I'd like to ensure that certain maintenance tasks are executed "eventually". For example, after I detect that some resources might no longer be used in a cache, I might call:
[self performSelector:#selector(cleanupCache) withObject:nil afterDelay:0.5];
However, there might be numerous places where I detect this, and I don't want to be calling cleanupCache continuously. I'd like to consolidate multiple calls to cleanupCache so that we only periodically get ONE call to cleanupCache.
Here's what I've come up with do to this-- is this the best way?
[NSObject cancelPreviousPerformRequestsWithTarget:self selector:#selector(cleanupCache) object:nil];
[self performSelector:#selector(cleanupCache) withObject:nil afterDelay:0.5];
There's no real built-in support for what you want. If this is common in your program, I would create a trampoline class that keeps track of whether it's already scheduled to send a message to a given object. It shouldn't take more than 20 or so lines of code.
Rather than canceling the pending request, how about just keeping track? Set a flag when you schedule the request, and clear it when the cleanup runs.
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 have a question how to wait perform several tasks that are in some method even that method is called few times in different threads;
For example:
When I call method:
1:
2:
I want to see the following:
1:
STEP 1, STEP 2;
2:
STEP 1, STEP 2;
but often I see the following:
1:
2:
STEP 1, STEP 1,
STEP 2, STEP 2,
See code below, maybe it helps to understand the problem better;
//many times per second
- (void)update:(UpdateObjectClass *)updateObject {
//step 1:
//update common data(for example array)
//long process(about 1-2 seconds)
[self updateData:updateObject];
//step 2:
//update table
[self updateTableView];
}
I have tried to use dispatch_barrier_async, but I don't understand how to use this in proper way;
Thank you for any help ;)
I'm borrowing from #remus's answer.
Assuming that -[update:] is being called on the same instance of an object (and not a whole bunch of objects), you can use #synchronized to enforce that your code is only performed one-at-a-time.
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue( DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^(void){
#synchronized(self) {
// Run your updates
// [self updateData:updateObject];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^(void){
// Async thread callback:
[self updateTableView];
});
}
});
However
I am going to go out on a limb, and guess that the reason you need this code to be performed synchronously is because your -[updateData:] method is doing something that is not thread safe, such as modifying a NSMutableDictionary or NSMutableArray. If this is the case, you should really use that #synchronized trick on the mutable thing itself.
I highly recommend that you post the code to -[updateData:] if it is not too long.
You are trying to solve the problem at the wrong level and with the information in the question it is unlikely that any solution can be provided.
Given the output reported we know that updateData and updateTableView are asynchronous and use one or more tasks. We don't know anything about what queue(s) they use, how many tasks they spawn, whether they have an outer task which does not complete until sub tasks have, etc., etc.
If you look at the standard APIs you will see async methods often take a completion block. Internally such methods may use multiple tasks on multiple queues, but they are written such that all such tasks are completed before they call the completion block. Can you redesign updateData so it takes a completion block (which you will then use to invoke updateTableView)?
The completion block model doesn't by itself address all the ways you might need to schedule a task based on the completion of other task(s), there are other mechanisms including: serial queues, dispatch groups and dispatch barriers.
Serial queues enable a task to be scheduled after the completion of all other tasks previously added to the queue. Dispatch groups enable multiple tasks scheduled on multiple queues to be tagged as belonging to a group, and a task scheduled to run after all tasks in a group have completed. Dispatch barriers enable a task to be scheduled after all previous tasks scheduled on a concurrent queue.
You need to study these methods and then embed the appropriate ones for your needs into your design of updateData, updateTableView and ultimately update itself. You can use a bottom up approach, essentially the opposite of what your question is attempting. Start at the lowest level and ask whether one or more tasks should be a group, have a barrier, be sequential, and might need a completion block. Then move " upward".
Probably not the answer you were hoping for! HTH
Consider using dispatch_async to run the array updates and then update your tableView. You can do this inside of a single method:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue( DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^(void){
// Run your updates
// [self updateData:updateObject];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^(void){
// Async thread callback:
[self updateTableView];
});
});
Edit
I'd consider modifying your updateData method to run inside the async queue; when it is done, call [self updateTableView]; directly from that method. If it's not too long, can you add the [self updateData:updateObject] code (or a portion of) to your question?
I am designing an IPhone application. User search something. We grab data from the net. Then we update the table.
THe pseudocode would be
[DoThisAtbackground ^{
LoadData ();
[DoThisAtForeground ^{
UpdateTableAndView();
}];
}];
What about if before the first search is done the user search something else.
What's the industry standard way to solve the issue?
Keep track which thread is still running and only update the table
when ALL threads have finished?
Update the view every time a thread finish?
How exactly we do this?
I suggest you take a look at the iOS Human Interface Guidelines. Apple thinks it's pretty important all application behave in about the same way, so they've written an extensive document about these kind of issues.
In the guidelines there are two things that are relevant to your question:
Make Search Quick and Rewarding: "When possible, also filter remote data while users type. Although filtering users' typing can result in a better search experience, be sure to inform them and give them an opportunity to opt out if the response time is likely to delay the results by more than a second or two."
Feedback: "Feedback acknowledges people’s actions and assures them that processing is occurring. People expect immediate feedback when they operate a control, and they appreciate status updates during lengthy operations."
Although there is of course a lot of nonsense in these guidelines, I think the above points are actually a good idea to follow. As a user, I expect something to happen when searching, and when you update the view every time a thread is finished, the user will see the fastest response. Yes, it might be results the user doesn't want, but something is happening! For example, take the Safari web browser in iOS: Google autocomplete displays results even when you're typing, and not just when you've finished entering your search query.
So I think it's best to go with your second option.
If you're performing the REST request for data to your remote server you can always cancel the request and start the new one without updating the table, which is a way to go. Requests that have the time to finish will update UI and the others won't. For example use ASIHTTPRequest
- (void)serverPerformDataRequestWithQuery:(NSString *)query andDelegate:(__weak id <ServerDelegate)delegate {
[currentRequest setFailedBlock:nil];
[currentRequest cancel];
currentRequest = [[ASIHTTPRequest alloc] initWithURL:kHOST];
[currentRequest startAsynchronous];
}
Let me know if you need an answer for the local SQLite databases too as it is much more complicated.
You could use NSOperationQueue to cancel all pending operations, but it still would not cancel the existing operation. You would still have to implement something to cancel the existing operation... which also works to early-abort the operations in the queue.
I usually prefer straight GCD, unless there are other benefits in my use cases that are a better fit for NSOperationQueue.
Also, if your loading has an external cancel mechanism, you want to cancel any pending I/O operations.
If the operations are independent, consider a concurrent queue, as it will allow the newer request to execute simultaneously as the other(s) are being canceled.
Also, if they are all I/O, consider if you can use dispatch_io instead of blocking a thread. As Monk would say, "You'll thank me later."
Consider something like this:
- (void)userRequestedNewSearch:(SearchInfo*)searchInfo {
// Assign this operation a new token, that uniquely identifies this operation.
uint32_t token = [self nextOperationToken];
// If your "loading" API has an external abort mechanism, you want to keep
// track of the in-flight I/O so any existing I/O operations can be canceled
// before dispatching new work.
dispatch_async(myQueue, ^{
// Try to load your data in small pieces, so you can exit as early as
// possible. If you have to do a monolithic load, that's OK, but this
// block will not exit until that stops.
while (! loadIsComplete) {
if ([self currentToken] != token) return;
// Load some data, set loadIsComplete when loading completes
}
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
// One last check before updating the UI...
if ([self currentToken] != token) return;
// Do your UI update operations
});
});
}
It will early-abort any operation that is not the last one submitted. If you used NSOperationQueue you could call cancelAllOperations but you would still need a similar mechanism to early-abort the one that is currently executing.
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.
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.