So ... I'm still fairly new to Objective C ... taking some iTunes U corses ... doing some exercises and all ...
But when you uses to do #synthesize myProperty = _myIvarPropertyNameToUse; ... iOS 5 would create an ivar that would "back" the property.
What exactly is going on here as far as where things sit in memory ...
(1) Is the ivar a true variable? ... or is it a pointer to the location of the property in the object?
(2) The property is on the heap, (being part of the object), right? Is the ivar on the heap as well?
I think I may be losing the big picture ... what's the point of having a property backed by an ivar?
thanks,
An Objective-C object is just a C struct that is allocated on the heap (well, more or less). When you declare an instance variable (ivar), it is defined as an offset into that struct. So if you manually declared some ivars like this (don't do it this way anymore, but it illustrates the point):
#interface Foo : NSObject {
NSString *ivar1;
NSString *ivar2;
}
Then when you +alloc a new instance (call it foo), the struct will be some header followed by the ivars of NSObject followed by memory for ivar1 followed by memory for ivar2. ivar1 will be the foo point plus some offset. (This isn't exactly true anymore, but stay with me; it's simpler to understand the old implementation.)
Since foo is a pointer to a struct, you can actually refer directly to this offset pointer as foo->ivar1. It really is a struct. Never do this, but it is legal syntax.
Inside of the #implementation block, ivar1 is automatically translated to self->ivar1. Don't worry too much about how self is implemented, but trust that it's a pointer to your struct. Again, never use this -> syntax. It's an underlying implementation detail (and isn't always possible anymore; see below).
OK, so that's what an ivar is. In the old days (ObjC 1.0), that's actually all we had. You declared your ivars, and then you hand-created accessor methods that would set and return their values.
Then ObjC2 comes along, which in some cases also gave us something called the non-fragile ABI. That changes the underlying implementation of ivars somewhat, so you can't always actually use -> anymore. But you shouldn't have been using it anyway. Even so, it's simpler to pretend things are the old way. More to the point, ObjC2 added this new thing called "properties." A property is just a promise to implement certain methods. So when you say:
#property (nonatomic, readwrite, strong) NSString *property;
this is almost identical to saying the following:
- (NSString *)property;
- (void)setProperty:(NSString *)aProperty;
(The difference is very seldom important.) Note that this doesn't provide an implementation. It doesn't create ivars. It just declares some methods.
Now in ObjC1, we wrote the same accessor code over and over and over again. You had 20 writable ivars, you wrote 40 accessor methods. And they were almost identical. Lots of opportunities to mess up. And a lot of tedium. Thank goodness for Accessorizer.
With ObjC2, the compiler would give you the most common implementation for free if you added #synthesize. It would automatically make an ivar with the same name as the property, and write a getter and (if needed) setter to read and write that ivar. Passing =_property just changes the name of the ivar used. We call this the "backing ivar."
Now, in the latest version of the compiler, you don't even need #synthesize. This pattern is so insanely common, and has been for decades, that it is now the default unless you tell the compiler not to do it. And it automatically synthesizes an ivar with a leading underscore (which is best practice).
The one other piece of information you should know is that you should always use the accessor to access the ivar, even inside of the object. The only exceptions are in the init and dealloc methods. There you should directly access the ivar (using the leading underscore).
Just to be clear, when you do #synthesize myProperty = _myIvarPropertyNameToUse;, your only changing the name of the backing ivar. The line #synthesize myProperty; would also create a backing ivar, but it would be called myProperty, instead of _myIvarPropertyNameToUse...
The backing ivar is part of the object, so yes it's on the heap. It can be used as a true variable, meaning you can get and set it in the object code.
Related
I am new in objective c and I have some doubts. I've seen that you can access to the properties of a class like var->myProperty and like that too variable.myProperty, but I do not know what the difference between the 2. I searched a lot in internet and really have not found a conclusive answer.
Sorry if I have spelling errors, thanks in advance.
There are three cases to consider:
use of someObject.something
use of self->something
use of otherObject->something
someObject.something is the dot syntax. It is exactly equivalent to [someObject something] in terms of behavior. It is a method call. Note that something does not have to be declared via an #property. That is, someArray.count or someString.length are both syntactically valid.
self->something is accessing an ivar directly. It is a very rarely used syntax; rare is in pretty much never. Instead, just access the ivar directly using something = or [something doSomething]. No need for the ->.
otherObject->something is grubbing around otherObject's instance variables directly. Bad programmer. No donut. Don't do that. It breaks encapsulation and leads to extremely fragile, hard to maintain, code.
A note on #property declarations. If you have:
#property (atomic, strong, readonly) SomeClass *foo;
And if you let the compiler automatically #synthesize everything, it will create an instance variable named _foo.
You should use direct access in your init and dealloc methods, but -- typically, though not always -- use the setter/getter everywhere else. I.e. in your init you would do _foo = [SomeClass someClassWithSomeMagicValue:42] (assumes ARC, so no retain needed). Everywhere else, you would do [[self foo] castMagic];.
The obj->foo syntax accesses the ivar foo of obj whereas obj.foo accesses the property (defined by #property). The main difference is that obj->foo does not use any getters/setters and writes to the ivar directly.
For example, if you defined the property like this
#property (atomic, strong, readonly) SomeClass *foo;
Modern Objective-C compilers will automatically create an ivar _foo and the property foo for you (without the need of declaring the ivar and #synthesizeing the property.
obj.foo will then automatically use the atomic getter and will make the property readonly (ie no setter). Using the ivar syntax obj->_foo, you are reading the property non-atomically(!) and you can even write it (remember, the property is readonly!).
Usually it's very easy: Always use the property syntax, except in init and dealloc, there you use the ivar syntax. Obviously when you are actually implementing a getter or a setter yourself, that's another place to use the ivar syntax. (thanks to #godel9). (Remember: That's a rough guideline, there are other use-cases where you might want direct ivar access).
EDIT: Because of some critique in the comments: It's true that the dot syntax can also be used without declaring something as #property, eg some use array.count instead of [array count] (for NSArray *array). But given that the OP asked about properties vs ivars, that was certainly not asked. Also note that for a given #property ... SomeClass *foo the ivar is not necessarily _foo but that's would be the auto-generated ivar name in recent ObjC compilers (with #synthesize you can map properties to arbitrary ivars).
look at Pointers in objective-c
http://www.drdobbs.com/mobile/pointers-in-objective-c/225700236
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
How does an underscore in front of a variable in a cocoa objective-c class work?
Note: For the folks digging around trying to understand this, I figured-out the source of my confusion. In the .h, I had:
...
#interface myClass : parentClass {
className *variableName:
}
#property (strong, nonatomic) className *variableName;
...
This leads to self.variableName and _variableName being two distinct variables in the .m. What I needed was:
...
#interface myClass : parentClass {
className *_variableName:
}
#property (strong, nonatomic) className *variableName;
...
Then, in the class' .m, self.variableName and _variableName are equivalent
In brand-new, Xcode 4.5+, with ARC, targeting iOS 5.0+ project, is there a distinct advantage (runtime efficiency, speed, etc.) to using _variableName over self.variableName vs. the old-style #synthesize variableName?
My understanding is that Xcode 4.5+ will create a default accessor _variableName that is equivalent to self.variableName and the only reasons not to use #synthesize variableName is to avoid confusion between iVars and passed-in variables, correct?
To me, just using self.variableName to access an iVar seems the most straightforward and clear as to which variable you're looking for. Other than typing _ vs. self., is there an advantage to using _variableName?
My understanding is that Xcode 4.5+ will create a default accessor "_variableName" that is equivalent to self.variableName and the only reasons not to use "#synthesize variableName" is to avoid confusion between iVars and passed-in variables, correct?
In this case, _variableName isn't the accessor, it's an ivar that is automatically generated by the compiler and used in the automatically #synthesized setters and getters. Generally, it is considered best to use accessors whenever possible (i.e. self.variableName) so that things like key-value observation and bindings work for that property.
When you access an ivar directly, it is accessed via direct memory access, the same way you would access data in a struct. It simply takes the pointer for the object that owns the ivar, offsets the memory address and attempts to read or write to the memory at that location. Using dot notation (self.variableName) calls the accessor methods to set or get that property and can do a number of different things along the way, such as:
1) Locking: If the property is going to be used in multiple threads and is an atomic property, the runtime will automatically do some locking to make sure that the property is not accessed at the same time from multiple threads. If your object is not meant to be used on multiple threads, you can give the nonatomic hint in your property declaration so that the synthesized accessors skip the locking.
2) Key-Value Notifications: The default setters for properties call -willChangeValueForKey: and -didChangeValueForKey:, which sends out notifications when the property is changed. This is necessary for anything to update properly if bindings are used, and for any other key-value observation.
3) Custom accessor behavior: If you end up writing your own setters and getters, any custom stuff that you implement within those.
Technically, accessing the ivar directly is faster than using accessors, but there are very few situations in which it will make a significant performance difference, and would probably be a case of premature optimization. Even if you don't feel like you would be using the benefits listed above right away, it's probably better to use the accessors anyway so that if you decide later on you need some of that functionality, you don't have to change every instance of accessing that variable (and possibly be creating unexpected new bugs in the process).
In addition, if you are accessing ivars directly and end up refactoring your class into categories or subclasses, it gets messy because you usually have to declare the ivar as a #protected variable. You wouldn't have to do this if you are using the accessors.
Generally, I try to only access the ivars directly in init, dealloc, and the property's accessor. A lot of engineers go by this rule of thumb because sometimes the custom stuff that happens in accessors can cause unexpected behavior while the object is init'ing or dealloc'ing. For example, if anything in the accessors causes something to retain or release your object or even form a zeroing weak reference to it, it will cause a crash if used in dealloc.
In the latest Xcode #synthesize is optional. By default, omitting #synthesize is the same as writing
#synthesize someName = _someName;
The only reason to use #synthesize is to rename the instance variable created to store the value of the property, for example
#synthesize someName = someSpecialName;
When you use self.variableName to access a variable, you go through a property, which is a short method that accesses the instance variable for you. Although the method dispatch is very fast, it may perform additional services for you, such as synchronizing the access to the variable (this is the case when you specify atomic or do not specify nonatomic in the property declaration). In cases like that, the access through self.variableName will be somewhat slower. If done in a tight loop, this could potentially make a difference. That is why you sometimes want to access the underlying instance variable directly by using _variableName.
Though the question is basic, but I found it very crucial to understand to proceed with IOS programming. Sometimes we used to declare only instance variable and we don't set any associated property to it. Some where we just declare the properties and use synthesize to get or set the values. Sometimes I feel necessary to declare both in code, when compilation gives me warnings! What's the fundamental behind the manipulation of properties in Objective C. I know the basic requirement to create getter and setter for any instance variable, but when?
I have seen it many times we don't use property at all, and after that too we easily set and get variable's value. Also, different types of property like atomic, non atomic, strong, retain are very unclear to me. XCODE up-gradation to 4.2 has shaken my concepts about memory management. Can somebody please clear the cloud over my mind?
Properties are always the preferred way over direct ivar access, mostly of following reasons:
You can override a getter or setter in a subclass
You can define the "assigning behavior" (namely copy, assign, retain/strong, weak)
You can synchronize ivar access
Keywords:
copy: The object is copied to the ivar when set
assign: The object's pointer is assigned to the ivar when set
retain/strong: The object is retained on set
weak: In ARC this is like assign, but will be set to nil automatically when the instance is deallocated, also used in a garbage collected environment.
nonatomic: The accessor is not #synchronized (threadsafe), and therefore faster
atomic: The accessor is #synchronized (threadsafe), and therefore slower
Generally you should always synthesize an ivar. If you need faster access for performance reasons you can always access the synthesized ivar directly too.
While typing I saw that 'Erik Aigner' was faster with a good answer.
For een example on properties, synthesize and custom setter see my answer on stack:
Objective-C convention to prevent "local declaration hides instance variable" warning
For an stater tutorial on ARC see the explenation on Ray wenderlich his website:
Beginning ARC in iOS 5 part 1 and
Beginning ARC in iOS 5 part 2
First I have to do
#property (retain) aMember;
Then in implementation file I got to do
#synthesize aMember;
Then in dealloc, I got to do
self.aMember= nil; (or [aMember release])
That's 3 times writing what essentially is the same
Is there a way to speed this up?
I mean I can drag drop a control from a IB and xcode automatically generate those codes why I can't do that for more normal codes?
As someone coming from C# and managed languages for my day job I completely agree with you in questioning this 3 step process. In fact its almost crazy easy to create properties in C# in MS Visual Studio, but I digress.
Even though there are these 3 lines you have to write there is a huge amount of work going on under the covers for your.
Your declaration of the #property tells objective-c some important attributes (atomic, nonatomic, retain, copy, etc) in how to deal with your property when it is set by users of your class. When you think about this, these attributes (without you writing any code) are; helping you create thread safe code, handling references to objects so you don't have to worry about them disappearing on you, or copying values so you have your own copy of an object. The #property is also important since it is declared in your header file (typically). This give other developers an idea of the properties of your class and some small hints as to how objects they pass into those properties will be handled during its lifetime.
The #synthesize is also doing quite a bit of work by creating the getters and setters for that property, that also handle all sorts of memory management for you. You don't need to worry about releasing the old references and correctly referencing the new object. This alone to me is a great feature, especially when you are new to objective-c and it is easy to forget to deal with memory management at every turn. The #synthesize just does it for you and you don't have to write all the get and set code yourself.
The dealloc call is just life in a non-memory managed environment. While it adds additional steps, I appreciate the benefits that explicit memory management allows in a constrained environment such as the phone.
So all 3 steps are required, are different and when you think about it actually do quite a bit of work for you under the covers.
Unfortunately, that's how it is (for now). Apple had recently toyed with allowing Clang to implicitly synthesize your properties, which would have reduced your work to:
#interface Blah : NSObject
#property (retain) Blorg *blorg;
#end
#implementation Blah
- (void)dealloc {
[blorg release];
[super dealloc];
}
#end
When you didn't want an instance variable to be synthesized, you'd just explicitly put #dynamic blorg in your implementation. But this feature was removed due to some unforeseen complications, despite mostly positive reactions from developers.
So, I think it's safe to expect that Apple's still working on this. But for now, you do need to explicitly synthesize.
A few other notes:
If you are using garbage collection, you don't need to implement -dealloc: just make sure to do any last-minute cleanup in -finalize (such as notification unregistration).
You could also avoid the -dealloc bit by wrapping your instance variable in a C++ class which performs memory management during construction and destruction: #property prop_wrapper<Blorg> blorg; would work. Then, when your object is destroyed, ~prop_wrapper() would be called on your object. I've done this, and it works, but I recommend against it, since it doesn't play nice with KVO and KVC.
You could iterate through the properties of an object, and release those that are annotated with copy or retain. Then, in -dealloc, you'd have something like [self releaseProperties]. I've also done this, but I also recommend against it, since it can cause subtle problems which may result in inexplicable crashes if you're not careful.
To actually add a member variable in objective-c you don't need to do any of that.
What you're doing in those 3 steps is:
Declare properties for a member variable. (In your case you are indicating that you want the property setter to 'retain' the object that it sets your member variable to)
Declare the property getters and setters in a default way for your property.
Release the object that your property is retaining.
IF you only wanted to declare a member variable, all you had to do was declare it inside your class:
#interface SomeClassObject : NSObject {
int someMemberVariable;
}
#end
That's 3 times writing what essentially is the same
No it isn't.
#property (retain) aMember;
The above line declares a property so that the compiler knows it is OK to send the messages -aMember and -setAMember: to objects of your class. It also tells the compiler (and developers) that the property is a retain property (i.e. the object you set the property to will be retained), that it is read/write and that it is atomic.
#synthesize aMember;
The above line tells the compiler that it should automatically generate the setter and getter methods for the declared property. You can leave that out but then you have to write your own setter and getter.
[aMember release]; // in dealloc
Is there to tell the runtime that when the object is being deallocated, it no longer needs to hold a reference to that instance variable. This is necessary because, when you use reference counting rather than garbage collection, the runtime does not automatically clean up unwanted objects.
Each of those lines does a different thing. So you are not doing the same thing three times.
I have several years of experience in Obj-c and Cocoa, but am just now getting back into it and the advances of Obj-C 2.0 etc.
I'm trying to get my head around the modern runtime and declaring properties, etc. One thing that confuses me a bit is the ability in the modern runtime to have the iVars created implicitly. And of course this implies that in your code you should always be using self.property to access the value.
However, in init* and dealloc(assuming you're not using GC) methods we should be using the iVar directly (in the current runtime).
So questions are:
Should we use property accessors in init* and dealloc with Modern Runtime?
If so, why is this different? Is it just because the compiler can't see the iVar?
If I need to override an accessor, can I still access that iVar that will be defined at runtime or do I have to define an actual iVar that the runtime will then use?
Again, if I can access the synthesized iVar, why can't I continue to do this for the init* and dealloc methods?
I read the docs several times, but they seemed a bit vague about all of this and I want to be sure that I understand it well in order to decide how I want to continue coding.
Hope that my questions are clear.
Quick summary of testing:
If you don't declare the ivar in legacy, compiler is completely unhappy
If you use #ifndef __OBJC2__ around ivar in legacy compiler is happy and you can use both ivar directly and as property
In modern runtime, you can leave the ivar undefined and access as property
In modern runtime, trying to access ivar directly without declaration gives error during compile
#private declaration of ivar, of course, allows direct access to ivar, in both legacy and modern
Doesn't really give a clean way to go forward right now does it?
In the current (OS X 10.5/GCC 4.0.1) compiler, you cannot directly access the runtime-synthesized ivars. Greg Parker, one of the OS X runtime engineers put it this way on the cocoa-dev list (March 12, 2009):
You can't in the current compiler. A
future compiler should fix that. Use
explicit #private ivars in the
meantime. An #private ivar should not
be considered part of the contract -
that's what #private means, enforced
by compiler warnings and linker
errors.
And why isn't there a way to
explicitly declare instance variables
in the .m file for the new runtime?
Three reasons: (1) there are some
non-trivial design details to work
out, (2) compiler-engineer-hours are
limited, and (3) #private ivars are
generally good enough.
So, for now you must use dot-notation to access properties, even in init and dealloc. This goes against the best practice of using ivars directly in these cases, but there's no way around it. I find that the ease of using runtime-synthesized ivars (and the performance benefits) outweigh this in most cases. Where you do need to access the ivar directly, you can use a #private ivar as Greg Parker suggests (there's nothing that prevents you from mixing explicitly declared and runtime-synthesized ivars).
Update With OS X 10.6, the 64-bit runtime does allow direct access to the synthesized ivars via self->ivar.
Since instance variables themselves can only be synthesized in the modern runtime (and must be declared in the #interface under 32-bit or pre-Leopard), it's safest / most portable to also declare the ivar
Should we use property accessors in init* and dealloc with Modern Runtime?
My rule of thumb is "possibly" for -init*, and "usually not" for -dealloc.
When initializing an object, you want to make sure to properly copy/retain values for ivars. Unless the property's setter has some side effect that makes it inappropriate for initialization, definitely reuse the abstraction the property provides.
When deallocating an object, you want to release any ivar objects, but not store new ones. An easy way to do this is to set the property to nil (myObject.myIvar = nil), which basically calls [myObject setMyIvar:nil]. Since messages to nil are ignored, there is no danger in this. However, it's overkill when [myIvar release]; is usually all you need. In general, don't use the property (or directly, the setter) in situations where deallocation should behave differently than setting the variable.
I can understand eJames' argument against using property accessors in init/dealloc at all, but the flipside is that if you change the property behavior (for example, change from retain to copy, or just assign without retaining) and don't use it in init, or vice versa, the behavior can get out of sync too. If initializing and modifying an ivar should act the same, use the property accessor for both.
If so, why is this different? Is it just because the compiler can't see the ivar?
The modern runtime deals with class size and layout more intelligently, which is why you can change the layout of ivars without having to recompile subclasses. It is also able to infer the name and type of the ivar you want from the name and type of the corresponding property. The Objective-C 2.0 Runtime Programming Guide has more info, but again, I don't know how deeply the details explained there.
If I need to override an accessor, can I still access that iVar that will be defined at runtime or do I have to define an actual iVar that the runtime will then use?
I haven't tested this, but I believe you're allowed to access the named ivar in code, since it actually does have to be created. I'm not sure whether the compiler will complain, but I would guess that since it will let you synthesize the ivar without complaining, it is also smart enough to know about the synthesized ivar and let you refer to it by name.
Again, if I can access the synthesized iVar, why can't I continue to do this for the init* and dealloc methods?
You should be able to access the property and/or ivar anytime after the instance has been allocated.
There is another SO question with similar information, but it isn't quite a duplicate.
The bottom line, from the Objective-C 2.0 documentation, and quoted from Mark Bessey's answer is as follows:
There are differences in the behavior that depend on the runtime (see also “Runtime Differences”):
For the legacy runtimes, instance variables must already be declared in the #interface block. If an instance variable of the same name and compatible type as the property exists, it is used—otherwise, you get a compiler error.
For the modern runtimes, instance variables are synthesized as needed. If an instance variable of the same name already exists, it is used.
My understanding is as follows:
You should not use property accessors in init* and dealloc methods, for the same reasons that you should not use them in the legacy runtime: It leaves you open to potential errors if you later override the property methods, and end up doing something that shouldn't be done in init* or dealloc.
You should be able to both synthesize the ivar and override the property methods as follows:
#interface SomeClass
{
}
#property (assign) int someProperty;
#end
#implementation SomeClass
#synthesize someProperty; // this will synthesize the ivar
- (int)someProperty { NSLog(#"getter"); return someProperty; }
- (void)setSomeProperty:(int)newValue
{
NSLog(#"setter");
someProperty = newValue;
}
#end
Which leads me to think that you would be able to access the synthesized ivar in your init* and dealloc methods as well. The only gotcha I could think of is that the #synthesize line may have to come before the definitions of your init* and dealloc methods in the source file.
In the end, since having the ivars declared in the interface still works, that is still your safest bet.
I am running into the same problem. The way I am working around not being able to access the synthesized instance variables is the following:
public header
#interface MyObject:NSObject {
}
#property (retain) id instanceVar;
#property (retain) id customizedVar;
#end
private header / implementation
#interface MyObject()
#property (retain) id storedCustomizedVar;
#end
#implementation MyObject
#synthesize instanceVar, storedCustomizedVar;
#dynamic customizedVar;
- customizedVar {
if(!self.storedCustomizedVar) {
id newCustomizedVar;
//... do something
self.storedCustomizedVar= newCustomizedVar;
}
return self.storedCustomizedVar;
}
- (void) setCustomizedVar:aVar {
self.storedCustomizedVar=aVar;
}
#end
It's not that elegant, but at least it keeps my public header file clean.
If you use KVO you need to define customizedVar as dependent key of storedCustomizedVar.
I'm relatively new to Obj-C (but not to programming) and have also been confused by this topic.
The aspect that worries me is that it seems to be relatively easy to inadvertently use the iVar instead of the property. For example writing:
myProp = someObject;
instead of
self.myProp = someObject;
Admittedly this is "user" error, but it's still seems quite easy to do accidentally in some code, and for a retained or atomic property it could presumably lead to problems.
Ideally I'd prefer to be able to get the runtime to apply some pattern to the property name when generating any iVar. E.g. always prefix them with "_".
In practice at the moment I'm doing this manually - explicitly declaring my ivars, and deliberately giving them different names from the properties. I use an old-style 'm' prefix, so if my property is "myProp", my iVar will be "mMyProp". Then I use #synthesize myProp = mMyProp to associate the two.
This is a bit clumsy I admit, and a bit of extra typing, but it seems worth it to me to be able to disambiguate a little bit more clearly in the code. Of course I can still get it wrong and type mMyProp = someObject, but I'm hoping that the 'm' prefix will alert me to my error.
It would feel much nicer if I could just declare the property and let the compiler/runtime do the rest, but when I have lots of code my gut instinct tells me that I'll make mistakes that way if I still have to follow manual rules for init/dealloc.
Of course there are also plenty of other things I can also do wrong...