I understand that this may not necessarily apply to just #properties, but they would be the most common use case. If there is, for example:
#property (strong) NSObject *object;
...
#synthesize object = _object;
It is possible to initialise it in the init method of the class it is declared in like so:
- (id)init {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
_object = [[NSObject alloc] init];
}
}
or override the getter and initialise it upon first use:
- (NSObject *)object {
if (!_object) {
_object = [[NSObject alloc] init];
}
return _object;
}
Which of these is it better to use? Does this depend on the use scenario (e.g. does the object the property is declared in have multiple initialisers, or the type of the property, how it's used, etc.)?
The real advantage I see in overriding the getter is that the property will only be allocated when it is needed, but a disadvantage would be that the first access would be slower.
On a side note, when accessing properties in the init method, is it better to access them as self.object or _object?
Contrary to the accepted answer, Advanced Memory Management Programming Guide says you should use instance variables in the initializers and in the dealloc method. See 'Don’t Use Accessor Methods in Initializer Methods and dealloc'.
personally i find initializing in the init method is better, the life expectancy of the object is then more clear and also consider if the init fails for the object, isn't it better to get that at the init than when you do a get?
i also prefer to use self.object for properties because it uses the getter and setter of the object and the "self." makes it clear and to avoid situations where a retain is needed or not. sure in some cases like in your example it may cause a couple more lines of code but i rely on the compiler to optimize the code.
e.g.
yourobjclass* tmp = [[yourobjclass alloc] init];
self.object = tmp;
[tmp release];
Related
I tend to regularly use self.property in my Objective C code when accessing variables as I understand that this makes use of the getter/setter methods (either explicitly coded or automatically generated).
Another coder told me recently that it's best to use _property instead, throughout the code. But my understanding is that _property is really only for use in init and dealloc methods.
Today I found a bug in some code that uses initWithCoder. I was using _property in the initWithCoder method and had to change it to self.property. This was when setting an NSData object. Here is the original code:
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSData *data;
- (id)initWithCoder:(NSCoder *)decoder {
self = [super init];
if (!self) {
return nil;
}
_data = [decoder decodeObjectForKey:#"data"];
return self;
}
And I had to change it to this, to get it to work:
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSData *data;
- (id)initWithCoder:(NSCoder *)decoder {
self = [super init];
if (!self) {
return nil;
}
self.data = [decoder decodeObjectForKey:#"data"];
return self;
}
My question is - why is initWithCoder the exception here? If it's generally accepted that it's best to use _property in an init method, then why is initWithCoder different?
It seems now like the general rule is:
Use self.property except in init/dealloc methods, where _property should be used (except in initWithCoder, where self.property should be used).
Is this correct?
I do not think it is generally true that you must use properties in initWithCoder:. I have a lot of code (and have seen a lot) where ivar access is used in initWithCoder:, if that may help as a hint.
If you were not using ARC, then your implementation setting _data would have a problem in that the object would be soon autorelased. But under ARC your code is correct.
So, I tend to think that something different was causing the issue in your case. As an example, if you use KVO, then you should use properties, otherwise the KVO-related notifications are not generated. You should provide more information as to what exactly led you to think that the assignment to _data was the cause of the issue, and about the visible effect of that issue in other parts of your code.
I always see people debating whether or not to use a property's setter in the -init method. My problem is how to create a default value in a subclass for an inherited property. Say we have a class called NSLawyer -- a framework class, that I can't change -- with an interface that looks like this:
#interface NSLawyer : NSObject {
#private
NSUInteger _numberOfClients;
}
#property (nonatomic, assign) NSUInteger numberOfClients;
#end
And an implementation that looks like this:
#implementation NSLawyer
- (instancetype)init
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
_numberOfClients = 0;
}
return self;
}
#end
Now let's say I want to extend NSLawyer. My subclass will be called SeniorPartner. And since a senior partner should have lots of clients, when SeniorPartner gets initialized, I don't want the instance to start with 0; I want it to have 10. Here's SeniorPartner.m:
#implementation SeniorPartner
- (instancetype)init
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
// Attempting to set the ivar directly will result in the compiler saying,
// "Instance variable _numberOfClients is private."
// _numberOfClients = 10; <- Can't do this.
// Thus, the only way to set it is with the mutator:
self.numberOfClients = 10;
// Or: [self setNumberOfClients:10];
}
return self;
}
#end
So what's a Objective-C newcomer to do? Well, I mean, there's only one thing I can do, and that's set the property. Unless there's something I'm missing. Any ideas, suggestions, tips, or tricks?
You should do exactly has you have; call the accessor. The declaring class typically avoids calling its own accessors in init to avoid accidentally calling an overridden accessor in a subclass that might rely on the consistency of data you haven't initialized yet. Your superclass on the other hand should be completely consistent by the time the subclass's init is run, so there is no problem using superclass accessors at that time.
Consider the common and general case: you want to set your transform in a UIView subclass. How would you solve that other than call setTransform:? Subclassing non-Apple code is no different.
Make it #protected. It is very rare to make an ivar or property private these days. Private ivars and/or properties are better declared in the implementation. For that matter #protected ivars/properties are rarely seen in Objective-C but perfectly fine.
Using a setter either as a method or with dot notation is just wrong (yes it works but is really bad form), if you want use setters/getters declare a property.
If I have an NSObject subclass which either has no -init method or simply does nothing in -init, is there any difference between an instance created these two ways:
MyClass *instance = [MyClass alloc];
MyClass *instance = [[MyClass alloc] init];
By "does nothing in -init" I mean
- (id)init {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
}
return self;
}
Since NSObject's -init method itself does nothing, I can't see there being any difference, but of course the advice is that you must call -init to properly prepare an object.
Here's the snippet from NSObject's -init method which got me wondering about this:
The init method defined in the NSObject class does no initialization; it simply returns self.
If I have an NSObject subclass which either has no -init method or
simply does nothing in -init, is there any difference between an
instance created these two ways:
MyClass *instance = [MyClass alloc];
MyClass *instance = [[MyClass alloc] init];
Technically, there is no difference.
But that doesn't mean you should use a bare +alloc to ever create an instance for a variety of reasons.
First, it is the principal of the thing. Objective-C coding standards say +alloc should always be followed by -init.
Secondly, it is all about consistency and code maintenance. What happens when you refactor MyClass to be a subclass of some class where the designated initializer is actually critical? A nasty, hard to figure out, bug is what happens.
Of relevance, note that the use of +new has been all but deprecated for a similar reason. It makes refactoring tedious (dammit! gotta break apart THIS call site, too!) and the convenience factor is exceedingly minimal.
No, it's not and you're not doing nothing, you're calling [super init] and that does a lot to initialize your superclasses up until NSObject.
You can do it in theory.
When you want to create an instance, you can do it simply using the alloc method, so this code is perfectly accepted:
NSObject *someObject = [NSObject alloc];
What creates the instance is the alloc method, so you have created an instance of NSObject.
But if you want to use it you have to initialize it, since the NSObject init method is used by a class to make sure its properties have suitable initial values at creation (Apple documentation).
The most important thing done by the init method is to create the self variable, so if you want to use the instance created with the alloc method, you have to init it.
- (id)init {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
// initialize instance variables here
}
return self;
}
Without the initialization method you have only an unusable instance.
alloc allocates a place in memory for the instance of the object to be stored. If you’re using a local variable it is allocated on the stack, while objects (ivars etc) are allocated on the heap.
init initialises the instance of the object and points it to the allocated memory space - this is why you must always call init after alloc.
e.g.
MyClass *instance = [[MyClass alloc] init];
In your instance your init implementation is empty so it can be removed and you can let the superclass handle it. You would override init to set some state on the object itself.
You might want to take some time to read the Apple Documentation on this if you want to brush up.
Calling MyClass *instance = [MyClass alloc]; - will leave you with an invalid object. You need to allocate and initialize every object you create.
If you do it this way, all objects until MYClass will be initialised. MyClass won't though.
I saw a singleton example on objective-c book. However, I don't know if there is difference of meaning of 'singleton' definition between objective-c and other langs. Can this [[SingletonClass alloc] init] still be used to create a new object? If yes, how to guarantee there is only one object in the memory?
#import "SingletonClass.h"
#implementation SingletonClass
static SingletonClass *sharedInstance = nil;
// Get the shared instance and create it if necessary.
+ (SingletonClass*)sharedInstance {
if (sharedInstance == nil) {
sharedInstance = [[super allocWithZone:NULL] init];
}
return sharedInstance;
}
// We can still have a regular init method, that will get called the first time the Singleton is used.
- (id)init
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
// Work your initialising magic here as you normally would
}
return self;
}
If you want a true singleton, i.e. an object that can be instantiated only once, take a look at Apple's documentation: Creating a Singleton Instance.
Basically, the idea is to override a number of methods related to allocating and managing objects: +allocWithZone (which is called by +alloc), -retain, -release, -copyWithZone, etc., so that it becomes quite difficult to create more than one instance of your singleton class. (It's still possible to create a second instance by calling the runtime directly, but this should be enough to get the point across.)
Pretty much every blogger who has ever written about Objective-C in any capacity has offered an opinion on how to implement singletons. Many of those opinions seem pretty good, and most of them are fairly similar. It's clear that Dave DeLong knows what he's talking about, and his piece on singletons is short, sweet, and gets straight to the point.
I don't know if there is difference of meaning of 'singleton' definition between objective-c and other langs.
It follows the common definition of languages derived from C.
Can this [[SingletonClass alloc] init] still be used to create a new object?
Yes
If yes, how to guarantee there is only one object in the memory?
Avoid enforcing the pattern (e.g. do not force it to be a singleton). Just make a normal object. Then if you really want only one instance, create an instance and save it someplace for reuse (your app delegate is one typical place for this, because it is typically created once per execution).
In practice, most (>95%) ObjC singleton implementations i've seen in the wild are used for the wrong reasons, and would have been better or as good as normal objects.
Every solution linked in the answers so far has (at minimum) subtle problems, dangers, or undesirable side-effects.
There is no language support for singletons, but you can do it by hand. Look at the singleton example here. It doesn't look like it is thread-safe, though. I would allocate the object in +initialize instead of +sharedManager.
You can create a singleton in Objective-C by doing the following:
+(MyAPI *)shared {
static dispatch_once_t queue;
static MyAPI *singleton = nil;
dispatch_once(&queue, ^{
singleton = [[MyAPI alloc] init];
});
return singleton;
}
This will also ensure that it is thread safe. Without using the dispatch_once you run the risk of multiple threads trying to access it at the same time when one is in the middle of allocating it, and the other is trying to use it.
Singleton class is used to save the data for use anywhere in app.
//SingletonObject
#define saveDataSingletonObject ((SaveDataSingleton*)[SaveDataSingleton sharedManager])
#interface SaveDataSingleton : NSObject
#property (nonatomic,strong) NSMutableArray *DataArr;
+ (id)sharedManager;
-(void)clearAllSaveData;
#end
#implementation SaveDataSingleton
#synthesize DataArr;
+ (id)sharedManager {
static SaveDataSingleton *sharedManager;
if(!sharedManager) {
#synchronized(sharedManager) {
sharedManager = [SaveDataSingleton new];
}
}
return sharedManager;
}
-(void)clearAllSaveData{
DataArr=nil;
}
- (id)init {
if (self = [super init]) {
DataArr = [[NSMutableArray alloc]init];
}
return self;
}
// using setter getter save and retrieve data
+(void)setDataArr:(NSMutableArray *)Dataarr
{
self.DataArr = [[NSMutableArray alloc]initWithArray:Dataarr];
}
+(NSMutableArray *)DataArr
{
return self.DataArr;
}
#end
Save and Retrieve data // Use singleton Object
// save data using setter function.
[saveDataSingletonObject setDataArr:Array];
//fetch data using getter function.
NSArray *arr=[saveDataSingletonObject DataArr];
Is it safe to reinitialise self within a class method?
MyClass * a = [[MyClass alloc]init];
#implementation MyClass
{
-(id)init
{
if(self = [super init])
{
...
}
return self;
}
-(void)redefine
{
//??
self = [self init];
}
}
will a point to the reinitialized instance of MyClass?
Thank You,
nonono
Provided that (a) your class and its superclasses can be re-init'ed without leaking memory or resources and (b) you know that your class and its superclasses inits all return the self they are passed and not a reference to some other object, then yes...
Otherwise things will go wrong. Consider your redefine method; in the body of this method self is just a local variable whose contents is initialized to point to some object. Changing the value in that local variable does not change the object it originally pointed at, or the value of any other variables which point to that object. E.g. consider the variation:
#implementation Q
{
- (void) redefine
{
self = [[Q alloc] init]; // changes the *local* self to refer to a new object
}
...
}
...
Q *someQ = [[Q alloc] init]; // allocate an object
[someQ redefine]; // NO effect on someQ, another Q is just created and leaked
Clearly this does not alter someQ, and your version may not either. Your code will have the effect you wish if and only if you know init always returns the object it was passed - which is not guaranteed in Obj-C.
As long as init returns self, which it normally does, nothing will go wrong.
But you probably want to split your initialization to some separate method, which you can call from both init and redefine.
You need to return your new object from -init, not simply assign a new value to self. And you must remember to release the old self, since it was created with +alloc. Caveats aside though, returning a different object from -init is explicitly allowed. That's why you'll see newbies being corrected when they write something like this:
// Bad example! Do NOT do this!
Foo *foo = [Foo alloc];
[foo init];
This is an anti-pattern because -init is not required to return the same object it was called on. That means the above can end up assigning foo to point to an object that's been released, instead of to the object that was initialized in its place. This is why you always see +alloc and `init chained together like so:
Foo *foo = [[Foo alloc] init];
It's also why you need to reassign self when calling super's -init, because it may also have returned a different object.
self = [super init];