I was wondering if there is a way to share an NSManagedObject between two or more NSManagedObjectContext objects running in the same thread.
I have the following problem: I have one main context shared through all my code in the application and several different contexts that are created for each remote fetch request that I issue. (I created a custom class that fetches remotely and inserts all the objects found in the server in his own NSManagedObjectContext). Those fetch requests may run simultaneously since they use NSURLConnection objects that may end at different times. If the same remote object gets fetched by different connections, I will end up with duplicates at the moment of saving and merging the context with the main one. (That is, objects that have the same remote ID but a different objectID).
One possible solution would be to save (and so persist) every object as soon as it is created but I can't do that because it may have some relationships that may still have not been filled and won't validate during the save operation.
I'm really looking forward to a method that allows you to share the same non-persistent instance of an object between context. If anybody has encountered this issue and came up with a solution, I would be pleased to know!
Context cannot communicate between each other save through their stores. However, you can insert a managed object with a nil managed object context and it will be independent (albeit without relationships) of any context. You could pass that independent managed object around however you wished and insert it into a context when you needed to persist it. This is dangerous but possible.
However, if you're not running each connection on a separate thread then you don't gain anything by having multiple context. Each connection object will activate its delegate in sequence on the main thread. In this case, your easiest solution would be to use the same delegate for all the connections and let the delegate handle the insertions into a single context. To prevent duplication, just do a fetch on the remoteID and see if you get back an extant object before inserting a new object for that remoteID.
I don't think what you want to do is possible. I mean if you want to share changes between different contexts, you got to use notifications and merge it whenever did save or did change occur. But in your case, I'd say just use 1 context and save in the end. Or a less elegant way: save all the remote ids temporary in your app and check before inserting new ones. In this case, you can continue use multiple contexts and save after each didfinishloading.
Related
Prerequisites:
I have 2 methods in the network API:
return list of entities (just basic info: name, id, etc.)
return detailed info about entity
The requirement is to save only objects created by processing the second request (save to sqlite) and leave non-full objects without saving.
Also, the 'main' context should contain only full objects from 1st request, and any other 'temporary' context should contain all the others objects.
I've tried to create two instances of NSPersistentStoreCoordinator and use them for different types of contexts, but it seems that for one NSManagedObjectModel can exist only one coordinator (the pointer points to the same adress).
If I understand you correctly, then I think your best option is to only create a managed object once you're sure you want it to persist in Core Data storage. You may need another layer of non-managed objects to contain data for the "non-full" entities
(This would be something like Data Transfer Objects from Java EE programming.)
You can not save indiscriminately from within the same MOC. Saving the MOC always saves everything in it.
So, you can use a separate MOC that is never saved, and then just "move" those objects to the main MOC when they are ready to be saved.
The solution that exactly solves my problem is to create two 'forks' of core data stack:
one with default config and mainContext
the second (new instance of the same NSManagedObjectModel, new
NSPersistentStore (inMemory) and new NSPersistenStoreCoordinator )
Is it possible to find out which properties were saved on a managed object after the save occurs? For example, I have someone listening for managed object context saves, (NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification) and I want to know which properties on the objects were saved.
The NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification does contain all three bits of information you would need to sync with a server. Check the [notification userInfo] and you will find three sets inside: NSInsertedObjectsKey, NSUpdatedObjectsKey, and NSDeletedObjectsKey
If you want to know what properties on an entity have changed that would require that you track them yourself using KVO. I would recommend against this as the odds of that level of effort being worth it over just pushing the entire object up to a server are slim.
Update #2
On further poking around:
From the NSManagedObjectContextWillSaveNotification you could loop through each set and reference the changedValues method. You could keep a reference to that dictionary until after you receive the NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification and then process the changes. Still sounds very heavy to me.
Update
What is your end goal?!?!
If you are trying to figure out what to push to a server then being at the attribute level is too low. You should be syncing at the entity level.
If you are just trying to keep some internal consistency inside of your application then you are thinking way, way too low level. This is a solved problem. Core Data solved it.
Why don't you get them when they are about to be saved. Subscribe to NSManagedObjectContextWillSaveNotification and check insertedObjects, updatedObjects and deletedObjects of the NSManagedObjectContext.
Update:
Even easier, get the user info of the NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification
From the documentation:
Typically, on thread A you register for the managed object context
save notification, NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification. When you
receive the notification, its user info dictionary contains arrays
with the managed objects that were inserted, deleted, and updated on
thread B.
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/cocoa/conceptual/coredata/Articles/cdConcurrency.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003385-SW1
Here's the solution I settled with. I have one singleton class that is notified when a context saves. The NSManagedObjectContextWillSave notification tells me which things have changed so I store them in a dictionary with the key being the context that saved. Then when I get the NSManagedObjectContextDidSave notification, I check the dictionary for the associated context. Finally, I remove that entry from the dictionary. Does that seem reasonable?
Two views in my application need to load same information when restoring state. My idea was, to avoid saving it twice, to have one view create another in init orcreatePartControl if it wasn't created yet. However,
PlatformUI.getWorkbench().getActiveWorkbenchWindow().getActivePage().showView(...)
doesn't work there, as getActivePage() returns null. Is it possible to work around this?
Delegate to a manager or service to load/maintain/save the shared state. That will ensure the first access initializes your information. When the view is instantiated just go to the manager and retrieve the information. If the user never instantiates your view, then you never had to do the extra work.
In the general case, you can't create/instantiate one view while creating/activating another view. Eclipse won't allow it, and will generate ERRORs in the error log.
EDIT:
3 standard persistence patterns I've seen used (and/or misused :-) are:
1) Have your plugin get its state location and simply serialize you state out there. (location provided for free if you subclass org.eclipse.core.runtime.Plugin) You can do it in your activator stop(BundleContext) method. You can uses classes like org.eclipse.ui.XMLMemento to serialize to/from XML if you don't already have a solution.
2) if you subclass org.eclipse.ui.plugin.AbstractUIPlugin you can use org.eclipse.ui.plugin.AbstractUIPlugin.getDialogSettings() to store your state. Potentially a little bulky as you would have to keep it up to date.
3) have your common manager update a preference, potentially using another serialization technique.
I have written an iOS app that calls NSUrlConnection multiple times to download image data from the web. Sometimes, one NSUrlConnection has not finished before the other starts. I am seeing corrupt jpeg data and I think it is because my didReceiveData delegate is saving data from two separate NSUrlConnections and munging the two jpeg data streams together into one data variable, hence causing the corruption.
My question is: what is the best way to avoid this? There doesn't seem to be a way to make each NSUrlConnection instance save to a separate data variable, or make each instance wait until the previous instance is done before saving.
My code basically follows Apple's example here except I call a loadData function multiple times which creates the NSURLRequest and NSURLConnection. http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/URLLoadingSystem/Tasks/UsingNSURLConnection.html
Thanks in advance for any help.
When your delegate's connection:didReceiveData: method is called, you'll have the connection instance as the first parameter. So you'll need to use that to keep track of which connection just received data.
Apple's sample maintains one instance of NSMutableData. Your code will require several instances, one for each active connection.
Or, of course, you could have a separate delegate object (an individual instance) for each connection. That may be easier.
We are using NHibernate to manage our persistence in a complex modular windows forms application - but one thought keeps bothering me. We currently open a session on launch and open all objects through that session. I am worried that all loaded objects get loaded into the NHibernate session cache, so that they cant be garbage collected, and ultimately we will end up with the whole database in memory.
This never happens with web applications because web page requests (and even better Ajax requests) represent the perfect short lived transaction so a session can be opened and closed to handle each request.
However if I load an tree of objects in my forms application and put then into a navigation pane on the screen they may stay their for the life of the application - and at any point the user may click on them, resulting in our code needing to navigate the object relationships to other objects (which only works within an NHibernate session).
What do StackOverflow readers do to keep the benefits of NHibernate without the issues I describe?
Ayende and company usually recommend using a session per "conversation". This usually makes the session lifetime last for very short operations, so it behaves more like a web app.
For your tree case, you can use Bruno's solution #2 just fine. The objects can be lazily mapped. Then, every time you need to access a child collection, you start a conversation and reconnect the parent via ISession.Lock. Then when the databinding is done, close that session. Not too much overhead to maintain, just a few lines of code in any form that needs to carry a conversation; you can extend Form and the controls you're using to do this automatically if you're feeling sassy.
The tricky part, then, is concurrent edits from different sessions. Let's not go there!
I open a session when I need one, and I'll close it when I know that I won't need it anymore.
More specifically, for instance, if I have a form which lets me edit Customer information for instance, I'll open a session when the form gets instantiated, and I'll close the Session when the form is closed.
When I have 2 instances of that form open, I also have 2 session open.
I can see a couple of alternatives:
Eager-load the object tree (which, from what I can gather from the documentation is the default)
Detach the objects, intercept the "click" event, and load the data from the database then, with a new session. This one forces you to take care of collections by yourself, instead of relying on nhibernate, which may fall outside of the scope of the question (which asks for the benefits of NHibernate, one of which is collection management)
You can take a look to my posts on how to use uNHAddins to work with session per conversation in a Windows Forms application (uNHAddins is a project with some additionsns to NHibernate led by Fabio Maulo, current NH Lead)
The first post is this
http://gustavoringel.blogspot.com/2009/02/unhaddins-persistence-conversation-part.html
From there you have links to uNHAddins trunk.