I am parsing JSON string to create new managed objects in a separate thread and in a separate managed object context. Later I want to merge the changes in the main thread by listening to NSManagedObjectContextObjectsDidChangeNotification.
The problem is that I want to establish the relationships between the newly parsed objects and the other objects in the main moc. However I know it is illegal to make relationships between objects in different contexts.
What's the best practice to accomplish this task?
If the objects on the main thread are saved they will be available to the new context on a secondary thread because the new context shares access to the persistent store.
If you are creating new objects simultaneously on both threads, you will need to merge the context with each other before each will be aware of the objects created on the other.
Merging essentially makes the context copies of each other at the time of the merge.
Related
I'm currently working on an app with a reasonably complex Core Data model. The data model currently has 10 tables in it, with a bunch of relationships set between them. The data for the model is obtained piecemeal from a remote server. In order to minimize the amount of traffic to/from the server, the server API passes object ID's first, giving me a chance to discover if I already have stored the objects. If not, then I can ask the server for the full objects and store them. However, those objects can have references to other objects, for which I will need to check follow the same process: check if I have the object(s) and, if not, grab the objects from the server. The Core Data model includes fields for the server IDs which I use to validate and construct Core Data's object graph.
This creates a situation where objects will have been instantiated in Core Data, but won't have been completely constructed as they may be waiting for referenced objects to be returned by the server (which may, in turn, need to wait for their own reference objects).
So my first attempt to deal with this was to create a semaphore that would not allow the object context to be saved (I only save the context in one place) until all objects are downloaded and the object graph is constructed. The problem I ran into was that the context was being saved anyway, without me asking. This results in a ton of changes propagating through NSFetchedResultsController as objects are downloaded from the server and the object graph is being constructed. Moreover, the propagated objects may not be complete.
Has any dealt with anything like this? I think this could all work if I could explicitly control when Core Data saves, but that does not appear to be possible. Or am I missing something?
UPDATE
I was missing something. I was under the impression that NSFetchedResultsController received updates when the Context is saved. This is not true. It receives updates whenever processPendingChanges is called in the context, which occurs at the end of an event cycle. In the past, I've always used two contexts to keep updates separate from the UI, but this project had a deadline and existing code that kept me from refactoring. Given this new information, I think the separate context will fix my problem.
That is an extremely expensive way to sync with a server. Is there a reason your server can't respond to "changed since X" calls and give you everything? In your current design you are spending more time opening and closing sockets than you are receiving data.
Be that as it may, you want to do all of this processing in a secondary context that is connected directly to the NSPersistentStoreCoordinator. When it saves you want to capture the NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification and then have your UI context consume that notification. That will update your UI when your server sync is complete.
This will keep your syncing 100% isolated from the UI and allow the UI to save or do whatever else it needs to do while you are working with the server. I would not use a parent/child design here. There is no reason to.
You access a core data database via the NSManagedObjectContext class.
Each context object must belong to a single thread, and any NSManagedObjects that context creates belong to the same thread.
Do not read or write any managed object from a thread other than the one that created it. If you do, you'll end up with unpredictable and impossible to debug data corruption problems.
However, you can have multiple NSManagedObjectContext instances for a single core data database, each one on a different thread, and you can merge any changes made to the context in one thread over to a context on another thread.
So, basically, you have a "main" NSManagedObjectContext which is used on the main thread, and used for almost all your operations. And then when you need to do something on another thread you create a "child" context for that thread, make all your changes, then merge those changes back to the main context on the main thread.
You can find specific details how to implement this from Apple's official documentation. Start reading here:
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CoreData/Articles/cdConcurrency.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003385-SW1
I am trying to implement downloading of bulk data from several tables on the server.
In my case there are 16 tables. For all these tables I will be firing 10 requests to the server. This means I have done a bit of logical groupings for related tables, but it is like all tables are inter-related with each other through one or the other relationship.
I need to consider three cases while doing downloading:
Saving data to each table at local.
Managing relationships between inserted objects.
Handling situation when one of the requests fails during download, say 8th request failed.
I will be following this approach for each response:
Inserting data in managed object context.
Managing relationships by firing NSPredicate and associating the related objects.
Saving the context.
In case of a response failure, I have two options:
Next time continue from the failed response.
Revert all saved data to its previous state.
1st approach may lead to some data inconsistency, so I am going with 2nd approach.
I know that if a managed object context is not saved, we can revert the changes, but
is it possible to revert the changes, if the managed object context is
saved?
I require some useful answers from the community.
Please suggest.
Is it possible to revert the changes, if the managed object context is saved?
After saving? Maybe, but it could be tricky. If you set up a separate managed object context for your network operations, and give it an NSUndoManager, you could later on tell the undo manager to roll everything back to the previous state.
It would be simpler to just not save changes until you're finished, though. Using an undo manager doesn't really help much-- the memory needed to store up all the undo actions will at least match the memory use from keeping all of the unsaved changes around until you're finished. If you're working on a separate managed object context (whether a child context or a completely separate context), handling the error case is as simple as letting the MOC get deallocated without saving changes first.
I am learning about CoreData. Obviously, one of the main classes you entouer is NSManagedObjectContext. I am unclear about the exact role of this. From the articles i've read, it seems that you can have multiple NSManagedObjectContexts. Does this mean that NSManagedObjectContext is basically a copy of the backend?
How would this resolve into a consistent backend when there is multiple different copies lying around?
So, 2 questions basically:
Is NSManagedContext a copy of the backend database?
and...
For example, say I make a change in context A and make some other change in context B. Then I call save on A first, then B? will B prevail?
Thanks
The NSManagedObjectContext is not a copy of the backend database. The documentation describes it as a scratch pad
An instance of NSManagedObjectContext represents a single “object
space” or scratch pad in an application. Its primary responsibility is
to manage a collection of managed objects. These objects form a group
of related model objects that represent an internally consistent view
of one or more persistent stores. A single managed object instance
exists in one and only one context, but multiple copies of an object
can exist in different contexts. Thus object uniquing is scoped to a
particular context.
The NSManagedObjectContext is just a temporary place to make changes to your managed objects in a transactional way. When you make changes to objects in a context it does not effect the backend database until and if you save the context, and as you know you can have multiple context that you can make changes to which is really important for concurrency.
For question number 2, the answer for who prevails will depend on the merge policy you set for your context and which one is called last which would be B. Here are the merge policies that can be set that will effect the second context to be saved.
NSErrorMergePolicyType
Specifies a policy that causes a save to fail
if there are any merge conflicts.
NSMergeByPropertyStoreTrumpMergePolicyType
Specifies a policy that
merges conflicts between the persistent store’s version of the object
and the current in-memory version, giving priority to external
changes.
NSMergeByPropertyObjectTrumpMergePolicyType
Specifies a policy that merges conflicts between the persistent store’s version
of the object and the current in-memory version, giving priority to
in-memory changes.
NSOverwriteMergePolicyType
Specifies a policy that
overwrites state in the persistent store for the changed objects in
conflict.
NSRollbackMergePolicyType
Specifies a policy that
discards in-memory state changes for objects in conflict.
An NSManagedObjectContext is specific representation of your data model. Each context maintains its own state (e.g. context) so changes in one context will not directly affect other contexts. When you work with multiple contexts it is your responsibility to keep them consistent by merging changes when a context saves its changes to the store.
Your question is regarding this process and may also involve merge conflicts. Whenever you save a context its changes are committed to the store and a merge policy is used to resolve conflicts.
When you save a context, it will post various notifications regarding progress. In your case, if [contextA save:&error] succeeds, the context will post the notification NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification. When you have multiple contexts, you typically observe this notification and call:
[contextB mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification:notification];
This will merge the changes saved on contextA into contextB.
EDIT: removed the 'thread-safe' comment. NSManagedObjectContext is not thread safe.
I am writing an application and I finally have it saving to the database correctly. However, I have a few problems and was wandering if someone could help point me in the right direction.
During my application load I fire off an NHibernate initialization thread that initializes NHibernate and then fires off 3 separate threads to load 3 of my objects, in order to split up and optimize the load time.
I was originally creating a temporary session in each of these threads in order to query the objects from the database; however, I was running into problems accessing one of the collections of my object saying that a session is not open or it has been closed. I have a static session that is globally accessible throughout my Windows application and when it was calling the GetEnumerator for the collection the state of this session was still open.
I believe it has to do with the fact that the Intersection, the class in question, was loaded from a different session in the thread during the init process. Loading all the objects form the same session works fine; however, I do run into exceptions from time to time with errors regarding sessions being used in a non thread safe manner.
My question then is this. Is there a way to "merge" sessions onto my global session? What can I do to set the Intersection class to where it has an open session in order to load the collection? Is the problem that I need to open the session of the static global program session in the main thread? Or am I going to be unable to thread the loading of the 3 different classes during my init process into 3 separate threads?
you can associate the object-graphs loaded with the other sessions with you main-session.
If the objects may have changed then MainSession.Merge(obj) because it will load the Db-State to know what changed.
If the objects haven't changed then MainSession.Lock(obj, LockMode.None) is enough to associate it with the main-session.
After that you you can use the objects as if they were loaded with your main session
What are your experiences with the latest version of NHibernate (2.0.1 GA) regarding disconnected scenarios?
A disconnected scenario is where I fetch some object graph from NHibernate, disconnect from the session (and database connection), do some changes in the object graph (deleting in collections, adding entities, updating entities) and then reconnect and save....
We tried this in a client-server architecture. Now we are moving to DTO (data transfer objects). This means, the detached entities are not directly sent to the client anymore, but specialized objects.
The main reason to move in this direction is not NHibernate, it is actually the serialization needed to send entities to the client. While you could use lazy-loading (and you will!) while you are attached to the session, you need to get all references from the database to serialize it.
We had lots of Guids instead of references and lots of properties which are mapped but not serialized ... and it became a pain. So it's much easier to copy the stuff you really want to serialize to its own structure.
Besides of that - working detached could work well.
Be careful with lazy loading, which will cause exceptions to be thrown when accessing non loaded objects on a detached instance.
Be careful with concurrency, the chance that entities had changed while they where detached is high.
Be careful if you need some sort of security or even if you want your server alown to make some data changes. The detached objects could potentially return in any state.
You may take a look on session methods SaveOrUpdateCopy and Merge.
Here is an article which gives you more details:
NHibernate feature: SaveOrUpdateCopy & Merge