I have an object (Processor) containing several methods that perform lengthy calculations. I'd like to use those methods both on the main thread and in NSOperation subclasses.
Inside my NSOperation subclass code I repeatedly call isCancelled, so cancellation is fairly responsive. However, when the operation calls one of those lengthy Processor methods, it isn't able to respond to cancellation until that method returns.
Is there a good way to write methods so they can be used both with and without operations? I'm considering adding an operation argument to my CPU-intensive Processor methods and writing them like this:
- (void)calculateWithOperation:(NSOperation *)operation {
do {
if (operation != nil && [operation isCancelled]) {
return;
}
// Do some more calculation...
} while (! finished);
}
// For convenient main thread execution.
- (void)calculate {
[self calculateWithOperation:nil];
}
Has anyone else run into this issue before? Is there a better way?
The only way for an NSOperation to respond to canceling is to check if it's isCancelled as frequently as feasible. After all, it's just a thread which needs to exit when a flag is set. Basically, the isCancelled infrastructure is needed to gracefully free the operation's resources. So I'd say you just have to pepper the expensive method with checks.
Related
I have the following Method:
-(void) waitForStatusChangeAndPerformBlock:(MyBlockType)successBlock;
This is what the method should do:
Check if some status has the right value
If it does invoke the block successBlock
If not wait for the status to change to a given value and then invoke the block successBlock
I thought about KVO to check if the value has changed, but then I would have to store the block in some instance variable, or worse, an array, and I would loose the context of the current method call. So what I really want is something like this:
-(void) waitForStatusChangeAndPerformBlock:(MyBlockType)successBlock{
if(self.status == kDesiredStatus){
successBlock;
} else {
[TheMagicDispatchWaitUntil:(self.status == kDesiredStatus) andThenDoThis:^{
successBlock;
}];
}
}
Is there a way to achieve this without KVO or other helper methods?
If you want a theead to wait on an event - a message, timer, or whatever, one really nice way to do that is to use a Concurrent NSOperation. Those objects run on a separate thread, but have a runLoop so they can block in a the "normal" fashion inside the runloop callback waiting for something to happen.
That said, these do take a bit of finesse to get working. I have a demo project on gthub that lets you explore concurrent NSOperations (and there are others too).
Another nice way to block until something has done (on a thread) is to use "dispatch_wait()", which waits on all blocks that have been queued belonging to a group. This technique is pretty easy to pick up - you create a dispatch group and use the standard queues or create your own queue, then queue blocks using the dispatch_group functions. Once all are queued, you then dispatch_wait(forever) for the blocks to finish.
If you are doing just a simple routine and you don't have to call this method often, why don't you just use a while statement?
while (self.status != kDesiredStatus);
do {TheMagicDispatch}
succesBlock;
I have a toolkit that I need to work with (to interface with a remote service). This toolkit queries the remote service and asks for results. It does this asynchronously, which in most cases is good, but not for creating concise methods. I want to make methods similar to the following:
-(NSArray *)getAllAccounts {
NSString *query = #"SELECT name FROM Account";
//Sets "result" to the query response if no errors.
//queryResult:error:context: is called when the data is received
[myToolkit query:query target:self selector:#selector(queryResult:error:context:) context:nil];
//Wait?
return result.records;
}
The problem is, inside the toolkit the methods call each other using #selector, not direct calls, so getting return values is difficult. Further, the actual query uses:
NSURLConnection *connection = [[[NSURLConnection alloc] initWithRequest:aRequest delegate:self] autorelease];
Which is asynchronous. By the time the data has been received from the service, my method has long ago returned... without the information. So my question is this: Is there a way to pause execution until the data has been returned? Could I accomplish this using a second thread to get the data while the main thread rests (or using 3 threads so the main thread doesn't rest?)
I don't want to edit the toolkit to change their method (or add a new one) to be synchronous, so is there a way to make a method as I want?
You might want to consider NOT making it all synchronous, especially if the sample code in your post is run on your main application thread. If you do that, the main thread will block the UI and the application will cease to respond until the remote transaction is complete.
Therefore, if you really insist on the synchronous approach, then you should definitely do it in a background thread so that the UI does not become unresponsive, which can actually lead to your App getting killed by the OS on iphone.
To do the work in a background thread, I would strongly recommend using the Grand Central Dispatch stuff, namely NSBlockOperation. It will free you from having to actually create and manage threads and makes your code pretty neat.
To do the synchronous thing, take a look at the NSCondition class documentation. You could do something like the following:
NSCondition* condition = ...;
bool finished = NO;
-(NSArray *)getAllAccounts {
[condition lock];
NSString *query = #"SELECT name FROM Account";
//Sets "result" to the query response if no errors.
//queryResult:error:context: is called when the data is received
[myToolkit query:query target:self selector:#selector(queryResult:error:context:) context:nil];
while (!finished)
[condition wait];
[condition unlock];
return result.records;
}
Then in the method called by the toolkit to provide the results you'd do:
- (void) queryResult:error:context: {
// Deal with results
[condition lock]
finished = YES;
[condition signal];
[condition unlock];
}
You'd probably want to encapsulate the "condition" and "finished" variables in your class declaration.
Hope this helps.
UPDATE: Here is some code to offload the work to a background thread:
NSOperationQueue* queue = [NSOperationQueue new];
[queue addOperationWithBlock:^{
// Invoke getAllAccounts method
}];
Of course, you can keep the queue around for later use and move the actual queuing of the work to inside your method call to make things neater.
The way to wait is to return from your current code. Finish up doing what you want done after the wait, in the asynchronous callback method you specify. What's so difficult about that?
Any synchronous waits in the main UI thread will block the UI and make the user think your app has locked up, which is likely far worse than your thinking the code isn't concise enough.
I need ideas on the following -
In the main thread at some point of execution say Point A(sequential logic), I need to remember the state of execution and delegate the execution of some other logic onto another thread, and let the main thread handle the UI events etc. When the delegated logic completes on the other thread then the flow of execution should continue from the point A and should recollect the entire execution context and proceed as if it never paused there.
Regards,
Sunil Phani Manne
It's hard to implement this exactly the way you're saying (for example do(things)... yield(other_thread); ...do(more_things);.
Here are a couple other options I can think of (you'd have to implement these yourself, using delegates or notifications for example; I'm just giving a basic outline of how it would work):
do(things)
[object doStuffOnOtherThreadWithCallback:^{ // block-based
do(more_things)...
}];
or...
do(things)
[object doStuffOnOtherThreadWithCallbackTarget:self // target/selector-based
selector:#selector(callbackSelector)];
}
- (void)callbackSelector {
do(more_things)...
}
One option you have is encapsulating the whole sequential logic that comes after Point A in your delegate and then execute it on the main thread when the secondary thread ends.
In other words, when you start the thread by calling, e.g.
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:sel toTarget:target withObject:delegate]
you can implement your target target so that it has a specific selector completion that is called at the end of sel on the main thread, like this (this is the your delegate class):
#implementation YOURDelegateClass {
.....
-(void)completion {
}
-(void)sel {
...
...
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(#"completion") withObject:self];
}
}
Of course you have many sub-options available here, like using a different call to start the background execution, etc.
The important point is that: you have to encapsulate in a selector all the logic that comes after Point A, and that you have to schedule the execution of this selector on the main thread, in order to get back to your context (although your context will have changed in the meantime because you will also have updated the UI).
EDIT:
Having to schedule the execution on the main thread defeats blocks from being suitable for this kind of callback. On the other side, block have the advantage that they in some limited sense give you access to the same lexical context in which the block was defined (which is roughly what you call context).
A workaround for this could be the following. Before detaching the new thread, store in a delegate the block you would like to execute at completion:
typedef void(^CustomBlock)(void);
#property (nonatomic, copy) CustomBlock customBlock;
....
int a = ...
delegate.customBlock = ^{
NSLog(#"hello %d.....", a);
}
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:sel...
....
-(void)completion {
[self customBlock];
}
Of course, you only get the context preservation that is guaranteed to you by block. But here you hit against a limit of the language.
If you need more context preservation, then the only possibility is encapsulating that context in your delegate class ivars.
One thing is for sure. There, most probably, isn't any direct feature in Cocoa that does that. Since you're saying that you can't duplicate the resources onto the new thread (for a very good reason), I am going to suggest that you make use of NSUndoManager. For every change you make in the thread, push an undo operation for that change onto the undo manager. At the end of the thread, execute all the undo operations in the undo manager object. This should, if done correctly, restore your state. Now, since the idea is untested, there could be a chance that not all actions can be undone. You will have to check that out first.
I've used both GCD and performSelectorOnMainThread:waitUntilDone in my apps, and tend to think of them as interchangeable--that is, performSelectorOnMainThread:waitUntilDone is an Obj-C wrapper to the GCD C syntax. I've been thinking of these two commands as equivalent:
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{ [self doit:YES]; });
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(doit:) withObject:YES waitUntilDone:YES];
Am I incorrect? That is, is there a difference of the performSelector* commands versus the GCD ones? I've read a lot of documentation on them, but have yet to see a definitive answer.
As Jacob points out, while they may appear the same, they are different things. In fact, there's a significant difference in the way that they handle sending actions to the main thread if you're already running on the main thread.
I ran into this recently, where I had a common method that sometimes was run from something on the main thread, sometimes not. In order to protect certain UI updates, I had been using -performSelectorOnMainThread: for them with no problems.
When I switched over to using dispatch_sync on the main queue, the application would deadlock whenever this method was run on the main queue. Reading the documentation on dispatch_sync, we see:
Calling this function and targeting
the current queue results in deadlock.
where for -performSelectorOnMainThread: we see
wait
A Boolean that specifies whether the
current thread blocks until after the
specified selector is performed on the
receiver on the main thread. Specify
YES to block this thread; otherwise,
specify NO to have this method return
immediately.
If the current thread is also the main
thread, and you specify YES for this
parameter, the message is delivered
and processed immediately.
I still prefer the elegance of GCD, the better compile-time checking it provides, and its greater flexibility regarding arguments, etc., so I made this little helper function to prevent deadlocks:
void runOnMainQueueWithoutDeadlocking(void (^block)(void))
{
if ([NSThread isMainThread])
{
block();
}
else
{
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue(), block);
}
}
Update: In response to Dave Dribin pointing out the caveats section ondispatch_get_current_queue(), I've changed to using [NSThread isMainThread] in the above code.
I then use
runOnMainQueueWithoutDeadlocking(^{
//Do stuff
});
to perform the actions I need to secure on the main thread, without worrying about what thread the original method was executed on.
performSelectorOnMainThread: does not use GCD to send messages to objects on the main thread.
Here's how the documentation says the method is implemented:
- (void) performSelectorOnMainThread:(SEL) selector withObject:(id) obj waitUntilDone:(BOOL) wait {
[[NSRunLoop mainRunLoop] performSelector:selector target:self withObject:obj order:1 modes: NSRunLoopCommonModes];
}
And on performSelector:target:withObject:order:modes:, the documentation states:
This method sets up a timer to perform the aSelector message on the current thread’s run loop at the start of the next run loop iteration. The timer is configured to run in the modes specified by the modes parameter. When the timer fires, the thread attempts to dequeue the message from the run loop and perform the selector. It succeeds if the run loop is running and in one of the specified modes; otherwise, the timer waits until the run loop is in one of those modes.
GCD's way is suppose to be more efficient and easier to handle and is only available in iOS4 onwards whereas performSelector is supported in the older and newer iOS.
I would like to have an object be callable from the main thread
MyObj* backgroundObject = [[MyObj alloc] initInBackground];
BOOL result = [backgroundObject computeResult];
But have all the methods of backgroundObject compute in another thread.
And also have backgroundObj be able to send messages to it's delegate. How can I do such a thing? Is it possible?
As others have pointed out, an NSObject doesn't exist on any one thread, a thread only comes into play when you start executing its methods.
My suggestion would be to not use manual threads for every time that a method is called on the object, but instead use NSOperations and an NSOperationQueue. Have an NSOperationQueue as an instance variable of the object, and have calls to the various methods on the object create NSOperations which are inserted into the queue. The NSOperationQueue will process these operations on a background thread, avoiding all of the manual thread management you would need to have for multiple accesses to methods.
If you make this NSOperationQueue have a maximum concurrency count of 1, you can also avoid locking shared resources within the object between the various operations that will be performed on a background thread (of course you'll still need to lock instance variables that can be accessed from the outside world).
For callbacks to delegates or other objects, I'd recommend using -performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone so that you don't have to think about making those delegate methods threadsafe.
See the Concurrency Programming Guide for more.
Sure, you can use NSThread for that, and have backgroundObject use performSelectorOnMainThread: to contact the delegate.
NSThread documentation
performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone:
Objects do not exist in threads AFAIK. The function you send to an object will always be performed on the thread you sent it from (unless you use NSThread or performSelectorOnMainThread or something along those lines).
What you need is a NSOperation and a block/delegate parameter to notify the caller of completion.
Look at the documentation of NSOperation and NSOperationQueues
You should use GCD:
/*
* I didn't initalised your object in background, because
* because in the most cases you need your object to stick around
* and only perfom the time consimung calculations in background
*/
MyObj* backgroundObject = [[MyObj alloc] initInBackground];
...
- (void)startBackgroundTask {
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
//in a perfectly async non blocking block :-)
BOOL result = [backgroundObject computeResult];
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
//post your result, or do something else with your result
[[NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] postNotificationName:"backgroundComputeResultDone" object:[NSNumber numberWithBool:result]];
if (result) {
//do some stuff
}
});
});
}
Maybe you can take a look at these two videos from apple here:
WWDC 2011 - Session 210 - Mastering Grand Central Dispatch
WWDC 2011 - Session 308 - Blocks and Grand Central Dispatch in Practice