I started objective-c and iOS a couple of weeks ago (worth bearing in mind), and I apologise in advance for the awful diagram!!
The above diagram shows the structure of my calls to a webservice. Thin arrows denote an object creating another object, whereas thick arrows denote an object holding a strong (retained) reference to the pointed-to object.
I believe that this contains what is called a "circular reference" and will create problems when it comes to deallocating the objects.
I understand that the easy answer would be to replace some of the strong references to weak ones, which I'd love to do, except my project is also targeting iOS 3.2 (not my decision - I can't really change this fact!). So, I think I'm right in saying that I have to use __unsafe_unretained instead, but I'm quite worried about the fact that these won't auto-zero, as I'll end up with EXC_BAD_ACCESS problems when objects get deallocated...
So my problem is firstly that I have circular references. To solve, I would have to use __unsafe_unretained, which leads to my second problem: How to correctly manage these?
A question that might be related is: How does NSURLConnection manage it's strong references? I have heard from various sources that it retains its delegate? So...if I retain an NSURLConnection, (and am also its delegate) and it retains me, this would also be a circular reference, no? How does it get around my problem?
Any advice is very welcome!
Regards,
Nick
When a parent has a reference to a child object, it should use a strong reference. When a child has a reference to it's parent object, it should use a weak reference, aka unsafe_unretained.
By convention, delegate relationships in iOS are usually weak references, so you'll find that most delegate properties on Apple's own classes are declared as unsafe_unretained.
So your controller retains the services that it is using, but the services only weakly link back to the controller. That way, if the controller is released, the whole lot can be safely disposed of without any circular references.
The danger with this is that if the web service is doing some long-running task, and the controller gets released before it has finished, the service is left with a dangling pointer to it's now-deallocated delegate. If it tries to send a message to the delegate, such as "I have finished" it will crash.
There are a few approaches to help solve this (they aren't mutually exclusive - you should try to do them all whenever possible):
1) Always set the delegate properties of your services to nil in your controller's dealloc method. This ensures that when the controller is released, the delegate references to it are set to nil (sort of a crude, manual equivalent of what ARC's weak references do automatically).
2) When creating your own service classes that have delegates, make them retain their delegate while they are running and then release the delegate when they are done. That way the delegate object can't get deallocated while the service is still sending it messages, but it will still get released once the service has finished (NSTimer's and NSURLConnections both work this way - they retain their delegate while they are running and release it when they are done).
3) Try not to have long-running services owned by something transient like a view controller. Consider creating singleton objects (shared static object instances) that own your services, that way the service can do it's job in the background regardless of what's going on in the view layer. The controller can still call the service, but doesn't own it - the service is owned by a static object that will exist for the duration that the app is running, and so there's no risk of leaks or premature releases. The service can communicate with the controller via NSNotifications instead of delegate calls, so there is no need for it to have a reference to an object that may vanish. NSNotifications are a great way to communicate between multiple classes without creating circular references.
All of your questions and concerns are correct, and this problem with the previous use of assign (now better named __unsafe_unretained) is why Apple developed auto-zeroing for weak. But we've dealt reasonably safely with assign delegates for many years, so as you suspect, there are ways to do it.
First, as a matter of practice, you should always clear yourself as the delegate when your release an object you were delegate for. Pre-ARC, this was traditionally done in dealloc:
- (void)dealloc {
[tableView_ setDelegate:nil];
[tableView_ release];
tableView_ = nil;
}
You should still include that setDelegate:nil in your dealloc if delegate is __unsafe_unretained. This will address the most common form of the problem (when the delegate is deallocated before the delegating object).
Regarding NSURLConnection, you are also correct that it retains its delegate. This is ok because it has a lifespan typically much shorter than its delegate (versus a table view delegate which almost always has the same lifespan as the table view). See " How to work around/handle delegation EXC_BAD_ACCESS errors? Obj C " for more discussion on this in a pre-ARC context (the same concepts apply in the new world of strong/weak).
Related
I am new to Objective-C and I just wanted to confirm whether what I'm observing is correct.
This is what's going on:
Class A creates a CLLocationManager object
A is set as the delegate for the CLLocationManager object
Location services are activated (in order to have the CLLocationManager object call A with location updates)
However, location updates are not received unless a reference to the CLLocationManager object is kept somewhere.
I assume that this is because of ARC. But I am asking because my expectation was that CLLocationManager would not be deallocated: it has work to do, and the delegate methods receive a reference to the CLLocationManager, so why keep an extra property!
Is this interpretation correct?
Is there anything else one can do to keep the CLLocationManager object working other than have a property pointing to it?
As an experiment I tried running the steps above within a dispatch queue, but the location updates were not received.
Thanks!
I guess your big question is whether this behavior is common and expected.
The answer is the following - it depends. It is an implementation decision. I've seen frameworks working both ways. Usually, you can guess the behavior from the method naming.
For example, a new instance of CLLocationManager has to be created before use. Once you have to call alloc and init, you should always keep the reference.
On the other hand, in frameworks where you don't create a new object, you don't need to hold the reference - for example [NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] or [UIApplication sharedApplication]. The framework holds the reference for you.
Frameworks which use class methods (e.g. STTwitter) also typically hold the references for you.
Your following assumption
and the delegate methods receive a reference to the CLLocationManager
is wrong. The delegate is only a set of methods. It doesn't hold anything if you don't implement it explicitly. Note that you have to also keep a reference to the delegate. The manager won't keep it alive.
If you are not keeping a reference to the CLLocationManager object it will be deallocated once you reach the end of the scope
Given that we are writing code with ARC, should I nil properties in viewDidUnload, that are instantiated from:
XIB (here the nilling is sometimes generated from IDE)
from initialiser and have not IBOutlet
that are weak
?
The purpose of viewDidUnload is to give your app a chance to remove references to user interface objects that may no longer exist because the view was removed upon receiving a memory warning. Thus:
You should be setting any user interface controls to nil (because the view is being unloaded). Unnecessary for weak properties (and they generally should be weak per Apple guidance on this topic), but if Xcode inserts it in for you, it's not a problem. For guidance on what to do in viewDidUnload see the "Memory Warnings" section of the Resource Programming Guide: The Nib Files.
And for non-user interface objects that you set up in viewDidLoad, I'd be wary about just blindly setting those to nil in viewDidUnload, especially if you're not using ARC (e.g. if you accidentally nil the instance variable, you might cause a leak). And you probably want to balance the amount of memory that will be recovered versus the "cost" of re-retrieving that data (e.g. if it's from some remote server). Regardless, I'd suggest that you handle the freeing of memory for non-UI objects in didReceiveMemoryWarning.
In my mind, I view viewDidUnload as a chance to make sure I'm not maintaining references to user interface objects that might no longer exist, and I use didReceiveMemoryWarning to empty caches or other non-UI related items that I can safely purge to recover some memory. And if you're concerned about iOS 6, note that the handling of viewDidUnload may be changing, and while the NDA precludes us from discussing it publicly, I might advise that you may want to refer to the iOS 6 Beta 4 Release Notes and look for references to viewDidUnload.
Your general rules:
nil all strong IBOutlets only. Leave weak ones alone.
nil all properties instantiated in viewDidLoad, and not init, initWithCoder: and initWithNibName:bundle:.
You should also nil properties that are recreated "on-the-fly" or have a nil check, to free up more memory.
If I release the object that's holding a reference to the variable that I need to release, is that sufficient? Or must I release at every level of the containment hierarchy? I fear that my logic comes from working with a garbage collector for too long.
For instance, I assigned to this property of a UIPickerView instance by hand instead of using IB
#property(nonatomic, assign) id<UIPickerViewDelegate> delegate
Since it's an assign property, I can't just release the reference after I assign it. When I finally release my UIPickerView instance, do I need to do this:
[singlePicker.delegate release];
[singlePicker release];
or is the second line sufficient?
Also: Are these assign properties the norm, or is that mostly for Interface Builder? I thought that retain properties were the normal thing to expect.
The properties are declared assign instead of retain for a reason - delegates are not owned by their holders and they don't call release on them. Otherwise there would be a problem with circular references. You however have to call release on the object you use as the delegate somewhere if you own them.
If delegates were retained, imagine the following situation:
a takes b as a delegate, retains b
b takes a as a delegate, retains a
Now you have a circular reference - without ugly cleanup code that explicitly tells them to release their delegates, both of the objects will never be deallocated.
The subject is treated in Delegation and the Cocoa Application Frameworks:
Delegating objects do not (and should not) retain their delegates. However, clients of delegating objects (applications, usually) are responsible for ensuring that their delegates are around to receive delegation messages. To do this, they may have to retain the delegate in memory-managed code. This precaution applies equally to data sources, notification observers, and targets of action messages. Note that in a garbage-collection environment, the reference to the delegate is strong because the retain-cycle problem does not apply.
If we write the following code:
ExplorerAppDelegate * appDelegate = (ExplorerAppDelegate *)[[UIApplication sharedApplication] delegate];
This makes a reference to the original delegate pointer, but:
Does it increase the reference count?
Do we have to explicitly call as [ExplorerAppDelegate retain] right after, or not at all?
What's happening, exactly?
After we've used this, we should also do a [ExplorerAppDelegate release] in the dealloc method, right?
No, it does not increase the retain count.
The convention in Objective-C is that objects you are given should be memory managed by yourself - but in the case of obtaining a shared common resource like the app delegate, the memory is maintained elsewhere and of course (with this being the app delegate) you know that it will always be "alive" as long as your class is... so there is no need to retain the reference.
In most uses of delegates, instead of fetching a delegate you are given one, and that reference is not retained either. In that case whoever gave you the delegate is also responsive for clearing out the delegate link before the delegate is released.
The reason you don't want to generally retain delegate references is that it can prevent some objects from being deallocated, for instance if one class is a delegate of a class that ues the other class as a delegate.
The reference count will not be increased
You should retain it if you want to be sure that it isn't deallocated while you have a pointer to it
You should only release it if you retained it
So basically, if you're only using the object in a single function, you probably don't need retain or release it. If it exists when you get it, then it's (probably) not going to be deallocated by the end of the function. If you're keeping it around, in an ivar (member variable) for example, then you should retain it and release it later.
See the "Weak References to Objects" in Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa for the official answer. Pointers to delegates are one of the possible exception cases to the memory management rules.
I'm surfing through the wonderful blog maintained by Scott Stevenson, and I'm trying to understand a fundamental Objective-C concept of assigning delegates the 'assign' property vs 'retain'. Note, the both are the same in a garbage collected environment. I'm mostly concerned with a non-GC based environment (eg: iPhone).
Directly from Scott's blog:
"The assign keyword will generate a setter which assigns the value to the instance variable directly, rather than copying or retaining it. This is best for primitive types like NSInteger and CGFloat, or objects you don't directly own, such as delegates."
What does it mean that you don't directly own the delegate object? I typically retain my delegates, because if I don't want them to go away into the abyss, retain will take care of that for me. I usually abstract UITableViewController away from its respective dataSource and delegate also. I also retain that particular object. I want to make sure it never goes away so my UITableView always has its delegate around.
Can someone further explain where/why I'm wrong, so I can understand this common paradigm in Objective-C 2.0 programming of using the assign property on delegates instead of retain?
Thanks!
The reason that you avoid retaining delegates is that you need to avoid a retain cycle:
A creates B
A sets itself as B's delegate
…
A is released by its owner
If B had retained A, A wouldn't be released, as B owns A, thus A's dealloc would never get called, causing both A and B to leak.
You shouldn't worry about A going away because it owns B and thus gets rid of it in dealloc.
Because the object sending the delegate messages does not own the delegate.
Many times, it's the other way around, as when a controller sets itself as the delegate of a view or window: the controller owns the view/window, so if the view/window owned its delegate, both objects would be owning each other. This, of course, is a retain cycle, similar to a leak with the same consequence (objects that should be dead remain alive).
Other times, the objects are peers: neither one owns the other, probably because they are both owned by the same third object.
Either way, the object with the delegate should not retain its delegate.
(There's at least one exception, by the way. I don't remember what it was, and I don't think there was a good reason for it.)
Addendum (added 2012-05-19): Under ARC, you should use weak instead of assign. Weak references get set to nil automatically when the object dies, eliminating the possibility that the delegating object will end up sending messages to the dead delegate.
If you're staying away from ARC for some reason, at least change assign properties that point to objects to unsafe_unretained, which make explicit that this is an unretained but non-zeroing reference to an object.
assign remains appropriate for non-object values under both ARC and MRC.
Note that when you have a delegate that's assign, it makes it very important to always set that delegate value to nil whenever the object is going to be deallocated - so an object should always be careful to nil out delegate references in dealloc if it has not done so elsewhere.
One of the reason behind that is to avoid retain cycles.
Just to avoid the scenario where A and B both object reference each other and none of them is released from memory.
Acutally assign is best for primitive types like NSInteger and CGFloat, or objects you don't directly own, such as delegates.