I've created an NSOperation in the queue like so:
ImageLoadingOperation *operation = [[ImageLoadingOperation alloc] initWithImageURL:url target:self action:#selector(didFinishLoadingImageWithResult:)];
[operationQueue addOperation:operation];
[operation release];
And this works fine but if the view gets popped before the operation finishes the App crashes with "EXC_BAD_ACCESS"
I've tried to cancel the the operation Queue by calling cancelAllOperations but as its already in process it doesn't prevent the App from crashing. The docos say that if the operation is running it is up to the operation to detect that it has been canceled and respond appropriately but not too sure how I would implement this?
Any ideas?
It is a general problem for View calling some network and then callback.
My solution is you can retain the view before you call the operation. And then, when the operation finishes, you release the view.
- (void)longTask {
[self retain];
}
- (void)longTaskDidFinish {
// do something if you want
[self release];
}
You will have to either override the "cancel" operation in your ImageLoadingOperation class, or have your ImageLoadingOperation add itself as KVO observer to the "cancelled" property. There - you can intelligently cancel your operation in such way that it won't crash.
Also, if your ImageLoadingOperation runs in the background, it would be wiser to defer your access to the views somehow to the main thread (where all drawing takes place). You could use a dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{}); or even performSelectorOnMainThread for actual access to the related view.
You see - the whole point of using an operation queue is to remove dependencies, and let things run in parallel, but your operation must synchronize with the view-system changes, and that must be designed for completeness and robustness.
You could retain the view before the callback of operation is called, as vodkhang mentioned above. But that will prolong the life of the view unnecessarily because since the view is popped you don't want the operation to continue any more.
Here is a sketch about what you should do to respond to the cancel command:
- (void)start{
if(self.isCancelled){
[self markAsFinished];
return;
}
//start your task asynchronously
}
//If you want to cancel the downloading progress immediately, implement your own 'cancel' method
- (void)cancel{
[super cancel];
if(self.isExecuting){
{
......
cancel load process
......
}
[self markAsFinished];
}
}
- (void)markAsFinished{
......
change 'finished' to YES' generate KVO notifications on this key path
change 'executing' to 'YES'; generate KVO notification on this key path
......
}
This sketch is based on ASIHTTPRequest networking library, and
there is an official guide on how you should respond to cancel command.
Related
Basically, i have a method that takes a few seconds to complete as it copies some files using NSFileManager. This is invoked on the touchesMoved event when the user picks up a draggable UIView icon. However, there's a slight delay before the icon's position is updated. I'm guessing it's waiting for that method to copy it's files before continuing. The method HAS to be triggered on touchesMoved, so please don't suggest moving it.
How can i execute a method that takes about a second to complete, without holding up the code?
(..and don't worry the copy method doesn't get repeatedly called from the touchesMoved event)
You could perform the task in the background using performSelectorInBackground:...:
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSObject_Class/Reference/Reference.html
This prevent that selector from blocking the main thread.
Example:
[self performSelectorInBackground:#selector(myMethod) withObject:nil];
Do it in a background thread. Leave the main thread to deal with UI stuff only.
Technically you could divide the copying of files into very small chunks, and tell the current NSRunLoop to dispatch between each file copy.
But practically just say no to any IO access on the main thread, all IO access should be done in the background. Even the slightest block on the main thread will make the UI stutter and be unresponsive, Android user might accept that, iOS user do not.
Your options are numerous, and easy to implement. You could do a simple performSelector–:
-(void)backgroundWorker {
NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
// Do your stuff
[pool release];
}
-(void)startDoingIOStuff {
[self performSelectorInBackground:#selector(backgroundWorker)
withObject:nil];
}
You could do it practically inline using a block and GCD:
-(void)startDoingIOStuff {
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, NULL),
^{
NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
// Do your stuff
[pool release];
});
}
Or you could use an NSOperation on a NSOperationQueue. I have written a longer blog post on this topic, including source code that is available here: http://blog.jayway.com/2010/08/19/future-cocoa-operation/
Before immediately resorting to a secondary thread, it would certainly be worth a try to use a plain old performSelector on self. For example:
[self peformSelector:#selector(copyFiles) withObject:nil afterDelay:0.0];
Note that this is different from doing:
[self copyFiles];
The peformSelector version basically says "do copyFiles ASAP, OK?", but doesn't block everything while waiting for it to be done. In other words, it's possible that the perform selector version would allow the main event loop to update the UI (thereby preventing the apparent visual lag) before the file copying is actually done.
I am creating an iPhone application where I need to show a login screen for few minutes, hence I created the custom view and added to the custom view controller which is added to the window for display. Now at the same time I need to check for some background database so, I am creating that in separate delegate and while after database operation is in finished it gives an callback to the main thread to display the new screen. But the first view is never getting displayed and my application directly lands up in the new view.
Please find below my code snippet:
(void)CheckForExistingData : (DatabaseSource *)theDatabaseConnection
{
BOOL isRecordExist = theDatabaseConnection.isrecordExist;
// Release the connection....
[theDatabaseConnection release];
theDatabaseConnection = nil;
if (isRecordExist == FALSE)
{
textLabel.text = #"Preparing the application for first time use, please wait....";
[activityIndicator startAnimating];
[self setNeedsDisplay];
}
else
{
// Now all categories are successfully downloaded, launch the category screen...
sleep(2); // sleep for 1 second to allow to show the splash screen....
[self.viewController LaunchCategoryViewController:self];
}
}
Here CheckForExistingData is an callback mechanism which will be called from the other thread.
You need to exit your method to see anything displayed. Not sleep or wait on a synchronous network call.
That probably means you need to break your sequential code into multiple methods, the subsequent parts being called by a splash wait timer, the view button handler, or the async network activity completion callback.
sleep() blocks your main thread, thus the UI has no chance to update.
But you can always send messages delayed. In your case, it would look like this:
[self.viewController performSelector:#selector(LaunchCategoryViewController:) withObject:self afterDelay:2.0];
I have a UIViewController and in that controller, i am fetching an image from a URL source. The image is fetched in a separate thread after which the user-interface is updated on the main thread. This controller is displayed as a page in a UIScrollView parent which is implemented to release controllers that are not in view anymore.
When the thread finishes fetching content before the UIViewController is released, everything works fine - but when the user scrolls to another page before the thread finishes, the controller is released and the only handle to the controller is owned by the thread making releaseCount of the controller equals to 1. Now, as soon as the thread drains NSAutoreleasePool, the controller gets releases because the releaseCount becomes 0. At this point, my application crashes and i get the following error message:
bool _WebTryThreadLock(bool), 0x4d99c60: Tried to obtain the web lock from a thread other than the main thread or the web thread. This may be a result of calling to UIKit from a secondary thread. Crashing now...
The backtrace reveals that the application crashed on the call to [super dealloc] and it makes total sense because the dealloc function must have been triggered by the thread when the pool was drained. My question is, how i can overcome this error and release the controller without leaking memory?
One solution that i tried was to call [self retain] before the pool is drained so that retainCount doesn't fall to zero and then using the following code to release controller in the main thread:
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(autorelease)
withObject:nil waitUntilDone:NO];
Unfortunately, this did not work out. Below is the function that is executed on a thread:
- (void)thread_fetchContent {
NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
NSURL *imgURL = [NSURL URLWithString:#"http://www.domain.com/image.png"];
// UIImage *imgHotspot is declared as private - The image is retained
// here and released as soon as it is assigned to UIImageView
imgHotspot = [[[UIImage alloc] initWithData:
[NSData dataWithContentsOfURL: imgURL]] retain];
if ([self retainCount] == 1) {
[self retain]; // increment retain count ~ workaround
[pool drain]; // drain pool
// this doesn't work - i get the same error
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(autorelease)
withObject:nil waitUntilDone:NO];
}
else {
// show fetched image on the main thread - this works fine!
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(showImage)
withObject:nil waitUntilDone:NO];
[pool drain];
}
}
Please help! Thank you in advance.
Yeah it can be really daunting to try and keep threaded stuff in sync.
The use case you describe sounds perfect for an NSOperation.
By using this approach you can have an NSOperationQueue as an ivar in the controller and release this in your controllers dealloc method.
The benefits are many, when the controllers view is visible in the scrollView it (viewWillAppear or loadView) starts retrieving the image using an NSOperation added to an NSOperationQueue, if the user then scrolls away before the operation is done and the NSOperationQueue is released, it will take care of sending a cancel message to all operations and in general close everything down in an orderly fashion.
If this is a central component in your app, which I guess it is since you put thought into releasing things that are "of screen", I would recommend having your controller display a "dummy image" in the loadVIew method and then start a fetch operation in the viewDidLoad. You could subclass NSOperation so that you just send it the URL and let it do its thing.
I did something similar some weeks ago where I had to continuously start threaded operations, but with a large chance the the user would do something that caused these to get canceled. That functionality is "build" into the NSOperation.
NSOperation question
I have a question that we might answer together i have a tickertape in my iphone app (Like those stick tickers) and i use a NSThread to keep the memory away from the main thread so it will not slow down the app. Now the thing is it does its job well but when i scroll on a UITableView that i have on the same view i notice that my ticker tape animation stops to work.
ViewController.m (Main view of this object has the ticker tape on it)
-(void)startTicker {
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:#selector(start) toTarget:ticker withObject:nil];
}
TickerView.c (This handles the tickertape animation)
// Called from the viewcontroller
-(void) start {
NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(loop) withObject:nil waitUntilDone:YES];
[pool release];
}
-(void)loop {
timerHandle = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:.01f target:self selector:#selector(render) userInfo:nil repeats:YES];
}
-(void) render {
// Does a *** load of calculations here and moves the items in the tickertape..
}
My Question: How can i prevent the UITableview or any other view / touch event to block this thread from updating the tickertape animation ?.
Your NSTimer is not running on a background thread, but on the main thread. It will block anytime something else runs on the main thread. -performSelectorOnMainThread: means that anything done within the method called will run on the main thread.
To make your loop truly independent of the main thread, you could set up a while loop within your start method that sleeps for a given interval on every pass, then calls your render method. You'd need to make sure that all user interface updates within your render method get performed on the main thread, but make waitUntilDone NO for those method calls. I've also done this using NSOperations, where as one operation finishes I add another to the queue.
Also, running this render operation 100 times per second is excessive. I'd back that down a bit, or even better, look at using Core Animation for your ticker to make your drawing more efficient.
I have got a memory bug that seems to boil down to something happening in a thread. I am having difficulties troubleshooting this.
I have a UIViewController, that when active, i.e. the user is using its view, retrieves updates from a web service in an NSThread.
This is done every 3 minutes and this delay is controlled by a:
[self performSelector:#selector(timerDone) withObject:nil afterDelay:180.0];
The timerDone method now starts the NSThread that retrieves the web service data and also it sends the performSelector message again. This is a little "check for updates, populate views, shut everything down, repeat" routine that works just fine.
Now, the user can of course suddenly tap a button an load up a second UIViewController. When this happens I call:
[NSObject cancelPreviousPerformRequestsWithTarget:self selector:#selector(timerDone) object:nil];
And do my cleaning up in the dealloc method.
My question is now: What happens if the NSThread was running while the user changed the view and set in motion the deconstruction of this object that is the starting point of the NSThread?
Should I keep a BOOL around that tells me if the NSThread is still active, and if so, what to do with the NSThread if this is the case.
The threading is done like this:
- (void) runTimer {
[self performSelector:#selector(timerDone) withObject:nil afterDelay:180];
}
- (void) timerDone {
[self performSelector:#selector(runTimer) withObject:nil afterDelay:2];
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:#selector(updateAllVisibleElements) toTarget:self withObject:nil];
}
- (void) updateAllVisibleElements {
NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
//call approiate web service
[pool release];
}
You have two problems here: first, you're using performSelector:withObject:afterDelay: to do what an NSTimer does best (periodic callback). cancelPreviousPerformRequestsWithTarget:selector:object: can be quite expensive, and because of your threading is likely creating race conditions.
Second problem: each thread has its own run loop, and both mechanisms (performSelector:... and NSTimer) and are tied to the current thread's run loop.
Here's what I recommend: Create a single, long-lived NSThread with its own explicit run loop for all your update needs. Look at the Threading Programming Guide for some good example code of this. On that thread, set up a 3-minute repeating NSTimer. Every 3 minutes, update.
If you need to schedule an update outside the three-minute cycle, then you use performSelector:onThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: to call your updateAllVisibileElements. The way I generally do this is to encapsulate all of the thread logic into a single object (WebServiceController or whatever). It creates it own NSThread and saves it in an ivar. Then I use code like this:
- (void)requestUpdate
{
if ([NSThread currentThread] != self.thread)
{
[self performSelector:#selector(update) onThread:self.thread withObject:nil waitUntilDone:NO];
return;
}
else
{
NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
//call approiate web service
[pool drain];
}
}
One more note: you mention that the background thread "populates views." A background thread should never call into UIKit. UIKit is not thread safe and should only be called on the main thread. I typically achieve this by posting notifications onto the main thread which the view controllers observe. The "updating" object should not know anything about the UI. That breaks the Model-View-Controller paradigm of Cocoa.