After using EFProfiler (absolutely fantastic tool BTW!) for profiling a few of our Entity Framework applications, it seems that, in most cases, all of the Object Contexts are not closed.
For example, after running it locally, EF Profiler told me that there were 326 Object Context's opened, yet only 1 was closed?
So my question is, should I worry about this? Or is it self-contained within Entity Framework?
If you're not using an IoC container is there anyway you can close the ObjectContexts manually after each request, for example in the End Request of your Global.asax, thereby simulating a "per request" lifestyle for your contexts?
ObjectContexts will be disposed eventually if your application is not holding onto them explicitly, but in general, you should try to dispose them deterministically as soon as possible after you are done with them. In most cases, they will hold onto database connections until they are disposed. In my current web application, we use an IoC container (Autofac) to ensure that any ObjectContext opened during a request is disposed at the end of the request, and does not have to wait for garbage collection.
I suggest you do worry about it and try to fix the issue as Object Contexts are pretty "bulky". If you have too many of them your application may eventually end up using more memory than it needs to and IIS will be restarting your application more frequently then...
Related
In my app requirement is, when the app is launch for the first time it will send request to server to get data, parse it and save it in document folder which will be used across entire project.Again after particular time interval the app will send request to server to get updated data(if any) and update that data in document folder, which again will be updated across entire project.All this process is happening in background thread.This process will repeat until the app is running in foreground once the user close the app, the app will get terminate, it will not go in background.
This repeated request I am creating in app delegate as well as doing xml parsing once the data is received and saving after parsing. Now my question is, Is this proper means doing too much stuff in app delegate is safe or there is some limitation or is this bad programming?
What is the correct way of doing this?
I disagree with torrey.lyons to an extent. I think creating singletons is bad practice generally speaking and should be avoided where possible. One thing you should never do is code a class so that it has to be a singleton. Purpose built singletons tend to increase coupling and can be really problematic when it comes to unit testing where you might want to replace your singleton with a stub class or you might need it to be reinitialised for each unit test.
If this task of getting data is an application level task, there is absolutely no reason why it can't logically be located in the application delegate. I would however create a "connection manager" as torrey.lyons suggests and have one as a property of the app delegate.
I would also not use an explicit background thread to do the data update but I would use a subclass of NSOperation. This is a whole lot easier than managing your own thread.
It is bad practice. Your app delegate should ideally be concerned purely with its own responsibilities, i.e.. responding to the messages the application sends its delegate. It is much better to split off other discrete responsibilities into other objects. For example, you could have a "connection manager" object that is responsible for periodically communicating with the server. If you are sure the app will only connect to one server at a time you probably want to use the singleton pattern so that there only one instance of the object in your application and it can be easily reached by any other class. A good discussion of the proper role of the app delegate and singletons can be found on at Singletons, AppDelegates and top-level data. A good general overview on writing singletons can be found under the Care and Feeding of Singletons.
A single-user desktop application is unique in that you know the in-memory data is current. So rather than going through the pain of creating a new context for intermittent database operations then reattaching objects, would using just one context for the entire application session carry any risks (other than a multi-user requirement arising later)?
The context is 'transaction' based (i.e. for the commit). Therefore i would not make it a singleton.
I like this article: Singleton datacontext where it states that:
A DataContext is lightweight and is not expensive to create
and
You are probably saving a few 10s of milliseconds. The word micro optimisation springs to mind - in which case you probably shouldn't be using Entity Framework.
The only risk of using a single DataContext is growing the change log too large, AFAIK, and exhausting the main memory or loosing lots of changes the user made in case of a crash. I'm not sure the transaction behaviour is configurable.
But you'll have to manage thread synchronization (as with any shared data in a multi-threaded application), so maybe you're better off using a DataContext per data operation - e.g. opening a Form to edit users in the app should open it's own DataContext and commit it on save or close.
I'm trying to make my first application using Objective C + Core Data, but I'm not sure it's the correct way, as it feels really weird to me.
I have only one data context, which I create at launch time, in the Application Delegate. This data context is used for all the operations (read, write). In another environment (C# and LINQ for example), I try to make these operations as unitary as possible. Here it seems I just have to create the data context once, and work with it without closing it ever (except when the application exits).
I also have an asynchronous operation in which I update this data. Of course, it uses the same data context again. It works, but doesn't feel right.
My Application Delegate keeps a NSArray of the objects contained in Core Data. I use this same NSArray in all my views.
I would actually naturally close the data context once I got all the objects I require, but... aren't the objects always attached to the data context? If I close or release the data context, all these objects will get releases as well, right?
As you can notice, there is something I'm missing here :) Thanks for your help.
The NSManagedObjectContext to which you refer is more of a "scratchpad" than a database connection. Objects are created, amended, destroyed in this working area, and only persisted ("written to the database" if you prefer) when you tell the MOC to save state. You can (and should) init and release MOCs if you are working in separate threads, but the App Delegate makes a MOC available so that all code executing on the main thread can use the same context. This is both convenient, and saves you from having to ensure that multiple MOCs are kept in sync with each other.
By keeping an NSArray of Core Data objects, you are in effect duplicating its functionality. Is there any reason for not working with an NSSet of Core Data objects provided by the MOC?
If you are working asynchronously, then you should not be sharing an NSManagedObjectContext object across threads, as they are not thread-safe. Instead, create one for each thread, but set them to use same NSPersistentStoreCoordinator. This will serialise their access to the persisted data, but you'll need to use notifications to make them each aware of the others changes.
There is a good tutorial/description on how to use Core Data on multiple threads here:
http://www.duckrowing.com/2010/03/11/using-core-data-on-multiple-threads/
1) CORE DATA AND THREADS, WITHOUT THE HEADACHE
http://www.cimgf.com/2011/05/04/core-data-and-threads-without-the-headache/
2) Concurrency with Core Data
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/cocoa/conceptual/CoreData/Articles/cdConcurrency.html
3) Multi-Context CoreData
http://www.cocoanetics.com/2012/07/multi-context-coredata/
I'm working on a Core Data-based application that has a Mac application acting as a 'server' and an iPhone as a client. Everything is going swimmingly, except I'm running into performance issues.
When the user taps an object, the server must return some objects related to that object (nothing too heavy, usually 3-4 objects) and show a UI to choose some options. This needs to be as fast as possible. The round-trip time to the server, the server pulling the data, formatting it, returning it to the client, and the client creating NSManagedObjects from the data (which cannot be optimized further) is about 200 ms. The code relating to presenting the UI (which cannot be optimized further, again) requires around 150 ms. On an iPod touch 2G running iOS 4.0, the single line of code saving the managed object context after the objects are imported is taking anywhere from 150-200 ms.
To me, this screams that I should be backgrounding the managed object context saving. However, as far as I understand it, that won't really meet my needs. If I want to save the managed object context on a background thread, then all the objects in it must have been created on a background thread in a separate managed object context, so I won't see any speed gain because it will still take 100-200 ms for the save to occur, and I'll be seeing even more overhead because I'll still need to tell my main thread to update it's managed objects from the backgrounded managed object context's save before my view controller sees that it needs to refresh itself.
Am I missing an obvious solution? Is there something about Core Data I could use in this situation that would help? I hate to throw such a general question like this out there, but I'm at a complete loss where to go from here.
Sounds like you need to move the entire server communication to a background thread. If you did that then the entire UI would be responsive no matter how long the communication with the server took.
To do this, you stand up a second NSManagedObjectContext on the background thread connected to the same NSPersistentStoreCoordinator. Then you perform your server communication on that background thread (it might even make sense to use an NSOperation) and save the changes.
Your main thread and therefore main NSManagedObjectContext listens for save notifications and when it receives one it updates the main thread and UI. This will eliminate any freezing you are seeing and the processing time becomes mostly irrelevant.
Hey, I'm working on the model layer for our app here.
Some of the requirements are like this:
It should work on iPhone OS 3.0+.
The source of our data is a RESTful Rails application.
We should cache the data locally using Core Data.
The client code (our UI controllers) should have as little knowledge about any network stuff as possible and should query/update the model with the Core Data API.
I've checked out the WWDC10 Session 117 on Building a Server-driven User Experience, spent some time checking out the Objective Resource, Core Resource, and RestfulCoreData frameworks.
The Objective Resource framework doesn't talk to Core Data on its own and is merely a REST client implementation. The Core Resource and RestfulCoreData all assume you talk to Core Data in your code and they solve all the nuts and bolts in the background on the model layer.
All looks okay so far and initially I though either Core Resource or RestfulCoreData will cover all of the above requirements, but... There's a couple of things none of them seemingly happen to solve correctly:
The main thread should not be blocked while saving local updates to the server.
If the saving operation fails the error should be propagated to the UI and no changes should be saved to the local Core Data storage.
Core Resource happens to issue all of its requests to the server when you call - (BOOL)save:(NSError **)error on your Managed Object Context and therefore is able to provide a correct NSError instance of the underlying requests to the server fail somehow. But it blocks the calling thread until the save operation finishes. FAIL.
RestfulCoreData keeps your -save: calls intact and doesn't introduce any additional waiting time for the client thread. It merely watches out for the NSManagedObjectContextDidSaveNotification and then issues the corresponding requests to the server in the notification handler. But this way the -save: call always completes successfully (well, given Core Data is okay with the saved changes) and the client code that actually called it has no way to know the save might have failed to propagate to the server because of some 404 or 421 or whatever server-side error occurred. And even more, the local storage becomes to have the data updated, but the server never knows about the changes. FAIL.
So, I'm looking for a possible solution / common practices in dealing with all these problems:
I don't want the calling thread to block on each -save: call while the network requests happen.
I want to somehow get notifications in the UI that some sync operation went wrong.
I want the actual Core Data save fail as well if the server requests fail.
Any ideas?
You should really take a look at RestKit (http://restkit.org) for this use case. It is designed to solve the problems of modeling and syncing remote JSON resources to a local Core Data backed cache. It supports an offline mode for working entirely from the cache when there is no network available. All syncing occurs on a background thread (network access, payload parsing, and managed object context merging) and there is a rich set of delegate methods so you can tell what is going on.
There are three basic components:
The UI Action and persisting the change to CoreData
Persisting that change up to the server
Refreshing the UI with the response of the server
An NSOperation + NSOperationQueue will help keep the network requests orderly. A delegate protocol will help your UI classes understand what state the network requests are in, something like:
#protocol NetworkOperationDelegate
- (void)operation:(NSOperation *)op willSendRequest:(NSURLRequest *)request forChangedEntityWithId:(NSManagedObjectID *)entity;
- (void)operation:(NSOperation *)op didSuccessfullySendRequest:(NSURLRequest *)request forChangedEntityWithId:(NSManagedObjectID *)entity;
- (void)operation:(NSOperation *)op encounteredAnError:(NSError *)error afterSendingRequest:(NSURLRequest *)request forChangedEntityWithId:(NSManagedObjectID *)entity;
#end
The protocol format will of course depend on your specific use case but essentially what you're creating is a mechanism by which changes can be "pushed" up to your server.
Next there's the UI loop to consider, to keep your code clean it would be nice to call save: and have the changes automatically pushed up to the server. You can use NSManagedObjectContextDidSave notifications for this.
- (void)managedObjectContextDidSave:(NSNotification *)saveNotification {
NSArray *inserted = [[saveNotification userInfo] valueForKey:NSInsertedObjects];
for (NSManagedObject *obj in inserted) {
//create a new NSOperation for this entity which will invoke the appropraite rest api
//add to operation queue
}
//do the same thing for deleted and updated objects
}
The computational overhead for inserting the network operations should be rather low, however if it creates a noticeable lag on the UI you could simply grab the entity ids out of the save notification and create the operations on a background thread.
If your REST API supports batching, you could even send the entire array across at once and then notify you UI that multiple entities were synchronized.
The only issue I foresee, and for which there is no "real" solution is that the user will not want to wait for their changes to be pushed to the server to be allowed to make more changes. The only good paradigm I have come across is that you allow the user to keep editing objects, and batch their edits together when appropriate, i.e. you do not push on every save notification.
This becomes a sync problem and not one easy to solve. Here's what I'd do: In your iPhone UI use one context and then using another context (and another thread) download the data from your web service. Once it's all there go through the sync/importing processes recommended below and then refresh your UI after everything has imported properly. If things go bad while accessing the network, just roll back the changes in the non UI context. It's a bunch of work, but I think it's the best way to approach it.
Core Data: Efficiently Importing Data
Core Data: Change Management
Core Data: Multi-Threading with Core Data
You need a callback function that's going to run on the other thread (the one where actual server interaction happens) and then put the result code/error info a semi-global data which will be periodically checked by UI thread. Make sure that the wirting of the number that serves as the flag is atomic or you are going to have a race condition - say if your error response is 32 bytes you need an int (whihc should have atomic acces) and then you keep that int in the off/false/not-ready state till your larger data block has been written and only then write "true" to flip the switch so to speak.
For the correlated saving on the client side you have to either just keep that data and not save it till you get OK from the server of make sure that you have a kinnf of rollback option - say a way to delete is server failed.
Beware that it's never going to be 100% safe unless you do full 2-phase commit procedure (client save or delete can fail after the signal from the server server) but that's going to cost you 2 trips to the server at the very least (might cost you 4 if your sole rollback option is delete).
Ideally, you'd do the whole blocking version of the operation on a separate thread but you'd need 4.0 for that.