I'm going to use ObjectBox in my Flutter project. But I noticed that the get method is synchronous. So should I use ObjectBox in a separate isolate to avoid blocking the UI thread?
There's rarely a need to do so. ObjectBox achieves hundreds of thousands of read objects per second on mobile so you should be fine unless you're doing something very excessive.
objectbox-dart v1.4.0 adds Store.runIsolated to run database operations (asynchronous) in the background.
https://github.com/objectbox/objectbox-dart/releases/tag/v1.4.0
Related
Creating a separate thread for a question stated in a comment...
How does ObjectBox handle concurrent(by different threads/isolates) write requests? example of my use case: FCM "onBackgroundmessage" call runs in a different isolate, the same time multiple write requests might happen. "Hive" is failing in this case completely. Is there any inbuild solution in ObjectBox?
ObjectBox for dart is based on a native ObjectBox core library that handles concurrency using Transactions. Let me pick out few points relevant to the question:
Transactions manage multi-threading; e.g. a transaction is tied to a thread and vice versa.
Read(-only) transactions never get blocked or block a write transaction.
There can only be a single write transaction at any time; they run strictly one after the other (sequential).
As for the isolates in Dart/Flutter - yes, they can safely access the same store, you just need to make sure it really is the same native store instance. To do so, you do the following steps:
Create a Store() instance in your main isolate, as you normally would.
Get ByteData store.reference which contains the information about the native store.
Send this reference to another isolate, via a SendPort.
In another isolate, receive the reference and open a local Store instance, using Store.fromReference(getObjectBoxModel(), msg as ByteData).
Now both isolates have their own Dart Store instances which internally use the same underlying native store. Therefore, their transactions are synchronized, they both see the same data and get notifications on data changes. 🎉
You can see the code I've just described this test case: https://github.com/objectbox/objectbox-dart/blob/461a948439dcc42f3956b7d21b232eb9c2bc26e1/objectbox/test/isolates_test.dart#L50
Make sure you don't close the store while another isolate is still using it. Better not close it at all - that's best practice in normal applications without huge amounts of background work.
As I study about flutter, I notices that there is a thing called isolate.
What is it for? And how do we implement that? Can you give me a simple example?
Thank you in advance.
Isolate in flutter, similar with threading.
"Flutter is single-threaded but it is capable of doing multi-threading
stuff using Isolates (many processes). When Dart starts, there will be
one main Isolate(Thread). This is the main executing thread of the
application, also referred to as the UI Thread. In simple Flutter apps
you will only ever use one Isolate, and your app will run smoothly.
Isolates are:
Dart’s version of Threads. Do not share memory between each other.
Uses Ports and Messages to communicate between them. May use another
processor core if available. Runs code in parallel."
Docs & Simple Example
"Concurrent programming using isolates: independent workers that are
similar to threads but don't share memory, communicating only via
messages."
Official Docs
What's the difference between Thread, Isolate and a Process in Dart?
As far as I know Dart is a single-threaded language, but it can spawn many isolates which don't share memories with each other and we can do the heavy lifting work on them and return the result without blocking the UI.
But what Process is for, is that a part of an Isolate? Can anyone describe above three in more detail.
And when we do asynchronous programming using Future and let's see we are doing heavy lifting in it, will that block the UI thread in case it is awaited using the await keyword.
A Process is a native OS (Unix, Windows, MacOS) construct, which consists of one or more threads with their own address space and execution environment. In Dart, an application consists of one or more threads, one of which is the main UI thread, while the rest are typically called Isolates.
In contrast to what the previous answer said, All Dart code runs in an isolate.
Actually, your understanding is correct, based on what you said in the comments.
From the docs (emphasis mine):
Within an app, all Dart code runs in an isolate. Each Dart isolate has
a single thread of execution and shares no mutable objects with other
isolates. To communicate with each other, isolates use message
passing. Although Dart’s isolate model is built with underlying
primitives such as processes and threads that the operating system
provides, the Dart VM’s use of these primitives is an implementation
detail that this page doesn’t discuss.
Many Dart apps use only one isolate (the main isolate), but you can
create additional isolates, enabling parallel code execution on
multiple processor cores.
Your question hasn't been answered yet, and it will not be answered easily, because it depends on the language implementation.
Also, your another question: "And when we do asynchronous programming using Future and let's see we are doing heavy lifting in it, will that block the UI thread in case it is awaited using the await keyword."
-> Yes, it will block the UI, unless you use another isolate.
I am facing a design problem of my app.
Basically, the followings are what I am going to do in my app.
A single task is like this:
Read custom object from the underlying CoreData databse
Download a json from a url
Parse the json to update the custom object or create a new one (parsing may take 1 - 3 secs, big data)
Analyse the custom object (some calculations will be involved, may take 1 - 5 sec)
Save the custom object into CoreData database.
There may be a number of tasks being executed concurrently.
The steps within one task obviously are ordered (i.e., without step 2 downloading the json, step 3 cannot continue), but they also can be discrete. I mean, for example, task2's step 4 can be executed before task1's step 3 (if maybe task2's downloading is faster than task1's)
Tasks have priorities. User can start a task with higher priority so all the task's steps will be tried to be executed before all others.
I hope the UI can be responsive as much as possible.
So I was going to creating a NSThread with lowest priority.
I put a custom priority event queue in that thread. Every step of a task becomes an event (work unit). So, for example, step 1 downloading a json becomes an event. After downloading, the event generates another event for step 3 and be put into the queue. every event has its own priority set.
Now I see this article: Concurrency and Application Design. Apple suggests that we Move Away from Threads and use GCD or NSOperation.
I find that NSOperation match my draft design very much. But I have following questions:
In consideration of iPhone/iPad cpu cores, should I just use one NSOperationQueue or create multiple ones?
Will the NSOperationQueue or NSOperation be executed with lowest thread priority? Will the execution affect the UI response (I care because the steps involve computations)?
Can I generate a NSOpeartion from another one and put it to the queue? I don't see a queue property in NSOperation, how do I know the queue?
How do I cooperate NSOperationQueue with CoreData? Each time I access the CoreData, should I create a new context? Will that be expensive?
Each step of a task become a NSOperation, is this design correct?
Thanks
In consideration of iPhone/iPad cpu cores, should I just use one NSOperationQueue or create multiple ones?
Two (CPU, Network+I/O) or Three (CPU, Network, I/O) serial queues should work well for most cases, to keep the app responsive and your programs streaming work by what they are bound to. Of course, you may find another combination/formula works for your particular distribution of work.
Will the NSOperationQueue or NSOperation be executed with lowest thread priority? Will the execution affect the UI response (I care because the steps involve computations)?
Not by default. see -[NSOperation setThreadPriority:] if you want to reduce the priority.
Can I generate a NSOpeartion from another one and put it to the queue? I don't see a queue property in NSOperation, how do I know the queue?
Sure. If you use the serial approach I outlined, locating the correct queue is easy enough -- or you could use an ivar.
How do I cooperate NSOperationQueue with CoreData? Each time I access the CoreData, should I create a new context? Will that be expensive?
(no comment)
Each step of a task become a NSOperation, is this design correct?
Yes - dividing your queues to the resource it is bound to is a good idea.
By the looks, NSOperationQueue is what you're after. You can set the number of concurrent operations to be run at the same time. If using multiple NSOperation, they will all run at the same time ... unless you handle a queue on your own, which will be the same as using NSOperationQueue
Thread priority ... I'm not sure what you mean, but in iOS, the UI drawing, events and user interaction are all run on the main thread. If you are running things on the background thread, the interface will still be responsive, no matter how complicated or cpu-heavy operations you are running
Generating and handling of operations you should do it on the main thread, as it won't take any time, you just run them in a background thread so that your main thread doesn't get locked
CoreData, I haven't worked much with it specifically, but so far every Core~ I've worked with it works perfectly on background threads, so it shouldn't be a problem
As far as design goes, it's just a point of view ... As for me, I would've gone with having one NSOperation per task, and have it handle all the steps. Maybe write callbacks whenever a step is finished if you want to give some feedback or continue with another download or something
The affection of computation when multithreading is not going to be different just because you are using NSThread instead of NSOperation. However keep in mind that must current iOS devices are using dual core processors.
Some of the questions you have are not very specific. You may or may not want to use multiple NSOperationQueue. It all depends on how you want to approach it. if you have different NSOperation subclasses, or different NSBlockOperations, you can manage order of execution by using priorities, or you might want to have different queues for different types of operations (especially when working with serial queues). I personally prefer to use 1 operation queue when dealing with the same type of operation, and have a different operation queue when the operations are not related/dependable. This gives me the flexibility to cancel and stop the operations within a queue based on something happening (network dropping, app going to the background).
I have never found a good reason to add an operation based on something happening during the execution of a current operation. Should you need to do so, you can use NSOperationQueue's class method, currentQueue, which will give you the operation queue in which the current operation is operating.
If you are doing core data work using NSOperation, i would recommend to create a context for each particular operation. Make sure to initialize the context inside the main method, since this is where you are on the right thread of the NSOperation background execution.
You do not necessarily need to have one NSOperation object for each task. You can download the data and parse it inside the NSOperation. You can also do the data download abstractly and do the data manipulation of the content downloaded using the completion block property of NSOperation. This will allow you to use the same object to get the data, but have different data manipulation.
My recommendation would be to read the documentation for NSOperation, NSBlockOperation and NSOperationQueue. Check your current design to see how you can adapt these classes with your current project. I strongly suggest you to go the route of the NSOperation family instead of the NSThread family.
Good luck.
Just to add to #justin's answer
How do I cooperate NSOperationQueue with CoreData? Each time I access
the CoreData, should I create a new context? Will that be expensive?
You should be really careful when using NSOperation with Core Data.
What you always have to remember here is that if you want to run CoreData operations on a separate thread you have to create a new NSManagedObjectContext for that thread, and share the main's Managed Object Context persistant store coordinator (the "main" MOC is the one in the app delegate).
Also, it's very important that the new Managed Object Context for that thread is create from that thread.
So if you plan to use Core Data with NSOperation make sure you initialize the new MOC in NSOperation's main method instead of init.
Here's a really good article about Core Data and threading
Use GCD - its a much better framework than NS*
Keep all your CoreData access on one queue and dispatch_async at the end of your routines to save back to your CoreData database.
If you have a developer account, check this WWDC video out: https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2012/?id=712
Need your help.
In my application, i want to implement a background process which keeps running continuously and downloads the updated data and stores it in document folder.
And my main thread should keep checking the document folder and display the updated data in view control.
The child thread should end once the view disappears. and start again once the view appears.
What is the best way to do it? NSThread or NSOperationQueue? What precautions are required?
I also have to access few variables of the class. So is should be thread safe.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
If you do not need to update a progress bar or something in iOS5 there is one great API method + sendAsynchronousRequest:queue:completionHandler: that allows you to run async download as a block inside NSOperationQueue. If not you should look into third party libs such as ASIHTTP request or https://github.com/AFNetworking/AFNetworking(probably better the last one) or you need to build you own download manager, not a simple task
there are two ways to do it..
First: You use NSOperationQueue which is a bit bulkier as it is build on GCD but does have some extra features.
Second: You use GCD (grand central dispatch) looking at requirements I would say GCD seems fine as you can easily access any thread(main or background) this would be slightly quicker.
You can have a look at - (void)performSelectorInBackground:(SEL)aSelector withObject:(id)arg This method creates a new thread in your application, putting your application into multithreaded mode if it was not already. In your viewDidDisappear, you can stop the task when your view disappears
From Apple Docs. Apple encourages to investigate the alternative Mac OS X technologies for implementing concurrency. This is especially true if you are not already familiar with the design techniques needed to implement a threaded application. These alternative technologies simplify the amount of work you have to do to implement concurrent paths of execution and offer much better performance than traditional threads.
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Multithreading/AboutThreads/AboutThreads.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/10000057i-CH6-SW2