Protecting my code from zombies from completion blocks - objective-c

Question

I'm familiar with the delegate pattern and nilling my delegates, especially when doing asynchronous calls which are still in progress when my view controllers disappear. I nil the delegate, and the callback successfully returns on a nil object.
I'm now experimenting with using completion blocks to make my code a little easier to read.
I call a network service from my view controller, and pass a block which updates my UITableView. Under normal circumstances it works fine. However, if I leave the view before it completes, the completion handler block is executed - but the UITableView is now a zombie.
Whats the usual pattern for handling this?
UPDATE WITH CODE SAMPLE
This is an iPad app, I have two view controllers on screen at once, like a split view. One is the detail, and the other is a grid of images. I click an image and it tell the detail to load the info. However, if i click the images too fast before they have chance to do the network call - I have the problems. On changing images the code below is called which counts the favourites of a image....
So here is my dilemma, if I use the code below - it works fine but it leaks in instruments if you switch images before the network responds.
If I remove the __block and pass in self, then it crashes with zombies.
I can't win... I'm sure i'm missing something fundamental about using blocks.
__block UITableView *theTable = [self.table retain];
__block IndexedDictionary *tableData = [self.descriptionKeyValues retain];
FavouritesController *favourites = [Container controllerWithClass:FavouritesController.class];
[favourites countFavouritesForPhoto:self.photo
completion:^(int favesCount) {
[tableData insertObject:[NSString stringWithFormat:#"%i", favesCount]
forKey:#"Favourites:" atIndex:1];
[theTable reloadData];
[tableData release];
[theTable release];
}];
Any tips? Thanks
SECOND UPDATE
I changed the way I loaded the favourites. Instead of the favourites being a singleton, I create an instance on each photo change. By replacing this and killing the old one - the block has nowhere to callback (i guess it doesn't even exist) and my code now just looks like the below, and it appear to be working:
[self.favourites countFavouritesForPhoto:self.photo
completion:^(int favesCount) {
[self.descriptionKeyValues insertObject:[NSString stringWithFormat:#"%i", favesCount]
forKey:#"Favourites:" atIndex:1];
[self.table reloadData];
}];
It doesn't leak, and doesn't appear to be crashing either.

Answer 1

I recommend you test that the tableview is not nil at the start of the block. It sounds like the tableview is properly discarded when its parent view goes off-screen, so after that point, no tableview operations are valid.
Retaining the UITableView within the block is a bad idea, because datasource/tableview updates can result in implicit method calls and notifications that will not be relevant if the tableview is not on-screen.

Answer 2

Block will retain any object that it references, except for those annotated with __block. If you want not to execute completion blocks at all, just make some property like isCancelled and check whether it is YES before calling completion block.

Answer 3

So you have a background operation which has to call back another object after it finishes and the object can be destroyed in the meantime. The crashes you describe happen when you have non retained references. The problem as you see is that the referred object goes away and the pointer is invalid. Usually, what you do is unregister the delegate inside the dealloc method so that the background task continues, and whenever it is ready to communicate the results back it says "Shoot, my callback object is nil", and at least it doesn't crash.
Still, handling manually weak references is tedious and error prone. You can forget to nil a delegate inside a dealloc method and it may go without notice for months before you encounter a situation where the code crashes.
If you are targeting iOS 5.0 I would read up upon ARC and the weak references it provides. If you don't want to use ARC, or need to target pre 5.x devices, I would recommend using zeroing weak reference libraries like MAZeroingWeakRef which work also for 3.x devices.
With either ARC's weak references or MAZeroingWeakRef, you would implement the background task with one of these fancy weak reference objects pointing back to your table. Now if the pointed object goes away, the weak pointer will nil itself and your background task won't crash.