What difference does it make in memory management to define a variable as a property? For instance:
#interface foo {
NSString *theStr;
}
#end
#implementation foo
- (void)bar {
NSLog(theStr);
}
#end
Versus:
#interface foo {
NSString *theStr;
}
#property(retain) NSString *theStr;
#end
#implementation foo
#synthesize theStr;
- (void)bar {
NSLog(theStr);
}
#end
It seems like the first is autoreleased or something similar, while the second is retained throughout the life of the class. Is that the case, or what is the difference?
If you define a variable just in the interface without defining it as a property (as in your first example) means that you'll have to take care of everything related to memory management yourself. Assigning something to that variable will not retain it automatically, not will setting the variable to something else release the previous value.
Defining it as a property creates getter and setter methods under the hood. Most importantly, if you use it with the "retain" keyword, your setter method will retain the new value (and release the old one if there was one).
Note that the setter method will only be invoked if you use the dot notation, e.g., self.myStr = #"new string", or the method call, e.g., [self setMyStr:#"new string"]. If you just call myStr = #"new string" the setter method will not be called and you need to release the old value yourself and retain the new one.
I don't think the first case shows an autoreleased object, it would all depend on how you managed the creation and the destruction of that particular object. If for instance when you create that object you call:
//This string will indeed be autoreleased
theStr=[NSString stringWithString:#"Jibber jabber"];
//Or even
theStr=#"Jibber jabber";
But you have to take charge of the memory management if you create it in the following way:
//Manage my memory
theStr=[[NSString alloc] init];
//You have to release this property on the dealloc method
-(void)dealloc{
[theStr release];
[super dealloc];
}
On your second example, you create a setter and a getter method for the property theStr and by adding the nonatomic attribute, you make your property not thread safety, meaning that a thread can begin to modify your property while another one is already editing it. And by setting the retain attribute to your property, the setter method will be synthesized the following way:
- (void) setTheStr:(NSString *) newString {
[newString retain];
[theStr release];
theStr = newSupervisor;
}
You can consult more about this in one of my favorite books, Learning Objective-C 2.0 in chapter 12.
Related
I realize that it automatically creates a setter & getter for you but I'm uncertain how the setter actually "looks".
Also, why is it recommended that we say #synthesize someObject = _someObject; instead of just #synthesize someObject;?
Easy bit first: you don't need to #synthesize at all any more. If you have an #property and you don't synthesise it then one is implied, of the form #synthesize someObject = _someObject;. If you left off the = _someObject then you would have the same thing as #synthesize someObject = someObject;. The underscore version is therefore preferred because Apple has swung back to advocating underscores for instance variables and because it's consistent with the implicit type of synthesise.
The exact form of setter and getter will depend on the atomic, strong, unsafe_unretained, etc flags but sample nonatomic strong setter, pre-ARC is:
- (void)setProperty:(NSString *)newPropertyValue
{
[newPropertyValue retain];
[_property release];
_property = newPropertyValue;
}
Note the retain always occurs before the release. Otherwise the following (which you would arrive at in a roundabout fashion rather than ever writing directly):
self.property = _property;
Would lead to _property potentially being deallocated before it was retained.
A sample getter (also pre-ARC) is:
- (NSString *)property
{
return [[property retain] autorelease];
}
The retain ensures that the return value will persist even if the object it was queried from is deallocated. The autorelease ensures you return a non-owning reference (ie, the receiver doesn't explicitly have to dispose of the thing, it can just forget about it when it's done). If the thing being returned is immutable but the instance variable is mutable then it's proper form to copy rather than retain to ensure that what you return doesn't mutate while someone else is holding onto it.
Check leture 3 of iPad and iPhone Application itunes
_someObj replace a memory location for store your object(a pointer).
Xcode 4 auto #synthesize anyObject = _anyObject; -> So you don't need to write #synthesize anymore.
If you have some other object or _anyMemoryLocation write before in your.m file, you can use #synthesize yourObj = _anyMemeryLocation if you don't want rewrite all name in your.m file.
Setter and getter 2 methods use to set or get your object's value outside or inside your class:
-(void)setObject:(ObjectType *) object;
-(void)getObject:(ObjectType *) object;
The key nonatomic auto generate setter and getter for you.
If you want to implement more method went setObject, you can rewrite it in your.m file
-(void)setObject:(ObjectType *) object{
_object = object; //rewrite setter can done anywhere in your.m file
//Add more method
}
I'm a little confused about synthesized properties. I have an array that I want to be accessible from other classes so this is my code:
MyClass.h
#interface MyClass : CCLayer {
NSMutableArray *myArray;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableArray *myArray;
MyClass.m
#synthesize myArray;
-(id)init
{
myArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
}
-(void)dealloc
{
[myArray release];
myArray = nil;
}
I am a little confused now..is myArray the same as self.myArray? Do I have to release self.myArray as well? Thanks.
You declared your property as retain, it means that it will be retained automatically if you will set is using self.myArray. So, you can simply create autoreleased array in your init method and set it as
myArray = [NSMutableArray array];
self.myArray = myArray;
in this case you are not have to release it in the dealloc method or anything else. And as dasblinkenlight said you have to use #synthesize if you want to be sure that self.myArray is linked with your myArray instance.
Assuming that your #synthesize directive looks like this
#synthesize myArray;
you do not need to do anything in addition to what you are already doing: your property stores its value in the instance variable of the same name.
EDITED : Removed the alternative that suggests setting self.myArray in the dealloc method.
Yes you do, the best method is to set the property nil and release your variable.
-(void)dealloc{
self.myArray = nil;
[myArray release];
[super dealloc];
}
The code you provided is not really correct.
No, accessing a property and accessing the field itself are not the same.
My guess is that you are looking at old obj C examples where it was necessary to create the field with the property.
You also have no #synthesize directive in your code.
In current obj C code there is no need to declare a field to back the property, the field and the getter and setter will be autosynthesized (generated by the compiler) for you.
The default field generation is the name of your property with an underscore in front of it.
When you access the field directly via _myArray you will bypass any retain or release code that is contained in the generated getter/setter and have to manually manage memory in a non ARC project.
So to sum up, you dont need your field definition, and you dont need a synthesize directive.
You access your field directly with _myArray, or the property via self.myArray
They are not the same thing, one goes through generated code which obeys your property definition as to retain, assign, copy and accessing the field directly bypasses these semantics altogether.
If you define your property as retain you will need to release it in dealloc
You can use either
self.myArray = nil;
which will handle the release or
[_myArray release];
_myArray = nil;
Although someone in a previous post said setting the property to nil in dealloc might cause a problem Ive never seen it actually happen in my apps, ymmv
To answer your questions:
I am a little confused now..is myArray the same as self.myArray?
Yes, but no. Both point to the same object, the same area in memory. If you read myArray or self.myArray, they're identical in behavior minus the message send overhead for self.myArray.
However if you assign to myArray, the object will not be retained. It will only be retained if you assign to self.myArray.
Do I have to release self.myArray as well?
No.
You can also choose to either release or set the property to nil. As long as the property is #synthesize'd both examples do the same thing:
-(void) dealloc
{
[super dealloc];
[myArray release];
}
-(void) dealloc
{
[super dealloc];
self.myArray = nil;
}
See here for a discussion of the pros/cons to each approach.
From the question I think you're the developer who should really be using ARC. You'll have less to learn and fewer technical problems down the road. I can't understate how important using ARC is in these days, specifically if you don't have much ObjC experience. Read this how to enable ARC for cocos2d or just use Kobold2D to be able to work with an ARC-enabled cocos2d out of the box.
I'm beginner in Objective C and Cocos2D
I read Features of use #property and #synthesize (cocos2d)
The comments were references to bugs in the memory. What are these bugs?
In my code I use:
//interface
{
CC_bla_bla *a;
}
#property(nonatomic, retain) CC_bla_bla *a;
//implementation
#synthesize a;
self.a=[CC_bla_bla load_value:123123]
//dealloc
[self.a release]
self.a = nil;
Within a class, I always use self.a for all manipulations. Is that bad?
And in what sense to use the "instance variable" a?
Properties are most commonly used for getting things to and from other view controllers. You can use properties just in a certain view controller but you have to be cautious.
Since you do:
#property(nonatomic, retain) CC_bla_bla *a;
That has a retain count of 1 which like you did, you must release it in the dealloc. But say you do a = [[CC alloc], etc.... Then it will have a retain count of two.
Hopefully you understand this. You will realize on your own when it is time to use properties.
Properties are just there to associate some "metadata" to your variables which will be used when you access to this one via the object. The #synthesize directive will generate the getter and the setter of the variable using the properties config.
For example:
self.a = [CC_bla_bla load_value:123123]; // The object is retained because of the property
// This is equivalent to the previous line
[self setA:[CC_bla_bla load_value:123123]];
// ------
// By the same way
self.a;
// is equivalent to
[self a];
// ------
// method generated by your property
- (void)setA:(CC_bla_bla *)newA
{
[newA retain];
[a release];
a = newA;
}
But if you use directly the variable without passing by the object you don't use the properties value. For example:
a = [CC_bla_bla load_value:123123]; // The object is not retained so you may have unexcepted behaviors
// A good solution
a = [[CC_bla_bla load_value:123123] retain];
I hope it'll help you to clarify some points. For further reading you can watch this tutorial.
I think you are doing right with your code.
call your property always with self. is good.
But be ware, your code is fine only if the [CC_bla_bla loadvalue:] is not retain the created objects. If your loadvalue function have retained the created object and a property would retain it again, then it should be released twice.
I've done all sorts of research today on best practices with regards to declaring IBOutlets and instance variables, managing them, using the correct accessors and properly releasing them. I'm pretty much there, but I've got some niche questions that I hope somebody will be able to advise the best practice on. I'll format them as code and comment the questions so as to make it easier to understand. I've excluded some obvious parts that I didn't think were relevant and can be safely assumed to work (like pre-processor stuff, #end, required implementation methods etc).
MyViewController.h
#class OtherViewController;
#interface MyViewController : UIViewController {
NSString *_myString;
BOOL _myBOOL;
}
// The first two properties aren't declared in the interface
// above as per best practices when compiling with LLVM 2.0
#property (nonatomic, retain) OtherViewController *otherViewController;
#property (nonatomic, retain) UIButton *myButton;
#property (nonatomic, copy) NSString *myString;
#property (readwrite) BOOL myBOOL;
MyViewController.m
#implementation MyViewController
// Synthesizing IBOutlets on iOS will cause them to be
// retained when they are created by the nib
#synthesize otherViewController;
#synthesize myButton;
// Assign instance variables so as to force compiler
// warnings when not using self.variable
#synthesize myString = _myString;
#synthesize myBOOL = _myBOOL;
- (void)viewDidLoad {
// QUESTIONS:
// 1. Ignoring convenience methods, can you still alloc and init in dot notation
// even when it's being properly synthesized?
self.myString = [[NSString alloc] initWithString:#"myString"];
self.myString = existingNSStringObject;
// 2. Should you always call methods for IBOutlets and instance variables using dot notation?
// Is there any difference seeing as these aren't directly invoking setters/getters?
[self.myButton setText:self.myString];
[myButton setText:self.myString];
[self.otherViewController.view addSubview:mySubview];
[otherViewController.view addSubview:mySubview];
[self.myButton setAlpha:0.1f];
[myButton setAlpha:0.1f];
self.myButton.alpha = 0.1f;
myButton.alpha = 0.1f;
// 3. How fussy are scalar variables in terms of getters and setters,
// given that there is a #synthesize declaration for them?
self.myBOOL = YES;
myBOOL = NO;
if(self.myBOOL) { ... }
if(myBOOL) { ... }
// 4. On instantiation of new view controllers from NIBs, should you use
// dot notation? (I haven't been doing this previously).
otherViewController = [[OtherViewController alloc] initWithNibName:#"OtherView" bundle:nil];
self.otherViewController = [[OtherViewController alloc] ... ]
}
- (void)viewDidUnload {
// 5. Best practice states that you nil-value retained IBOutlets in viewDidUnload
// Should you also nil-value the other instance variables in here?
self.otherViewController = nil;
self.myButton = nil;
self.myString = nil;
}
- (void)dealloc {
[otherViewController release];
[myButton release];
[_myString release];
}
I always declare and explicitly set a property's underlying instance variable. It's a little more work up front, but in my mind it's worth it to explicitly differentiate variables and properties and see at a glance what instance variables a class has. I also prefix instance variable names, so the compiler complains if I accidentally type property instead of object.property.
Calling alloc / init creates an object with a retain count of 1. Your synthesized property will also retain the object, causing a memory leak when it's released (unless you release your property right after, but that's bad form). Better to alloc / and release the object on a separate line.
Dot notation is effectively the same as calling [self setObject:obj]. Not using dot notation accesses the underlying instance variable directly. In init and dealloc, always access the instance variable directly as the accessor methods can include extra operations (such as key value observing notifications) that are not valid when the object is being created or destroyed. All other times use the synthesized accessor methods. Even if you're not doing anything special now, you might later override these methods later to change what happens when the variable is set.
Scalars work the same way, only you don't have to worry so much about memory.
One accesses the synthesized accessor methods, the other accesses the instance variable directly. See questions one and two again, and be careful about memory leaks!
The view controller may be pushed onto the screen again, in which case your viewDidLoad method will be called a second time. If you're setting initial values in viewDidLoad, go ahead and set your properties to nil here. This makes sense for properties that use a lot of memory and aren't going to affect the state of the view. On the other hand if you want the property to persist until you're sure it's no longer needed, create it in your init method and don't release it until dealloc.
1) You've slightly misunderstood #synthesize. #synthesize does nothing with the object. It only tells the compiler to generate the getter and setter methods according to the options used in your #property declaration
// Synthesizing IBOutlets on iOS will
cause them to be
// retained when they
are created by the nib
The outlets aren't retained (outlets are just notices to interface builder and don't affect the code), the objects are retained when the setter generated by #synthesize is used. When the nib is loaded, the loading system calls your generated setter.
2) Deciding whether to use accessors in objective C is no different from deciding to use accessors in any other object oriented language. It is a choice of style, need and robustness. That the accessor is serving as an IBOutlet makes no difference.
But in objective C I would suggest you should NOT use accessors in two places: dealloc and within the var's accessor method itself.
And if you ARE using the accessors in init then you need to be careful about your retain counts.
self.myString = [[NSString alloc] initWithString:#"myString"];
This line leaks memory. Using your copy accessor retains the object, so you should release it here after creating it.
3) Not sure what you mean by fussy. Possibly see answer to 2)
4) See 2) and be careful about memory management. If you call alloc/init you are now responsible for releasing the object - this is entirely independent of the retains/releases used by accessors and dealloc.
5) No, you should not nil other instance variables in viewDidUnload. Your controller is expected to maintain its state even if the view goes away. viewDidUnload is only for cleaning up potentially memory-heavy view objects when the controller's view is not currently on screen.
Consider a navigation controller. View controller 1 is on the stack and then view controller 2 is pushed and is now visible. If memory conditions get low, the system could attempt to unload view controller 1's view and will then call viewDidUnload.
Then popping view controller 2 will not create the view controller 1 object again, but it WILL load view controller 1's view and call viewDidLoad.
Re comments
2) That's exactly right - you can use a convenience constructor or release immediately after your alloc/init and assignment, or release before the block exits, or autorelease. Which you choose is mostly a matter of style (though some would argue against autorelease - but not me!)
3) There are accessors for scalars - you have created some in your code
#property (readwrite) BOOL myBOOL;
This creates methods myBOOL and setMyBOOL on your class.
Remember that there is nothing special about dot notation. It is only a convenience and when the code is compiled myObject.property is exactly equivalent to [myObject property] and myObject.property = x is exactly equivalent to [myObject setProperty:x]. Using dot notation is purely a style choice.
Dot notation and brackets notation are pretty much the same.
By self.myVariable you are accessing the getter of the property of the instance variable myVariable and by myVariable you are accessing the local variable. They're not the same thing.
You can customize the setters and the getters by overriding the methods and specific some certain conditions for them.
See first answer ( brackets are preferred - better understanding of the code )
Better make a separate method.
Like:
- (void) releaseOutlets {
self.firstOutlet = nil;
self.mySecondOutlet = nil;
……………………
self.myLastOutlet = nil;
}
and then call this method both in viewDidUnload and in dealloc methods.
Hope it helps !
I'm still learning about Objective-C memory management. I'm trying to implement several simple classes in an example program that I'm building.
As an example, say I have the following class definition:
#import <UIKit/UIKit.h>
#interface customViewController : UIViewController
{
customObject *myCustomObject;
}
#property (retain) customObject *myCustomObject;
- (void)replaceCustomObject:(customObject *)newObject;
#end
For the property, I use the standard synthesize keyword...
#synthesize myCustomObject;
Then please assume that in the instance of customViewController the myCustomObject is already set with a valid value and is in use. Then the method replaceCustomObject is defined as:
- (void)replaceCustomObject:(customObject *)newObject
{
//Does this cause a memory leak because I just assign over
//the existing property?
self.myCustomObject = newObject;
}
As the comment asks, does this leak memory? Or is this the valid way to replace a previous object with a new object?
Thank you,
Frank
As others have mentioned, your code is perfectly valid and won't leak memory when assigning to the property.
If you have forgotten to implement a proper dealloc method, the last object assigned will be leaked when your customViewController is destroyed. A proper dealloc implementation would look like so:
- (void)dealloc
{
self.myCustomObject = nil;
[super dealloc];
}
That's perfectly valid, and does not leak memory. The synthesized accessors manage retain counts correctly.
(As an aside, you don't need that replaceCustomObject: method; since your property is readwrite by default, you have an auto-generated setCustomObject: method that clients of your class can use, and which follows the normal Cocoa naming conventions.)
According to this, if you use (retain) in your declaration, the synthesized method will release the old value first, then retain the new one:
if (property != newValue) {
[property release];
property = [newValue retain];
}
the property accessor syntax
self.x = y;
has the same effect as calling the setter method explicitly:
[self setX:y];
The accessor method will do whatever it has been written to do. In your case, for a #property(retain) property that has been #synthesized, the accessor will release the old object and retain the new one.
So, calling the setter, whether explicitly or through the '.' syntax, will do the right thing - including the right memory management.
So in short: no, this will not leak memory.