I an implementing an IDE based on XCode design. It has been a lot of learning.
I need to update UI without blocking it.
I already have a pair of threads
using Grand Central Dispatch.
Basically I have an Interpreter, and an UI with an codeView (NSTextView) and an outputView (NSTextView). When I press play/run the IDE runs the code. It launches two threads, both with an while loop. One to run the program, the other to update the UI from any output or message sent from interpreter.
Something like this:
// program execution thread
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0),
{
self.interpreter_s.execute()
});
// update UI while interpreter thread is running
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(),
{
self.updateUIWhileInterpreterRunningThread()
});
}
They both communicate one with the other, so they have concurrency.
According with the research I've made, it's recommended to update the UI using the main_queue(). However, when I do this, it blocks the UI from receiving user input.
In my case, this causes the stop button to be rendered useless.
So I need an way to update the UI from the updates from interpreter thread without blocking the Views from user input.
Any thoughts?
I have huge preference from an solution already using Grand Central Dispatch. I also want to avoid dispatching UI Updates from the interpreter thread, since this could be terribly inefficient in this particular case.
Related
According to the documentation of CLLocationManagerDelegate
The methods of your delegate object are called from the thread in which you started the corresponding location services. That thread must itself have an active run loop, like the one found in your application’s main thread.
I am not clear as to whether this means that to receive location manager updates on a background thread, we must instantiate the location manager on that background thread or simply call the startUpdatingLocation() method on that thread.
In any event, this explains an issue when a CLLocationManagerDelegate does not receive any events from a CLLocationManager which was started on a background thread:
That thread must itself have an active run loop
If I understand run loop functioning correctly, all NSThreads are instantiated with a run loop, but the run loop will only be running if you assign some work to the thread. Therefore, to have a CLLocationManager send events correctly on a background thread, we need to set the thread's run loop to loop permanently so that it can process the CLLocationManager's calls as they arrive.
A reasonable solution to making sure the run loop is running is suggested in this question but the author implies that this is a processor expensive way of doing it.
Also, according to the threading documentation,
Threading has a real cost to your program (and the system) in terms of memory use and performance
I appreciate that we are all using lots of threading anyway, by using Grand Central Dispatch, but Grand Central Dispatch probably mitigates a lot of this in its internal thread management.
So my first question is, is it worthwhile setting up a background thread with a continuously running run loop, in order to have location events dealt with on a background thread, or will this involve an unreasonable extra amount of processing when compared to leaving the manager on the main thread?
Secondly, if it is worthwhile, is there a good way to do this using Grand Central Dispatch. As I understand the documentation, Grand Central Dispatch manages its own threads and we have no means of knowing which thread a given block will be executed on. I presume we could simply execute the usual run loop code to make the run loop of whichever thread our CLLocationManager instantiation is run on loop continuously, but might this not then affect other tasks independently assigned to Grand Central Dispatch?
This is a somewhat opinion-based question, but I have a pretty strong opinion on it :D
No.
Just deliver the events to the main queue, and dispatch any work to a background queue if it's non-trivial. Anything else is a lot of complexity for little benefit. CLLocationManager pre-dates GCD, so this was useful information in the days when we occasionally managed run loops by hand and dispatching from one thread to another was a pain. GCD gets rid of most of that, and is absolutely the tool you should use for this. Just let GCD handle it with dispatch_async.
You absolutely should not set up your own NSThread for this kind of thing. They're still necessary at times for interacting with C++, but generally if GCD can handle something, you should let it, and avoid NSThread as much as possible.
I'm working on an iPhone Game where the player tilts the iPhone to make the character move, but unfortunately all of the timers I'm using to animate the scenario are slowing down my game. I've been told to use NSThreads, but I really don't know anything about them. My question is, What are the differences between using NSThreads and NSTimers? Or what are the advantages of using NSThreads? How are they useful?
Timers are used for asynchronous, not concurrent, execution of code.
A timer waits until a certain time interval has elapsed and then fires, sending a specified message to a target object. For example, you could create an NSTimer object that sends a message to a window, telling it to update itself after a certain time interval.
Threads are for concurrent execution of code.
An NSThread object controls a thread of execution. Use this class when you want to have an Objective-C method run in its own thread of execution. Threads are especially useful when you need to perform a lengthy task, but don’t want it to block the execution of the rest of the application. In particular, you can use threads to avoid blocking the main thread of the application, which handles user interface and event-related actions. Threads can also be used to divide a large job into several smaller jobs, which can lead to performance increases on multi-core computers.
See also:
How do I use NSTimer?
Timer Programming Topics
Threaded Programming Guide
Timers are objects that simply call methods at a later time. Threads are additional "streams" of stuff to be processed, in psuedo-parallel. It's like comparing apples to oranges—they're not really related. The only relation I can see is if you want to do some processing in the background, but you shouldn't be doing UI calls in background threads, Why are you using timers to make your character move? Knowing that, we might be able to supply an alternate solution.
Is there any way I can kill a thread spawn through:
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:#selector(serverFetchInThread) toTarget:self withObject:nil];
The scenario I am working on is that in my main thread I am letting user enter data in my search bar and what ever user is typing I need to send to server for searching in a separate thread. Now, if user changes his selection by deleting old data and entering new data I do not want the previous thread to waste its time, kill it and spawn a new thread with new data.
Be there any other better way to handle this situation, please guide me.
No, there is no way to kill a thread from another thread. And for good reason as there is no way to do so in a fashion where the targeted thread is killed without risk of crashing the app.
To directly answer your question; you need to have some kind of a flag that indicates to the thread that it should stop doing whatever it is doing and exit.
However, a couple of questions are raised by your question:
First, why are you using threads and not using GCD? Concurrency via GCD or NSOperation is the generally recommended way to solve such problems.
Secondly, if you are talking to a server, are you using HTTP (most of the time, that is the case)? If so, why not directly use the asynchronous features of NSURL and friends?
Have a good look at using NSOperationQueue.
You can subclass NSOperation it to wrap up your server communications, and even make that queue serial (maximum operations = 1).
If a server operation is not yet finished and user has generated more input, you can cancel the existing one, and add the new one.
Due to the effect of the NSOperation wrapping your connection, you can just use the simple synchronous version and keep the connection handling very straightforward.
Also worth mentioning is compatibility. I would prefer to use GCD and blocks, but for compatibility, NSOperationQueue is required.
In iPhone development, I have come across these terms named
event loop, run loop
. Can some one explain explain what they are?
Like many other GUI systems, the code you write for an iPhone application runs into a loop that is provided by the system.
When writing a program without a GUI it is customary to have a main() function or similar. On iPhone you don't have that because it's provided by the system, and it will call the event loop. All you provide is callbacks to react to events.
The loop takes care of getting hardware events as touches and such, calling your code and API code to draw the windows, some memory management and all. This is why you never have to poll for these events yourself.
I think this apple documentation will explains a little more:
An event loop is simply a run loop: an event-processing loop for scheduling work and coordinating the receipt of events from various input sources attached to the run loop. Every thread has access to a run loop. In all but the main thread, the run loop must be configured and run manually by your code. In Cocoa applications, the run loop for the main thread—the main event loop—is run automatically by the application object. What distinguishes the main event loop is that its primary input source receives events from the operating system that are generated by user actions—for example, tapping a view or entering text using a keyboard.
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/Devpedia-CocoaApp/MainEventLoop.html
What is the necessity of using Application.DoEvents and when we should use it?
Application.DoEvents is usually used to make sure that events get handled periodicaly when you're performing some long-running operation on the UI thread.
A better solution is just not to do that. Perform long-running operations on separate threads, marshalling to the UI thread (either using Control.BeginInvoke/Invoke or with BackgroundWorker) when you need to update the UI.
Application.DoEvents introduces the possibility of re-entrancy, which can lead to very hard-to-understand bugs.
Windows maintains a queue to hold various events like click, resize, close, etc. While a control is responding to an event, all other events are held back in the queue. So if your application is taking unduly long to process a button-click, rest of the application would appear to freeze. Consequently it is possible that your application appears unresponsive while it is doing some heavy processing in response to an event. While you should ideally do heavy processing in an asynchronous manner to ensure that the UI doesn’t freeze, a quick and easy solution is to just call Application.DoEvents() periodically to allow pending events to be sent to your application.
For good windows application, end user doesn’t like when any form of application are freezing out while performing larger/heavyweight operation. User always wants application run smoothly and in responsive manner rather than freezing UI. But after googling i found that Application.DoEvents() is not a good practice to use in application more frequently so instead this events it’s better to use BackGround Worker Thread for performing long running task without freezing windows.
You can get better idea if you practically look it. Just copy following code and check application with and without putting Application.DoEvents().
Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
For i As Integer = 0 To 1000
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100)
ListBox1.Items.Add(i.ToString())
Application.DoEvents()
Next
End Sub
Imho you should more less never use it, as you might end up with very unexpected behavior.
Just generated code is ok. Things like you are executing again the event handler you are currently in,because the user pressed a key twice etc etc.
If you want to refresh a control to display the current process you should explicitly call .Update on that control in instead of calling Application.DoEvents.