#property retain - iPhone - iphone

I am newbie to iPhone programming. I have the following doubt which is stopping me to go ahead. Please consider the following code:
---------.h------
#interface myClass: UIViewController
{
UIImage *temp;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) UIImage *temp;
---------.m------
#interface myClass
#synthesize temp;
-(void) dealloc
{
[temp release];
[super dealloc];
}
The above is the only program code. Thats it ... nothing else. Do I need to declare [temp release] in dealloc method even though I am not using the property accessor method in my program at all. What if I don't declare [temp release] in dealloc. Will that create memory leak as I am releasing something which I haven't retained as I am not calling property accessor method.
Also when i print retain count for temp why does it show 0 even though it is getting retained in #property.
Thanks in advance

If no value has ever been assigned to (an instance of) myClass.temp, then there won't be a leak. But you should release it in your dealloc.
#property is only a declaration that instance of myClass will have this property. You need to assign it a value before that value gets retained.
myClass *instance = [[myClass alloc] init];
// instance will now retain the value passed in
// and is therefore responsible for releasing it
instance.temp = [UIImage imageNamed:#"whatever"];
// if instance is not retained anywhere else,
// its dealloc will be called
[instance release];
On a sidenote, you should give your classes names that start with an uppercase
letter, i.e. MyClass. Not required, but makes things clearer.
You can also use self.temp = nil; in your dealloc You're sorta not supposed but it kinda works better and looks cleaner. It's a bit of an iffy subject...

What you are doing is correct. Scroll to the "dealloc" section of this Apple Doc: Declared Properties
Soon, however, these properties will be cleaned up automatically when you synthesize them (in the next Cocoa update) -- that being said, a convention I have personally began to follow so that my code works in the future is setting self.temp = nil; in dealloc instead of sending a release message (read the apple doc i posted, it explains this). The accessor method created at runtime releases the object first, so for me and quite a few other devs, this is a better/safer way of cleaning up declared properties in our dealloc.

Your code is correct.
The general rule is that, for all variables you declare in #interface, you must clean them up in -dealloc. Some variables will need to be released, others just need to be nil'd out, depending on how you've declared the #property.
In your example above, temp may never have been given a value explicitly by you, but the ObjC runtime will have initialized the value of temp to nil when an instance of your class gets allocated.
Sending a -release to a nil object is generally not a problem, so the [temp release] is fine. It's a no-op. When temp has a non-nil value in -dealloc, the [temp release] gets to do its job of freeing up the memory.
If you need temp to have a non-nil value on creation, you'll need to implement the -init method and make sure it gets some value. While your class is legitimate & functional without an -init method, you really should get in the habit including one in every custom class you design.
You'll need the default initializer at a minimum: -init. You may also want to design a more detailed initializer that could be used to give your temp ivar an a value, like -initWithImage:
Here's what you should also be including in your class:
#implementation MyClass
...
- (id) init {
self = [super init];
if (self != nil) {
// The minimal default initializer.
// temp will already have a value of nil, so you don't need necessarily
// need to do anything more, unless temp needs a real value on initialization.
}
return self;
}
- (void) dealloc {
...
}
#end
To implement a more detailed initializer, which would be known as the designated initializer, you would to something like this:
#implementation MyClass
...
- (id) initWithImage:(UIImage *)newImage {
self = [super init];
if (self != nil) {
temp = [newImage retain];
}
return self;
}
// Implement the default initializer using your more detailed initializer.
- (id) init {
// In this default initializer, every new instance comes with a temp image!
return [self initWithImage:[UIImage imageNamed:#"foobar"]];
}
- (void) dealloc {
...
}
#end
Here, the designated initializer -initWithImage: is the authoritative initializer. All other initializers, including -init, get implemented using -initWithImage:.
You get to exercise a lot of discretion over whether to implement any initializers beyond the minimal default initializer. Maybe -init is good enough for your purposes. That's fine. Sometimes more detailed initializers make using the class more convenient. Experience (and the Force) will be your guide.
Note that I didn't use the generated property accessor in either initializer method. If you aren't required by circumstances, you should generally avoid using property accessors in -init methods and -dealloc, primarily because of potential pain-in-the-ass issues with side effects of automatic key-value coding notifications.
The initializer and dealloc methods play a special role in a class. As the class designer, it is your responsibility to set and clean up instance variables in these methods. A good rule of thumb is to leave the use of synthesized property accessors for the callers of your class, and the implementation of other methods in the class.
When doing initialization of an instance, or deallocation, you can and should touch the ivars directly. They're yours. You declared them, so you can handle them directly. When implementing other methods in your class, you generally should use the property accessors.
JeremyP's link to the Cocoa Conceptual documentation on objects is a good one. You should definitely read the sections on Objects, and periodically re-read it as you gain more experience writing custom classes of your own. Eventually, it will all start making sense.

Related

property assign

If I have one property like this, what is the diference of assign the value of the property of the first mode and the second mode?
#interface Prueba : NSObject{
CustomeClass *_cclass;
}
#property(nonatomic, retain)CustomeClass *cclass;
#end
#implementation Prueba
#synthesize cclass = _cclass
- (void)config{
// 1 This
self.cclass = [[CustomeClass alloc] init];
// 2 This or
CustomeClass *cc = [[CustomeClass alloc] init];
self.cclass = cc;
[cc release];
}
#end
:/
Your first example gives you an object with a retain count of two (wrong), whereas your second example gives you an object with retain count of one (right). The second method is preferred in non-ARC projects. Alternatively, you could also do either set the ivar yourself (which I don't like because you're not using the setter):
_cclass = [[CustomeClass alloc] init];
or use the setter as your examples do, but do an autorelease (which I don't like because you shouldn't defer your releases unless you have to):
self.cclass = [[[CustomeClass alloc] init] autorelease];
In your non-ARC project, your original second example is best (using a pointer, using your property's setter, then releasing your pointer), because for KVO you want to get in the habit of using the setter:
CustomeClass *cc = [[CustomeClass alloc] init];
self.cclass = cc;
[cc release];
There is no difference in the result except that in the second method you create an additional pointer. In both versions self.cclass will hold your object just fine.
The problem is that when you only release the object in your second mode, in the first mode you'll have a memory leak. Since the retainCount of an object is +1 when you allocate it, you assign a +1 object through your setter. This means, that you actually bump up the retainCount again. Now if you don't release the object after assigning it to your property, once it gets released from there the retainCount will only be reduced by 1. Thus letting an object with a retainCount of +1 float around in the memory, lost forever.
But because you are already asking about a better version, I want to introduce lazy instantiation to you. What you can do, is that you overwrite the getter method of the property in question and check if it has been allocated yet. If not, you allocate it inside your getter method and then return it. It would look something like this:
- (CustomeClass*) cclass
{
if(!_cclass)
{
_cclass = [[CustomeClass alloc] init];
}
return _cclass;
}
With this method you assign a +1 retained object to an internal variable, thus bypassing the setter and not increasing the retainCount. Also it's memory friendly, because you object only gets instantiated when you really need it. Now when you set your property to nil or some new object, the old object will be properly deallocated.
EDIT:
In response to Robert Ryan's comment I want to add the following:
This does not break KVO, or interfere with the assigned qualifies for your properties. If your property is marked as assign or weak, then lazy instantiation doesn't really make sense. If it's marked as retain or strong this way of instantiating an object is perfectly fine, especially when it is a property which you would assign anyway inside a config method.
Regarding KVO: the value which is assigned inside the getter can be seen as the initial/default value, so KVO still works. It will trigger when you use the setter to assign something else to the property. You wouldn't want KVO to trigger because of a default value, would you?

Objective-C method to nullify object

i have some trouble writing a method in Objective-C to make an object nil. Here is some example :
#interface testA : NSObject
{
NSString *a;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *a;
+(testA*)initWithA:(NSString *)aString;
-(void)displayA;
-(void)nillify;
#end
#implementation testA
#synthesize a;
+(testA*)initWithA:(NSString *)aString{
testA *tst=[[testA alloc] init];
tst.a=aString;
return [tst autorelease];
}
-(void)displayA{
NSLog(#"%#",self.a);
}
-(void)nillify{
self=nil;
}
- (void)dealloc {
[a release];
[super dealloc];
}
#end
int main(int argc, char **argv){
NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
testA *test=[testA initWithA:#"some test"];
[test displayA];
test=nil;
//[test nillify];
NSLog(#"after setting to nil");
[test displayA];
[pool release];
return 0;
}
Apparently , when I set test object to nil and then call some method on it nothing happens , but if i call nillify instead of directly setting it to nil , displayA method works normally like test object is still there. Is there a workaround for nillify method to function properly ?
Your help is much appreciated !
You can't actually do something like this, because setting 'self' to nil only has any effect within the scope of that method (in your case, 'nilify'). You don't have any actual way to effect the values of pointers located on other parts of the stack or in random places in the heap, for example.
Basically any code that holds a reference to some object is responsible for maintaining and clearing those references itself. If you have some use case where random sections of code may need references to "live" objects of some kind, but where you'd want those object references to go away in response to some external event (maybe a user tracking system or something), you could do something with notifications, but the various modules tracking those "live" objects would still be responsible for listening for notifications and cleaning up references when they received them.
The 'nilify' thing, however, can't possibly work.
You cannot do what you're trying to do. self is just a local reference to an object that actually exists elsewhere. Setting it to nil doesn't mean anything. An object doesn't, in general, own itself, and it certainly doesn't control other objects' references to it. It's up to the owning objects to manage its lifetime.
There are a few things wrong with your code.
First, by convention, class names start with an uppercase letter. Please stick to these naming conventions as it will make it harder for other developers to work with your code (and even confuse you).
Next, your initWithName:... According to the naming conventions, a method with init in its name should be an instance method, not a class method. So either name it newWithName: or turn it into an instance method like this:
-(testA*)initWithA:(NSString *)aString{
self = [super init];
if (!self) return nil;
tst.a=aString;
return self;
}
If you keep it as class method (and name it newWithName:) you should not return a autoreleased object since according to the naming conventions method that start with init... or new... return a retained object. If you do not follow these conventions, the static analyzer will give you "false" warnings and it will become useless for you.
Now for the reason your nillify doesn't work: the self is in fact an argument to a method. Under the hood, your nillify method actually has two arguments that you do not see: the self pointer and the selector pointer. This means, self is actually a variable on the stack. And if you overwrite it, you only overwrite that stack variable but that doesn't influence your test variable which is somewhere else.
As an example, consider a method - (void)foo:(NSString *)bar;. The compiler turns it into the equivalent of the C function (void) foo(id self, SEL _cmd, NSString *bar).

Objective-C Setter Memory Management

Still a little confused about Objective-C memory management. I think my confusion stems from what exactly the autorelease means.
NSString *theBackendResponse = [[NSString alloc] initWithData:receivedData encoding:NSASCIIStringEncoding];
NSDictionary *accountDictionary = [theBackendResponse propertyList];
[viewController setAccountDictionary:accountDictionary];
Now, what should I do with the accountDictionary in the setAccountDictionary method of my view controller? Right now I just set the instance variable "accountDictionary" to whatever is returned. Should I set it to a retained one, and then release the one that's returned? What should my setter code block look like, given that NSString's propertyList method is autoreleased?
By the way, if I release theBackendResponse, will I lose the accountDictionary? I assume not...
Calling [objectInstance autorelease] adds an object to the current NSAutoreleasePool. When that pool receives a drain message, it sends a release to all the objects in the pool. If any of those objects' retainCount reaches 0, they are deallocated at that point. The purpose of autorelease is to allow you to mark an object to be released "some time in the future". This is especially useful for things like methods that return a newly allocated object but want to release it so that the caller doesn't have to take ownership of the returned object. A method might look like this:
- (id)myMethod {
id myObj = [[SomeClass alloc] init];
...
return [myObj autorelease];
}
The caller of myMethod would then retain the return value if they wanted to take ownership of the returned value or ignore it if not. When the current NSAutoreleasePool is drained, myObj will get a release message. If no other objects own it (i.e. have sent it a retain message), it will get deallocated.
All of this is explained in the Cocoa Memory Management Programming Guide. Even if you've already read it, it's always worth an other read.
So, to answer your questions:
First, you should release theBackendResponse. You will leak memory if you do not. You don't need to know what accountDictionary does with the string: if it needs to keep a reference it will have retained theBackendResponse. You have an ownership of theBackendResponse because you alloc'd it, so you must relinquish that ownership (via release or indirectly via autorelease).
Second, you must retain or copy the argument to setAccountDictionary: if you want to keep a reference to that object or value respectively. The standard setter method looks something like this (assuming you do not need atomic semantics):
-(void)setAccountDictionary:(NSDictionary*)newDict {
if(newDict != accountDictionary) {
id tmp = accountDictionary;
accountDictionary = [newDict copy]; //Since newDict may be mutable, we make a copy so that accountDictionary isn't mutated behind our back.
[tmp release];
}
}
You must also remember to release accountDictionary in the dealloc method:
- (void)dealloc {
[accountDictionary release];
[super dealloc];
}
Since you appear to be using NSViewController, I assume you're on Leopard (OS X 10.5) in which case, you should probably be using #property and the #synthesized getter/setter if possible. To do this, add a
#property (copy,readwrite) NSDictionary * accountDictionary;
declaration to the class #interface. And add a #synthesize accountDictionary; directive in the #implementation block for your controller class.
In general, one object or method should not have to care about how another is managing memory. The fact that somebody else has autoreleased something is irrelevant to you. It's simpler to think of the concept of ownership. So retain and some other methods claim ownership, and release and autorelease relinquish it. If an object needs to keep a reference to another, it should claim ownership for as long as it needs. Thus, setter methods usually either retain or copy the new value and release or autorelease the old value.
I strongly recommend reading the Cocoa memory management guidelines. They're not all that long or complicated, and it's very important to understand them.
The set accessor method should always copy / retain the incoming value before releasing the old, in the case where the old value is the only object that owns the new value:
-(void)setAccountDictionary:(NSDictionary*)newDict {
id old = accountDictionary;
accountDictionary = [newDict copy];
[old release];
}
If accountDictionary referred to newDict and the retain count for newDict was 1, the call to [accountDictionary release] before the call to [newDict copy] would cause the retain count to got to 0 and therefore release newDict.
As an example of incorrect code, where we release the old dictionary and then copy the new dictionary:
-(void)setAccountDictionary:(NSDictionary*)newDict {
[accountDictionary release];
accountDictionary = [newDict copy];
}
and have the following code:
NSDictionary *dict = [obj accountDictionary];
[obj setAccountDictionary:dict];
It's contrived, but it demonstrates that in the setter, accountDictionary and newDict refer to the same instance. If the retain count is 1, the [accountDictionary release] line will decrease the retain count to 0, and thus release the instance from memory. [newDict copy] will now refer to an invalid instance.
Apple describes several concepts when implementing accessors: Memory Management Accessor Methods
If you can use Objective-C 2.0, I would go with properties and dot syntax.
Properties are new in Objective-C 2.0 and provide auto accessor generation.
In the .h File:
#property (retain) NSDictionary* accountDictionary;
In the implementation:
#synthesize accountDictionary;
Synthesize generates accessor methods for your NSDictionary. (If you want to provide your own implementation, you could also do that)

EXC_BAD_ACCESS in didAccelerate on phone move

I'm doing the following:
- (void) accelerometer: (UIAccelerometer *)accelerometer didAccelerate: (UIAcceleration *)acceleration {
if (self.lastAcceleration) {
double i = self.lastAcceleration.x;
It works fine until I actually tilt the phone. Then I get EXC_BAD_ACCESS on the last line. lastAcceleration is a property with a retain. When I look at "x" in the debugger, it has a large negative value. Why would that throw a EXC_BAD_ACCESS exception only on tilt?
-- EDIT (Since this answer applies to responses below) --
I added this and now it works:
- (void)dealloc {
[lastAcceleration release];
Why would that matter? Also, should it be
[self.lastAcceleration release];
I wasn't previously releasing lastAcceleration anywhere. Here is the header declaration:
#interface MyViewController : UIViewController <UIAccelerometerDelegate> {
UIAcceleration *lastAcceleration;
}
#property(nonatomic, retain) UIAcceleration *lastAcceleration;
#end
My hunch is that the accelerometer API has nothing to do with the crash, the code you have shown smells like bad memory management, given that you're mixing ivar and property access I suspect you might be doing the same in other parts you're not showing.
Anyway a couple best practice things:
any object you have a pointer for in your class you should have retained, and conversely when you release it you should also zap the pointer so you don't risk accessing it after it has been deallocated (the exception to this rule are some patterns like the delegate object, where retaining the object would cause a retain cycle, but that's a whole other topic)
ivar setters and getters that are automatically generated via the #synthesized directive will retain and release the object for you for code that simply looks like it's assigning a pointer, so they're pretty handy, but property access (self.something = ...) and ivar access (something = ...) are not equivalent so you have to be careful
One easy way to make sure you don't mix the two up is to do something like this:
#interface MyObject : NSObject
{
SomethingObject *_something;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) SomethingObject *something;
#end
#implementation MyObject
#synthesize something = _something;
#end
What we're doing here is making the ivar and property names slightly different, so that you are more aware of which one you're using, and the compiler will bark if you use don't use the bare something = ... syntax.
Now the #synthesize'd accessors are something like this:
- (void)setSomething:(SomethingObject *)newSomething
{
[newSomething retain];
[_something release];
_something = newSomething;
}
- (SomethingObject *)something
{
return _something;
}
With all that out of the way, [lastAcceleration release] is a bad thing to do because it isn't also setting the lastAcceleration pointer to nil, you are not guaranteed that it won't be deallocated and if you accidentally use it you are likely to crash.
[self.lastAcceleration release]; is incorrect because accessors take care of all the retain/release stuff for you.
The correct thing to do here is self.lastAcceleration = nil; that, if you look at the accessor code, will release and set the pointer to nil.
What is likely happening is that you are releasing lastAcceleration somewhere without also setting it to nil, and the if (self.lastAcceleration) { check is hitting a released object.
Main reason to have retained properties is to avoid explicit retain/release calls and memory management bugs associated with them. But in dealloc method either way is fine, since object will cease to exist soon.
[self.lastAcceleration release]; - not necessary.
[lastAcceleration release]; self.lastAcceleration = nil;
Both are fine if used in dealloc.
Outside of dealloc use only
self.lastAcceleration = nil;
EXC_BAD_ACCESS is raised when you access released memory. My guess would be that you somewhere released self.lastAcceleration but didn't set it to null.
Are you sure it is related to tilting?

Are instance variables set to nil by default in Objective-C?

I'm sorting out some memory issues with my iPhone app and I've just been thinking about some basics. If I setup an ivar and never end up using it in the lifespan of my object, when I call dealloc on it, will that cause a problem? E.g.
#interface testClass {
id myobject;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) id myobject;
#end
#implementation testClass
#synthesize myobject;
- (id)init {
...
// Do I have to set myobject to nil here?
// So if myobject isn't used the dealloc call to nil
// will be okay? Or can you release the variable without
// having set every object to nil that you may may not use
...
}
...
// Somewhere in the code, myobject may be set to
// an instance of an object via self.myobject = [AnObject grabAnObject]
// but the object may be left alone
...
- (void)dealloc {
[myobject release];
[super dealloc];
}
#end
Instance variables are initialized to 0 before your initializer runs..
Yes, ivars are always initialized to 0/nil/NULL/NO/etc.
However, if it helps you understand what's going on, go for it. The performance impact is negligible. You don't need to do it, but it won't cause any problems if you do.
I find that it is good practice to always set those ivars to nil in the init method. That way, you are absolutely sure that your call to release in the destructor can not cause problems.
If it turns out that Objective-C does automatically set them to nil, and for some reason you find yourself with a speed bottleneck that can be improved upon by removing those assignments (highly unlikely), then you can worry about removing them. In the meantime, set them all to nil and sleep easier :)
update: BJ Homer and Chuck have pointed out that the ivars will automatically be set to zero, so now it comes down to a decision on style.