I want to create a subclass of NSMutableArray and need to override the -initWithObjects: method.
But How to call [super xxx];?
- (id) initWithObjects:(id)firstObj, ... {
[super initWithObjects:firstObj]; // Error: Missing sentinel in method dispatch
// Error: The result of a delegate init call must be immediately returned or assigned to "self"
}
Thanks.
Then "missing sentinel" message refers to the missing nil termination. In fact, according to font-of-all-knowledge-Wikipedia:
The name of the nil that terminates a variable length list of parameters in Objective-C
also: Sentinel node, an object to represent the end of a data structure
also: Sentinel value, a value used to terminate a loop
also: In network protocols such as Bisync, sentinel values indicate where frames start and end
You can't. As discussed in the documentation for NSArray:
You might want to implement an initializer for your subclass that is
suited to the backing store that the subclass is managing. The NSArray
class does not have a designated initializer, so your initializer need
only invoke the init method of super. The NSArray class adopts the
NSCopying, NSMutableCopying, and NSCoding protocols; if you want
instances of your own custom subclass created from copying or coding,
override the methods in these protocols.
So you can assign self = [super init]; and add the objects from your initialiser to the resulting object. Indeed, because of the way that NSArray is implemented, calling any -initWith… method is likely to return an instance of a different NSArray subclass.
Notice that the documentation also discusses alternatives to subclassing NSArray that may be easier, more reliable or better in some other way.
Subclassing NSArray/NSMutableArray doesn't work like subclassing most classes. NSArray is a class cluster, please see subclassing notes from the NSArray documentation.
Now, for your specific question, subclassing va_list methods is a bit tricky, there are a number of ways to handle this. The 'safest' would be to process your va_list into an NSArray and pass that into another method that dealt with whatever you wanted. The other, slightly less portable, slightly hackier way is to create a new va_list list on the stack to pass through.
id __unsafe_unretained * stack = (typeof(stack))calloc(numOfObjects, sizeof(id));
//filloutStack
[super initWithObjects:*stack, nil];
free(stack);
Subclassing Apples Collection classes isn't that difficult — if you use a tiny trick (see also: cocoawithlove).
A subclass is a "is-a" relationship in object-orientated Design. But there are also "has-a" relationships, i.e. wrappers.
If you would try to create a subclass of NSArray by using a pure is-a relationship, I guess, it would be kind of hard, as you would have to do C-level memory management.
But if you add a has-a relationship — or: create a wrapper — at the same time, you can the subcalssing quite easily: Just make your custom array class have a member of a regular NSArray. Now override its method by forwarding the calls to the member object. I showed this in this post, where I just add objects, that pass a certain test.
But you will see, that I didn't implement the method you talked about correctly, but I raise a error. The reason is: that method is a variadic methods, that has a variable number of objects you can pass in — and to handle this, you have to to a bit of work. cocoawithlove has an great article about it.
For you — if using that has-a trick — it could look like
- (id) initWithObjects:(id)firstObj, ... {
if (self = [super init]) {
_realArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithCapacity:1];
}
va_list args;
va_start(args, firstObj);
for (id obj = firstObj; obj != nil; obj = va_arg(args, id))
{
[self.realArray addObject:obj];
}
va_end(args);
return self;
}
Try
self = [super initWithObjects:firstObj,nil];
Related
I am tring to understand convenience methods.
IF I have a sqlite database containing store details and am returning these store details in a FMResultSet. I am thinking that to create an array of these store details as Store objects, that the best way would be create an object of type Store in one go in a convenience method and add to array.
The Class I have created is as below with convenience method
#interface StoreDetails : NSObject
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSString *storeName;
etc etc etc
+ (instancetype)storeWithStoreName:(NSString *)storeName
TelephoneNumber:(NSString *)
telephoneNumber: etc .......
My ResultSet loop would be as below?
NSMutableArray *Stores = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
while ([rs next]) {
Store *store =
[Store storeDetailsWithStoreName:[rs stringForColumn:#"storename"]
telephoneNumber:[rs stringForColumn:#"TelephoneNo"]];
[Stores addObject:store];
}
Is my thinking correct as above is is it better to go as below.
NSMutableArray *Stores = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
while ([rs next]) {
Store *store = [Store alloc] init];
store.storeName = [rs stringForColumn:#"storename"];
store.telephoneNumber = [rs stringForColumn:#"TelephoneNo"];
[Stores addObject:store];
}
All I am trying trying to understand is why you would use one over the other in noob speak, thankyou.
I think you have a good approach: initializing your Store object in a method of the Store class.
The storeDetailsWithStoreName:... method you have defined is a good example of what Apple calls a factory method (assuming you aren't doing anything weird in its implementation). It's a quite common pattern; Foundation has all sorts of examples: arrayWithCapacity:, numberWithInt:, etc.
With ARC, the simplest examples of these factory methods are nearly identical to a corresponding alloc/init expression, since the developer no longer has to think about autoreleasing objects. But there are still plenty of uses for factory methods, e.g. special instantiation patterns such as singleton or flyweight, including a small amount of common conversion or formatting code for convenience, implementing class clusters, etc. And there's the simple convenience of not having an extra set of brackets and less indentation.
The instancetype keyword is a good choice. This allows you to send the same message to a subclass of Store, with the expectation that the method will instantiate an object of the subclass using the same init method, like this:
+ (instancetype)storeWithStoreName:(NSString *)storeName
telephoneNumber:(NSString *)
...
{
return [[self alloc] initWithStoreName:...];
}
In the code above, as it's a class method, the self in [self alloc] is the Class object (either Store or a subclass of Store) rather than a specific instance of Store. This is what allows creating an instance of the correct class at runtime, depending on whether you call [Store storeWithStoreName:...] or [MoreSpecificStoreSubType storeWithStoreName:...].
The alternative to a factory method, or compliment to it really, is to declare a custom init method in your Store class:
- (id)initWithStoreName:(NSString *)storeName
telephoneNumber:(NSString *)telephoneNumber ...
…and use that directly inside your loop, instead of a factory method. Again, with ARC, not much of a difference between the two unless there's extra work you want to do in the factory method. You can have multiple variants of the init method; the standard practice is for all of them to call the most detailed init method, which is called the designated initializer.
I would recommend taking the time to read the Apple documentation pages on standards for class design (I linked to some of these pages above). Since there are a lot of this is based more on convention rather than language design restrictions, it's important to know all about the patterns and best practices for good design and proper behavior of special methods.
Question
In my ARC project I have a class that manages objects, called LazyMutableArray. Some of the objects are actually nil, but users of my collection will never know about this; therefore I made it a subclass of NSMutableArray, and it tries to do "the same thing". In particular, objects are retained when added.
Now let's take a look at a memory behavior of other methods. It turns out that the NSArray destruction methods are documented by Apple to be an exception to this rule, in that they release, not autoreleased object.
There is some debate as to whether the combination of addObject: + objectAtIndex: + array destruction is documented by Apple to be never autoreleasing or simply happens to be in the examples I tested and in the example Apple includes.
How can I create in my subclass a method with exact same memory semantics?
Last update
After some thought, I've decided implementation based on NSMutableArray is more appropriate in this case compared to NSPointerArray. The new class, I should note, has the same retain/autorelease pair as the previous implementation.
Thanks to Rob Napier I see that no modification of my objectAtIndex: method would change this behavior, which answers my original question about this method.
On a practical level, several people said that any method can tackle an extra retain/autorelease pair for no reason; it's not reasonable to expect otherwise and not reasonable to try to find out which methods do this and which do not. It's been therefore a great learning opportunity for me on several levels.
Code (based on NSMutableArray) is available at GitHub: implementation, header, test (that's -testLazyMutableMemorySemantics).
Thank you all for participating.
Why I try to subclass NSMutableArray:
Subclassing foundation objects, I agree, is not always an appropriate solution. In tho case I have objects (in fact, OData resources), most of which have subobjects. The most natural class for an array of subobjects is obviously NSArray. Using a different class doesn't seem to make sense to me.
But for an OData collection this "array of sub objects", while, being an NSArray, must have a different implementation. Specifically, for a collection of 1000 elements, servers are encouraged to return collection in batches of (say)20, instead of all at once. If there is another pattern appropriate in this case, I'm all ears.
Some more detail in how I found this
I unit test the hell out of this collection, and values can be put into array, read from the array, and so forth. So far, so good. However, I realized that returning the object increases its retain count.
How do I see it? Suppose I insert two objects into lazy array lazy, one held weakly, one held strongly (*see the code *). Then retain count of weakSingleton is, as expected, 1. But now I read element:
XCTAssertEqual(weakSingleton, lazy[0], #"Correct element storage"); // line B
And in the debugger I see the retain count go up to 2. Of course, -retainCount may give me wrong information, so let's try to destroy the reference in array by
lazy[0] = nil; // yep, does the right thing
XCTAssertNil(weakSingleton, #"Dropped by lazy array"); // line C <-- FAIL
indeed, we see that weakSingleton is not released.
By now you probably guess that it's not just a retain, it's an autoreleased retain — putting an #autorelease around line B releases the weakSingleton. The exact source of this pair is not obvious, but seems to come from NSPointerArray -addPointer: (and unfortunately not from ARC's [[object retain] autorelease]). However, I don't want to return an autoreleased object and make method semantics different from its superclass!
After all, the method I'm overriding, NSMutableArray -objectAtIndex:`, doesn't do that; the object it returns will dealloc immediately if an array is released, as noted in the Apple's example. That's what I want: modify the method around line A so that the object it returns does not have an extra retain/autorelease pair. I'm not sure the compiler should even let me do it :)
Note 1 I could turn off ARC for a single file, but this would be my first non-ARC Objective-C code. And in any case the behavior may not some from ARC.
Note 2 What the fuss? Well, in this case I could change my unit tests, but still, the fact is that by adding or deleting line B, I'm changing the result of unit test at line C.
In other words, the described behavior of my method [LazyMutableArray -objectAtIndex] is essentially that by reading an object at index 0, I'm actually changing the retain count of this object, which means I could encounter unexpected bugs.
Note 3 Of course, if nothing is to be done about this, I'll document this behavior and move on; perhaps, this indeed should be considered an implementation detail, not to be included into tests.
Relevant methods from implementation
#implementation LazyMutableArray {
NSPointerArray *_objects;
// Created lazily, only on -setCount:, insert/add object.
}
- (id)objectAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index {
#synchronized(self) {
if (index >= self.count) {
return nil;
}
__weak id object = [_objects pointerAtIndex:index];
if (object) {
return object;
}
}
// otherwise do something else to compute a return value
// but this branch is never called in this test
[self.delegate array:self missingObjectAtIndex:index];
#synchronized(self) {
if (index >= self.count) {
return nil;
}
__weak id object = [_objects pointerAtIndex:index];
if (object) {
return object;
}
}
#throw([NSException exceptionWithName:NSObjectNotAvailableException
reason:#"Delegate was not able to provide a non-nil element to a lazy array"
userInfo:nil]);
}
- (void)createObjects {
if (!_objects) {
_objects = [NSPointerArray strongObjectsPointerArray];
}
}
- (void)addObject:(id)anObject {
[self createObjects];
[_objects addPointer:(__bridge void*)anObject];
}
The complete test code:
// Insert two objects into lazy array, one held weakly, one held strongly.
NSMutableArray * lazy = [LazyMutableArray new];
id singleton = [NSMutableArray new];
[lazy addObject:singleton];
__weak id weakSingleton = singleton;
singleton = [NSMutableDictionary new];
[lazy addObject:singleton];
XCTAssertNotNil(weakSingleton, #"Held by lazy array");
XCTAssertTrue(lazy.count == 2, #"Cleaning and adding objects");
// #autoreleasepool {
XCTAssertEqual(weakSingleton, lazy[0], #"Correct element storage");
XCTAssertEqual(singleton, lazy[1], #"Correct element storage");
// }
lazy = nil;
XCTAssertNotNil(singleton, #"Not dropped by lazy array");
XCTAssertNil(weakSingleton, #"Dropped by lazy array");
The last line fails, but it succeeds if I change first line to lazy = [NSMutableArray new] or if I uncomment #autoreleasepool.
First, I would not make this subclass. This is exactly what NSPointerArray is for. Wrapping that into an NSArray obscures important details that this approach can break. For example, what is the correct behavior for [NSArray arrayWithArray:lazyMutableArray] if lazyMutableArray includes NULLs? Algorithms that assume that NSArray can never include NULL need to be wary of the fact that this one can. It's true that you can get similar issues treating a non-retaining CFArray as an NSArray; I speak from experience that this is exactly why this kind of subclass can be very dangerous (and why I stopped doing that years ago). Don't create a subclass that cannot be used in every case that its superclass can be used (LSP).
If you have a collection with new semantics, I would subclass it from NSObject, and have it conform to <NSFastEnumeration>. See how NSPointerArray is not a subclass of NSArray. This was not an accident. Faced with the same problem, note the direction Apple chose.
By now you probably guess that it's not just a retain, it's an autoreleased retain — putting an #autorelease around line B releases the weakSingleton. This seems to be because line A under ARC translates to [[object retain] autorelease]. However, I don't want to return an autoreleased object and make caller remember this!
The caller should never assume anything else. The caller is never free to assume that a method does not add balanced autoreleases. If a caller wants the autorelease pool to drain, that is their responsibility.
All that said, there is some benefit to avoiding an extra autorelease if it's not required, and it's an interesting learning opportunity.
I would start by reducing this code to the simplest form, without your subclass at all. Just explore how NSPointerArray works:
__weak id weakobject;
#autoreleasepool
{
NSPointerArray *parray = [NSPointerArray strongObjectsPointerArray];
{
id object = [NSObject new];
[parray addPointer:(__bridge void*)object];
weakobject = object;
}
parray = nil;
}
NSAssert(!weakobject, #"weakobject still exists");
My structure here (such as the extra nesting block) is designed to try to avoid accidentally creating strong references I don't mean to make.
In my experiments, this fails without the autoreleasepool and succeeds with it. That indicates that the extra retain/autorelease is being added around or by the call to addPointer:, not by ARC modifying your interface.
If you're not using this implementation for addObject:, I'd be interested in digging deeper. It is an interesting question, even if I don't believe you should be subclassing this way.
I'm going to elaborate on why I said this "looks a lot like a homework assignment." This will likely earn me many down votes, but it will also server as a good learning case for others who later find this question.
Subclassing NSMutableArray not a goal of a program. It is a means to achieve something else. If I were to venture a guess, I expect you were trying to create an array that lazily creates the object when they are accessed. There are better ways to do this without dealing with memory management yourself.
Here's an example of how I would implement a lazy loading array.
#interface LazyMutableArray : NSMutableArray
- (id)initWithCreator:(id(^)(int))creator;
#end
#interface LazyMutableArray ( )
#property (nonatomic, copy) id (^creator)(int);
#property (nonatomic, assign) NSUInteger highestSet;
#end
#implementation LazyMutableArray
- (id)initWithCreator:(id(^)(int))creator
{
self = [super init];
if (self) {
self.highestSet = NSNotFound;
self.creator = creator;
}
return self;
}
- (id)objectAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index
{
id obj = nil;
if ((index < self.highestSet) && (self.highestSet != NSNotFound)) {
obj = [super objectAtIndex:index];
if ([obj isKindOfClass:[NSNull class]]) {
obj = self.creator(index);
[super replaceObjectAtIndex:index withObject:obj];
}
} else {
if (self.highestSet == NSNotFound) {
self.highestSet = 0;
}
while (self.highestSet < index) {
[super add:[NSNull null]];
self.highestSet += 1;
}
obj = self.creator(index);
[super add:obj];
self.highestSet += 1;
}
return obj;
}
Fair Warning: I'm not compiling or syntax checking any of this code. It probably has a few bugs in it, but it should generally work. Additionally, this implementation is missing an implementation of add:, count, removeObjectAtIndex:, insertObject:atIndex:, and possibly replaceObjectAtIndex:withObject:. What I show here is just to get you started.
I just noticed that calling addObject: on an NSMutableArray doesn't access that array's setter.
E.g., for NSMutableArray self.myArray, [self.myArray addObject:object] does not use [self setMyArray:array] to add the object.
Previously I have been using custom setters and getter to check assignment before assigning; e.g., if I wanted an array that only accepted objects of class MyClass, I would do the following:
- (void)setMyArray:(NSMutableArray *)myArray
{
for (id object in myArray)
{
if (![object isKindOfClass:[MyClass class]]) return;
}
_myArray = myArray;
}
- (NSMutableArray *)myArray
{
if (!_myArray) _myArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
_myArray = myArray;
}
How do I go about achieving this same functionality when changing the array via addObject:, removeObject:, and other similar functions that may circumvent the setter?
Generally this kind of problem is the reason why NSMutableArray is usually avoided in preference of NSArray.
This is the simple solution, use NSArray instead of NSMutableArray:
self.myArray = [self.myArray arrayByAddingObject:foo];
However, if the array is really big that will cause performance issues. Then you've got two options:
you can have your own addObjectToMyArray: method in your class and always use that
you can create an NSArrayController and use that to access your array. It will implement key value observing and bindings and all of that stuff.
NSMutableArray is designed to perform addObject: with as few CPU instructions as possible and therefore does not proved any way for external code to be notified that the object was added. You have to have some other class wrapped around it.
Do not try to subclass NSMutableArray, because it is a "class cluster" making subclasses extremely complicated.
If what you wish to do is ensure objects in the array are of a particular class then this answer to the question "NSMutableArray - force the array to hold specific object type only" provides code to do exactly that.
If you wish to do other checks on assignment then you can use the code in that answer as a starting point.
I was told by a fellow StackOverflow user that I should not use the getter method when releasing a property:
#property(nonatmic, retain) Type* variable;
#synthesize variable;
// wrong
[self.variable release];
// right
[variable release];
He did not explain in detail why. They appear the same to me. My iOS book said the getter on a property will look like this:
- (id)variable {
return variable;
}
So doesn't this mean [self variable], self.variable, and variable are all the same?
For a retained property with no custom accessor, you can release the object by:
self.variable = nil;
This has the effect of setting the ivar (which may not be called 'variable' if you have only declared properties) to nil and releasing the previous value.
As others have pointed out, either directly releasing the ivar (if available) or using the method above is OK - what you must not do is call release on the variable returned from a getter.
You can optionally write custom getter behavior, which may result in completely different behavior. So, you cannot always assume that [variable release] has the same results as [self.variable release].
As well, you can write custom properties without an exclusive ivar backing them... it can get messy fast if you start releasing objects from references returned by getters!
There may be additional reasons that I'm unaware of...
A typical getter will look more like this:
- (id)variable {
return [[variable retain] autorelease];
}
So if you use [self.variable release] you have an additional retain and autorelease that you don't really need when you just want to release the object and that cause the object to be released later than necessary (when the autorelease pool is drained).
Typically, you would either use self.variable = nil which has the benefit that it also sets the variable to nil (avoiding crashes due to dangling pointers), or [variable release] which is the fastest and may be more appropriate in a dealloc method if your setter has custom logic.
not all getters take this form:
- (id)variable { return variable; }
...that is merely the most primitive form. properties alone should suggest more combinations, which alter the implementation. the primitive accessor above does not account for idioms used in conjunction with memory management, atomicity, or copy semantics. the implementation is also fragile in subclass overrides.
some really brief examples follow; things obviously become more complex in real programs where implementations become considerably more complex.
1) the getter may not return the instance variable. one of several possibilities:
- (NSObject *)a { return [[a copy] autorelease]; }
2) the setter may not retain the instance variable. one of several possibilities:
- (void)setA:(NSObject *)arg
{
...
a = [arg copy];
...
}
3) you end up with memory management implementation throughout your program, which makes it difficult to maintain. the semantics of the class (and how it handles instance variables' ref counting) should be kept to the class, and follow conventions for expected results:
- (void)stuff:(NSString *)arg
{
const bool TheRightWay = false;
if (TheRightWay) {
NSMutableString * string = [arg mutableCopy];
[string appendString:#"2"];
self.a = string;
[string release];
// - or -
NSMutableString * string = [[arg mutableCopy] autorelase];
[string appendString:#"2"];
self.a = string;
}
else {
NSMutableString * string = [arg mutableCopy];
[string appendString:#"2"];
self.a = string;
[self.a release];
}
}
failing to follow these simple rules makes your code hard to maintain and debug and painful to extend.
so the short of it is that you want to make your program easy to maintain. calling release directly on a property requires you to know a lot of context of the inner workings of the class; that's obviously bad and misses strong ideals of good OOD.
it also expects the authors/subclassers/clients to know exactly how the class deviates from convention, which is silly and time consuming when issues arise and you have to relearn all the inner details when issues arise (they will at some point).
those are some trivial examples of how calling release on the result of a property introduces problems. many real world problems are much subtler and difficult to locate.
I am working on a delegate class that controls several views, and find myself switching between updating properties in the delegate and returning values from methods. What is the proper way to do this?
-(NSArray)blah{
return myarray;
}
or
-(void)blah{
[self myarray:value]
}
--------------- Clarification of question below
if I have a helper method that converts an NSArray into a NSDictionary
should I call my helper method and expect a return of NSDictionary, or should I update a variable in memory and return void.
There's a case for each approach, depending on what you are really doing. The two choices are:
It is truly a helper method, that has use in many places in your application.
It is specific to a single class and the dictionary is a member of that class.
OPTION 1) If it is truly a helper method, I believe that you should return the NSDictionary from the method. I'm assuming it is newly allocated within that method.
In other words, prefer:
+ (NSDictionary *) dictFromArray:(NSArray *);
If it has utility outside of a single class, you could put it in a sensible class that collects related utility methods.
The alternative approach of passing in an empty dictionary to be filled is practiced in C because it creates symmetry around allocating and freeing and makes it clear who owns the memory.
In Objective-C, reference counting takes care of that, so you can avoid the extra code of allocating empty objects just to call the method.
For example:
NSMutableDictionary *myDict = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] init];
dictFromArray(myArray, myDict);
When it comes to knowing who owns the object, you should stick to Objective-C conventions, where:
+ (NSDictionary *) dictFromArray:(NSArray *)array
returns an autorelease object, so the caller knows they need to retain it if they want to hold a reference.
OPTION 2) If the functionality is specific to a single class and that class has the dictionary as a member, then I would pass in the array, update the dictionary member variable using the array contents, and return void.
Something like:
- (void) setBlahFromArray:(NSArray *)array
The question is confusing as stated. If they are properties then you have accessor methods that usually include something like:
-(void) setMyValue: (NSString*) inNewValue;
-(NSString*) myValue;
but it seems like you are probably asking something else since these can be dynamically synthesized for you by the compiler... So try rephrasing the question and we'll try again to help.