I'm looking at using an NSCollectionView for a photo library application, which will allow browsing of 10,000+ images. I'm not sure if NSCollectionView is the best thing for this, or if I should be looking at other methods, so feel free to throw your 2 cents in if you have an opinion.
Anyway, in the (custom) class holding the NSCollectionViewItem, when a specific bound value is updated, I call a method on the item's view.
Problem is, just accessing [self view] is taking an exorbitant amount of time. This was demonstrated by breaking the call to [self view] into another method and running instrumentation over it. The following method
- (NSBox*)getBox {
return (NSBox*)[self view];
}
takes about 100 times more processing time that any other single method. Yes, it's called many times, but if I change to return self, rather than self.view, the getBox method doesn't even appear in the processing list.
Any ideas on why this should be the case?
Why not use Image Kit's IKImageBrowserView, which is basically an iPhoto-like image browser?
There's the ImageKitDemo and ImageBrowser sample projects.
Regarding the performance issue with [self view], it might be that the collection view is being loaded lazily from the nib each time, and this call to [self view] is what's causing another instance to be instantiated from memory or from disk. While I haven't used NSCollectionView myself, my gut feeling is that there's probably going to be a greater overhead with numerous NSViews compared to IKImageBrowserView which uses the standard coupling of an NSView with an NSCell-like reusable drawing mechanism to help improve performance.
See Avoid the Overuse of Views:
"A good example of when to use custom
objects is a photo browser that
displays thumbnail images of hundreds
or even thousands of photos. Wrapping
each photo in an NSView instance would
both be prohibitively expensive and
inefficient. Instead, you would be
better off by creating a lightweight
class to manage one or more photos and
a custom view to manage that
lightweight class."
(In many places, a single NSView subclass will re-use an NSCell subclass to help implement the drawing of its contents. In this respect, the NSCell basically acts as a little "drawing machine").
Related
I have a MacOS appkit app with a LOT of different NSWindows (hundreds), and they are each created from storyboards.
Many of these NSWindows have container views with complex embedded view/view controller hierarchies.
During initialization, it's necessary to know the model object associated with any given NSWindow, so its subviews and controls can be properly initialized. Since any NSController can know its NSView, and any NSView can know its NSWindow, it would be nice for that information to stored with the NSWindow.
It would be great to set a "representedObject" for the NSWindow, but unlike NSViewController, it doesn't really have one.
Is the only real solution to create a simple custom class (derived from a small base class) for each and every NSWindow storyboard object, so NSViews & NSViewControllers down the view hierarchy can get to my model data (pointer)?
A CLARIFICATION: very few of my NSWindow objects in our hundreds of storyboards have custom classes or code derived from NSWindow. So while a Category is definitely helpful for adding an API to classes to ACCESS the model data associated with the NSWindow, it's not helpful in creating a property or instance variable and initializing it in all those NSWindow storyboards.
ULTIMATELY I PRESENT A SIMPLE BUT DISGUSTINGLY BAD SOLUTION NO ONE SHOULD COPY:
Our app does not use NSDocument, which would provide a facility for associating NSWindow objects with a document/model architecture. So our goal has been to allow each and every NSController and NSView to get access to the appropriate singular document model object required to initialize the view's controls.
I've been warned by Apple engineering gurus that I cannot depend on the order in which views and subviews are created and initialized. That makes passing data down into complex storyboard embedded subviews tricky and error-prone.
But -- with all UI on the main thread, it is not possible for a single application on MacOS to create, initialize, and display one storyboard AND have another storyboard initialization & display interrupt that process (at least not our user-invoked application storyboards). So the simple solution is...
...to have a temporarily set application-level global with the desired document model pointer. That, and a stack-based lock count to insure that the above assumptions are never violated. Terrible design. Efficient solution.
No one needs to remind me WHY this is not good. But if there's a better solution it has escaped my testing. I found that even viewDidLoad and viewWillAppear can't be trusted to have a solid pointer back to its NSWindow...
Without knowing your application structure; you will need a mechanism to assign the model pointer to each individual window. This will necessitate adding some code somewhere. An NSWindow subclass does seem appropriate.
In the AppKit MVC pattern, model data usually fits between the view and the view controller. Attempting to associate the model with the window is fighting against this pattern to some extent.
That being said; the Objective C runtime does allow you to add custom properties to existing classes using categories. This is achieved using Associative References. The relevant functions are:
objc_setAssociatedObject
objc_getAssociatedObject
objc_removeAssociatedObjects
This article has a good rundown of the benefits and downsides of that approach.
I having some Performance troubles with my app:
It takes more than 2 seconds to load -> So straight away I went to Apple documentation
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CocoaPerformance/Articles/CustomViews.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001443-CJBJIFGC
In the section named "Avoid the Overuse of Views" at the bottom I got very confused:
I indeed adding a lot of NSViews (Guess I overusing them).
"
Instead, you should consider writing your own custom classes that can be managed by a higher-level NSView subclass. The drawing code of your NSView subclass can then be optimized to handle your custom objects.
"
My Question is:
How can I write my own custom classes that can be managed by a higher -level NSView subclass -> any example ?
Only thing I thought was a CALayer.
Is adding CALayer subclasses are better than adding NSView ?
Would it increase my poor performance a bit ?
Or there is something new to learn ?
EDIT:
Currently I have NSViews where I adding 15 NSView as a subview to them and I can add 15CALayers instead :-/
Have you profiled your App? Before ripping your view hierarchy apart, use instruments with the time profiler to find out where the time is actually being spent.
CALayers are more efficient than UIViews, and it is recommended to avoid using drawRect if you don't need to, but before resorting to a rewrite, you need to know where your App is actually spending its time.
I am customizing my drawRect: method, which serves to draw a NSImage if it has been "loaded" (loading taking a few seconds worth of time because I'm grabbing it from a WebView), and putting off drawing the image till later if the image has not yet been loaded.
- (void)drawRect:(NSRect)dirtyRect
{
NSImage *imageToDraw = [self cachedImage];
if (imageToDraw != nil) {
[imageToDraw drawInRect:dirtyRect fromRect:NSZeroRect operation:NSCompositeSourceOver fraction:1.0 respectFlipped:YES hints:nil];
} else {
//I need help here
[self setNeedsDisplay:YES];
}
}
My question is how to do the latter. [self cachedImage] returns nil if the image is unavailable, but anytime within the next few seconds it may become available and at that time I want to draw it because the custom view is already on screen.
My initial instinct was to try calling [self setNeedsDisplay:YES]; if the image wasn't available, in hopes that it would tell Cocoa to call drawRect again the next time around (and again and again and again until the image is drawn), but that doesn't work.
Any pointers as to where I can go from here?
EDIT:
I am very much aware of the delegate methods for WebView that fire when the loadRequest has been completely processed. Using these, however, will be very difficult due to the structure of the rest of the application, but I think I will try to somehow use them now given the current answers. (also note that my drawRect: method is relatively light weight, there being nothing except the code I already have above.)
I currently have about 10+ custom views each with custom data asking the same WebView to generate images for each of them. At the same time, I am grabbing the image from an NSCache (using an identifier corresponding to each custom view) and creating it if it doesn't exist or needs to be updated, and returning nil if it is not yet available. Hence, it's not as easy as calling [view setNeedsDisplay:YES] from - (void)webView:(WebView *)sender didFinishLoadForFrame:(WebFrame *)frame or another method.
My initial instinct was to try calling [self setNeedsDisplay:YES]; if the image wasn't available, in hopes that it would tell Cocoa to call drawRect again the next time around (and again and again and again until the image is drawn)
This would be incredibly inefficient, even if it worked.
anytime within the next few seconds it may become available and at that time I want to draw it
So, when that happens, call [view setNeedsDisplay:YES].
If you have no means of directly determining when the image becomes available, you'll have to poll. Set up a repeating NSTimer with an interval of something reasonable -- say 0.25 second or so. (This is also pretty inefficient, but at least it's running only 4 times per second instead of 60 or worse. It's a tradeoff between two factors: how much CPU and battery power you want to use, and how long the delay is between the time the image becomes available and the time you show it.)
my drawRect: method is relatively light weight, there being nothing except the code I already have above.
Even if you do nothing at all in -drawRect:, Cocoa still needs to do a lot of work behind the scenes -- it needs to manage dirty rects, clear the appropriate area of the window's backing store, flush it to the screen, etc. None of that is free.
Well, usually there is some delegate method that is called, when a download of something finishes. You should implement that method and call setNeedsDisplay:YES there.
The documentation for webkit:
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/DisplayWebContent/Tasks/ResourceLoading.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20002028-CJBEHAAG
You have to implement the following method in your webview delegate:
- webView:resource:didFinishLoadingFromDataSource:
There you can call [view setNeedsDisplay:Yes]
I am learning iOS programming through the Big Nerd Ranch guide by Hillegass and Conway. I’m writing an app of my own as I go through the book, and one of the questions that has been bugging me is exactly when I need to subclass UIViewController (and its ilk) and when I can just instantiate it.
For example, my app consists of generic building blocks: the interface is tabbed, and the tabs lead to a UITableView, a UINavigationController that creates UITableViews, and so on. Following the book’s instructions, I have subclassed UITableViewController to create the table views. However, in creating the UITabBarController that contains all of my app’s content, it seems sufficient to instantiate a UITabBarController and then add a bunch of views to it. (All of this is done in the application:didFinishLaunchingWithOptions: method of my app delegate. Since most of my app consists of simple combinations of basic UI parts, I’m trying to do build the UI programmatically whenever possible.)
I get the impression that what I should be doing is creating a subclass of UIViewController (or UITableViewController or whatever) for every interface in my project. This seems weird to me, since most of these classes would only ever be instantiated once. Am I just misunderstanding how OO should be used in this case? (I have a good amount of programming experience but relatively little has been with OOP.) Should I be creating a subclass for each and every screen that the user will see?
Should I be creating a subclass for each and every screen that the user will see?
If each view requires different logic, yes.
Don't shy away from creating new classes for conceptually separate things. Programmers coming from non-OOP to OOP might feel that a file with only a small amount of code is a waste. Suppress this feeling. Classes are cheap, and help enormously to organise your thinking.
So you have two types of UIViewControllers in iOS. "Container" viewControllers and "Content" viewcontrollers. Both are subclasses of UIViewController but have very different purposes.
The Container type is what the UINavigationController and UITabController are. They are rarely subclassed and typically used as is (in fact, I believe Apple doesn't allow the subclassing of UINavigationController at all). These "Containers" take care of moving "Content" view controller around for you. They do not have much content of their own, beyond adding things like a tab bar or a navigation bar.
The "Content" view controller are the ones you create most of the time. You will rarely be able to use a UIViewController as is, because it will not have any functionality. That is why you subclass them. These are meant to represent a single "screenful" of content. So in effect, every "screen" the user sees should be controlled by a UIViewController subclass.
The UITableViewController is simply a specialized sublass of UIViewController that already contains some methods for managing tables.
The way the UIKit framework was designed was for you to use subclasses of UIViewController to display content and to use out-of-the-box "Container" controllers to facilitate the management of your UIViewController subclasses.
You need a subclass of UIViewController if you want to do any of the following (not an exhaustive list, but some examples)
customize the view hierarchy when the view hierarchy is loaded (in
viewDidLoad)
provide some behaviour as the view controller's views become visible
(or not) (in viewWillAppear:, viewDidAppear:, viewWillDisappear:,
etc.)
clean up after yourself as needed in viewDidUnload
create outlets to views in the hierarchy so you can adjust them as
needed in the above lifecycle methods
My reasoning behind subclassing UIViewController, and other classes is that:
Almost always you must initialize variables and assign values to the instances of classes. You add subviews and set their frames, define actions for the UIViewController instance, etc. If this UIViewController instance is directly from the base class, its initialization should be done outside of it. If this initialization is required at different places for multiple times, you may have to deal with repeated initialization process.
So, you've compiled these processes into a method, making it reusable from wherever this UIViewController instance is used. But where do you want to put it? Don't you think it's much better to put it inside the subclass of UIViewController? Also, you don't even have to come up with specific name for this initialization method. Just override the default -(id)init from the super class.
Though you may think it's suffice to use UIViewController without subclassing it for now, as your project grows, it will be challenged to deal with reusability issues. Take some time to look at your codes. Check if there is too much repetition for such as initializing an object, or assigning values to it. If you are doing same things with an instance of a class in multiple places, compile them into a method to be reused. And as number of such methods grow, you will find the need to use subclass which will contain these relevant methods for the instance.
No matter the size of your project, using classes to distinguish different objects is important. Almost always, the basic essential classification is done by the framework, making it unnecessary to introduce new concept for a class. However, this doesn't mean the framework also knows how your project and its objects can be classified into. By using subclass, you can utilize every benefit the development framework can provide and still keeping the objects in your project to be as unique as possible, based on the purpose you've designed for them.
Well about the UITabBarController you are right. There is no reason for you to subclass anything if the default behavior is sufficient. However once you need to do some custom things you will need to subclass it..
Also, why are you trying to build the GUI programmatically? For the learning curve? There is no real reason not to use InterfaceBuilder, it saves you a lot of time.
You should subclass the UITableViewController in order to get your data in the view, that is how the MVC model works. The default implementation does not offer anything in order to get your data in the view, I don't think they will ever do that in order to make sure that nothing is wasted, their 'connection' to the model object might be different from the one you want and you would end up writing an adapter if your model object is not compatible.
I hope this will help you out a bit.
And merry x-mas.
MVC/OOP design patterns say you don't set a property, per se, you ask an object to set its property. Similarly, in Cocoa you don't tell an object when to draw itself. Your object's code has detailed HOW it will draw itself so we trust the frameworks to decide when (for the most part) it should draw.
But, when it comes to animation in Cocoa (specifically Cocoa-Touch) it seems that we now must take control of when the object draws itself from within the objects view controller. I can't send a message to a UIView subclass asking it to change some value and then leave it alone knowing it will slowly (duration = X) animate itself to a new position, alpha, rotation, etc. depending on the property changes. Or can I?
Basically, I'm looking for a way to set the property and then walk away. Instead, it seems, I need to wrap the code that calls the object asking it to change its property with an animation block of some sort "[UIView beginAnimations:nil context:NULL]; ... [UIView commitAnimations];"
I'm ending up with lots and lots of animation blocks in my view controllers and none in my view objects...I guess I'm just looking for someone to verify that this is how things are done and I'm not overlooking something. I haven't gotten much farther than the UIView animations within Cocoa-Touch, so maybe that's my problem and it's time to dig deeper?!?
You are correct that UIView does not animate its property changes by default the way CALayer does, but I don't think this indicates a break in MVC. It is appropriate for a Controller to instruct a View in how it should transform. That is the role of a Controller class as surely as it is appropriate for the Controller to know the correct frame for the View and even manage layout. I agree that it's a little weird that you call -beginAnimations:context: on the UIView class rather than on an instance, but in practice it does actually work much better that way since you may want to animate many views together.
That said, if you had a UIView subclass that managed the layout of its subviews, there would be nothing wrong with allowing that UIView to manage the animation rather than relying on a UIViewController to do it. So this is something that could go either place, but in practice it generally goes in the Controller as you've discovered.
I am using "MVC" here in the typical Cocoa sense. You're correct that this might not be appropriate in a SmallTalk program, but then SmallTalk Controllers have a much more limited role (management of user input events). Cocoa significantly expands the role of Controllers in MVC and I think it's an improvement, even if it means there are now some functions that could go in either the Controller or the View (and this is one of them).