I have an objective-c class which contains a pointer to another class. I want to archive an instance of this class via NSCoder:
#interface Barn
{
int m_numHorses;
// Barn does not allocate this instance, it just points to it.
Farmer* m_pFarmer;
}
#end
...
- (void)encodeWithCoder:(NSCoder *)encoder
{
[encoder encodeInt:m_numHorses forKey:#"numHorses"];
[encoder encode?:m_pFarmer forKey:#"pFarmer"];
}
- (void) setPointer:(Farmer*)pFarmer
{
m_pFarmer = pFarmer;
}
How would I archive the m_pFarmer pointer? It doesn't make sense to me as all it is is an address, and I don't see what NSCoder could serialize to disk for you such that it knows how to restore the link later on when you deserialize?
You can't directly encode a pointer, because when you unarchive the objects, the pointer's value is going to be entirely different. I mean, you could store it with
encodeValueOfObjCType:#encode(id) at:&m_pFarmer
but there's no guarantee that the deserialized pointer will point to the deserialized farmer; in fact, it's very very likely that it won't.
If Barn doesn't own the Farmer, then Barn shouldn't recreate it on deserialization; you'll end up with a new Farmer that's not separate from the original one. What you need, then, is a way to find the deserialized instance of the original Farmer, and replace Barn's instance of the Farmer with the other one.
Somebody owns the Farmer, right? So Barn needs to have a findMyFarmer method, which looks through all the FarmerOwners and finds the original instance it should be using. (Maybe by comparing a farmerID ivar on the Farmer?) Once that's done, you can implement -[NSObject awakeAfterUsingCoder:(NSCoder *)] on the Barn to trigger a farmer-replacement routine.
Hope that makes sense. Look at the documentation on Archiving and Serialization, especially the page on Encoding and Decoding Objects to see more about replacing objects on the fly.
Update
NSArchivers and NSKeyedArchivers support the idea of conditional archiving, (via encodeConditionalObject:) in which the object is added to the archive only if some other object in the archive has already added it. The documentation says "Typically, conditional objects are used to encode weak, or non-retained, references to objects.". So if your Farmer is being archived already, then you'd want to add it, but if you're only encoding your Barn without any farmer, then you wouldn't want to.
Definitely check out the documentation referenced above.
You should use encodeObject: and implement NSCoding in your Farmer class as well, so it gets called recursively.
You should first read the docs that BJ points to.
The serialization libraries are smart enough to detect repeats of the same object, and will only encode it one time. So in general, you should be encoding this object if you need it later. The serialization libraries can even handle graph loops. You do not need to worry about these things, and actively should not try to second-guess how other objects are going to handle this object. ObjC does not have the kind of strong object ownership concepts that C++ often requires. Reference counted memory management does not require it, and you shouldn't recreate it.
Speaking of reference counting, do you mean not to retain Farmer in your setter? Is this because Barn is already retaining Farmer? Or is this garbage collected code? Or was this an unintentional under-retain? This could definitely cause a crash when you deserialize this stuff if you've actually under-retained it.
If you literally want to encode the address held by the pointer (because you can guarantee the Farmer object will stay at that location until you decode the archive) then you can encode the pointer as an NSInteger.
i.e. [encoder encodeInteger:(NSInteger)m_pFarmer forKey:#"pFarmer"];
Generally speaking though, this is a bad idea unless you are very careful to hold onto the Farmer object longer than the archive.
I did something similar. In your case, I would generate a UUID (unique identifier) for the Farmer, using
var uniqueIdentifier: String = NSUUID().UUIDString
Then I would save this UUID on the Farmer using NSCoding.
I would also have the Barn point to the Farmer via this UUID (you can have a computed "Farmer" property on the Barn determining a Farmer via the UUID).
And save the UUID of the Barn with NSCoding.
This way, you will never lose the pointer when saving data on disk.
Of course, a better technical solution would be to use CoreData, but that's a different story ...
EDIT : I had a case in which I tried to encode a pointer to another object with NSCoding. My case was a stock alert pointing to a stock (defined as a property of the stock).
It appears that NSCoding created a copy of the original object, "frozen" in its current state. And that copy would live independently from the original object. Stocks have properties, some stored (current share price), other calculated (gain in currency or in %). The stored properties of the stock property of the stock alert were unchanged, while the computed properties (which depended on other factors) evolved.
So the conclusion of my experience would be that it's not a good idea trying to save a pointer to another object with NSCoding.
Related
This is a purely theoretical question so please feel free to propose additional constraints or suggest alternative questions to discussion.
I know that in Objective-C almost any property that is mutable ought to be defined as (nonatomic, copy), but what if I want that property, say a mutable array, to be only just a list of weak pointers to objects already retained by some other class? For example, say I have a class called Concept and let's assume that all intended Concept instances have already been loaded and retained in memory somewhere by some class other than Concept. Say we add a nonatomic NSMutableArray property to each Concept instance called relatedConcepts that points to other Concept instances that are retained and already exist in memory.
What I know is that NSArrays are lists of strong referenced objects, but I want a list of weak referenced objects. How might I go about implementing this?
An NSArray ALWAYS keeps a strong reference to each of its items. This is by design as arrays are nil terminated and would become corrupted if one of the items ever became nil. The weak you are referring to would only apply to the array reference itself. Keeping "weak" items in an array is an advanced problem. My current solution involves using weak proxy objects which sounds kind of like what you were describing in your last paragraph. Whether you use copy or not isn't really relevant.
I have found some scenarios where keeping an array of weak references has come in handy. I've had to roll my own solution for that using weak proxies. Basically, you have an array of objects that then have a weak reference to the objects you actually care about. The weak proxy then needs to redirect all of the calls to it to the object it wraps.
You would use the strong specifier for your relatedConcepts property. That's to keep that instance from disappearing out from underneath you, regardless of the number or kind of references it contains.
There's no such thing as a mutable array that's a "list of weak pointers." NSMutableArray (as well as NSArray) maintains strong references to its members.
You're worrying far too much about what's retained (has a strong reference to it) and what isn't. That isn't your job. It's entirely possible that whatever is holding a strong reference to an object may choose to release it. Meanwhile, if nothing else is holding a strong reference to it, your weak reference falls to nil. Bad idea if you want to keep using it.
I have a situation where I'm keeping references to ivars which need to be persistent. In one object, I have an array of pointers to ivars in another object, which are used over the entire lifetime of the program. In other words, I'm not just passing a reference to retrieve a value -- I'm keeping the pointers around.
Is this a valid? Is it possible that the ivars might move? Are there cases where objects instantiated objects are moved around at runtime unbeknownst to the program? Or, do objects stay exactly where they are created. If the later is the case, is there any reason not to use references the way I am?
I'm using ARC.
Note: This probably wasn't a good way to design this to begin with, but... it's all done and working 99%! (except for a nasty crash which reboots the entire phone... )
Objects and their instance variables don't move once created. However, you also need to keep a strong reference to the object that holds the ivar. Otherwise, the object might be deallocated, leaving you with a dangling pointer.
Note that it is generally a very bad idea to have pointers to another object's insntance variables.
While there's no technical problem with accessing the ivars from outside (as rob stated) there's still the architectural design to consider: The approach you've taken breaks encapsulation. Additionally it is very uncommon for Objective-C.
So regarding maintainability of your code I would recommend to refactor the code. In Objective-C there's no friend declaration as in C++, so it's unusual to access ivars from outside the declaring class.
Let's say an object of class A wants to access the ivars of an object of class B persistently (in your example).
What you normally do is create a property (with the strong annotation, like #property (strong) ClassB *myBVar) in class A to reference an object of class B.
If you want to set or read B's properties you use the dot notation or call the getter/setter methods:
myBVar.name = #"Jim";
NSLog(#"Name:%#",myBVar.name);
[myBVar setName:#"Jim"];
NSLog(#"Name:%#",[myBVar name]);
You never call a ivar directly as it's implementation might change.
I'm trying to learn/understand what happens and why when working with or creating various objects. (Hopefully to LEARN from the docs.)
I'm reading "Programming in Objective-C 2.0" (2nd edition, by Steven Kochan). On page 408, in the first paragraph is a discussion of retain counts:
Note that its reference count then goes to 2. The addObject: method does this automatically; if you check your documentation for the addObject: method, you will see this fact described there.
So I read the addObject: docs:
Inserts a given object at the end of the array.
There, the description is missing, while other items, like arrayByAddingObject:, state it:
Returns a new array that is a copy of the receiving array with a given object added to the end.
Where in the reference does it indicate that addObject: increases the retain count? Given the presence of ARC, I should still understand what these methods are doing to avoid bugs and issues. What does ARC bring to this? (Going to read that again...)
Great question, I'm glad to see someone actually reading the docs and trying to understand them!
Since you are looking for how to research answers using Apple's documentation more so than the actual answer itself, here is how I found the answer:
First I look at the class reference for addObject: which is a method of NSMutableArray and there is no mention of memory management.
Then I look at the Overview section at the top... Hmmm, still no luck.
Since the behavior might be inherited from a parent class, I look at the Inherits from section at the top of the class reference and see that NSArray is the most immediate parent. Let's check there:
Under the Overview There is one small section about retain's:
Special Considerations
In most cases your custom NSArray class should conform to Cocoa’s
object-ownership conventions. Thus you must send retain to each object
that you add to your collection and release to each object that you
remove from the collection. Of course, if the reason for subclassing
NSArray is to implement object-retention behavior different from the
norm (for example, a non-retaining array), then you can ignore this
requirement.
Okay, I'm still not happy... Where next? The parent class of NSArray is NSObject and I know that it won't be covered there in this case (from experience) so I won't bother checking that. (If the parent was another class or something that might be covered by NSObject, I would keep moving up the tree until I found something.)
The Companion Guides usually contains a lot of good information for these types of classes. Let's try the first one, Collections Programming Topics.
The first section (after Overview) is Accessing Indexes and Easily Enumerating Elements: Arrays. Sounds promising! Click on Relevant Chapters: “Arrays: Ordered Collections”
There it is under Array Fundamentals along with a link to even more information:
And when you add an object to an NSMutableArray object, the object
isn’t copied, (unless you pass YES as the argument to
initWithArray:copyItems:). Rather, an object is added directly to an
array. In a managed memory environment, an object receives a retain
message when it’s added; in a garbage collected environment, it is
strongly referenced. When an array is deallocated in a managed memory
environment, each element is sent a release message. For more
information on copying and memory management, see “Copying
Collections.”
The book must be referring to out of date documentation because you are correct it doesn't mention anything about the retain count. It does in fact retain the object though. The way you need to think of it is not in terms of retain counts (which are useless) but rather ownership. Especially so when using ARC.
When you add an object to an NSMutableArray, it is taking ownership of that object (in ARC terminology it has a strong reference to it).
"What does ARC bring to this?"
ARC does nothing different. All ARC does (besides some optimization) is add the same release, retain, and autorelease statements that you would add yourself without using ARC. All you need to care about is that once you add an object to the array, it will live at least as long as the array.
And the arrayByAddingObject: method creates a new NSArray (or NSMutableArray) containing the object you're passing, and keeps a strong reference to the passed object. The actual array object that it creates has no references yet unless you assign it to either an ivar, property, or local variable. What you assign it to determines it's lifespan.
Basically even without ARC, it's best to think of object life-cycles in terms of ownership, ARC just formalizes that. So because of that, when using the frameworks, it doesn't matter when retains happen or don't happen, you are only responsible for your objects until you pass ownership to another object and you can trust that the framework will keep the object alive as long as it needs it.
Now of course you have to intuit what constitutes ownership. For instance delegate properties are often assign, or in ARC unsafe_unretained or weak, to prevent circular retains cycles (where two objects each retain each other), though are sometimes retained/strong so you need to look into those on a case by case basis.
And also in cases like key value observing and NSNotification observing the object you are observing does not retain the observer.
But those are really exceptions to the rule. Generally you can assume a strong reference.
Regarding this sentence above: "The actual array object that it creates has no references yet unless you assign it to either an ivar, property, or local variable. What you assign it to determines it's lifespan." I'll try to explain:
When you run this piece of code: [someArray arrayByAddingObject:someObject]; you've instantiated a new NSArray or NSMutableArray object (depending on which object type someArray is) but you haven't actually assigned it to any reference. That means that if you're using ARC, it may be immediately released afterwards, or if not using ARC, it will be released when it's autoreleasepool is drained (probably on the next iteration of that thread's runloop).
Now if instead you did this: NSArray *someOtherArray = [someArray arrayByAddingObject:someObject]; you now have a reference to the newly created array, called someOtherArray. In this case, this is a local variable who's scope is only within whichever set of { } it resides (so it could be inside an if statement, a loop, or a method. Now if you do nothing else with it, it will die sometime after it's scope ends (it isn't guaranteed to die right away, but that isn't important, you just can't assume it lives longer).
Now if in your class you have an iVar (instance variable) declared in the header like NSArray *someOtherArray; (which is strong by default in ARC) and you run someOtherArray = [someArray arrayByAddingObject:someObject]; somewhere in your class, the object will live until you either remove the reference (someOtherArray = nil), you overwrite the reference (someOtherArray = someThirdArray), or the class is deallocated. If you were not using ARC, you would have to make sure to retain that to achieve the same effect (someOtherArray = [[someArray arrayByAddingObject:someObject] retain]; which is essentially what ARC is doing behind the scenes).
Or you may have a property declared instead like #property (nonatomic, strong) NSArray *someOtherArray in which self.someOtherArray = [someArray arrayByAddingObject:someObject]; would achieve the same effect but would use the proprety accessor (setSomeOtherArray:) or you could still use someOtherArray = [someArray arrayByAddingObject:someObject]; to set the iVar directly (assuming you #synthesized it).
Or assuming non-ARC, you might have declared the property like #property (nonatomic, retain) NSArray *someOtherArray in which self.someOtherArray = [someArray arrayByAddingObject:someObject]; would behave exactly as ARC would, but when setting the iVar directly you would still need to add that retain manually.
I hope that clears things up a bit, please let me know if there's anything I glossed over or left out.
As you mentioned in your comment, the key here is intuitively knowing when an object would be considered owned by another one or not. Luckily, the Cocoa frameworks follow a pretty strict set of conventions that allow you to make safe assumptions:
When setting an NSString property of a framework object (say the text property of a UILabel for example) it is always copied (if anyone knows of a counter-example, please comment or edit). So you don't have to worry about your string once you pass it. Strings are copied to prevent a mutable string from being changed after it's passed.
When setting any other property other than delegate, it's (almost?) always retained (or strong reference in ARC)
When setting delegate properties, it's (almost?) always an assign (or weak reference) to prevent circular retain cycles. (For instance, object a has a property b that is strong referenced and b has a strong referenced delegate property. You set a as the delegate for b. Now a and b are both strongly referencing each other, and neither object will ever reach a retain count of 0 and will never reach it's dealloc method to dealloc the other object. NSURLConnection is a counter-example that does strongly reference it's delegate, because it's delegate is set via a method -- see that convention below -- and it's convention to nil out or release an NSURLConnection after it completes rather than in dealloc, which will remove the circular retain)
When adding to an array or dictionary, it's always retained (or strong reference).
When calling a method and passing block(s), they are always copied to move them from the stack (where they are initially created for performance purposes) into the heap.
Methods that take in object parameters and don't return a result immediately are (always? I can't think of any that don't) either copying or retaining (strong referencing) the parameters that you pass to ensure that the method can do what it needs to with them. For instance, NSURLConnection even retains it's delegate because it's passed in via a method, whereas when setting the delegate property of other objects will not retain, as that is the convention.
It's suggested that you follow these same conventions in your own classes as well for consistency.
Also, don't forget that the headers of all classes are available to you, so you can easily see whether a property is retain or assign (or strong or weak). You can't check what methods do with their parameters, but there's no need because of the convention that parameters are owned by the receiver.
In general, you should look in the "most global" spot for information about anything in the Cocoa APIs. Since memory management is pervasive across the system APIs and the APIs are consistent in their implementation of the Cocoa memory management policy, you simply need to read and understand the Cocoa memory management guide.
Once understood, you can safely assume that all system APIs implement to that memory management policy unless explicitly documented otherwise.
Thus, for NSMutableArray's addObject: method, it would have to retain the object added to the array or else it would be in violation of that standard policy.
You'll see this throughout the documentation. This prevents every method's documentation from being a page or more long and it makes it obvious when the rare method or class implements something that is, for whatever reason (sometimes not so good), an exception to the rule.
In the "Basic Memory Management Rules" section of the memory management guide:
You can take ownership of an object using retain.
A received object is normally guaranteed to remain valid within the
method it was received in, and that method may also safely return the
object to its invoker. You use retain in two situations: (1) In the
implementation of an accessor method or an init method, to take
ownership of an object you want to store as a property value; and (2)
To prevent an object from being invalidated as a side-effect of some
other operation (as explained in “Avoid Causing Deallocation of
Objects You’re Using”).
(2) is the key; an NS{Mutable}Array must retain any added object(s) exactly because it needs to prevent the added object(s) from being invalidated due to some side-effect. To not do so would be divergent from the above rule and, thus, would be explicitly documented.
Let's suppose I create a few objects and I add them to an array.
House *myCrib = [House house];
House *johnHome = [House house];
House *lisaHome = [House house];
House *whiteHouse = [House house];
NSArray *houses = [NSArray arrayWithObjects: myCrib, johnHome, lisaHome, whiteHouse, nil];
Normally, all House objects have a retain count of two, but they're being autoreleased once. After a while, I decide to release myCrib, even if I'm not the owner — I never retained or initialized.
[myCrib release];
The retain count should drop to zero and my object should be deallocated. My question now is: will this illegal action cause my app to work erroneously or even crash, or will NSArray simply delete my object from its list with bad consequences.
I'm looking for a way to maintain a list of objects, but I want the list to maintain itself. When some object disappears, I want the reference to it to disappear from my array gracefully and automatically. I'm thinking of subclassing or wrapping NSArray.
Thank you.
My question now is: will this illegal
action cause my app to work
erroneously or even crash, or will
NSArray simply delete my object from
its list with bad consequences.
Your array now has an invalid object pointer. There's no way to tell that the pointer is invalid just by looking at it, and the array isn't notified that the object has been deallocated. The problem isn't with the array, after all, the problem is with the code that improperly releases the object. So yes, the application will likely crash or otherwise behave incorrectly due to that bad pointer, and no, NSArray won't detect and deal with the problem for you.
I'm looking for a way to maintain a
list of objects, but I want the list
to maintain itself. When some object
disappears, I want the reference to it
to disappear from my array gracefully
and automatically.
If the objects in the list are all instances of a common class, you could define your own memory management methods that both retain/release the object and add/remove it from the list, or broadcast appropriate notifications in case there can be multiple lists. I suppose you could even override -retain and -release for this purpose, but I'd think long and hard about that before doing it, and document it well if you do; it's not the sort of thing that other developers would expect.
Another option might be Core Data. If you delete a managed object from the object graph, it'll disappear from any relationships. Strictly speaking, a to-many relationship is a set, not a list, but the difference may not be a concern for your purposes.
Update: I just noticed that you didn't tag your question ios. If you're working under MacOS X, you should definitely take a look at NSPointerArray. If you use garbage collection, NSPointerArray can be configured to use weak references and to replace references to collected objects with null references. This is exactly what you seem to be looking for.
You should not release myCrib if you are not the owner. To do so is a violation of the memory management guidelines and will make your code extremely difficult to maintain. I cannot stress enough that you absolutely should never do this under any sort of circumstance. You're asking for crashes; the array has declared ownership of the object, and you must not subvert that ownership in any way.
So the answer here is: your code is absolutely wrong and you should fix it. If you can't fix it, you should trash it and start over and keep rewriting it until you've come up with another way to achieve the same effect without subverting object ownership. I guarantee that it's possible.
If what you want is a weak-referencing array, then there are a couple ways you can do this (this was just asked a couple of days ago):
NSPointerArray - weakly references its pointers. When you use garbage collection, they're autozeroing (ie, the pointers get removed when the object is deallocated). Unfortunately, this is not available on iOS.
CFMutableArrayRef - you can specify a custom retain and release callback, or just not specify one at all. If you leave them out, the array will simply not retain the objects it contains. However, this does not automatically remove the pointer when the object is deallocated.
DDAutozeroingArray - an NSMutableArray subclass I wrote the other day to provide a weakly-referencing and auto-zeroing array that works on both Mac OS and iOS. However, I strongly encourage you to use this only as a last resort; There are probably much better ways of doing what you're looking for. https://github.com/davedelong/Demos
I'm looking for a way to maintain a
list of objects, but I want the list
to maintain itself. When some object
disappears, I want the reference to it
to disappear from my array gracefully
and automatically. I'm thinking of
subclassing or wrapping NSArray.
If I have understood right, what you want is an array of weak references. Then, you might be interested in reading this post.
You're asking for a crash here. Your NSArray will still have a reference to the object that now no longer exists -- and who knows what it will be pointing to after a while?
Subclassing NSArray might not be the answer either. It's a class cluster which, in short, means that it's harder to subclass than you might hope.
Not entirely sure how you'd implement this. Something like the element sending a notification when they're about to be deallocated which the array would then pick up. You'd need to be careful that you didn't leak or over-release your objects.
I created a wrapper class — in my code it's called a controller — which maintains the (mutable) array for me. I initialize the controller class in my view controllers — the place where I need them — instead of using an array directly.
No invalid code for me. :-p
I tried to figure out this code referencing: Cocoa: Dictionary with enum keys?
+ (NSValue*)valueWithReference:(id)target
{
return [NSValue valueWithBytes:&target objCType:#encode(id*)];
}
And,
[table setObject:anObject forKey:[NSValue valueWithReference:keyObject]];
But it feels something not good. Any recommendations?
You're absolutely right it's not good.
For one, you're encoding the wrong type (it should be #encode(id), not #encode(id*)), but in most cases this shouldn't cause a big problem.
The bigger problem is that this completely ignores memory management. The object won't be retained or copied. If some other code releases it, it could just disappear, and then your dictionary key will be a boxed pointer to garbage or even a completely different object. This is basically the world's most advanced dangling pointer.
You have two good options:
You could either add NSCopying to the class or create a copyable subclass.
This option will only work for objects that can meaningfully be copied. This is most classes, but not necessarily all (e.g. it might be bad to have multiple objects representing the same input stream)
Implementing copying can be a pain even for classes where it makes sense — not difficult, per se, but kind of annoying
You could instead create the dictionary with the CFDictionary API. Since Core Foundation types don't have a generic copy function, CFDictionary just retains its keys by default (though you can customize its behavior however you like). But CFDictionary is also toll-free bridged with NSDictionary, which means that you can just cast a CFDictionaryRef to an NSDictionary* (or NSMutableDictionary*) and then treat it like any other NSDictionary.
This means that the object you're using as a key must not change (at least not in a way that affects its hash value) while it's in the dictionary — ensuring this doesn't happen is why NSDictionary normally wants to copy its keys
For the later reference.
Now I know that there are some more options.
Override methods in NSCopying protocol, and return the self instead of copying itself. (you should retain it if you are not using ARC) Also you ensure the object to always return same value for -hash method.
Make a copyable simple container class holds strong reference to the original key object. The container is copyable but, it just passes original key when it being copied. Override equality/hash methods also to match semantics. Even just an instance of NSArray contains only the key object works well.
Method #1 looks pretty safe but actually I'm not sure that's safe. Because I don't know internal behavior of NSDictionary. So I usually use #2 way which is completely safe in Cocoa convention.
Update
Now we Have NSHashTable and NSMapTable also in iOS since version 6.0.
I'm not 100% sure about the correctness of this solution, but I'm posting it just in case.
If you do not want to use a CFDictionary, maybe you could use this simple category:
#implementation NSMutableDictionary(NonCopyableKeys)
- (void)setObject:(id)anObject forNonCopyableKey:(id)aKey {
[self setObject:anObject forKey:[NSValue valueWithPointer:aKey]];
}
- (id)objectForNonCopyableKey:(id)aKey {
return [self objectForKey:[NSValue valueWithPointer:aKey]];
}
- (void)removeObjectForNonCopyableKey:(id)aKey {
[self removeObjectForKey:[NSValue valueWithPointer:aKey]];
}
#end
This is a generalization of a similar method I saw online (can't find the original source) for using an NSMutableDictionary that can store objects with UITouch keys.
The same restriction as in Chuck's answer applies: the object you're using as a key must not change in a way that affects its hash value and must not be freed while it's in the dictionary .
Also make sure you don't mix -(void)setObject:(id)anObject forNonCopyableKey:(id)aKey and - (id)objectForKey:(id)aKey methods, as it won't work (the latter will return nil).
This seems to work fine, but there might be some unwanted side effects that I am not thinking of. If anybody finds out that this solution has any additional problems or caveats, please comment.