how to run functions in order in objective c - objective-c

i have a problem with queued functions. i want to run my function and when my first function finishes running, i want to start other one.
-(void)firstFunct
{
// sending and getting information from server.
// doing sth and creating data to use in my second function.
}
and my second function is:
-(void)secondFunct
{
// using data coming from first function
}
i am now using these 2 functions in like that
-(void)ThirdFunct
{
[self firstFunct];
[self performSelector:#selector(secondFunct) withObject:nil afterDelay:0.5];
}
but there is a problem that this method is not good to use. i want to learn if there is an efficient way to run the functions one after the other.

You can simply call one function after the other:
- (void) thirdFunct
{
[self firstFunct];
[self secondFunct];
}
If you want to run this whole block in the background, not blocking the UI thread, use Grand Central Dispatch:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_NORMAL, 0), ^{
[self firstFunct];
[self secondFunct];
});
And if the first function contains some asynchronous call, that call should offer some kind of interface to run code after the call finishes, like a delegate call or a completion block.

Well, yes, zoul's spot on for the normal case.
However, you mentioned a server was involved. In that case, you probably have an asynchronous request. What you want to do is read the documentation of the class you use to make the network request, and learn what callbacks it uses to notify you when it is complete.

Cocoa offers nice concurrency management classes like NSOperation and NSOperationQueue. You could use them to simplify the logic behind chaining your asynchronous calls without creating explicit connections in code to call method 3 after work 2 completes, and method 2 after work 1 completes, and so on. Using dependency management, you could easily specify those dependencies between your operations.
Here's a simple example of how you would use that code. Suppose you are downloading some data asynchronously in all those three methods, and you've created a NSOperation subclass called DownloadOperation.
First, create a NSOperationQueue.
NSOperationQueue *queue = [[NSOperationQueue alloc] init];
Then, create the three download operations.
DownloadOperation *a = [[DownloadOperation alloc] init];
DownloadOperation *b = [[DownloadOperation alloc] init];
DownloadOperation *c = [[DownloadOperation alloc] init];
Then, specify the dependencies between your operations. Dependencies simply say that an operation can run only if all the operations it depends upon are complete. In your example, the dependencies look like c <- b <- a, which can be broken down into two steps:
[b addDependency:a];
[c addDependency:b];
Now add these operations to the queue.
[queue addOperations:#[ a, b, c ] waitUntilFinished:NO];
The queue will automatically start processing all operations at this point, but since we've creating this chaining sort of a dependency, they will be executed one after the other in our particular example.
I've created a sample project on github demonstrating it with a simple example at https://github.com/AnuragMishra/ChainedOperationQueue. It fakes an asynchronous operation by creating a timer, and when the timer finishes, the operation is marked complete. It's written using Xcode 4.5, so let me know if you have issues compiling it in older versions.

if you write your methode like this
-
(void)ThirdFunct
{
[self firstFunct];
[self secondFunct];
}
secondFunct is called after firstFunct. Your problem comes certainly from the network request which is asynchronous. To be sure that your secondFunct is executed after an asynchronous request you have to execute it from delegate or block.
Checkout NSURLConnectionDelegate if you NSURLConnection

Related

Thread Handling with NSURLSessionDataTask

In a nutshell, I am trying to display data from a publicly available JSON file on the WEB. The process is the following:
I initiate the download with an NSURLSessionDataTask, then I parse and display the JSON or handle errors if they occur. Here is my relevant code:
- (void) initiateDownload {
NSURLSessionConfiguration *sessionConfig = [NSURLSessionConfiguration defaultSessionConfiguration];
sessionConfig.timeoutIntervalForRequest = 5.0f;
sessionConfig.timeoutIntervalForResource = 20.0f;
NSURLSessionDataTask *downloadWeatherTask = [urlSession dataTaskWithRequest:urlRequest
completionHandler:^(NSData *data, NSURLResponse *response, NSError *downloadError) {
if (downloadError) {
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
[self errorReceived:downloadError];
});
} else if (data) {
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
[self parseWeatherJSON:data];
});
}
}];
[downloadWeatherTask resume];
}
I have a couple of questions about this:
I am not all that familiar with thread handling. Although I added the
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ...)
to both completion blocks, and it seems to work, I am not sure this is the best way to be thread safe (before, I received all kinds of error messages and displaying the data took 10 seconds after the download has already finished). Is there a better way to handle the download and the threads or mine is an acceptable solution?
I would like the user to be able to initiate the download process manually any time he/she wants to refresh the data displayed. At first, I initialized the NSURLSessionDataTask once and made it available anywhere within the class; so I could just call resume every time a refresh is called. However, I could not find a command to re-do the download process. Once I called [downloadWeatherTask resume], I was unable to start the task from the beginning.
So, I added the task to a separate function (the one you see above) and initialize it there every time the function is called. This works fine, but I am not sure it is the best way to go. For example, is it memory safe or am I creating a new task every time the user initiates a refresh call and will eventually run out of memory?
Thank you for the answers!
A little more info: I use the latest XCode 11 and target iOS 9 and up.
NSURLSession will, by default, use a dedicated background serial queue for completion blocks (and delegate methods, should you do that). But you really want to make sure you trigger UI updates from the main queue (retrieved via dispatch_get_main_queue()). And you generally want to avoid updating properties and ivars from multiple threads (unless, they have some thread-safety built in to them, which is unusual), so dispatching the updates to those properties/ivars back to the main queue is a nice simple way to achieve thread safety.
So, bottom line, what you’re doing here is fine.
However, I could not find a command to re-do the download process.
You perform (resume) a given task only once. If you want to perform a similar request again, instantiate a new NSURLSessionDataTask.

how to wait perform tasks in objective-c

I have a question how to wait perform several tasks that are in some method even that method is called few times in different threads;
For example:
When I call method:
1:
2:
I want to see the following:
1:
STEP 1, STEP 2;
2:
STEP 1, STEP 2;
but often I see the following:
1:
2:
STEP 1, STEP 1,
STEP 2, STEP 2,
See code below, maybe it helps to understand the problem better;
//many times per second
- (void)update:(UpdateObjectClass *)updateObject {
//step 1:
//update common data(for example array)
//long process(about 1-2 seconds)
[self updateData:updateObject];
//step 2:
//update table
[self updateTableView];
}
I have tried to use dispatch_barrier_async, but I don't understand how to use this in proper way;
Thank you for any help ;)
I'm borrowing from #remus's answer.
Assuming that -[update:] is being called on the same instance of an object (and not a whole bunch of objects), you can use #synchronized to enforce that your code is only performed one-at-a-time.
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue( DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^(void){
#synchronized(self) {
// Run your updates
// [self updateData:updateObject];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^(void){
// Async thread callback:
[self updateTableView];
});
}
});
However
I am going to go out on a limb, and guess that the reason you need this code to be performed synchronously is because your -[updateData:] method is doing something that is not thread safe, such as modifying a NSMutableDictionary or NSMutableArray. If this is the case, you should really use that #synchronized trick on the mutable thing itself.
I highly recommend that you post the code to -[updateData:] if it is not too long.
You are trying to solve the problem at the wrong level and with the information in the question it is unlikely that any solution can be provided.
Given the output reported we know that updateData and updateTableView are asynchronous and use one or more tasks. We don't know anything about what queue(s) they use, how many tasks they spawn, whether they have an outer task which does not complete until sub tasks have, etc., etc.
If you look at the standard APIs you will see async methods often take a completion block. Internally such methods may use multiple tasks on multiple queues, but they are written such that all such tasks are completed before they call the completion block. Can you redesign updateData so it takes a completion block (which you will then use to invoke updateTableView)?
The completion block model doesn't by itself address all the ways you might need to schedule a task based on the completion of other task(s), there are other mechanisms including: serial queues, dispatch groups and dispatch barriers.
Serial queues enable a task to be scheduled after the completion of all other tasks previously added to the queue. Dispatch groups enable multiple tasks scheduled on multiple queues to be tagged as belonging to a group, and a task scheduled to run after all tasks in a group have completed. Dispatch barriers enable a task to be scheduled after all previous tasks scheduled on a concurrent queue.
You need to study these methods and then embed the appropriate ones for your needs into your design of updateData, updateTableView and ultimately update itself. You can use a bottom up approach, essentially the opposite of what your question is attempting. Start at the lowest level and ask whether one or more tasks should be a group, have a barrier, be sequential, and might need a completion block. Then move " upward".
Probably not the answer you were hoping for! HTH
Consider using dispatch_async to run the array updates and then update your tableView. You can do this inside of a single method:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue( DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^(void){
// Run your updates
// [self updateData:updateObject];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^(void){
// Async thread callback:
[self updateTableView];
});
});
Edit
I'd consider modifying your updateData method to run inside the async queue; when it is done, call [self updateTableView]; directly from that method. If it's not too long, can you add the [self updateData:updateObject] code (or a portion of) to your question?

executing NSOperations in another NSOperation

I have an app that needs to synchronize multiple entity types with a backend using an API.
To do that I created a subclass of NSOperation for each HTTP method (GET/POST/PUT/DELETE => 4 operations). For a given entity these operations have to be run in a specific order, so I created a 5th operation subclass which contains the synchronization sequence (basically an operation that creates multiple GET/POST/PUT/DELETE operations in the appropriate order and adds these operations to a queue created by the operation.).
Since i want to be able to synchronize multiple kind of entities (for example 'Users' / 'Events' / 'Tasks') at the same time depending on the connection of the user and with dependencies between some types of entities (for example i need to finish the 'Users' synchronization before i can start concurrently the 'Events' and 'Tasks' synchronizations) I use a NSOperationQueue that contains only NSOperations of type synchronization.
So just to sum up, if I made 1 change of each type (1 create, 1 update, ...) on each type of object, and that i want to synchronize everything. I'll have 1 NSOperationQueue that will contain 3 NSOperations (1 for each type of object), and each NSOperation will have its own NSOperationQueue that should run 4 NSOperation (1 for each change type).
Now comes the problems :
1st/ The "sub-operations" are using async NSURLConnection, and I don't know how should the NSURLConnection be configured ?
Should i use something like this :
connection = [[NSURLConnection alloc] initWithRequest: theRequest delegate: self startImmediately: NO];
NSRunLoop * currentRunLoop = [NSRunLoop currentRunLoop];
[currentRunLoop addPort: [NSPort port] forMode: NSDefaultRunLoopMode];
[connection scheduleInRunLoop: currentRunLoop forMode: NSDefaultRunLoopMode];
[connection start];
[currentRunLoop run];
Or should i use that :
while (!finished)
{
[[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] runMode:NSDefaultRunLoopMode beforeDate:[NSDate distantFuture]];
}
2nd/ At the moment i am overriding start for the operations because i want to be able to start them without using an NSOperationQueue when I have only 1 operation. Is it correct ? If yes, are there examples somewhere of start method implementations ?
3nd/ About the runloops and threads, each operation will always get a different runloop and thread ? And this thread / runloop management must be handled in the start method if i override it ?
4th/ is it a problem to use queue like I do (i think it's justified in my case) ?
1) I tend to use the synchronous request when running in the background. I find it's cleaner and you're in the background already anyways.
2) Subclassing NSOperation in my opinion is not flexible and creates sort of sloppy code. Instead I would suggest keeping some sort of services class that has an NSOperationQueue and from there use the [NSOperationQueue addOperationWithBlock:]. You can even take it a step further if you want and create an NSBlockOperation. The main thing you gain from this API is the ability to have a completion block. But i find that keeping the services layer and the operations (in this case in the form of blocks) easier to manage and understand. You can even create functions that return blocks so the blocks can be reused how ever you need. This may help you to have better code reuse than subclassing NSOperation
Example:
-(void)foo
{
__weak ClassName wself = self;
void(^opBlock)() = ^{ [wself doStuff]; };
[_queue addOperationWithBlock:opBlock]
}
3) Yes your queue will have its own run loop.
4) Maybe refer to the others

NSOperationQueue callback before an operation is started?

Is there a way I can find out if/when an operation is about to start/execute on an NSOperationQueue?
I am using NSURLConnection's setDelegateQueue: and I need to know when it fires.
In your NSOperation subclass add a copy property for a willStartBlock. At the beginning of main - before any other actions - call this block if it is set.
This way you can set up the actions to perform when the operation starts at the same time when you create the operation and before you put it into the operation queue.
The problem in your specific question is that you don't create the operations that are created on your queue. You can try to subclass NSOperationQueue and override the three public addOperation* methods. If you're lucky then one of these is the one that the NSURLConnection uses to append the callback operation to your queue.
May i know what exactly you want to do.
I am not sure what you want to achieve as it is not clear from your question but you can do something like that:
currentConnection = [[NSURLConnection alloc] initWithRequest:request delegate:self startImmediately:NO];
if (self.operationQueue) {
[currentConnection setDelegateQueue:self.operationQueue];
}
[currentConnection start];
NSURLConnection gets invoked once start method gets called.
You can also subclass NSOperation and override start method.

dispatch_sync vs. dispatch_async on main queue

Bear with me, this is going to take some explaining. I have a function that looks like the one below.
Context: "aProject" is a Core Data entity named LPProject with an array named 'memberFiles' that contains instances of another Core Data entity called LPFile. Each LPFile represents a file on disk and what we want to do is open each of those files and parse its text, looking for #import statements that point to OTHER files. If we find #import statements, we want to locate the file they point to and then 'link' that file to this one by adding a relationship to the core data entity that represents the first file. Since all of that can take some time on large files, we'll do it off the main thread using GCD.
- (void) establishImportLinksForFilesInProject:(LPProject *)aProject {
dispatch_queue_t taskQ = dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0);
for (LPFile *fileToCheck in aProject.memberFiles) {
if (//Some condition is met) {
dispatch_async(taskQ, ^{
// Here, we do the scanning for #import statements.
// When we find a valid one, we put the whole path to the imported file into an array called 'verifiedImports'.
// go back to the main thread and update the model (Core Data is not thread-safe.)
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
NSLog(#"Got to main thread.");
for (NSString *import in verifiedImports) {
// Add the relationship to Core Data LPFile entity.
}
});//end block
});//end block
}
}
}
Now, here's where things get weird:
This code works, but I'm seeing an odd problem. If I run it on an LPProject that has a few files (about 20), it runs perfectly. However, if I run it on an LPProject that has more files (say, 60-70), it does NOT run correctly. We never get back to the main thread, the NSLog(#"got to main thread"); never appears and the app hangs. BUT, (and this is where things get REALLY weird) --- if I run the code on the small project FIRST and THEN run it on the large project, everything works perfectly. It's ONLY when I run the code on the large project first that the trouble shows up.
And here's the kicker, if I change the second dispatch line to this:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
(That is, use async instead of sync to dispatch the block to the main queue), everything works all the time. Perfectly. Regardless of the number of files in a project!
I'm at a loss to explain this behavior. Any help or tips on what to test next would be appreciated.
This is a common issue related to disk I/O and GCD. Basically, GCD is probably spawning one thread for each file, and at a certain point you've got too many threads for the system to service in a reasonable amount of time.
Every time you call dispatch_async() and in that block you attempt to to any I/O (for example, it looks like you're reading some files here), it's likely that the thread in which that block of code is executing will block (get paused by the OS) while it waits for the data to be read from the filesystem. The way GCD works is such that when it sees that one of its worker threads is blocked on I/O and you're still asking it to do more work concurrently, it'll just spawn a new worker thread. Thus if you try to open 50 files on a concurrent queue, it's likely that you'll end up causing GCD to spawn ~50 threads.
This is too many threads for the system to meaningfully service, and you end up starving your main thread for CPU.
The way to fix this is to use a serial queue instead of a concurrent queue to do your file-based operations. It's easy to do. You'll want to create a serial queue and store it as an ivar in your object so you don't end up creating multiple serial queues. So remove this call:
dispatch_queue_t taskQ = dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0);
Add this in your init method:
taskQ = dispatch_queue_create("com.yourcompany.yourMeaningfulLabel", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL);
Add this in your dealloc method:
dispatch_release(taskQ);
And add this as an ivar in your class declaration:
dispatch_queue_t taskQ;
I believe Ryan is on the right path: there are simply too many threads being spawned when a project has 1,500 files (the amount I decided to test with.)
So, I refactored the code above to work like this:
- (void) establishImportLinksForFilesInProject:(LPProject *)aProject
{
dispatch_queue_t taskQ = dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0);
dispatch_async(taskQ,
^{
// Create a new Core Data Context on this thread using the same persistent data store
// as the main thread. Pass the objectID of aProject to access the managedObject
// for that project on this thread's context:
NSManagedObjectID *projectID = [aProject objectID];
for (LPFile *fileToCheck in [backgroundContext objectWithID:projectID] memberFiles])
{
if (//Some condition is met)
{
// Here, we do the scanning for #import statements.
// When we find a valid one, we put the whole path to the
// imported file into an array called 'verifiedImports'.
// Pass this ID to main thread in dispatch call below to access the same
// file in the main thread's context
NSManagedObjectID *fileID = [fileToCheck objectID];
// go back to the main thread and update the model
// (Core Data is not thread-safe.)
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(),
^{
for (NSString *import in verifiedImports)
{
LPFile *targetFile = [mainContext objectWithID:fileID];
// Add the relationship to targetFile.
}
});//end block
}
}
// Easy way to tell when we're done processing all files.
// Could add a dispatch_async(main_queue) call here to do something like UI updates, etc
});//end block
}
So, basically, we're now spawning one thread that reads all the files instead of one-thread-per-file. Also, it turns out that calling dispatch_async() on the main_queue is the correct approach: the worker thread will dispatch that block to the main thread and NOT wait for it to return before proceeding to scan the next file.
This implementation essentially sets up a "serial" queue as Ryan suggested (the for loop is the serial part of it), but with one advantage: when the for loop ends, we're done processing all the files and we can just stick a dispatch_async(main_queue) block there to do whatever we want. It's a very nice way to tell when the concurrent processing task is finished and that didn't exist in my old version.
The disadvantage here is that it's a bit more complicated to work with Core Data on multiple threads. But this approach seems to be bulletproof for projects with 5,000 files (which is the highest I've tested.)
I think it is more easy to understand with diagram:
For the situation the author described:
|taskQ| ***********start|
|dispatch_1 ***********|---------
|dispatch_2 *************|---------
.
|dispatch_n ***************************|----------
|main queue(sync)|**start to dispatch to main|
*************************|--dispatch_1--|--dispatch_2--|--dispatch3--|*****************************|--dispatch_n|,
which make the sync main queue so busy that finally fail the task.