I'm wondering if I'm able to time a thread to be executed repeatedly (like when using the scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval method in NSTimer).. I have a view controller, where there is a method I want it to be executed either manually (by clicking a button), or automatically (by timing the method execution). The problem is that, this method will connect with a remote server, and it will update the result on the view, so I don't want it to block the main thread (the view controller thread).
I don't know what to use, so if there's anyone knows how, please let me know :)
Thanks in advance..
It sounds like you might be using an NSURLConnection, and if that's the case, then as joshpaul noted, it will act asynchronously by default. That is to say, when you start the connection, the NSURLConnection object will create a new thread, do its work on that thread, and return results to you on the original thread via the delegate methods, cleaning up the second thread afterwards. This means that the original thread, main or not, will not be blocked while the connection does its work. All you have to do, then, is have your timer's action create and run the connection.
In other cases, you have a couple of options. It's easy enough to set up a timer method that will call another method to be performed in the background:
- (void)periodicMethodTimerFire:(NSTimer *)tim {
[self performSelectorInBackground:#selector(myPeriodicMethod:)
withObject:myPeriodicArgument];
}
This can make it difficult to get results back from the other thread (because you need to pass a reference to the original thread to the method). However, since you seem to be on the main thread to begin with, you can use performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: passing NO for the wait argument to get back.
The more complicated option is to set up your own background thread with a timer running on it, but I'd be surprised if that was really necessary.
If you're using NSURLConnection, it's asynchronous. That'll likely work for your needs.
Related
I'm using the background fetch method performFetchWithCompletionHandler in order to update some user data. However, those processes are fairly complicated and include block statements, so they don't execute synchronously.
My concern is that I am always returning completionHandler(UIBackgroundFetchResultNewData);
-(void)application:(UIApplication *)application performFetchWithCompletionHandler:(void (^)(UIBackgroundFetchResult))completionHandler
{
NSLog(#"Start background data fetch");
// Update data -- this method contains various blocks inside
[GETDataRequest updateUserDataWithUser: user];
// Update images -- this method contains various blocks inside
[GETImagesRequest updateUserImagesWithUser: user];
NSLog(#"Background Data Fetch completed");
completionHandler(UIBackgroundFetchResultNewData);
}
According to this post, in regards to completionHandler(UIBackgroundFetchResultNewData) the following was mentioned:
You have to call this to let iOS know what the result of your background fetch was. It uses this information to schedule future background fetches. If you neglect to do this, future background fetches may be delayed by the OS. The consequences of not calling this handler might include terminating your app altogether.
As you can see here, I am always saying it's successful whether or not it actually is. The answerer had this to say about my situation:
...you should call the completion handler only when your fetch is actually complete. Otherwise iOS will probably put your application back to sleep before the connection completes, and apps shouldn't actually be able to determine UIBackgroundFetchResultNewData versus UIBackgroundFetchResultNoData or UIBackgroundFetchResultFailed until then anyway. How do you know your connection will succeed?
Is what I'm doing ACTUALLY a problem? Will it actually cut off the updates? If it is going to produce unexpected results, what's the solution to this mess? The answer to the question I mentioned wasn't clear enough to me. I have tried using block variables to make it function as it should, but have been unsuccessful. Much appreciated.
The code you are using is meant for Background Fetch Refresh functionality, through this you can make a quick refresh to your app when its in background by mentioning the system time interval to minimum. This service is available in the delegate method performFetchWithCompletionHandler and it will last for 30 seconds. You need to manage your code accordingly to get updated result and then at end as per your result you need to call the appropriate completion handler block.
If you have the long running background task I will prefer then to use Background Fetch Services using NSURLSessions.
I'm writing a standard NSURLConnection class for the App I'm working on right now which I will hopefully be able to use subsequent apps as well.
The idea is to able to pass a URL and a parameters array to a method in this class that will start the connection and then have it return the result when it is done.
-(NSData*)go :(NSString*)url :(NSArray)params
Since I'm calling this from another class I'd like to be able to set the result to a variable in that calling class.
NSData *result = [[connect alloc]go:testurl :testparams];
The problem is that the result doesn't arrive right away so when I return the NSData I have set in the "go" method it is blank.
I've tried a few things like NSCondition and running a while loop on another thread in the go method to check if it was finished.
Unfortunately, and I did not know this beforehand, the asynchronous connections form NSURLConnections run on the same thread as my NSCondition in the "go" method ran on. Because of this when I locked up that method so it didn't return early, I also locked up my connection so it never reached it's completion callback.
How can I effectively pause my "go" method long enough for my connection to finish so I can return the data to anywhere in my app.
There's a chance I'm going about this the completely wrong way so please let me know if that is the case. It does need to work kind of like this though because multiple requests will be going out at the same time and I'd like different instances of this connection class to be able to control them all.
I've been busy updating my brain with the TPL because I intend on using it for my new application (which uses .Net Framework 4.0). However I have some doubts that someone might clarify for me. Previously, I had a progress form which I would launch from the main (GUI) thread after I started the thread which needed to display its' progress. It looked something like this:
sortThread = New Thread(AddressOf _Sorter.Sort())
_ProgressForm = New FrmProgress()
_Sorter.ProgressForm = _ProgressForm
sortThread.Start()
progressForm.ShowDialog()
Basically it would initialize the thread, initialize a FrmProgress form object and assign it to the Sorter object which would then update the progress form (which contained a progress bar and some labels) from its Sort() sub on the separate thread. Updating these control properties was achieved by checking the InvokeRequired property of the FrmProgress form and if needed it would then use the Invoke() method of the control that was to be updated... ex:
Public Sub IncrementProgressBar(x As Integer)
If Me.InvokeRequired Then
pb_MainProgressBar.Invoke(Sub() IncrementProgressBar(x))
Else
pb_MainProgressBar.Increment(x)
End If
End Sub
Now I am interested in using TPL to launch separate worker threads (multiple) that may want to update the progress bar. Should I use the same pattern or should I consider accessing a public TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext context that was obtained in the main GUI thread? In both cases I suppose I should provide some kind of locking mechanism on the form (SyncLock?)
Invoke should be sufficient, as you are doing. If two different threads try to invoke in parallel the first one will execute first, then the second when the UI thread becomes free. The UI thread cannot service two invokes simultaneously - they are naturally handled in FIFO sequence so there is no issue with thread safety. Any number of threads can invoke on the main thread without worrying about each other or using any additional locking mechanism.
Note, however, that any thread calling Invoke will block until the main thread can service the call. If you, for example, had many threads invoking heavy code at the same time then your various threads would block on the invoke calls until they got their kick at the can, so to speak. If you use BeginInvoke then the calling thread will simply continue executing and the invoked method will be placed in the UI thread's queue (which it will service as soon as it can).
This is an IOS6 question.
I have an app that is calling a class (A) to check something. Then I want to call a class (B) to do something else
Is it possible to make sure process B doesn't start before process A finishes?
At the moment, I just call one after the other in the RootVC.
Each is showing a modal view, and I only get to see B ..
[self performA];
[self performB];
Thanks
There are several tools for managing the order of execution of parts of your application available to you. However since you are presenting view controllers you have a couple of constraints; you don't want to block the main thread (or else the app will become unresponsive) and you must perform UI actions on the main thread.
In this case the most common, and probably most appropriate, solution is to setup a callback to trigger action B when action A finishes.
The modal view controller presented as part of A might call a delegate when it has finished its task successfully. That delegate can then begin task B.
Alternately you might pass a block to A which A will execute when it finishes. That block can then perform task B.
I took the dare and failed.
The story: My app has been giving me hell updating from an iOS4 target to iOS6 (with a contingent sub of code for iOS5/3GS). It crashes unless i use #try etc... with a built in delay interval on the reattempt (which is stupid, 'cause I don't know how large a database the users have, nor how long it will take to load them). It's a painful way to get around my real problem: the view loads before the CoreData stack (logs) can be loaded completely and I don't see a way to make the initial view wait until its NSMutableArray (based on the CoreData database of my object) loads. Basically, I keep getting a false error about addObjectsSortedBy: the foremost attribute of my entity.
Threading does seem to be the answer, but I need to load an NSMutableArray and feed it into my initialViewController, which will be visible on every launch (excluding FirstTime initial), but my attempt (okay, 12 attempts) to use threading just made the crash occur earlier in the app launch.
The result: I bow down to those who have wrangled that bull of threads.
My solution has been to build in a notification in the AppDelegate.m, my initialViewController viewDidLoad is told to listen for it before anything else. If it gets the notification it skips ahead and completes the normal process unto [super viewDidLoad]; if not, it executes #try, #catch, #finally. In the #try I attempt to proceed as though the notification arrived (like it was a little late), then I handle (#catch) the error by displaying a "Please Wait" label to the user, then I tell the app to wait .xx and repeat the original addObjectsSortedBy: command as though everything were kösher to begin with.The sweet-spot for my app, with images and data in the logs appears to be .15 for the wait interval #50 test entries, with time to spare and no obvious lag on load. I could probably go down to .10 #50 entries.
BUT: I don't know how to scale this, without having the logs loaded enough to get an object.count! Without that, there is no way to scale my delay, which means it may (read:will) not work for large logs with many entries (200+)!
I have a work-around, but I'm going to keep trying to get a grip on threading, in order to have a solution. And to be honest, once I hit 20 entries, the notification never hits in time for the #try to occur.
If you can, use threads. I painted myself into a corner by failing to do so early on and am paying for it: my app has been in need of an overhaul, but I need this notch in my belt before it will be worthwhile. The earlier you can implement threaded loading the better for your long-term development. In the meantime, you may be able to use my work-around to continue testing other parts of your app.
Inside ClassA:
-(void)authenticateUser
{
authenticate_Obj = [classB_Obj authenticateMobileUser];
}
Inside ClassB:
-(AuthenticateObj*)authenticateMobileUser
{
[mobile_Obj AuthenticateMobileServer:self action:#selector(Handler:)];
return authenticate_G_Obj;
}
-(void)Handler:(id)value
{
authenticate_G_Obj = (AuthenticateObj*)value;
}
Now once the authenticateMobileUser method of classB returns the controll back to ClassA, we will get the Object authenticate_Obj initiated.
My problem is , when i run the project the authenticate_Obj is NULL... actually when it enters the handler method , the Object is initiallized. but the controlled is returned back to ClassA, without entering into Handler method. I guess this is the problem of Asynchronous execution.
How to make it enter into handler method and then only return the controll to ClassA??
Plz help me..
Thank You.
It sounds like what you think you want to do is to block execution until authentication completes. This might be possible if AuthenticateMobileServer spawns a background thread to work in -- you'd use a synchronisation object such as NSLock -- but it's really a Bad Idea. Why have a background thread at all if you're going to block anyway? And thread synchronisation is notoriously tricky and prone to errors if you don't know what you're doing, which (let's face it) you don't.
Instead, you probably should accept that there will be a period of uncertainty while the authentication takes place, during which your app should keep processing in some intermediate state, and then use a callback to notify you when the authentication is complete and you can then go on with whatever it is you need to do with the authenticated user.
There are a bunch of ways you could do this, and there's not enough detail in the question to say exactly which would be best. But you already seem to be using something very similar within ClassB, so I'd say do the same from ClassA:
Inside ClassA:
-(void)authenticateUser
{
authenticate_Obj = nil;
[classB_Obj authenticateMobileUserAndNotify:self action:#selector(authenticatedObject:)];
// returns more or less immediately, not yet authenticated
}
-(void)authenticatedObject:(YourAuthObjectClass*) authObj
{
authenticate_Obj = authObj;
// do post-authentication stuff here
}
Inside ClassB:
-(void)authenticateMobileUserAndNotify:(id)target action:(SEL)sel
{
// I'm making these ivars for simplicity, there might be other considerations though
callbackTarget = target;
callbackSelector = sel;
[mobile_Obj AuthenticateMobileServer:self action:#selector(Handler:)];
}
-(void)Handler:(id)value
{
authenticate_G_Obj = (AuthenticateObj*)value;
[callbackTarget performSelectorOnMainThread:callbackSelector withObject:authenticate_G_Obj waitUntilDone:NO];
}
Obviously this is just a sketch and not intended to be used as is. And you'll need to consider what goes on in your app while in the waiting state, with authentication in progress but authenticate_Obj still nil. But hopefully you get the idea.
I think you are saying that AuthenticateMobileServer:action: is asynchronous and you want to block until it's finished so you can get the return value. Unfortunately, we can't really tell you without knowing how it works. The main question is does it run the Handler action on the main thread or a secondary thread.
If it runs the action on the main thread, the best strategy is to return immediately from authenticateMobileUser without waiting for the authentication object and disable the UI elements that depend on being authenticated. Then later when you get the authentication object, you should re-enable the UI elements.
If it runs the action on a background thread, the easiest thing is to set up another method similar to Handler (by the way, the naming convention for methods and variables is to start with lower case), which you then invoke from Handler with performSelectorOnMainThread:waitUntilDone:. You can then use the same strategy as outlined above.
Both answers of JeremyP and walkytalky are correct and go at the heart of creating a respondsive UI. The rule of thumb:
If you doing potentially blocking operations such as networking on the main thread, you will get in trouble.
There are at least two reasons:
you are blocking the run loop so it cannot process user events anymore. This will result in a spinning beachball on the mac and a unresponsive UI on both mac and iOS.
If you are on iOS, there is a watchdog going around and checking if your UI is still responding to user events. If you are blocking the UI longer than I think 20s you will be terminated with the error code 0x8badf00d.
So to get this things done which maybe take some time you have to do it on the background thread. As the two answers of JeremyP and walkytalky point out often you get a callback. That is fine but there are in total three ways of messaging:
Delegation
Notifications
Kev-value-observing
All three can be and are used. There are subtle differences between them. One of the most important is that delegation is a 1:1 messaging whereas the other to are a 1:n messaging.
Now that said do not think that you have to use NSThread. Have a look at NSOperation and NSOperationQueue instead. They allow to encapsulate pieces of work in an operation and let them run on a queue in the background. Also if you are using these callbacks with the #selector(methodname:) syntax there is something new: blocks. Often there are equivalent methods which take a block instead of a selector to be executed as a callback.
To finish here is the golden rule:
You may update your model on the background thread, but NEVER update your UI on a background thread.
Check out the WWDC10 videos about these topics. There is a great 2-part talk about networking which explains the concepts in detail.