Working on iPhone, after a lot of headache and memory problems I just realized from other examples that we do not need to necessarly create #properties for each instance variable we define in header file. And actually I found out ivars easy to just allocate and release it after I use anywhere in the class, for #properties I have to use autorealese or I have serious problems and becareful how I allocate..
For instance for objects below, #properties(retain/copy..) is not used in headers in many examples;
{
NSURLConnection *connection;
NSMutableData *xmlData;
NsMutableString *string
}
But for some strings or object types #properties is used, I know that when we set #property cocoa creates some setters getters which are handling the relasing and retaining of the objects. But seems like as for xmlData or connection instance variables we do not need that and they do their job like this.
Are there some reference guidelines I can keep in mind on deciding whether or not to create #property's or just use simple ivars?
My only problem when using properties is not becuase I am lazy to define it, but when I carefully allocate and init them in code, I have to use autorelase and dont feel like I have the control when to release reset and allocate it again, and it gives me one more thing to worry about while and when and how should I release, reset it. I find ivars I can alloc and release anytime once anywhere easily without worrying about anything..or I am missing other things here.
Tnx
There seem to still be some misconceptions flying around about properties.
that we do not need to necessarly create #properties for each instance variable we define in header file
Correct. You can use private instance variables directly in your implementation file. However, since synthesized properties come with free memory management, you might as well take advantage. My rule of thumb is to use the ivar directly until the first time I find myself writing:
[ivar release];
ivar = [newIvar retain];
As Sam says, there is already a potential bug there if iVar == newIVar. This is the point at which I switch from using ivars directly to creating a property. However, I put the declaration of the new property in a class extension in the implementation file. This means that the property is officially not part of the public interface (and will cause compiler warnings if used accidentally).
when we set #property cocoa creates some setters getters which are handling the relasing and retaining of the objects.
Actually, no. The #property just declares a property. In order to automatically generate the getter and setter, you need to #synthesize it. You could, alternatively write your own getters and setter which do not even have to reference a real ivar.
Technically, you should not use the property in the init or dealloc methods because a subclass might have overridden them or (in dealloc) you might set off a KVO notification.
From Sam's answer and comments
If you want a property regardless, you could use a private interface at the top of the implementation file
As I say above, private categories have sort of been obsoleted by class extensions (which is near enough the same thing but allows you to put the implementation of the methods in the main class implementation).
If you want the benefits of using dot notation shorthand
Some of us would argue that there are no benefits to dot notation. It's a gratuitous and needless pollution of the struct member syntax. However, dot notation has no relation to #property declarations. You can use dot notation for any accessors no matter how they were declared, provided they adhere to the pattern -foo and and -setFoo:
Create properties only for variables that need to be accessed from outside the class. Any class variables that are used internally need not have getters/setters defined.
Generally speaking an abundance of properties indicates high coupling and poor encapsulation. You should restrict what variables your class exposes in the interface.
EDITED to respond to comment:
Using properties over direct access may be preferred because it gives you easy memory management.. for example:
// interface
#property (retain) Object *someVar;
// implementation
self.someVar = otherVar;
is the same as
// implementation
if (_someVar != othervar)
{
[_someVar release]
_someVar = [otherVar retain];
}
However you should not needlessly expose vars in your interface because it opens the class up for people to use in the wrong way.
If you want a property regardless, you could use a private interface at the top of the implementation file
#interface TheClass(Private)
// private stuff
#end
First of all, let me say that Sam's answer is complete, IMO, and gives you clear guidelines (+1 from me).
My only problem when using properties is not becuase I am lazy to define it, but when I carefully allocate and init them in code, I have to use autorelase and dont feel like I have the control when to release reset and allocate it again, and it gives me one more thing to worry about while and when and how should I release, reset it. I find ivars I can alloc and release anytime once anywhere easily without worrying about anything..or I am missing other things here.
You should not worry about autorelease in the following idiom:
self.stringProperty = [[[NSString alloc] initWith...] autorelease];
because this is the way that things are meant to work;
EDIT: [the above statement has several parts:
the object is allocated and initialized (retain count is 1);
immediately, the allocated object is also autoreleased; this means that the object will be released automatically, (more or less) when the control flow gets back to the main loop;
in the very same statement, the allocated object is assigned to a retained property, self.stringProperty; this has the effect of (once again) incrementing the retain count;
So, it is true that autorelease adds some "ambiguity", because the object will be released at a time that you don't know precisely (but pretty soon anyway), but assigning to the retain property will increase the retain count so that you have full control over the lifetime of the object.]
If you don't like the autorelease you can always use a constructor method which gives you back an autoreleased object, when available:
self.stringProperty = [NSString stringWith...];
or assign directly to the ivar:
stringProperty = [[[NSString alloc] initWith...] autorelease];
because by accessing directly the ivar you are bypassing the setter and getter. Anyway, do the it only in this case (IMHO) to avoid ambiguities.
More in general, the autorelease glitch is the only drawback that using properties has over directly accessing the ivars. The rest are, IMO, only advantages that in many cases will save your life, and if not your life, a leak or a crash.
There is nothing you cannot do with directly accessing the ivars and taking care of when it is necessary to release before assigning, or not forgetting to set to nil after releasing, etc., but properties will do that easier for you, so my suggestion is simply use them and accept the autorelease shortcoming. It's only a matter of getting the basic "idioms" right.
It has long been custom to access ivars directly. That is, IMO, fine from inside the same class, although many properties are classes and then properties provide protection against retain/release issues.
IMO, it is, however, preferrable to encapsulate most ivars into properties, especially those that have retain/release semantics, but also those that need special handling, i.e. for which you write your own handlers, instead of using the synthesized ones. That way you can filter access to certain ivars, or even create properties that don't have any backing storage, and are just "aliases" to other properties, e.g. an Angle class that has a degrees property giving the angle in degrees, and a radians property denoting the same angle in radians (this is a simple conversion), or a property that must do a dictionary search to find its value, etc.
In Delphi, which was (AFAICT) one of the first languages with properties as language construct at all, it is customary to wrap ALL ivars in properties (but not all have to be public), and there are many such "unreal" (I am deliberately avoiding the term "virtual" here) properties, i.e. the ones that are only implemented in code, and not just getters and setters for an ivar.
Properties provide encapsulation, abstraction and a degree of protection against certain often made errors, and that is why they are to be preferred over direct access to ivars, IMO.
Addition
It doesn't make sense to declare and implement (either via #synthesize or with custom setters and getters) public properties for each ivar. Only expose publicly what others may need. Internal state can also be exposed to your own code via properties, but that should be done with a private or empty category in the implementation file. That way you get the automatic handling of retain/release and still don't expose them to the public.
Related
When I need a private object I currently use properties, like so:
// Class extension in .m file
#interface MyClass()
#property (strong, nonatomic) NSArray* myInternalArray;
#end
self.myInternalArray = something;
Alternatively you can do this:
#implementation MyClass {
NSArray* _myInternalArray;
}
_myInternalArray = something;
Without a custom setter or getter the two are equivalent. What is the best practice for internal variables? Are there any advantages of one method over the other?
While some may argue that the choice is a matter of preference, and they do have a point, there is a very good reason that most modern languages support properties and make them easier and easier to code.
The introduction of ARC does not significantly reduce the value of properties. It all comes down to this - in a property you have encapsulated the use of a variable. That encapsulation is invaluable when needed, and not much overhead when it is not.
For example (off of the top of my head) Suppose you discovered that you needed to validate the value before saving it. If you were using an iVar, you would have to ensure that anywhere that iVar was used, you had a call the validation code before you allowed it's value to be changed. With a property, you would only need to override setIVarName: and put the validation there. One could argue that one is just as easy as the other - and that may be true in many cases, but there is one handicap with the iVar here - you cannot ensure that future changes (by you or other coders) will insert the validation before the iVar is changed. Using a property here does have that assurance.
Personally, I use properties over iVars where ever possible.
I'd say that the advantage of properties is that you would use setters, and that setters can evolve independently of the code that call them. For instance, you could decide that setting a property would now trigger setNeedsLayout. By using properties from the start, you would have no need to refactor existing code.
This pattern fits very well in Cocoa/iOS APIs, where you don't have to ask system objects to do anything after having changed their properties: setters ensure internal and UI consistency right away.
The fact that properties are private should not make us implement them as second-class properties, what do you think?
So I've been programming on Objective-C for over a year now, and I can't seem to understand the use for properties. I have searched the internet a few times but never really found a good explaniation. I understand how to create them:
#property (something, something) something *variableName;
#syntheize variableName;
But should I make all my instance variables properties. To me, from what I know, it seems like a waste of code. But when I look at code online, sometimes I see like 25 properties in one class. Which I think is a waste. The only time I ever use them is when passing info from a UITableView cell selected to a detail viewController. For that, I use:
#property (copy) NSString *myString;
Can you also explain what: nonatomic, copy, retain, assign, etc. mean.
Thanks
These properties are convenience methods for creating getters and setters.
Atmoic v Nonatomic
Assuming that you are #synthesizing the method implementations, atomic vs. non-atomic changes the generated code. If you are writing your own setter/getters, atomic/nonatomic/retain/assign/copy are merely advisory.
With atomic, the synthesized setter/getter will ensure that a whole value is always returned from the getter or set by the setter, regardless of setter activity on any other thread. That is, if thread A is in the middle of the getter while thread B calls the setter, an actual viable value -- an autoreleased object, most likely -- will be returned to the caller in A.
In nonatomic, no such guarantees are made. Thus, nonatomic is considerably faster than atomic.
What atomic does not do is make any guarantees about thread safety. If thread A is calling the getter simultaneously with thread B and C calling the setter with different values, thread A may get any one of the three values returned -- the one prior to any setters being called or either of the values passed into the setters in B and C. Likewise, the object may end up with the value from B or C, no way to tell.
Ensuring data integrity -- one of the primary challenges of multi-threaded programming -- is achieved by other means.
Assign, retain, copy
In a nutshell, assign vs retain vs copy determines how the synthesized accessors interact with the Objective-C memory management scheme:
assign is the default and simply performs a variable assignment
retain specifies the new value should be sent -retain on assignment and the old value sent release
copy specifies the new value should be sent -copy on assignment and the old value sent release.
Remember that retain is done on the created object (it increases the reference count) whereas copy creates a new object. The difference, then, is whether you want to add another retain to the object or create an entirely new object.
Properties are a good technique to expose values. You shouldn't expose all instance variables as that would break good OOP encapsulation.
Here is Apple's documentation on the matter.
http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjectiveC/Chapters/ocProperties.html
A key point is:
Declared properties address the problems with standard accessor
methods by providing the following features:
The property declaration provides a clear, explicit specification of
how the accessor methods behave.
The compiler can synthesize accessor methods for you, according to
the specification you provide in the declaration. This means you have
less code to write and maintain.
Properties are represented syntactically as identifiers and are
scoped, so the compiler can detect use of undeclared properties.
Properties enable automatic handling of the variables. So when you do a synthesize the compiler will generate your getters and setters allowing one to do class.variableName = value (indicating that the compiler will execute [class variableName:value].
Pretty decent explanation of the properties here: http://cocoacast.com/?q=node/103
If you need getters and setters to expose some instance variables, or you want some automatic retain/release memory management or thread safe accessors, then properties are a less verbose way to automatically create these smart getters and setters. If you don't want to expose something outside an object or thread, and don't want runtime memory management (say, for some malloc'd C struct) then properties might either a waste, or syntactic sugar (which may or may not improve code readability), or put there by a coder who doesn't know the difference.
The properties is a nice feature which gives you getter and setter method automatically by synthesize and give you relief by not setting and getting the value.
A property may be declared as "readonly", and may be provided with storage semantics such as "assign", "copy" or "retain". By default, properties are considered atomic, which results in a lock preventing multiple threads from accessing them at the same time. A property can be declared as "nonatomic", which removes this lock (reference from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C#Properties).
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What describes #property(…) best? What's that actually good for?
If I declare a variable in my class interface, I can use such variable anywhere on my class. Awesome.
If I use #property (retain) Something *myVar; I can access that variable with self.myVar... But, what is the difference? Is there a good reason I should use one method or another?
Short answer: Encapsulation of memory management.
Longer answer: You need to establish ownership of an object if you want to use it later. If you want to use it later, you'll need a reference to it with which to do so, and a great place to keep that reference is in an instance variable.
You could handle the ownership claims (i.e. retains and releases) each time you assign a new value to that, but that would leave a lot of repetitious and trouble-prone boilerplate code scattered all over the place, like cherries in a fruitcake. That kind of mess is fiendishly difficult to debug when (not if) something goes wrong. So, it's far better to wrap that code up in accessor methods, so you can write it once and then forget about it.
But accessor methods are mostly boilerplate too, so we use #property declarations to create them automagically, rather than writing them by hand.
Edit: Apple's Memory Management Guide provides a lot of detail about what the accessor methods generated by #property do behind the scenes.
If I use #property (retain) Something *myVar; I can access that variable with self.myVar... But, what is the difference?
#property (retain) Something *myVar;
// this property declaration declares:
- (Something *)myVar;
// and
- (void)setMyIvar:(Something *)arg;
// and is accessible by dot syntax.
// it also declares and/or documents how the ivar is managed (copy, retain, etc.)
in use:
// direct access to the ivar. zero additional overhead (with regard to accessing the ivar)
[myVar message];
// properties used with dot syntax invoke the accessor. therefore,
[self.myVar message];
// is the same as:
[[self myVar] message];
the property's properties also give instructions to the compiler as to how to synthesize an accessor.
Is there a good reason I should use one method or another?
in init and dealloc, access the ivar directly - you are interested in initialization and cleanup of the object's ivars and do not care about subclasses. using properties here can also introduce bugs or undefined behavior.
for other cases, that is, when the object is in a fully constructed state, you should always use the accessor for consistency. if a subclass overrides an accessor, direct access of the ivar could break designs.
if you want to avoid this, then make the ivar private and do not declare a property for it. if you do declare a property for it, then document that it is private; i'll typically write #property (retain) Something * private_myIvar; in this case. in this case, it is convenient to use a property to synthseize the ivar's memory management.
when the ivar is private, you have total access to it. it is safe to access directly or by private property. otherwise, assume that you must use the accessor.
if myIvar is declared private and will be created only at initialization, you can avoid declaring the properties altogether. this will reduce runtime overhead (if that is critical). messaging overhead, retain/release cycles, and atomics will (naturally) require more execution time. so it can be bypassed to improve performance.
visibility/maintenance. sometimes, it's far less maintenance/implementation to hide an ivar from the interface. in other cases, the ivar is an implementation detail of the class, and should not be a part of the public interface. in such cases, consider making it private (there are a few ways to accoomplish this in objc).
Using the #property to access your ivars, does a lot of the repetitive code of releasing and retaining objects for you. You don't have to use them. It's just a lot of tutorials make it simple for people that are new to the platform.
In my code, every time I need a new object attribute for my class, I typically copy/paste its name in 4 different places!
The declaration in the header file (NSObject * myObject;)
The #property() line
The #synthesize() line in the implementation
Releasing it under dealloc: (only for objects of course)
I do this because it works, not because I completely understand what's going on. I do know that the declaration in the header file allows other classes to see its attributes, the property specifier determines how its getter/setter methods will be constructed. And the synthesize line actually builds those getter/setter methods. I also know that primitive types should use (nonatomic,assign) instead of (nonatomic,retain), but I have no clue when I should omit the nonatomic.
What can I do to avoid redundancy in my code. If I change or add a variable in my class I have to check 4 different places, and it gets old really fast. Are there any key strokes to make this process faster? Are there lines of code I can simplify or combine to obtain the same result?
Accessorizer will automate a lot of this for you.
In the latest version of Clang (Ships with XCode 4, not in XCode 3 yet) you get default #synthesize as well as default ivar creation. The default ivar creation already works, but not on the simulator. With both of these features all you need to do is add the #property line and deal with the memory management in dealloc
As far as nonatomic vs atomic. atomic is the default, and what happens when you leave off the nonatomic annotation. Atomic guarantees that the value is completely set before allowing anything to access it, nonatomic doesn't. Atomic is only useful in threading situations, and is slightly slower in singlethreaded applications.
It's important to understand what each of those lines of code does. They are not all the same and they are not necessarily redundant. One thing that will help is to use the correct terminology — for example, with NSObject *myObject; you're probably referring to an instance variable declaration.
First and foremost, a #property declaration in an #interface lets you say that instances of a class expose a piece of state. It doesn't say much about the implementation of that state, only that it's exposed by instances of your class and the API contract (memory management, atomicity, methods) for the state.
The #synthesize directive tells the compiler to create or use a specific instance variable as storage for a declared #property. This does not need to be how you provide storage for a property. For example, Core Data provides its own storage for modeled properties, so you use #dynamic for those instead. You also don't need to use an instance variable with the same name as your #property — to extend your example above, you might name your instance variable myObject_ while naming your property object and that's perfectly fine.
Finally, you send the instance variable -release in -dealloc — for an object-type property marked retain or copy — because you've said you'll manage its memory. You're not releasing the property, you're releasing the storage. If you implemented the storage some other way, you'd clean it up some other way.
I'm diving into iOS development and I find that for each of my UI controls, I always just blindly declare their #property like so, since that's how it was done in some tutorial I read when I started learning...
#property (retain, nonatomic) IBOutlet UILabel *lblStatus;
I'm still getting familiar with these attribute types and what they mean, but I find these two attributes allow me to accomplish my goals. Would I ever want to use any #property attributes other than "retain" and "nonatomic" for UI variables?
Thanks in advance for all your help!
NOTE: This answer is more relevant to UI Items in general.
Yes there is other situation where you would want to use the "assign" macro instead of "retain" (Assign is default for now but you get warning at compile-time if you don't specify it explicitly)
Apple gives a good example of this on one of their tutorial: Advanced UITableViewCell
They only "assign" in order to avoid cycle retains. (each of the view retains the other so they can't be deallocated).
NOTE: I missed the reference to UI variables in the question, so this answer is a more general discussion.
Yes, you will definitely need to use other attributes than those two, although that combination is the most common one.
copy - Use this in situations where you don't want as subsequent change to the data to be "picked up" by your class. In other words, when you want full control of the data once it's passed in. Sometimes this is desirable, sometimes not. Classes like NSString and UIColor are often used through properties with the copy attribute. My answer here gives a little bit more background.
assign - You use this with primitive types like int. You can't retain or copy an int or a float, because they are not objects, so you have to use assign. (Also, you don't have to, and can't, release those variables in your dealloc method.) This is true also for C structs, which are not covered by the Objective-C retain count system.
assign special case - sometimes you use assign even with objects, because you want to avoid retain cycles. Look at the header for UITableViewfor example. You'll notice that the delegate property is declared like this: #property(nonatomic, assign) id<UITableViewDelegate> delegate . Delegate properties should always be declared with assign and the same applies in some other situations, although you are not likely to run into them very soon.
nonatomic - This tells the compiler that the property is intended only to be accessed from one thread, and therefore it can omit some code that would otherwise slow down your program (potentially considerably). So the rule here is: if the property will, or might, be accessed from several threads, you should not declare it to be nonatomic (atomic is the default). Note however that making properties atomic is in no way sufficient to make your code thread safe. That's another, and much much thornier, topic.
The answer is NO. The reason behind this is the reason why we are using nonatomic and retain. From memory management guide "Objects in the nib file are created with a retain count of 1 and then autoreleased. As it rebuilds the object hierarchy, UIKit reestablishes connections between the objects using setValue:forKey:, which uses the available setter method or retains the object by default if no setter method is available. This means that (assuming you follow the pattern shown in “Outlets”) any object for which you have an outlet remains valid." So we are providing this setter just to make a match with the default behavior. Yes, it is possible to declare the setter in other ways but at least I have not found no reason to do so. If we use assign instead of retain, then there is no guarantee that the objects will remain valid. And memory management is already critical in iPhone and obviously I don't want to make it further critical by ignoring the convention. -- edit The answer NO is only for UI variables, that is for IBOutlets. Don't be confused. Other attributes are necessary in other cases as explained in other answers.
(retain) is generally used for instance variables and assign will go for delegates and primitive data types like bool , int