performSelectorOnMainThread over Notifications - iphone

I have some basic doubt's, guess someone will help me out.
Please refer this Question : Update ULabel immediately while downloading files
I have tried using performSelectorOnMainThread , which is calling the updateProgress method in another class and but the label is not updating.
But now I have used the notification like
[[NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] postNotificationName:#"updateProgress" object:nil userInfo:nil];
which seems to be calling the method and also updating the UILabel. Eventhough my problem is resolved, I want to know why the above performSelectorOnMainThread didn't worked out for me? Any specific reasons ?

The class where you make the performSelectorOnMainThread call and the updateProgress method needed to be in the same class. If not, (in your case), create a method in the class where performSelectorOnMainThread was called and redirect it to the updateProgress on the other class.

The performSelectorOnMainThread can be used to run some codes in your main Thread. It not seems to be a method to call a method on another class (Even though you can call the method on another class using this if you have the working instance of the class). If you are using API calls in one of your class, you may have to use seperate threads for performing the API calls as it blocks the main thread (Its not kind to users who use your app). So in the ios you must call the UIKit from main thread only.
The NSNotification is used to get a event call. I mean it notifies the observer when occurs a specific event that the observer registerd to be get notified.
Hope this helps you.

Related

how to inform other class that default settings has been changed

I am doing and setting for my application. I am able to be notified that my setting defaults have been changed ( by changing them in the Setting application ). However, how can I let other classes knowing that the default settings has been changed
if you have several class to notify then you can use NSNotificationCenter for notifying then.
In this thread you can get an idea for using Notification center
There are several ways you can achieve that:
First - have the other classes check the values every time when needed, by coding the Settings Container as an always available singleton pattern object.
Second - have all relevant classes be notified via NSNotification when required.
And probably many more...
The link that you provided shows everything you need to do.
This code:
[[NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] addObserver:yourClassThatNeedsToBeNotified selector:#selector(selectorNameOfYourClass:)
name:UIApplicationDidFinishLaunchingNotification object:nil];
is dedicated to add notification about any change of NSUserDefaults.
So if you have several classes that have to get this notification just add this code to each class init method, and don't forget to remove this notification in dealloc.

NSOperation finishes in the background, attempts to notify main thread, view no longer exists. Crash

I have an NSOperation running not in the main thread. It is spawned from a UITableViewController. When the operation is complete, I'd like to reload the tableview since some data has changed. I've set a delegate for the background to notify on completion. When done, I call a wrapper around reloadData specifically on the main thread using performSelectorOnMainThread.
For the most part, this works well, however, there is a non-0 chance that the original (edit)tableViewController (/edit) gets released and I get zombie calls.
So the question is in 2 parts:
Is it possible to have a delegate from the background thread without retaining the object?
Is this just a bad design? Should I be using NSNotifications instead? Would that be the preferred method of notifying in this case?
Thanks in advance.
A delegate should be retained if there is a possibility that it might be released before any operation on the delegate is invoked. You can set up a state in tableViewController to handle the case when the delegate callback is invoked and the tableViewController is not to be used (Basically make the callbacks act as no-op). Once your operation is done, just release the delegate object.
It is not a bad design but you just need to handle these conditions.

Performing App Delegate method on main thread from secondary thread

I have a Iphone app with 2 threads. One is listening to the server, and the other is doing UIKit, OpenGl stuff.
I need to run a method that updates a view from the secondary thread thats listening to a server on the main thread that handles the views so I used
performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector"createGuessingView" withObject:nil waitUntilDone:YES
but for some reason, the method never gets executed. Putting a breakpoint or a printf at the beginning of the method shows that its never invoked. Im really stumped here. Ive used performselectoronmainthread in the same program to update text fields and it worked flawlessly.
edit:
Figured it out :)
The problem was that the object that I was using performSelectorOnMainThread was set by this thread before the object was initialized (even allocated) in the main thread. Therefore, the reference was pointing to null, and the selector was not getting recognized.
Thanks for the help
Shouldn't that be:
#selector(createGuessingView)
with no quotes.
--
EDIT (in response to comment)
What the signature for your method? If it's:
- (void)createGuessingView:(id)something
then you should remember the colon, as in #selector(createGuessingView:)

Using an IBAction method when it is not called from an action?

Are there any issues when using IBAction when it is not actually called from a user's action?
If you have an action like
-(IBAction)sayHello:(id)sender;
You can call it from within your class like:
[self sayHello:#"x"]
The #"x" doesn't do anything, it just fills in for the sender.
You can actually create an IBAction method without (id)sender
-(IBAction)sayHello;
and call it from both user's actions and from within the code, but then you won't get any useful sender info from the interface. What's the 'correct' way of filling in for the sender, when calling from the code? And can you create sender info to send when it's called from within the code?
Just trying to figure it out.
I think a good practice for OOP is to refractor the method
-(IBAction)sayHello:(id)sender;
to another method called: -(void)sayHello;
and inside the method
-(IBAction)sayHello:(id)sender {
[self sayHello];
}
If other methods want to call the sayHello:(id)sender action to do some job, it can call the sayHello. The method name should make sense for the client to call it without a problem or work around. It will help you when you have to test or debug
The sender should be a UI component. So if in your class you have, say, a UIButton...
UIButton *button;
Then you can just send it as parameter to the action:
[self sayHello:button];
Insider the method, no matter if it is called from the UI or in some simulated way, you can have some logic to detect who the sender is, and behave differently based on that. This way, multiple buttons or other components can reuse the same action method.
Unless you're actually making use of the sender parameter (see Jaanus's answer for more on that), you're fine with passing nil for it when calling the method from code.

How should I deal with the need for multiple callbacks for the same delegate in Objective-C?

I have created a library which can download JSON data which is then placed into an NSDictionary. I wrap this class with a simple Twitter engine which allows me to pull my friends timeline, post an update and post an update with my GPS location. From my limited experience with Objective-C the way to connect everything is with delegation. I set a delegate property which calls back the asynchronous result to either a selector or a method signature. I can even create an optional or required interface on the delegate which will allow Xcode to assist me a little with implementing the delegate. To learn about using delegates in Objective-C I created this simple project.
http://www.smallsharptools.com/downloads/ObjC/Delegates.zip
It defines a Worker class which allows you to initialize the class with a delegate. When the work is done with the doWork method it looks for a method signature on the delegate to send a message back to it. It uses the following code.
if([[self delegate] respondsToSelector:#selector(workFinished:)]) {
NSString *msg = #"That's it? Easy!";
[[self delegate] workFinished:msg];
}
It looks for the workFinished: method to pass back a message. I declared this method signature as an optional interface with the following code in the header, Worker.h.
#protocol WorkerNotifications
#optional
- (void) workFinished: (NSString *) msg;
#end
You can see the rest of the project from the download for all of the details. But these 2 code snippets show how this delegation pattern works. But with the Twitter class I need to know the context of the method which started an asynchronous action which leads to a callback to a delegate method. If I call the sendUpdate method more than once from the calling class, how I am supposed to know the context of the callback?
Normally with a language like JavaScript, Java or C# I would create an inline closure or anonymous class which would have access to the starting context, but that is not possibly currently with Objective-C on the iPhone. I found that this question was already asked and answered on StackOverflow.
Anonymous delegate implementation in Objective-C?
So what I have done is skip the optional interface and instead passed in a selector which the Twitter class will call when the asynchronous action is completed. A call to start this action looks like...
CMTwitterEngine *engine = [[CMTwitterEngine alloc] initWithDelegate:self];
[engine setSendUpdateFinished:#selector(sendUpdateFinished:)];
[engine setSendUpdateFailed:#selector(sendUpdateFailed:)];
[engine setParsingSendUpdateFailed:#selector(parsingSendUpdateFailed:)];
[engine setUsername:TWITTER_USERNAME pass:TWITTER_PASSWORD];
[engine sendUpdate:statusUpdateText.text];
This code first initializes the engine reference with self as the delegate. To attach the callbacks I send in selectors which I originally had on the sendUpdate method signature but the method calls got pretty long. I opted to simply set properties of the selectors. This all works but I am not sure I like how this is working since it only partially solves my problem.
To complete this example, I finish the asynchronous work and eventually call a method internally which looks for the given selector and calls it if it is defined.
- (void)sendUpdateFinished:(NSDictionary *)dictionary {
if (self.sendUpdateFinished != nil) {
[self.delegate performSelector:self.sendUpdateFinished withObject:dictionary];
}
}
I can pass in the status message to send as a Twitter update but I still do not have the context of the originating call. What if I want to call sendUpdate more than once and the first asynchronous call is still running? And what if the second call finishes first? They will both have self as the delegate so I would have to either track the context somehow or pass them to a different selector to distinguish them, which also does not satisfy my needs. What happens if I have 3 or 4 or 5 asynchronous calls? I need to know which ones were sent successfully and when they are complete.
It appears the only way that I can do all this is to create a class which holds onto all of the properties needed for the context, have that class act as the delegate for the call to the asynchronous Twitter method and then report back to the parent class which is likely UIViewController. I would take this approach but I have not read about this approach or seen any sample code yet which does this.
What would you do? How would you handle multiple asynchronous calls going out which could end in a different order than going out and then process them with context upon completion?
I think your situation is a great place to use NSNotificationCenter
http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSNotificationCenter_Class/Reference/Reference.html
I have to second (or third) the previously posted answers in that NSNotificationCenter is probably what you're looking for here.
Essentially one typically uses notifications when there are potentially many delegates all of which need to do something in response to a single action or event that has occurred. Think of it as a one-to-many sort of delegation or an implementation of the observer pattern. The basic things to know are:
NSNotifications have a name that you define which is just an NSString. Notifications can be posted by name and objects register to receive notifications by name.
When a notification is posted a notificationSender object and/or userInfo dictionary can be provided. The notificationSender is the direct way of determining who posted a given notification when it is being handled by the receiver. The userInfo is an NSDictionary that can be used to provide additional context info along with the notification.
So, rather than forcing all of the workers to adopt to an informal protocol and messing around with reflection style calling-methods-at runtime you just register instances of the workers with NSNotificationCenter. Typically the registration with the NSNotificationCenter is done in an init method of each worker class. Instances of each type of worker are then typically set up as "freeze dried" objects in a NIB or can be programatically instantiated in the app delegate so that they get registered with the notification center early on in the app's life.
When the thing occurs you post a NSNotification to the NSNotificationCenter (which is essentially a singleton) and then everything else that has registered to receive that particular type of notification will have the method called that was specified to handle that type of notification. When done these methods can then call a common method back on the sender (obtained via NSNotification's object method) to tell the sender that they've completed their work.
Once each known worker has checked in the the common method on the sender can then go on to whatever post-worker-completion code is to be performed.
One thing to consider is using Notifications instead. Simplifies code, couples things less tightly.