I'm writing an application where a user can add and remove objects from several lists. In order to save their lists even when the application crashes, I want to write them to the disk every time they change. My current plan is to create a class that observes the lists and thus is notified each time one changes, in order to archive them (the lists and all objects in them follow the NSCoding protocol).
It should be noted that I know in advance how many lists there will be, and that these lists are not expected to grow to more than 100 items in length (most will be 10-20).
Is this the best way to achieve what I want to achieve? Should this even be a problem I am worried about, or is it acceptable to only create mementos of these lists when the application exits? I was also considering subclassing NSMutableArray to make a class that saves itself whenever it changes, so that no one class must be aware of all lists that should be saved.
First, good instinct here to worry about the user's data. Yes, of course you should fix your crashes. But even so, you should be protective of the user's data first and foremost. Secondly you should be worried about the user's battery life. So you shouldn't hit their flash drive too often.
If the number of changes aren't large, then I'd recommend creating "list" objects that has-a NSMutableArray (rather than is-a NSMutableArray). You can just write yourself to disk anytime someone calls addItem: in order to always be in sync. If changes happen very quickly, it's pretty easy to build trampolines that will save "every second if there has been a change, but no more often than once a second." (If this is any problem, add a comment and I'll post some code or blog it; it's not difficult.)
Related
I have a routine which accepts an object and does some processing on it. The objects may or may-not be mutable.
void CommandProcessor(ICommand command) {
// do a lot of things
}
There is a probability that the same command instance loops back in the processor. Things turn nasty when that happens. I want to detect these return visitors and prevent them from being processed. question is how can I do that transparently i.e. without disturbing the object themselves.
here is what i tried
Added a property Boolean Visited {get, set} on the ICommand.
I dont like this because the logic of one module shows up in other. The ShutdownCommand is concerned with shutting down, not with the bookkeeping. Also an EatIceCreamCommand may always return False in a hope to get more. Some non-mutable objects have outright problems with a setter.
privately maintain a lookup table of all processed instances. when an object comes first check against the list.
I dont like this either. (1) performance. the lookup table grows large. we need to do liner search to match instances. (2) cant rely on hashcode. the object may forge a different hashcode from time to time. (3) keeping the objects in a list prevents them from being garbage collected.
I need a way to put some invisible marker on the instance (of ICommand) which only my code can see. currently i dont discriminate between the invocations. just pray the same instances dont come back. does anyone have a better idea to implement this functionality..?
Assuming you can't stop this from happening just logically (try to cut out the loop) I would go for a HashSet of commands that you've already seen.
Even if the objects are violating the contracts of HashCode and Equals (which I would view as a problem to start with) you can create your own IEqualityComparer<ICommand> which uses System.Runtime.CompilerServices.RuntimeHelpers.GetHashCode to call Object.GetHashCode non-virtually. The Equals method would just test for reference identity. So your pool would contain distinct instances without caring whether or how the commands override Equals and GetHashCode.
That just leaves the problem of accumulating garbage. Assuming you don't have the option of purging the pool periodically, you could use WeakReference<T> (or the non-generic WeakReference class for .NET 4) to avoid retaining objects. You would then find all "dead" weak references every so often to prevent even accumulating those. (Your comparer would actually be an IEqualityComparer<WeakReference<T>> in this case, comparing the targets of the weak references for identity.)
It's not particularly elegant, but I'd argue that's inherent in the design - you need processing a command to change state somewhere, and an immutable object can't change state by definition, so you need the state outside the command. A hash set seems a fairly reasonable approach for that, and hopefully I've made it clear how you can avoid all three of the problems you mentioned.
EDIT: One thing I hadn't considered is that using WeakReference<T> makes it hard to remove entries - when the original value is garbage collected, you're not going to be able to find its hash code any more. You may well need to just create a new HashSet with the still-alive entries. Or use your own LRU cache, as mentioned in comments.
This is similar to a question I asked before, but now that I've come much further along I still have a question about "proper" subclassing of NSManagedObject as I was told last night that it's a "bad idea" to put lots of non-persisted properties and ivars inside one. Currently I have TONS of code inside my NSManagedObject, and Apple's docs don't really address the "rightness" of that. FYI: the code works, but I'm asking if there are pitfalls ahead, or if there are obvious improvements to doing it another way.
My "object" is a continuously growing array of incoming data, the properties/ivars that track the progress of the analysis of that data, and the processed data (output). All of this is stored in memory because it grows huge, very quickly, and would not be possible to re-generate/re-analyze continuously. The NSManagedObject properties that are actually persisted are just the raw data (regularly saved, as Core Data doesn't support NSMutableData), a few basic properties and 2 relationships to other NSManagedObjects (1 being a user, the other being a set of snapshots of the data). Only one object is being recorded to at any one time, although dozens can be opened for viewing (which may involve further processing at any time).
It's not possible to have the object that inserts the entity (data manager that manages Core Data) have all of the processing logic/variables inside it, as each object necessitates at least a handful of arrays/properties that are used as intermediaries and tracking values for the analysis. And I, personally, think that it sounds silly to create two objects for each object that is being used (the NSManagedObject that is the store, and another object that is the processing/temp store).
Basically, all of the examples I can find using NSManagedObjects have super simple objects that are things like coordinates, address book entries, pictures: stuff that is basically static. In that case I can see having all of the logic that creates/modifies them outside the object. However, my case is not that simple and I have yet to come up with an alternative that doesn't involve duplication.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
You might use a 'wrapper', that is to say a class with a reference to one of your managed object instances, this wrapper would contain your algorithms and your non persisted algorithms.
I'm working on an iOS game and I'm using the NSCoding protocol to save my levels in my editor and to load them in game. I was wondering if it was possible to somehow reuse an NSKeyedUnarchiver after it's been used to load the level. For instance when the player wan't to restart the level. I can't simply create and load a new instance of the level, because I want to keep the same objects, just reset their properties.
You can re-use the data, which is passed down to decoder. You cannot "reset" the existing objects to initial state, though.
While you can do this on your own, I'd suggest to just invalidate the whole tree of objects and re-load them from possibly cached data.
That surely depends on the number of objects, but if you have enough of them for the process to be visibly slow, I believe you have lots of other more important optimisations to do.
I am building sync functionality between an iPad and a web server. I'm using an approach pretty close to the one described here. I only have one type of object, let's called it a Story, that has to be synchronized. It is a Core Data entity (managed object).
The remaining problem I have to solve is knowing "whenever something changes and needs to be synchronized to the server." One approach would be to go find every piece of code that modifies a Story and have it also set some needsSyncing flag. That does not seem elegant and it seems that over time, developers could forget to update the flag for new types of modification.
Do Core Data objects have a way to observe themselves, so any time any change is made, a particular method is executed? That would make this pretty easy.
Another option might be using the isUpdated method right before doing a save operation on the managed object context. You'd either have to have save called in only one place or do this at every place you save (sounds like the first option). I guess I could make a helper method that goes through all Story objects right before saving and see if any of them need their flag to be set. The only drawback to that is that I'd be traversing all Story objects in the system for any save, even for saves that have nothing to do with a Story.
Anyway I'll stop trying to guess the solution out loud - does anyone have experience with a good way to do this?
SDK has you covered. See the NSManagedObjectContext class reference, at the very end of the page, the MOC will post notifications that you can subscribe to, including NSManagedObjectContextObjectsDidChangeNotification. You can listen for these and do the update call pretty much coincident with saving the MOC.
Why should someone ever use the non-NSMutable equivalents of the data structures in Objective-C? When it's a situation when you need a const object that should not be modified? Does using non-NSMutable classes improve performance in any way? Any other situations?
The two main reasons off the top of my head:
An object returning a property can be certain nobody will alter it if it's immutable. The object can therefore return the original instead of making copies all the time. So it's a memory and performance benefit.
When writing your own immutable objects, it's very easy to be thread safe. That naturally flows into being able to write multi-threaded functional-style code which is reasonably efficient and error free.
You also tend to see arguments in favour of the inherent preservation of the original value being useful, especially in terms of semantics and design patterns.
Immutable classes don't tend to be much more efficient in and of themselves with one exception — if you take an immutable copy of a mutable array, for example, then it's clear exactly how much storage is needed and exactly that much can be allocated. Because memory allocation costs time, mutable collections tend to keep some spare storage around because they can't predict how they're going to grow.
const is not directly related to non-mutable objects; I'm more familiar with the latter, so that's what I'll talk about.
A non-mutable object is like a reservation. Imagine that you work at a busy restaurant that only works on a reservation basis—all guests must make a reservation. When someone calls and makes a reservation for eight people at six, you know that you'll be expecting eight people at 6. Of course, this keeps things predictable. You know to set out one table that can sit eight people (it wouldn't make sense to use more than one table, especially at a busy restaurant). You notify the kitchen and tell them to expect eight orders a few minutes after six (okay, maybe you won't, but you might as well). In this way, everything runs smoothly and there are no delays. When the party of eight arrives promptly at six (because everyone in this world is perfectly punctual), you lead them right over to their seats, they order, and enjoy their meal. No problems whatsoever.
A problem arises if the reservation never specifies the number of people or the time. Imagine someone calls and tells you to expect a group of people for dinner. In this case, you have no information. A group could be a couple on a date, a four-person family, or two dozen people for a corporate function. They might arrive late because they were at a movie, really early because they have a young child, or at different times because it was impossible to coordinate everyone. In this case, you would have to scramble to find seating for everyone and the kitchens might suddenly be swamped with a large number of orders. Or you could have blocked off to many seats and the kitchen might find itself with nothing to do. In either case, where you over-estimate or under-estimate, there are delays and lost potential. Anything could happen.
In this metaphor, the restaurant would be the runtime system, and the reservations are the objects. In the first scenario, you have a non-mutable object, like an NSArray. The system knows how much data it'll hold, how many elements there are, and by runtime, what type they are. The system knows that the size won't change, so it can optimize RAM to go around that array, without leaving any precautionary bits. Everything runs smoothly because everything is known.
By contrast, nothing is known with an NSMutableArray. The user might add more elements, so the system has to scramble to find more RAM, rather than using those same clock cycles to crunch some operation; the user might replace an element in the middle with a larger one, having to offset all the later elements—which involves copying all tho elements after. In certain cases, it could involve copying all the elements of the array or string or whatever to a new location, a (potentially) expensive operation. This can impart a significant performance overhead, especially when you use a lot of them. In Java for example, concatenating a string involves copying the entire existing string to a new memory location, and leaving the garbage collector to deal with the old string.
Another compelling reason is that you make it a bit harder to change the data. Users (of the class) have to explicitly make a mutable copy, which helps to ensure that they know what they're doing. This advantage is particularly notable with multiple threads—you don't want to pass a mutable object to something that's running on a background thread, because the foreground thread (or any other) could then be modifying the object, as it's being modified by the original thread, leading to very interesting results.