I made a static library that was coded using ARC. I plan to distribute this library for other people to use. I understand that nothing needs to be done to include an ARC static library in a non-ARC project, but what about including ARC header files? For example, the headers for my ARC static library declare properties as weak and strong but when I try to include these headers in a non-ARC project, the compiler freaks out.
Any ideas?
For strong, you can just use retain. They're identical.
weak is trickier, and while I know several ways that should work, I'm not certain the best way to handle it.
First, make sure you actually need it. If you're supporting iOS4, you can't have weak anyway, so the issue is moot. My gut feeling is that I'd probably just avoid weak and make all these problems go away. weak is nice, but it's not that big a deal to avoid in most cases.
That said, there are some approaches that will work. The best is probably to declare weak accessors without properties in the header. Instead of this:
#property (nonatomic, readwrite, weak) id delegate;
Do this:
- (id)delegate;
- (void)setDelegate:(id)aDelegate;
Then you can still declare a weak property inside your implementation file. The caller can still use dot notation for this, BTW.
It's possible that you'll get a compile error here, since setDelegate: technically takes a __strong id. If that's the case, just hand-implement setDelegate:
- (void)setDelegate:(id)aDelegate {
_delegate = aDelegate;
}
Haven't tested it, but that should work. You might also declare the ivar _delegate to be __weak in the #implementation block rather than declaring it as a weak property.
Like I said; I haven't tested any of this out. Please post your findings if it works.
Related
With the current version of Objective-C, what are the official standards and best practices for declaring ivars, using #property and #synthesize? There are a lot of posts and resources on the topic but most of them are fairly antiquated from a year or two ago. I recently learned to only declare ivars in a statement block in the implementation of a class so that the encapsulation principles of OOP aren't broken but is declaring ivars even necessary in this day and age? What would be a possible use case where doing:
#interface MyClass()
#property (nonatomic) NSString* data;
#end
#implementation MyClass{
#private
NSString* _data;
}
#end
is necessary? To further that, is it ever necessary to use #synthesize? My understanding is that using #property will auto-synthesize both the accessor methods as well as the backing ivars. I've done some experimentation and I noticed that when I don't declare NSString* _data', I can still access_data' in my class implementation. Does that mean that declaring ivars come down to a matter of style, up to the discretion of the programmer? Could I condense my code and remove all ivar declarations in the statement blocks in my implementation and just use #property in my private interface? If that's not the case, what are the advantages and disadvantages of explicitly declaring ivars?
Finally, #dynamic. From what I can gather, it's used to say to the compiler, "Hey compiler, don't auto-generate the accessor method and don't worry if you don't find an implementation for it, I'll provide one at runtime". Is that all #dynamic is used for or is there more to it?
I just want to clarify all these things because it seems like there's a lot of different opinions and that there's not necessarily one right answer. Plus as Objective-C grows and progresses, those answers will change so it'll be nice to have a concise and up-to-date guide. Thanks everyone!
(Also if there's anything that I could word better or make clearer, let me know)
EDIT:
In summary, what I'm asking is this:
1) Is declaring ivars with modern Objective-C necessary?
2) Can I achieve the same effects of declaring ivars and corresponding properties by just using #property?
3) What is #dynamic used for?
4) Can I completely forgo the use of #synthesize or is there a good use case for it?
Upvote and down vote as you see fit.
There's a lot to answer here. I'll break it down:
Declaring ivars
As you've correctly noted, modern versions of the compiler will synthesize backing instance variables for declared #properties. The exception to this is on 32-bit Macs, where the modern Objective-C runtime, including non-fragile instance variables, is not available. Assuming your application is not targeting 32-bit OS X, you don't need to explicitly declare the backing ivar for an #property.
If you still want to use an ivar directly, without a corresponding #property (something I consider a bad idea most of the time), you of course must still explicitly declare the ivar.
#dynamic
#dynamic is as you've said meant to tell the compiler "don't synthesize accessors for this property, I'll do it myself at runtime". It's not used all that often. One place it is used is in NSManagedObject subclasses, where if you declare a modeled property in the header, you don't want to compiler to complain that there's no implementation of accessors for that property, nor do you want it to generate accessors itself. NSManagedObject generates accessors for modeled properties at runtime. The story is similar for custom CALayer subclasses.
#synthesize
#synthesize explicitly tells the compiler to synthesize accessor methods, and (on iOS and 64-bit Mac) a corresponding ivar for the specified property. There are three main cases where you still need to use it:
32-bit Mac apps.
If you've written your own custom setter and getter (or just getter for readonly properties). In this case, the compiler won't synthesize accessors because it sees yours. However, it also won't synthesize the backing ivar. So, you must use #synthesize someProperty = _someProperty;, to tell the compiler to synthesize an ivar. It still won't synthesize accessor methods of course. Alternatively, you can explicitly declare a backing ivar. I favor using #synthesize in this case.
If you want to use a different name for the property's backing ivar than the default (property name with an added underscore prefix). This is rare. The main case I can think of for using it is when transitioning existing, older code, that includes direct ivar access and where the ivars are not underscore-prefixed.
Best current practice seems to be to use properties for all ivars placing the property either in the .h file if they are to be exposed and in the .m file in a class extension if local to the class.
No #synthesize is needed unless the ivar needs to be different than the underscore prepended property name.
Yes, #dynamic is as you describe.
Further, it is no longer necessary to declare local instance methods or order such that the method is above the use.
First off, #synthesize is gone for these scenarios: do not have to do it any more.
Secondly, you don't need the private ivar anymore either.
So in essence, you can just do properties.
The way of controlling access is the same idiom that had become popular before MOC dropped: put the property in the public interface as readonly and then make a readwrite version in the private interface (which should be, as you show above, merely the name with open and close parens).
Note also, that many of the things that cluttered up the public interface in the past can now ONLY be in the private interface, so for instance IBOutlets, etc., since the controller is going to be the only thing diddling them.
I never see #dynamic used anywhere except in CoreDate-generated entities.
For someone who first worked with C++ where the dream was always that the header/interface merely show the user of the class what they needed and all other details would be hidden, I think MOC (Modern Objective C) is a dream come true.
BTW, highly recommend the intro session from WWDC Modern Objective C (from 2012) and the one this year was great too.
I've recently started working on someone else's code base and I've come across a lot of this
#property (strong, retain) TYPE *iVar;
I've never seen both Strong and Retain used in the same property declaration. I'm surprised that it even compiles, as retain already implies strong.
The project uses arc, and is a few months old so legacy isn't the problem here, the deployment target is iOS6.
Is there any valid reason why you would want to do this?
There is no reason to use property declarations with both retain and strong - according to Apple's documentation, the two are synonyms:
The keywords weak and strong are introduced as new declared property attributes, as shown in the following examples.
// The following declaration is a synonym for: #property(retain) MyClass *myObject;
#property(strong) MyClass *myObject;
If you are using ARC then just use strong.
Mixing the two may be allowed now but may produce compiler warnings / errors in the future. Not to mention it looks really odd.
I've got some code like this:
#interface MyTimer : NSObject
- (int)getValue;
#end
#interface TimerHolder : NSObject {
ExternalControl* m_externalControl;
}
#property (retain, nonatomic) MyTimer* timer;
#end
class ExternalControl {
__unsafe_unretained TimerHolder* m_holder;
public:
ExternalControl(TimerHolder* holder) : m_holder(holder);
int getTimer() { return [m_holder.timer getValue] };
};
The method ExternalControl::getTimer() is called very frequently. During profiling, I noticed that during a call to getTimer(), obc-j also calls objc_retain and objc_release (presumably on m_holder or m_holder.timer), which ends up sucking up a lot of time! Removing __unsafe_unretained didn't make a difference.
By construction, I know that whenever ExternalControl::getTimer() is called, m_holder and its timer will stay alive for the duration of the call, so I think the retains/releases are unnecessary.
Is there any way to prevent them from being called?
I'm using XCode 4.2 with iOS 5 SDK, with ARC enabled. Is ARC responsible and removing it would remove the retains/releases? (I didn't want to spend time re-creating a project without ARC just to test this, before checking with you my friends!)
I can only speak from a non-ARC experience as I haven't used it yet (and not planning it being old school).
However, I have several projects using a C++ library and keeping references to it in the obj-C code.
I know for a fact that retain/release isn't called unless explicitly requested.
BTW, I couldn't use Obj-C when linking the C++ library and instead had to use Obj-C++ otherwise the C++ constructor/destructors weren't called as expected. It was just a matter of renaming the .m file into .mm
Hope this help.
If you want to manually handle retain/release for just that class (disable ARC).
set the "-fno-objc-arc" compiler flag in the build phases tab for that source file.
The WWDC 2011 sessions on ARC specifically mention that when compiled for debug, ARC retain/releases are not optimized.
If you haven't, try running your code in Release mode and profiling it. You should see a significant difference.
However, I know ARC doesn't take into account the kind of design assumptions you imply when you say "By construction". But, ARC shouldn't be touching your your "__unsafe_unretained" instance variable... are you sure those retain/release calls are being passed a pointer to that?
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...