means keeping track of the order jobs are submitted, managing the relative dependency of critical jobs relative to their dependent jobs -- some critical jobs can wait for others, some must be executed in a particular order relative to others... yikes.)
It might be possible to get this level of functionality by setting up an NSOperationQueue with a concurrent job max of one, but that sorta defeats the purpose of doing this, I think. You might also be able to make this work by wrapping an NSOperationQueue in a facade object that protects NSOperations that are submitted "critically."
Just another way... don't hurt me.
Todo: save origin completion and self.maxConcurrentOperationCount = 1 sets queue to serial on adding. But should before execution.
#import "NSOperationQueue+BarrierOperation.h"
#implementation NSOperationQueue (BarrierOperation)
- (void)addOperationAsBarrier:(NSOperation *)op
{
//TODO: needs to save origin completion
// if (op.completionBlock)
// {
// originBlock = op.completionBlock;
// }
NSOperationQueue* qInternal = [NSOperationQueue new];
NSInteger oldMaxConcurrentOperationCount = self.maxConcurrentOperationCount;
op.completionBlock = ^{
self.maxConcurrentOperationCount = oldMaxConcurrentOperationCount;
NSLog(#"addOperationAsBarrier maxConcurrentOperationCount restored");
};
[self addOperationWithBlock:^{
self.maxConcurrentOperationCount = 1;
NSLog(#"addOperationAsBarrier maxConcurrentOperationCount = 1");
}];
[qInternal addOperationWithBlock:^{
NSLog(#"waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished...");
[self waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished];
}];
NSLog(#"added OperationAsBarrier");
[self addOperation:op];
}
#end

When will completionBlock be called for dependencies in NSOperation

From the docs:
The completion block you provide is executed when the value returned by the isFinished method changes to YES. Thus, this block is executed by the operation object after the operation’s primary task is finished or cancelled.
I'm using RestKit/AFNetworking, if that matters.
I have multiple dependencies in my NSOperation in a OperationQueue. I use the completion block to set some variables (appending the results to an array) that my child requires.
(task1,...,taskN) -> taskA
taskA addDependency: task1-taskN
Will taskA receive incomplete data since the child can execute before the completion block is fired?
Reference
Do NSOperations and their completionBlocks run concurrently?
I did a simple test by adding a sleep in my completion block and I had a different result. The completion block runs in the main thread. While all the completion block are sleeping, the child task ran.
As I discuss below under "a few observations", you have no assurances that this final dependent operation will not start before your other sundry AFNetworking completion blocks have finished. It strikes me that if this final operation really needs to wait for these completion blocks to finish, then you have a couple of alternatives:
Use semaphores within each of the n the completion blocks to signal when they're done and have the completion operation wait for n signals; or
Don't queue this final operation up front, but rather have your completion blocks for the individual uploads keep track of how many pending uploads are still incomplete, and when it falls to zero, then initiate the final "post" operation.
As you pointed out in your comments, you could wrap your invocation of the AFNetworking operation and its completion handler in your own operation, at which point you can then use the standard addDependency mechanism.
You could abandon the addDependency approach (which adds an observer on the isFinished key of the operation upon which this operation is dependent, and once all those dependencies are resolved, performs the isReady KVN; the problem being that this can theoretically happen before your completion block is done) and replace it with your own isReady logic. For example, imagine you had a post operation which you could add your own key dependencies and remove them manually in your completion block, rather than having them removed automatically upon isFinished. Thus, you custom operation
#interface PostOperation ()
#property (nonatomic, getter = isReady) BOOL ready;
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSMutableArray *keys;
#end
#implementation PostOperation
#synthesize ready = _ready;
- (void)addKeyDependency:(id)key {
if (!self.keys)
self.keys = [NSMutableArray arrayWithObject:key];
else
[self.keys addObject:key];
self.ready = NO;
}
- (void)removeKeyDependency:(id)key {
[self.keys removeObject:key];
if ([self.keys count] == 0)
self.ready = YES;
}
- (void)setReady:(BOOL)ready {
if (ready != _ready) {
[self willChangeValueForKey:#"isReady"];
_ready = ready;
[self didChangeValueForKey:#"isReady"];
}
}
- (void)addDependency:(NSOperation *)operation{
NSAssert(FALSE, #"You should not use addDependency with this custom operation");
}
Then, your app code could do something like, using addKeyDependency rather than addDependency, and explicitly either removeKeyDependency or cancel in the completion blocks:
PostOperation *postOperation = [[PostOperation alloc] init];
for (NSInteger i = 0; i < numberOfImages; i++) {
NSURL *url = ...
NSURLRequest *request = [NSURLRequest requestWithURL:url];
NSString *key = [url absoluteString]; // or you could use whatever unique value you want
AFHTTPRequestOperation *operation = [[AFHTTPRequestOperation alloc] initWithRequest:request];
[operation setCompletionBlockWithSuccess:^(AFHTTPRequestOperation *operation, id responseObject) {
// update your model or do whatever
// now inform the post operation that this operation is done
[postOperation removeKeyDependency:key];
} failure:^(AFHTTPRequestOperation *operation, NSError *error) {
// handle the error any way you want
// perhaps you want to cancel the postOperation; you'd either cancel it or remove the dependency
[postOperation cancel];
}];
[postOperation addKeyDependency:key];
[queue addOperation:operation];
}
[queue addOperation:postOperation];
This is using AFHTTPRequestOperation, and you'd obviously replace all of this logic with the appropriate AFNetworking operation for your upload, but hopefully it illustrates the idea.
Original answer:
A few observations:
As I think you concluded, when your operation completes, it (a) initiates its completion block; (b) makes the queue available for other operations (either operations that had not yet started because of maxConcurrentOperationCount, or because of dependencies between the operations). I do not believe that you have any assurances that the completion block will be done before that next operation commences.
Empirically, it looks like the dependent operation does not actually trigger until after the completion blocks are done, but (a) I don't see that documented anywhere and (b) this is moot because if you're using AFNetworking's own setCompletionBlockWithSuccess, it ends up dispatching the block asynchronously to the main queue (or the defined successCallbackQueue), thereby thwarting any (undocumented) assurances of synchrony.
Furthermore, you say that the completion block runs in the main thread. If you're talking about the built in NSOperation completion block, you have no such assurances. In fact, the setCompletionBlock documentation says:
The exact execution context for your completion block is not guaranteed but is typically a secondary thread. Therefore, you should not use this block to do any work that requires a very specific execution context. Instead, you should shunt that work to your application’s main thread or to the specific thread that is capable of doing it. For example, if you have a custom thread for coordinating the completion of the operation, you could use the completion block to ping that thread.
But if you're talking about one of AFNetworking's custom completion blocks, e.g. those that you might set with AFHTTPRequestOperation's setCompletionBlockWithSuccess, then, yes, it's true that those are generally dispatched back to the main queue. But AFNetworking does this using the standard completionBlock mechanism, so the above concerns still apply.
It matters if your NSOperation is a subclass of AFHTTPRequestOperation. AFHTTPRequestOperation uses the NSOperation's property completionBlock for its own purpose in method setCompletionBlockWithSuccess:failure. In that case, don't set the property completionBlock yourself!
It seems, AFHTTPRequestOperation's success and failure handler will run on the main thread.
Otherwise, the execution context of NSOperation's completion block is "undefined". That means, the completion block can execute on any thread/queue. In fact it executes on some private queue.
IMO, this is the preferred approach, unless the execution context shall be explicitly specified by the call-site. Executing completion handlers on threads or queues which instances are accessible (the main thread for example) can easily cause dead locks by an unwary developer.
Edit:
If you want to start a dependent operation after the completion block of the parent operation has been finished, you can solve that by making the completion block content itself a NSBlockOperation (a new parent) and add this operation as a dependency to the children operation and start it in a queue. You may realize, that this quickly becomes unwieldy, though.
Another approach would require an utility class or class library which is especially suited to solve asynchronous problems in a more concise and easy way. ReactiveCocoa would be capable to solve such (an easy) problem. However, it's unduly complex and it actually has a "learning curve" - and a steep one. I wouldn't recommend it, unless you agree to spend a few weeks in learning it and have a lot other asynchronous use cases and even much more complex ones.
A simpler approach would utilize "Promises" which are pretty common in JavaScript, Python, Scala and a few other languages.
Now, please read carefully, the (easy) solution is actually below:
"Promises" (sometimes called Futures or Deferred) represent the eventual result of an asynchronous task. Your fetch request is such asynchronous task. But instead specifying a completion handler, the asynchronous method/task returns a Promise:
-(Promise*) fetchThingsWithURL:(NSURL*)url;
You obtain the result - or the error - with registering a success handler block or a failure handler block like so:
Promise* thingsPromise = [self fetchThingsWithURL:url];
thingsPromise.then(successHandlerBlock, failureHandlerBlock);
or, the blocks inlined:
thingsPromise.then(^id(id things){
// do something with things
return <result of success handler>
}, ^id(NSError* error){
// Ohps, error occurred
return <result of failure handler>
});
And shorter:
[self fetchThingsWithURL:url]
.then(^id(id result){
return [self.parser parseAsync:result];
}, nil);
Here, parseAsync: is an asynchronous method which returns a Promise. (Yes, a Promise).
You might wonder how to get the result from the parser?
[self fetchThingsWithURL:url]
.then(^id(id result){
return [self.parser parseAsync:result];
}, nil)
.then(^id(id parserResult){
NSLog(#"Parser returned: %#", parserResult);
return nil; // result not used
}, nil);
This actually starts async task fetchThingsWithURL:. Then when finished successfully, it starts async task parseAsync:. Then when this finished successfully, it prints the result, otherwise it prints the error.
Invoking several asynchronous tasks sequentially, one after the other, is called "continuation" or "chaining".
Note that the whole statement above is asynchronous! That is, when you wrap the above statement into a method, and execute it, the method returns immediately.
You might wonder how to catch any errors, say fetchThingsWithURL: fails, or parseAsync::
[self fetchThingsWithURL:url]
.then(^id(id result){
return [self.parser parseAsync:result];
}, nil)
.then(^id(id parserResult){
NSLog(#"Parser returned: %#", parserResult);
return nil; // result not used
}, nil)
.then(/*succes handler ignored*/, ^id (NSError* error){
// catch any error
NSLog(#"ERROR: %#", error);
return nil; // result not used
});
Handlers execute after the corresponding task has been finished (of course). If the task succeeds, the success handler will be called (if any). If the tasks fails, the error handler will be called (if any).
Handlers may return a Promise (or any other object). For example, if an asynchronous task finished successfully, its success handler will be invoked which starts another asynchronous task, which returns the promise. And when this is finished, yet another one can be started, and so force. That's "continuation" ;)
You can return anything from a handler:
Promise* finalResult = [self fetchThingsWithURL:url]
.then(^id(id result){
return [self.parser parseAsync:result];
}, nil)
.then(^id(id parserResult){
return #"OK";
}, ^id(NSError* error){
return error;
});
Now, finalResult will either eventually become the value #"OK" or an NSError.
You can save the eventual results into an array:
array = #[
[self task1],
[self task2],
[self task3]
];
and then continue when all tasks have been finished successfully:
[Promise all:array].then(^id(results){
...
}, ^id (NSError* error){
...
});
Setting a promise's value will be called: "resolving". You can resolve a promise only ONCE.
You may wrap any asynchronous method with a completion handler or completion delegates into a method which returns a promise:
- (Promise*) fetchUserWithURL:(NSURL*)url
{
Promise* promise = [Promise new];
HTTPOperation* op = [[HTTPOperation alloc] initWithRequest:request
success:^(NSData* data){
[promise fulfillWithValue:data];
}
failure:^(NSError* error){
[promise rejectWithReason:error];
}];
[op start];
return promise;
}
Upon completion of the task, the promise can be "fulfilled" passing it the result value, or it can be "rejected" passing it the reason (error).
Depending on the actual implementation, a Promise can also be cancelled. Say, you hold a reference to a request operation:
self.fetchUserPromise = [self fetchUsersWithURL:url];
You can cancel the asynchronous task as follows:
- (void) viewWillDisappear:(BOOL)animate {
[super viewWillDisappear:animate];
[self.fetchUserPromise cancel];
self.fetchUserPromise = nil;
}
In order to cancel the associated async task, register a failure handler in the wrapper:
- (Promise*) fetchUserWithURL:(NSURL*)url
{
Promise* promise = [Promise new];
HTTPOperation* op = ...
[op start];
promise.then(nil, ^id(NSError* error){
if (promise.isCancelled) {
[op cancel];
}
return nil; // result unused
});
return promise;
}
Note: you can register success or failure handlers, when, where and as many as you want.
So, you can do a lot with promises - and even more than in this brief introduction. If you read up to here, you might get an idea how to solve your actual problem. It's right there - and it's a few lines of code.
I admit, that this short introduction into promises was quite rough and it's also quite new to Objective-C developers, and may sound uncommon.
You can read a lot about promises in the JS community. There are one or three implementations in Objective-C. The actual implementation won't exceed a few hundred lines of code. It happens, that I'm the author of one of it:
RXPromise.
Take it with a grain of salt, I'm probably totally biased, and apparently all others ever dealt with Promises, too. ;)

Why don't NSOperations and sleep work correctly?

In my app, I use operations to perform time-intensive tasks, so my user interface won't freeze. For that, I use NSInvocationOperation. I wanted to test the overall architecture first before implementing the code to actually complete the tasks, so that's what I have right now:
// give the object data to process
- (void)processData:(NSObject*)dataToDoTask {
... // I store the data in this object
NSInvocationOperation *newOperation =
[[NSInvocationOperation alloc] initWithTarget:self
selector:#selector(performTask)
object:nil];
[[NSOperationQueue mainQueue] addOperation:newOperation];
...
}
// process data stored in the object and return result
- (NSObject*)performTask {
[NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:1]; // to emulate the delay
return [NSString stringWithFormat:#"unimplemented hash for file %#", self.path];
}
However, the sleep doesn't work as I expect: instead of delaying the operation completetion, it freezes the app. It seems that I either operations or sleep incorrectly, but I can't figure out which and how.
That is because you are running your operation on the main thread (the same running your user interface).
If you want to run your operation concurrently, create a new operation queue:
NSOperationQueue * queue = [NSOperationQueue new];
[queue addOperation:newOperation];

GCD and async NSURLConnection

I know that if I create an NSURLConnection (standard async one), it will call back on the same thread. Currently this is on my main thread. (work fine too).
But i'm now using the same code for something else, and I need to keep my UI snappy....
If i do
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
/* and inside here, at some NSURLConnection is created */
});
.. is it possible that my NSURLConnection is created but my thread disappears before the url connection has returned?
I'm new to GCD. How would one keep the thread alive until my url connection returned, or is there a better way I could be doing this?
So really the issue isn't the lifetime of the thread on which your block runs, it's the fact that this particular thread is not going to have a runloop configured and running to receive any of the events coming back from the connection.
So how do you solve this? There are different options to think about. I can list a few, and I'm sure others will list more.
1 - You could use a synchronous connection here. One disadvantage is that you won't get callbacks for authentication, redirection, caching, etc. (All the normal disadvantages of synchronous connections.) Plus each connection will of course block a thread for some period of time, so if you're doing a lot of these then you could potentially have a few threads blocked at once, which is expensive.
2 - If your connection is simple and you are using iOS5 then you can use this method:
+ (void)sendAsynchronousRequest:(NSURLRequest *)request
queue:(NSOperationQueue*) queue
completionHandler:(void (^)(NSURLResponse*, NSData*, NSError*))
This will start an asynchronous connection and then allow you to specify a completion handler (for success or failure) and a NSOperationQueue on which you want that block to be scheduled.
Again, you have the disadvantages of not getting the callbacks you might need for authentication, caching, etc. But at least you don't have threads hanging around blocked by connections that are in flight.
3 - Another option for iOS5 is to set the queue for all delegate callbacks:
- (void)setDelegateQueue:(NSOperationQueue*) queue NS_AVAILABLE(10_7, 5_0);
If you use this, then all of the delegate methods will be executed in the context of whatever NSOperationQueue you specify. So this is similar to option #2, expect that you get all of the delegate methods now to handle authentication, redirection, etc.
4 - You could set up your own thread that you control specifically for managing these connections. And in setting up that thread, you configure a runloop appropriately. This would work fine in iOS4 and 5 and obviously gives you all of the delegate callbacks that you want to handle
5 - You might think about what parts of your asynchronous connection handling are really interfering with your UI. Typically kicking off the connection or receiving delegate callbacks are not that expensive. The expensive (or indeterminate) cost is often in the processing of the data that you collect at the end. The question to ask here is are you really saving time by scheduling a block on some queue just to start an asynchronous connection that will go off immediately and do its thing on another thread anyway?
So you could just start the connection from the main thread, and receive all of the delegate callbacks on the main thread, and then in your implementation of those delegate methods fire off whatever expensive work you need to do on some other queue or thread.
So something like this:
- (void)connectionDidFinishLoading:(NSURLConnection *)connection {
// go ahead and receive this message on the main thread
// but then turn around and fire off a block to do the real expensive work
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
// Parse the data we've been collecting
});
}
Again, this is not comprehensive. There are many ways to handle this, depending on your specific needs here. But I hope these thoughts help.
Just as an answer to why your thread was disppearing (and for future reference) the NSURLConnection needs a runloop. If you had added
[[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] runUntilDate:[NSDate distantFuture]];
You'd see that the connection runs properly and the thread doesn't disappear untill the connection was completed.
First off, your block and every variable you use within it will get copied to GCD, so the code will not be executed on your thread but on the global queue.
If you want to get your data back on the main thread, you can nest an async call after your data has been fetched:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
NSURLRequest *request = [NSURLRequest requestWithURL:[NSURL URLWithString:#"www.stackoverflow.com"]];
NSURLResponse *response;
NSError *error;
NSData *data = [NSURLConnection sendSynchronousRequest:request returningResponse:&response error:&error];
if (error) {
// handle error
return;
}
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
// do something with the data
});
});
But why not use NSURLConnection's built in asynchronous support? You need an NSOperationQueue, but if you are doing alot of network fetches it is the way to go anyway:
NSURLRequest *request = [NSURLRequest requestWithURL:[NSURL URLWithString:#"www.stackoverflow.com"]];
[NSURLConnection sendAsynchronousRequest:request
queue:self.queue // created at class init
completionHandler:^(NSURLResponse *response, NSData *data, NSError *error){
// do something with data or handle error
}];
Personally, I use a library like AFNetworking or ASIHTTPRequest to make networking even easier, which both support blocks (the former utilizes GCD and is a bit more modern).
dispatch_queue_t queue = dispatch_get_global_queue( DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0);
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
[btnCreateSmartList setEnabled:NO];
[dbSingleton() createEditableCopyOfDatabaseIfNeeded];
[dbSingleton() insert_SMART_PlaceList:txtListName.text :0:txtTravelType.text: [strgDuration intValue]:strgTemprature:Strgender:bimgdt];
[self Save_items];
//*********navigate new
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
[activityIndicator stopAnimating];
[self performSelector:#selector(gonext_screen) withObject:nil afterDelay:0.0];
});
});

UITableView Refresh Data

I have a UITableViewController that when opened displays a table of the following object:
class {
NSString *stringVal;
int value;
}
However, whenever this controller opens, I want it to download the data from the internet and display "Connecting..." in the status bar and refresh the stringVal and value of all of the objects. I do this by refreshing the array in the UITableViewController. However, to do this the UI hangs sometimes or even displays "blank" table cells until the operation has ended. I'm doing this in an NSOperationQueue to download the data, but I'm wondering if there's a better way to refresh the data without those weird UI bugs.
EDIT:
the UI no longer displays blank cells. This was because cellForRowAtIndexPath was setting nil values for my cellText. However, it still seems somewhat laggy when tableView.reloadData is called even though I'm using NSOperationQueue.
EDIT2:
Moreover, I have two problems: 1. the scrolling prevents the UI from being updated and 2. when the scrolling does stop and the UI starts to update, it hangs a little bit. A perfect example of what I'm trying to do can be found in the native Mail app when you view a list of folders with their unread count. If you constantly scroll the tableview, the folders unread count will be updated without any hanging at all.
Based on your response in the question comments, it sounds like you are calling [tableView reloadData] from a background thread.
Do not do this. UIKit methods, unless otherwise specified, always need to be called from the main thread. Failing to do so can cause no end of problems, and you are probably seeing one of them.
EDIT: I misread your comment. It sounds like you are not updating the UI from a background thread. But my comments about the architecture (i.e. why are you updating in a background thread AFTER the download has finished?).
You state that "when the data comes back from the server, I call a background operation..." This sounds backwards. Normally you would have your NSURLConnection (or whatever you are using for the download) run on the background thread so as not to block to UI, then call out to the main thread to update the data model and refresh the UI. Alternatively, use an asynchronous NSURLConnection (which manages its own background thread/queue), e.g.:
[NSURLConnection sendAsynchronousRequest:(NSURLRequest *)
requestqueue:(NSOperationQueue *)queue
completionHandler:(void (^)(NSURLResponse*, NSData*, NSError*))handler];
And just make sure to use [NSOperationQueue mainQueue] for the queue.
You can also use GCD, i.e., nested dispatch_async() calls (the outer to a background queue for handling a synchronous connection, the inner on the main queue to handle the connection response).
Finally, I will note that you in principle can update your data model on the background thread and just refresh the UI from the main thread. But this means that you need to take care to make your model code thread-safe, which you are likely to mess up at least a couple times. Since updating the model is probably not a time consuming step, I would just do it on the main thread too.
EDIT:
I am adding an example of how one might use GCD and synchronous requests to accomplish this. Clearly there are many ways to accomplish non-blocking URL requests, and I do not assert that this is the best one. It does, in my opinion, have the virtue of keeping all the code for processing a request in one place, making it easier to read.
The code has plenty of rough edges. For example, creating a custom dispatch queue is not generally necessary. It blindly assumes UTF-8 encoding of the returned web page. And none of the content (save the HTTP error description) is localized. But it does demonstrate how to run non-blocking requests and detect errors (both at the network and HTTP layers). Hope this is helpful.
NSURL *url = [NSURL URLWithString:#"http://www.google.com"];
NSURLRequest *request = [NSURLRequest requestWithURL:url];
dispatch_queue_t netQueue = dispatch_queue_create("com.mycompany.netqueue", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL);
dispatch_async(netQueue,
^{
// We are on a background thread, so we won't block UI events (or, generally, the main run loop)
NSHTTPURLResponse *response;
NSError *error;
NSData *data = [NSURLConnection sendSynchronousRequest:request
returningResponse:&response
error:&error];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(),
^{
// We are now back on the main thread
UIAlertView *alertView = [[UIAlertView alloc] init];
[alertView addButtonWithTitle:#"OK"];
if (data) {
if ([response statusCode] == 200) {
NSMutableString *body = [[NSMutableString alloc] initWithData:data
encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];
[alertView setTitle:#"Success"];
[alertView setMessage:body];
}
else {
[alertView setTitle:#"HTTP Error"];
NSString *status = [NSHTTPURLResponse localizedStringForStatusCode:[response statusCode]];
[alertView setMessage:status];
}
}
else {
[alertView setTitle:#"Error"];
[alertView setMessage:#"Unable to load URL"];
}
[alertView show];
[alertView release];
});
});
dispatch_release(netQueue);
EDIT:
Oh, one more big rough edge. The above code assumes that any HTTP status code != 200 is an error. This is not necessarily the case, but handling this is beyond the scope of this question.