I am trying to figure out how to use a background thread to execute a command ever 4hrs.
I have never created anything like this before so have only been reading about it so far.. One of the things I have read are this
"Threads tie up physical memory and critical system resources"
So in that case would it be a bad idead to have this thread that checkes the time then executes my method... or is there a better option, I have read about GCD (Grand Central Dispatch) but I am not sure if this is applicable as I think its more for concurrent requests? not something that repeats over and over again checking the time..
Or finally is there something I have completely missed where you can execute a request every 4hrs?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
There is a max time background processes are allowed to run (10 min) which would make your approach difficult. Your next best attempt is to calculate the next event as save the times tamp somewhere. Then if the app is executed at or after that event it can carry out whatever action you want.
This might help:
http://www.audacious-software.com/2011/01/ios-background-processing-limits/
I think that it would be good to make use of a time stamp and post a notification for when the time reaches for hours from now.
Multithreading is not a good means to do this because essentially you would be running a loop for four hours eating clock cycles. Thanks to the magic of operating systems this would not eat up an entire core or anything silly like that however it would be continuously computed if it was allowed to run. This would be a vast waste of resources so it is not allowed. GCD was not really meant for this kind of thing. It was meant to allow for concurrency to smooth out UI interaction as well as complete tasks more efficiently, a 4hr loop would be inefficent. Think of concurrency as a tool for something like being able to interact with a table while its content is being loaded or changed. GCD blocks make this very easy when used correctly. GCD and other multithreading abilities give tools to do calculations in the background as well as interact with databases and deal with requests without ever affecting the users experience. Many people whom are much smarter then me have written exstensively on what multithreading/multitasking is and what it is good for. In a way posting a message for a time would be method of multitasking without the nastiness of constantly executing blocks through GCD to wait for the 4 hr time period, however it is possible to do this. You could execute a block that monitored for time less then the max length of a threads lifetime then when the threads execution is over dispatch it again until the desired time is achieved. This is a bad way of doing this. Post a notification to the notification center, its easy and will accomplish your goal without having to deal with the complexity of multithreading yourself.
You can post a notification request observing for a time change and it will return its note, however this requires you application be active or in the background. I can not guarantee the OS wont kill your application however if it is nice and quiet with a small memory footprint in "background" state its notification center request will remain active and function as intended.
I have a complex sync job that does several asyncronous calls for content over HTTP. Each time this content is received, it asks for the next bit and so on. These are all daisey-chained in a big over-all sync job with data on the server.
There are probably 12 steps in this job chain. It seems to get stuck after around the 5th async request, the request never comes back and it hangs for ever waiting for it. I think it may have to do with too many threads being spawned because if I fire off the one it hangs at at the beginning it returns fine.
In the way I imagine it in my head, the main thread asks for async content a. When it comes back in its own asynchronous time it spawns a new thread which then asks for aync content b. When it comes back in its own sweet time it spawns a new thread which then asks for content c. Isn't a new thread being created everytime an async request returns a result?
Am I daisy-chaining these requests right? I was quite good at threads in Java development but I'm a bit confused on how they work in Obj-C. Do I need to use a Thread pool of say 3 threads and reuse these?
Sorry for the high-level question but I'm sure some experts can help clear the cloud of mystery around this.
NSOperationQueues are built on top of Grand Central Dispatch. If you need precise control over order of operations and the ability to dispatch synchronous requests you might want to use GCD directly. Using either, you don't really need to worry about thread creation/management. You simply queue your operations as needed by your app.
The Apple docs are fine on this IMHO but you can find a number of tutorials out there.
[EDIT: added link to Apple docs]
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/General/Conceptual/ConcurrencyProgrammingGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html
I am trying to post some data before my application terminates. Iam doing this by genrateing sockets using CFStreamCreatePairWithSocketToCFHost and later on I have the callbacks for reading and writing.
But I am not able to post any data. It goes through all the functions but doesnot enter into callbacks. Does that make sense to anyone?. Is there anyway to get this working?
Thanks,
Sowri
Yes, after applicationWillTerminate is called, there are no more iterations of the run loop. Since CFSocket and CFStream both use the run loop to manage the sockets and to provide data via the callback, this will not work. Also, it's very important to note that the application may be restricted from doing certain things at this stage and that if your application does not terminate, the operating system will terminate the application. It may be a better idea to write a small log to a database and then post that information back the next time the application starts.
My gut feeling is that after the applicationWillTerminate method is done, it will just stop the whole app, without giving any other run loop the chance to execute, let alone do callbacks. So my guess is that calling asynchronous methods in the applicationWillTerminate won't even start. You're just too late at that point to start networking.
The applicationWillTerminate: callback is not the place to do any kind of critical operation because as the name implies, your application will terminate and it won't wait for your code to finish doing something.
What are you trying to post; if you explain why you want to do this we may be able to offer a better solution.
I have an application that opens a connection with 2 sockets (in and out) and I want to have them working in a thread.
The reason that I want them to be in a separate thread is that I don't want my application to freeze when I receive data, and this can happen anytime as long as the application is running.
Currently I have a class that handle also network communication and I run this class in an NSOperation, I'm not sure if it's the best solution.
I'm not very familiar with threading so guys if you could give me some help I would be very grateful.
Thanks
First, you should know that you can use the same socket to send and receive data — they're generally bi-directional. You should be able to share a reference to the same socket among multiple threads of execution.
Second, unless you'll be receiving large amounts of data and have experienced performance issues with your UI, I would delay optimizing for it. (Don't get me wrong, this is a good consideration, but premature optimization is the root of all evil, and simpler is generally better if it performs adequately.)
Third, NSOperation objects are "single-shot", meaning that once the main method completes, the operation task cannot be used again. This may or may not be conducive to your networking model. You might also look at NSThread. The fact that you already have the functionality "factored out" bodes well for your design, whatever turns out to be best.
Lastly, threading is a complex topic, but a good place to start (especially for Objective-C) is Apple's Threading Programming Guide.
I'm trying to port a game library over to the iPhone. Unlike SDL, this library doesn't take full control of your main() function, it's communicated with via quickly-returning functions from your own code. So, for example, obvious pseudocode:
int main() {
library_init();
// game init code here
while(we_have_not_quit_the_game) {
library_message_loop();
library_init_render();
// render stuff
library_end_render();
// update game state
}
library_shutdown();
}
iPhone makes this difficult, as it requires that you call a UIApplicationMain function that never returns. There's simply no way I could ever get back to the user code after library_init();.
I'm not convinced it's necessary - there's NSRunLoop which supposedly could be used to handle the events. I don't know if UIApplicationMain does anything else of importance, however. (Note that I have no plans to use .nib files, which is the only other thing I've found that UIApplicationMain does.)
I've got three real ideas that I can think of, but they're all a major implementation effort so I'd like to know if anyone has experience with this before I burn a day trying doomed ideas.
In Init, spawn a new thread, run UIApplicationMain in that thread. Either communicate all events across threads (ugh) or just put the UIApplicationMain thread to sleep and use a CFRunLoop in the main thread. I've heard UIApplicationMain does not like being run in a different thread, however.
Ignore UIApplicationMain entirely, just use NSRunLoop. Am I going to be missing important iPhone setup? Who knows!
Do something horrifying with longjmp() to leap out of the UIApplicationMain code after setup, pray that it doesn't do anything important during teardown.
Suggestions?
Looks like I'm answering my own question here! I'm not accepting my answer until I've been able to both test it on real hardware and get it into the app store. That said, I'll keep my Most Up-To-Date Info here, including which options didn't work.
Idea #1: It turns out that each NSRunLoop is thread-specific. If I create a UIApplicationMain in a separate thread, it doesn't get any messages. As a side effect this makes it impossible to determine when it's finished initializing, so if there's anything non-threadsafe it does, it just won't work. I may be able to send it a message across threads to figure out when it's finished initializing, but for now I'm calling this a dead end.
Idea #2: UIApplicationMain does a lot of subtle stuff. I'm not sure what it's restricted to, but I was unable to make anything work without involving UIApplicationMain. Idea #2 is right out.
Idea #3: Receiving the OS signals is important - you need to know if there's a phone-call overlay, or whether you're about to exit. On top of that, some of the setup messages seem vital in order to start the app properly. I was unable to find any method to keep messages being sent without being inside UIApplicationMain. The only options I came up with were NSRunLoop and CFRunLoop. Neither one worked - the messages didn't come in like I wanted. I may not be using these right, but in any case, Idea #3 is out.
Brand-new crazy Idea #4: It's possible to use setjmp/longjmp to fake coroutines in C/C++. The trick is to first set the stack pointer to some value that won't clobber anything important, then start your second routine, then jump back and forth, pretending like you have two stacks. Things get a tiny bit messy if your "second coroutine" decides to return from its main function, but luckily, UIApplicationMain never returns, so this isn't a problem.
I don't know if there's a way to set the stack pointer explicitly on real hardware, say, to a chunk of data that I allocated on the fly. Luckily, it doesn't matter. The iPhone has a 1MB stack by default, which is easily enough to fit a few coroutines in.
What I'm currently doing is using alloca() to push the stack pointer ahead by 768 kilobytes, then spawning UIApplicationMain, then using setjmp/longjmp to bounce back and forth between my "UI routine" and my "main routine". So far, this is working.
Caveats:
It's impossible to know when the "UI routine" has no messages to handle, and when it has no messages to handle, it will just block indefinitely until that's no longer the case. I'm solving this by making a timer that triggers every 0.1 milliseconds. Every time the timer triggers, I drop out to my "main routine", do a single game loop, then head back into the "UI routine" for another timer tick. Reading the documentation indicates that it won't stack up "timer calls" indefinitely. I do seem to get the "terminate" message appropriately, though I haven't managed to test it thoroughly yet, and I haven't tested any other important messages. (Luckily, there's only four messages total, and one of them is setup-related.)
Most modern OSes won't allocate the entire stack at once. The iPhone is probably one of these. What I don't know is whether bumping the stack pointer 3/4 of a meg forward will allocate everything "behind it", so to speak. If so, I may be effectively wasting 3/4 of a meg of RAM, which, on the iPhone, is significant. This could be handled by bumping the pointer forward a smaller amount, but this is really courting stack size disaster - it effectively limits your stack to however far you bump the pointer ahead, and you'll have to figure this out in advance. Some sentinel data in the stack, coupled with good monitoring and a logging system for stack size issues, can probably solve this, but it's a nontrivial issue. (Alternatively, if I can figure out how to muck with the stack pointer directly on the native hardware, I can just malloc()/new[] a few kilobytes, point the stack pointer at it, and use it as my new stack. I'll have to figure out how much space it needs but I doubt it'll be much, considering that it's not doing very much.)
This is currently untested on the actual hardware (give it a week or two, I got another project to finish first.)
I have no idea whether Apple will figure out what I'm doing and slap a giant REJECTED sticker on it when I try submitting to the app store. This is, shall we say, slightly outside their intentions for the API. Fingers crossed.
I'll keep this post updated, and officially accept it once I've verified that it, you know, works.
Late update: I got distracted by a variety of other things. Since then, I've had a few changes that make me far less interested in Apple development. My current approach showed no sign of not working, but I don't really have the motivation to keep fleshing it out. Sorry! If I ever change my mind I'll update this further, but Outlook Not So Good.
I know NSApplicationMain() reads Info.plist and does stuff to the app (like get the initial nib file) so I would guess that UIApplicationMain() does the same for iPhone (like get the initial status bar style, zoom the default.png image in etc.). That stuff isn't exposed anywhere else, so the functions it calls would still need to be run for the app to launch with out any side effects. You're only bet is to reverse engineer those and copy them (and hope that anything they do is in the public SDK).
Is the goal to take that main() function and have it work unmodified on the iPhone?
It would seem there's no way you're going to completely insulate the users of the library from thinking about the iPhone platform--they're going to have to deal with XCode for code signing and that sort of thing.
Given that, telling users they have to break their main() function up into a few pieces that you can call from applicationDidFinishLaunching and from an appropriate timer doesn't seem like it would inconvenience anybody much.
Why not start your game loop from within UIApplication? (Yes, you can't have it in main() but that shouldn't matter.) Some of the delegate messages are good candidates.