Each time i make small changes, i need to submit the app for approval and need to wait to review process to complete, so till what extent i can exploit dynamic code insertion or at least can i change the view of a view controller using the nib file which i will be downloading to document directory dynamically?
For the most part, the answer is no, and intentionally so. In particular, you cannot run executable code that you download. If you figured out a workaround to allow it technically (and I have at least one or two thoughts in mind on how I'd attack it), it would definitely run counter to Apple's approval process.
On the other hand, a nib file is data, not code. That you can definitely read from disk and instantiate using [UINib nibWithData:bundle:]. This is a pretty big hassle, though, and I don't particularly recommend it. But it's relatively straightforward (unless you want to correctly handle low memory situations, in which case it's a bit more of a hassle).
Of course you can always have dynamic code by putting it in a webview and writing it in JavaScript.
In the end, though, the review process is the way it is on purpose, and I recommend developers adapt their development cycle to include it. That generally means having fewer releases with heavier testing because "one quick fix" is expensive.
Related
Ok so I'm a bit confused about Ressources.Load. I actually use it quite a lot and everyone seems to see this feature as pure evilness. In this documentation, it's even written "Don't use it". I searched a lot about this and found this post. It mostly says to use Ressources.Load only for rare assets, otherwise, performance could/will be harmed.
I can see why this could be a "bad" thing to use, but honestly, I don't know how not to use this in my situation.
Lets say I have a game with ~10 different races with couples of units per race. The user chose it's race and start the game. At this point, it seems normal to me to Ressource.Load only the assets related to this specific race, and not the other ones...
Also, let's say you have a combat scene, with many possible environments (ie: winter, forest, desert, etc.). Again, I wouldn't want to load anything else than the one I'm fighting on. So using Ressources.Load seems the perfect tool. No? Am I missing something important about Unity or what?
Thanks a lot
It's true that Unity loads everything it see that is connected to things in the inspector in the scene. You have no way to stop Unity's loading once you are in the scene. (You can unload later, but it already took the toll of loading them all) The performance harmed in Unity's term seems to mean while playing, because if you connect them to the scene it loads everything from start and plays smooth from then but if you do a dynamic load you risk in lagging while playing.
Don't use it.
This strong recommendation is made for several reasons:
Use of the Resources folder makes fine-grained memory management more
difficult.
It's difficult but not impossible. If you are careful on your own, then you can reap the reward that is lower memory consumption.
Improper use of Resources folders will increase application
startup time and the length of builds. As the number of Resources
folders increases, management of the Assets within those folders
becomes very difficult.
It can't be help because offsetting with the load time you can save at scene start, the increased startup time is probably worth it. Most player won't mind the startup time in my opinion.
The Resources system degrades a project's
ability to deliver custom content to specific platforms and eliminates
the possibility of incremental content upgrades. AssetBundle Variants
are Unity's primary tool for adjusting content on a per-device basis.
Then you only put things that works universally in the Resources folder.
A modern alternate way is to compose your game in scene and use LoadSceneMode.Additive to get what you want one by one. It is suitable for big chunks like combat scene, but for lazy loading of something small in concept (but potentially contains large data like textures) like characters I would still use Resources.Load. The only thing that has delayed load build in is AudioClip which you can deselect preload audio data.
I wrote a detailed load process and its memory consumption here if you are interested in reading.
https://gametorrahod.com/unity-texture-memory-loading-unloading-7054819e4ae8
I was working on something for a client today when I found a way to break some functionality in our program.
(The code is really legacy code, it's been in development for about 10 years and I've only been working here for about a year.)
It didn't cause an error, or cause the program to crash, but if a user was using the program and duplicated the behavior I'm pretty sure they'd be holding up their "WTF?" flag.
In our program we have named fields (textboxes) and static text (labels) that can be linked with the textboxes. When the textbox is not filled in the label(s) that were linked to them disappear.
The functionality that I broke was, when you change the name of a textbox that already has one label or more linked to it, and save the file, without re-associating the one or more labels associated with the textbox, the formerly-associated labels appear when the textbox is blank.
Now my thinking on the matter is that a simple observer pattern could have solved this problem in the first place, but then I didn't write the code.
I was thinking that if I could dig up more situations like this with the guys in my shop, that maybe I could talk them into considering unit testing, decoupling, applying patterns where they are called for and the like.
So for this reason I was wondering if anyone had any tips for finding broken (but not error causing) functionality in any sort of app (web-based, desktop, etc...)
For an app to fail usability, it has to have a defined set of expected behaviors.
"Is this textbox SUPPOSED to do nothing when the enter key is pressed?" Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I've seen apps where a tester/reviewer reports something that they ASSUME should work another way, when in actuality the client specifically asked that they DON'T want the form submitted on a return key press, but only a submit button click.
So basically you have to define proper behaviour before you can determine incorrect behavior.
Hire some testers.
If it has an interface, then one of my favorite unconventional test is putting 5-10 year old children in front of it. You'd be surprised what they can come up with (especially the younger ones). While this may sound like a joke, it isn't -- it really works, because children don't have the mindset of only going through "mindset" paths.
And yeah, children are the experts in "breaking things" xP.
Code inspections, i.e. reading the source code: if you had taken time to read/inspect the source code, looking for "smells" or even just looking for code whose behaviour you don't immediately understand and agree with, you might have been holding up your "WTF?" flag too.
Test, test, test.
Do unexpected things. Start doing one task and switch another to see if anything goes haywire. Use the back button when you're not supposed to. Open it in two windows. Let it time out.
Test in all browsers, especially IE.
You can find database connections/sessions aren't released by:
working out the minimum number of connections you need to do something
setting resource limits to that minimum number
ensuring one "run" of the scenario that should use exactly that number (and release it afterwards)
then run it again a few times... do you run out of connections?
I used to work in a company where programmers regularly used to forget to de-allocate db connections. The standard answer was to reduce the resource to a minimum to see if there's a leak - and to try to work out where it is by restarting the system and running different scenarios repeatedly.
The first hour of code review, with the first reviewer, will do the most to find quality problems. But here's the thing: You don't need to convince people of quality problems. You need to convince them of the value of fixing bugs, and of rewriting only when the present quality absolutely justifies it.
I've dealt with some seriously bad code in my time. But you can't just rewrite. You need a spec before you can even tell if the rewrite is an improvement.
Sometimes, you have to infer the spec from the code and then check it against some human somewhere. But by the time you've done that, you understand the code as written and are now better prepared to repair than to rewrite -- most of the time.
Repair proceeds by a process of small behavior-preserving modifications that render the spec more clear in the code. Then, when you find something that looks wrong, you don't just change it. You ask around until you find the person responsible for that decision, and you get them to show you where in the spec it says that behavior X is correct. (This conversation can take many forms.) If you're lucky, they'll tell you that behavior X is in fact incorrect, and then you've earned your pay.
assert()
Also unit testing with coverage analysis.
This is particular to the Visual Studio IDE, although it probably also applies to others:
During testing, always at some point run in the debugger with "Break when an exception is thrown" turned on.
This can often help expose exceptions which are incorrectly being silently caught and which represent bugs, but otherwise may not be evident.
Code reviews should always also include reviews of the unit test code.
The problem is that with ad-hoc testing it's impossible to know how much or how well a developer has tested their code. So, you're at the mercy of different developers definition of the word "done".
If you include reviews of the unit test code at the same time you review the production code you should have a good idea of whether the code is really complete; in that "complete" includes "tested". Not just "Hey, I'll throw it over the wall to the testers!".
Apple just released some sample code on lazy loading images in a UITableView a week ago. I checked it out and implemented it into my own UITableView (which is a drawRect one for fast scrolling), to see if there was a difference from what I was already doing.
After implementing I am not sure what is best; the new code or what I already had. I am not seeing much of a speed improvement on my 3GS.
"Sandbox" method: Load images lazily, then save to local tmp folder in the sandbox. Each time the cell is displayed it looks for whether an image with that filename is already located in the sandbox folder. If it is, it retrieves the image and displays it, if not it continues with the download, saves it locally and then displays it. The benefit with this is that the images won't be blank the second time you open the app. They will already be downloaded and ready for displaying.
Caching method: This also loads the images lazily, however, now I include a UIImage on each object in the array that's displayed in the tableview. Instead of saving the image locally, I now download the image and put it into the array for the object. Now, instead of checking for the filename every single time, it jut check whether the UIImage != nil and uses the cached image (or downloads if nil).
A small difference is also that the caching code resizes the image before caching it to the exact size of what is displayed in the cell, whereas the image used in the sandbox code example is actually a bit larger than what it needs to display, which means it has to resize on the fly when scrolling as well. I read months ago that this could be a bit expensive to do, and I am also not sure whether it makes much of a difference in terms of then using a cached image instead of the sandbox-stored image and therefore more CPU intensive anyway (compared to what you save from caching with the caching code above).
I guess my question would be whether I should even bother with the caching code? Again, the new code won't immediately load images on a new launch, whereas the old code actually does because it's already in the sandbox. Since I am not reusing images, I have a lot of images to load (from the sandbox or cache) so I am not noticing a huge difference in speed. In fact, on my 3GS it's almost impossible to tell, in my opinion. The scrolling is not silky smooth, and I assume this is due to the large amount of images that I cannot reuse (different image for each cell). I am also wondering whether the sandbox method would get slower once there's 1000+ images in the folder, for example, eventually having it look through many more images than just 100 or so.
I hope I am making sense. I wanted to be pretty thorough with the details, and I am happy to give more details if needed.
Thanks!
If you have code that already works, and there's not a pressing problem, then don't change it.
If your scrolling actually is too slow, then perhaps you could use a mixture of ideas, and try to get the UIImage, and if it's not there, load it from the sandbox, and if it's not there, then download it.
The only good way to tell if there is any discernible difference in performance is to use profiling tools like Instruments (for measuring things like display framerate for the two techniques) or Shark (to determine hotspots in your code). There could be small differences in your exact implementation that could potentially cause significant differences between any general answer we could give and the actual performance you see in your application.
The thing that primarily concerns me with the "sandbox" method is not performance but disk space usage. Users won't appreciate you filling up their iPhone or iPod Touch with unnecessary files, especially if all the images aren't consistently used or if the set of used images changes often. Without knowing more about your application its impossible to guess how often these cached images would be loaded.
If you're testing locally on your own device, you might be on Wifi network. My recommendation would be to turn Wifi off for part of your testing to see how the two approaches perform when you have to fetch all the images over the cellular network. I would also recommend trying to find an older device (iPhone 3G or worse) because the 3GS does in fact hide potential performance issues that could be annoying for users on older devices.
I have personally used the LazyTableImages technique in my apps many times (provided it hasn't changed drastically between WWDC09 and the recent 'release') and find it to be just what I need. Caching images on disk wouldn't be an option in my case, however, and you shouldn't take my anecdote too strongly into account - profile your own code and use the results it shows.
Edit: The obvious answer is that accessing an in-memory cache is going to be faster than accessing the filesystem, but of course the final word on that is left up to profiling. If the images are already in memory, they don't need to be read from flash and parsed by UIImage. The traditional tradeoff comes into play here though - in-memory caching vs. disk space.
While it may be faster for you to store your images in-memory, you need to be very sure that you correctly handle memory warnings in your application (as you should be doing anyway!). Otherwise long period of use will lead to many, many images in your in-memory cache and trigger memory warnings and if your application is not built to handle these, at best your application will be killed by the OS due to lack of memory resources.
There are pros and cons in both approaches that you present - I suggest using elements of both in your app.
It's better to keep your images in memory and save them later (perhaps when your app quits). If you have a lot of images, it might be faster to use Core Data to save them, than as regular files.
It's also better to avoid doing any resizing on the fly, i.e. in your tableView:cellForRowAtIndexPath: or tableView:willDisplayCell:forRowAtIndexPath: methods or in any method that has to do with drawing your cells' content view. If you can, ask the image provider (content management?) to supply images at the size that your table view displays.
To be clear, this is for a normal iPhone application, and not a game.
I've read around the web a few times some developers mentioning that they were working hard to improve/reduce the startup time of their applications, but never with any good background information on how to do so.
So the question is simple: how can you reduce the startup of iPhone applications?
Same as any other performance issue: Use Shark and/or Instruments to identify bottlenecks in your code, and then focus on how you can speed things up there. Each tool will give you a picture of how much time was spent in what parts of your code, so the general scheme would be to run the tool while you start the app and then pore over the data to see where the performance hits occur.
At app startup time, the most likely candidates for improvement will be deferring data loading until later on when it's actually needed, variously described as "on demand" or "lazy" loading. Essentially, don't load any data at app startup unless it's actually needed right away when the app loads. In practice, lots of stuff that may be needed at some point doesn't have to be immediately available when the app starts. For example, if you have a database of N records but only one is visible at a time, don't load all N into memory at app startup time. Load whatever the current record is and then load the others when you actually need them.
James Thomson did a nice blog post documenting his efforts to make PCalc launch faster.
Of particular interest is his use of image with screenshot from last app run, to pull the same trick Default.png does, while loading rest of the app.
Need advice on how to debug this. I'm new with limited environments and have no previous embedded or smart phone programming experience so I could use some clues.
Already aware of:
Instruments, Clanger Static Analysis, manual code review, etc. Instruments seems to be very helpful in general but quite time consuming and freezes up a lot of the time! Clanger has also helped me a lot as well. It seems like I'm just consuming too much memory in general and I'm wondering what a good strategy is. Do I release some top-level objects? Is there a 'preferred strategy'?
Just wondering if anyone has tackled this successfully and if they have any other suggestions? Thanks all.
There are a lot of good articles for memory management in an iPhone app. Here are some useful links.
http://iosdevelopertips.com/objective-c/memory-management.html
http://kosmaczewski.net/2009/01/28/10-iphone-memory-management-tips/
https://cocoa-touch.blogspot.com/2008/09/memory-management-on-iphone.html
Things you should in general take care of
Release any variables which you do not need
Always handle didReceiveMemoryWarning and release any variables not in use
Stop any memory-heavy processes in applicationDidReceiveMemoryWarning like audio/video playing, UIImagePickerController etc
EDIT
This does not apply any more. imageNamed: had caching issues prior to 3.x OS versions. The issue does not exist any more and you should use imageNamed: (makes implementing retina display easier)
Do NOT use imageNamed: to create UIImage objects.
Basically you're receiving this warning because (unsurprisingly) the iPhone is dangerously low on memory. This can generally be for one of two reasons;
You have a memory leak.
You are allocating far too many objects and need to revisit your design.
For the first one you should run instruments and examine your memory allocations. This can really slow down your app (and requires additional memory) so try testing areas of your app one at a time. E.g. if you have multiple views switch between them a couple of times.
For the second you will have to examine things you are doing that could result in large memory allocations. For example if you're writing a Flickr browser you might need to cut down the number of images you have loaded at anyone time, or free up some unused ones when you receive this warning.
These are about the only general rules I can suggest without knowing more about your app.
Unfortunately there's no real way (that I know of) to get figures for current memory allocation from the iPhone OS. This makes it really difficult to isolate the areas of your application that are inadvertently memory hungry.