I initialized a class in my singleton called DataModel. Now, from my UIViewController, when I click a button, I have a method that is trying to access that class so that I may add an object to one of its dictionaries. My get/set method passes back the pointer to the class from my singleton, but when I am back in my UIViewController, the class passed back doesn't respond to methods. It's like it's just not there. I think it has something to do with the difference in passing pointers around classes or something. I even tried using the copy method to throw a copy back, but no luck.
UIViewController:
ApplicationSingleton *applicationSingleton = [[ApplicationSingleton alloc] init];
DataModel *dataModel = [applicationSingleton getDataModel];
[dataModel retrieveDataCategory:dataCategory];
Singleton:
ApplicationSingleton *m_instance;
DataModel *m_dataModel;
- (id) init {
NSLog(#"ApplicationSingleton.m initialized.");
self = [super init];
if(self != nil) {
if(m_instance != nil) {
return m_instance;
}
NSLog(#"Initializing the application singleton.");
m_instance = self;
m_dataModel = [[DataModel alloc] init];
}
NSLog(#"ApplicationSingleton init method returning.");
return m_instance;
}
-(DataModel *)getDataModel {
DataModel *dataModel_COPY = [m_dataModel copy];
return dataModel_COPY;
}
For the getDataModel method, I also tried this:
-(DataModel *)getDataModel {
return m_dataModel;
}
In my DataModel retrieveDataCategory method, I couldn't get anything to work. I even just tried putting a NSLog in there but it never would come onto the console.
Any ideas?
Most likely you are sending messages that get ignored, e.g. they're being sent to objects which don't exist/aren't the one you're looking for, and for some reason aren't crashing. This occurs in the case of messaging nil, or possibly other illegitimate values. Although you seem to expect that the m_ variables will be initialized to 0, this is not good form, and furthermore you are not following a very typical objc pattern for your singletons -- m_dataModel should be an ivar of m_instance, and m_instance should probably be declared static, as you probably don't want it accessed from other files directly. In addition, the most likely source of your bug is somehow the -init method, which should never be called on a singleton -- instead do something like this:
+ (ApplicationSingleton *)sharedInstance {
static ApplicationSingleton *instance = nil;
if(!instance) {
instance = [[self alloc] init]; //or whatever custom initializer you would like, furthermore some people just put the initialization code here and leave -init empty
}
return instance;
}
the code you have now leaks because you allocate an object (self) and don't release it before returning a potentially different instance (the shared one if one already exists), such that the newly allocated one is typically lost.
Related
I am designing a new application by modernizing code I wrote in the past. This old code uses the class/delegate model and I am trying to transform them to use blocks as callbacks, not the delegate stuff.
What I do is to create a property like
#property (nonatomic, copy) void (^onTouch)(NSInteger index);
That would pass to the object using that class a block where code can be inserted and in this case executed on touch.
But my problem is this. When you use delegates and you have a method on the delegate protocol, Xcode will warn if you use that class and forget to implement the delegate protocols. Is that a way to do that with blocks? Or in other words: is there a way to make Xcode complain if a callback block is not defined by the caller?
I mean this would be the correct:
MyClass *obj = [[MyClass alloc] init];
obj.onTouch = ^(NSInteger *index){ //call back code to be executed };
This would be OK too
MyClass *obj = [[MyClass alloc] init];
obj.onTouch = nil;
but this would generate a message
MyClass *obj = [[MyClass alloc] init];
// no callback block defined.
Is this possible?
If you want to enforce setting a certain parameter, I would include it in the initializer.
MyClass *obj = [[MyClass alloc] initWithBlock:^(NSInteger *index) { /* code*/ }];
Then, in MyClass:
- (id)init {
// This will result in a runtime error if you use the wrong initializer.
NSAssert(NO, #"Use initWithBlock instead.");
}
- (id)initWithBlock(initWithBlock:^(NSInteger *)block) {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
self.onTouch = block;
}
return self;
}
Also note, attempting to execute a NULL block results in a crash, so make sure to do:
if (self.onTouch) { self.onTouch(); }
Wherever you run the block.
First, I strongly recommend defining types to represent your blocks - makes them a lot easier to work with, especially if you need to refactor the parameters.
You can't write code that distinguishes between "I set this property to nil" or "the runtime initialized this property to nil", at least not without some crazy runtime code to check the stack. Only option I can think of would be to use the null object pattern. Before I elaborate, bear in mind that I haven't actually tried to test this, but it should work. Define a block that means 'has no value' and set your property to point to that block on init. Then you can compare to that NullBlock at runtime to identify if someone explicitly set the property to nil (because it would be nil at that point) or gave it a real non-nil value.
Alternatively, if you don't mind manually writing your set accessors, you could have a BOOL that tracks if someone set the property explicitly. Then when you call the block just check if someone actually set the value or not.
#synthesize onTouchBlock=_onTouchBlock;
MyBlock _onTouchBlock;
BOOL _onTouchBlockWasSet;
- (void)setOnTouchBlock:(MyBlock)block {
_onTouchBlockWasSet = YES;
_onTouchBlock = block;
}
I would not recommend passing the value in the initializer because that makes it tied to the creation of that object type. If you wanted to change the block in code based on some condition, you'd be back to square one. Also, it prevents you from using storyboards which create that object.
I am a little confused by this snippet of code (presented in the CocoaFundamentals guide) that overrides some of the methods when creating a singleton instance.
static id sharedReactor = nil;
+(id)sharedInstance {
if(sharedReactor == nil) sharedReactor = [[super allocWithZone:NULL] init];
return sharedReactor;
}
.
+(id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone {
return[[self sharedInstance] retain];
}
-(id)retain {
return self;
}
In the code where the singleton instance is created the +sharedInstance method calls [super allocWithZone:NILL] from the superclass (which in my case is NSObject) The allocWithZone above is only called if you attempt to use it to create a new singleton.
The bit I am confused about is the use of retain, especially seeing as retain is also overridden to return self. Can anyone explain this, could it not be written:
+(id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone {
return [self sharedInstance];
}
-(id)retain {
return self;
}
EDIT_001:
Based on comments and reading various posts on the web I have decided to go with the following (see below) I have chosen to go for a shared singleton approach where if needed I would have the option of creating a second or third instance. Also at this stage as I am only using the singleton for the model portion of MVC for a simple iPhone app I have decided to leave thread safety out. I am aware its important and as I get more familiar with iPhone programming I will likely use +initialize instead (keeping in mind the subclass issue where it can be called twice) Also I have added a dealloc, firstly to log a message should the singleton be released, but also to clean things up properly should the singleton be no longer required.
#interface SharedManager : NSObject
+(id)sharedInstance;
#end
#implementation SharedManager
static id myInstance = nil;
+(id)sharedInstance {
if(myInstance == nil) {
myInstance = [[self alloc] init];
}
return myInstance;
}
-(void)dealloc {
NSLog(#"_deal: %#", [self class]);
[super dealloc];
myInstance = nil;
}
#end
In testing I found that I had a set the static variable to nil in the dealloc or it maintained its pointer to the original object. I was initially a little confused by this as I was expecting the scope of the static to be the instance, I guess its the class instead, which makes sense.
cheers gary
First, don't use this code. There is almost never a reason to do all this for a simple singleton. Apple is demonstrating a "Forced Singleton," in that it is impossible to create two of them. It is very rare to really need this. You can almost always use the "shared singleton" approach used by most of the Cocoa objects that have a singleton constructor.
Here's my preferred way of implementing shared singleton:
+ (MYManager *)sharedManager
{
static MYManager *sharedManager = nil;
if (sharedManager == nil)
{
sharedManager = [[self alloc] init];
}
return sharedManager;
}
That's it. No other code is required. Callers who use +sharedManager will get the shared instance. Callers who call +alloc can create unique instances if they really want to. This is how such famous "singletons" as NSNotificationCenter work. If you really want your own private notification center, there is no reason the class should forbid it. This approach has the following advantages:
Less code.
More flexible in cases where a non-shared instance is useful.
Most importantly: the code does what it says it does. A caller who thinks he's making a unique instance with +alloc doesn't encounter surprising "spooky action at a distance" behavior that requires him to know an internal implementation detail of the object.
If you really need a forced singleton because the object in question maps to a unique resource that cannot be shared (and it's really rare to encounter such a situation), then you still shouldn't use +alloc trickery to enforce it. This just masks a programming error of trying to create a new instance. Instead, you should catch the programming error this way:
+ (MYManager *)sharedManager
{
static MYManager *sharedManager = nil;
if (sharedManager == nil)
{
sharedManager = [[self alloc] initSharedManager];
}
return sharedManager;
}
- (id)init
{
NSAssert(NO, #"Attempting to instantiate new instance. Use +sharedManager.");
return nil;
}
// Private method. Obviously don't put this in your .h
- (id)initSharedManager
{
self = [super init];
....
return self;
}
There is a good example of different singleton methods with comments here on SO:
What does your Objective-C singleton look like?
If it helps, the example has a different approach to allocWithZone: which returns nil.
I have a class that contains a few instance methods which need to be called from another class. I know how to do that -
TimeFormatter *myTimeFormatter = [[TimeFormatter alloc] init];
[myTimeFormatter formatTime:time];
However, I don't want to have to alloc and init TimeFormatter every time I need to call one of its methods. (I need to call TimeFormatter's methods from various methods in another class).
I tried putting
TimeFormatter *myTimeFormatter = [[TimeFormatter alloc] init];
"by itself", or not in any blocks, but when I compile, I get an "initializer element is not constant" error.
Any input is greatly appreciated!
You can use the singleton pattern. You can read more about it here.
Specifically, you'd do something like:
static TimeFormatter* gSharedTimeFormatter = nil;
#implementation TimeFormatter
+ (TimeFormatter*)sharedTimeFormatter {
if (!gSharedTimeFormatter) {
#synchronized(self) {
if (!gSharedTimeFormatter) {
gSharedTimeFormatter = [[TimeFormatter alloc] init];
}
}
}
return gSharedTimeFormatter;
}
...
#end
Notice that we check if the variable is null, and if it is, we take a lock, and check again. This way, we incur the locking cost only on the allocation path, which happens only once in the program. This pattern is known as double-checked locking.
However, I don't want to have to alloc and init TimeFormatter every time I need to call one of its methods. (I need to call TimeFormatter's methods from various methods in another class).
I think it's worth clarifying some OOP terminology here.
The reason you need to alloc and init TimeFormatter is because your methods are instance methods. Because they're instance methods, you need an instance, and that's what alloc and init provide. Then you call your methods on (send messages to) the instance ([myTimeFormatter formatTimeString:…]).
The advantage of allowing instances is that you can keep state and settings in each instance, in instance variables, and make the latter into publicly-visible properties. Then you can deliberately have multiple instances, each having its own settings configured by whatever's using that instance.
If you don't need that functionality, you don't need to make these instance methods. You can make them class methods or even C functions, and then you don't need a TimeFormatter instance. With class methods, you send messages directly to the class ([TimeFormatter formatTimeString:…]).
And if you do want settings shared among all instances (and you don't have any state to keep), then you're right that you can just have one instance—a singleton.
The reason for that parenthesis is that shared state is bad, especially if two threads may use the time formatter concurrently. (For that matter, you could say that about settings, too. What if one thread wants seconds and the other doesn't? What if one wants 24-hour and the other wants 12-hour?) Better to have each thread use its own time formatter, so that they don't get tripped up by each other's state.
(BTW, if TimeFormatter is the actual name of your class: You are aware of NSDateFormatter, right? It does let you only format/parse the time.)
Here's a detail example of a sharedMethod. Credit goes here
#implementation SearchData
#synthesize searchDict;
#synthesize searchArray;
- (id)init {
if (self = [super init]) {
NSString *path = [[NSBundle mainBundle] bundlePath];
NSString *finalPath = [path stringByAppendingPathComponent:#"searches.plist"];
searchDict = [[NSDictionary alloc] initWithContentsOfFile:finalPath];
searchArray = [[searchDict allKeys] retain];
}
return self;
}
- (void)dealloc {
[searchDict release];
[searchArray release];
[super dealloc];
}
static SearchData *sharedSingleton = NULL;
+ (SearchData *)sharedSearchData {
#synchronized(self) {
if (sharedSingleton == NULL)
sharedSingleton = [[self alloc] init];
}
return(sharedSingleton);
}
#end
A very nice, and easy, way to setup a Singleton is to use Matt Gallager's SYNTHESIZE_SINGLETON_FOR_CLASS.
It sounds like you want to make TimeFormatter a singleton, where only one instance can be created. Objective-C doesn't make this super easy, but basically you can expose a static method that returns a pointer to TimeFormatter. This pointer will be allocated and initialized the first time in, and every time after that same pointer can be used. This question has some examples of creating a singleton in Objective-C.
You are trying to declare your variable outside the class? If to do it the way you want to do it you gotta declare it as static so
static TimeFormatter *myFormatter=...
From the name of the class though i dont see why you would wnat to keep one instance of your class... you can also do this with a singleton as described above, that is if you want to keep one instance of your class for the app as a whole.
I'm implementing a singleton class as follows:
static Singleton* _singletonInstance;
#implementation Singleton
+(void)initialize
{
_singletonInstance = [[Singleton alloc] init];
}
+(Singleton*)instance
{
return(_singletonInstance);
}
initialize only gets called the first time someone calls instance. I then have a method that I can call to set up some instance variables. So it ends up looking like this.
_singleton = [Singleton instance];
[_singleton setupWithParams: blah];
When i get an instance of this singleton inside an object, it works fine the first time; However, after i dealloc and create a new copy of the object that needs an instance of the singleton, i get a BAD ACCESS error when I try to call the setup function.
Just to test things I print out the address of the instance before I make the setup call and both times they report the same address, but when i check the error log for BAD ACCESS call, it lists a completely different memory address.
Does anyone have any ideas why this pointer to the instance seems to look fine when I print it, but when I make a call to it, it is seemingly pointing to random data?
The pointer value looks valid because it used to be, but most likely the memory has been free'd, which is why what it points to looks like random data.
You've acquired one reference with your [[Singleton alloc] init] above, but is there a release somewhere else that might be executing? I bet your code is calling instance, and then release-ing later, even though your code never acquired a reference. And that shouldn't be necessary for a singleton anyways. Just a guess...
Are you deallocing your _singletonInstance somewhere?
I'm using much more complex, but very stable version of Singleton template (taken with description from Brandon "Quazie" Kwaselow Blog):
static SampleSingleton *sharedSampleSingletonDelegate = nil;
+ (SampleSingleton *)sharedInstance {
#synchronized(self) {
if (sharedSampleSingletonDelegate == nil) {
[[self alloc] init]; // assignment not done here
}
}
return sharedSampleSingletonDelegate;
}
+ (id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone {
#synchronized(self) {
if (sharedSampleSingletonDelegate == nil) {
sharedSampleSingletonDelegate = [super allocWithZone:zone];
// assignment and return on first allocation
return sharedSampleSingletonDelegate;
}
}
// on subsequent allocation attempts return nil
return nil;
}
- (id)copyWithZone:(NSZone *)zone
{
return self;
}
- (id)retain {
return self;
}
- (unsigned)retainCount {
return UINT_MAX; // denotes an object that cannot be released
}
- (void)release {
//do nothing
}
- (id)autorelease {
return self;
}
Valerii's code is better for implementing a singleton, but the problem is almost certainly that the code that calls [Singleton instance] is operating as if it has ownership without actually taking ownership using retain, and then is later releasing it.
Look there for your bug, and read the Memory Managment Rules.
Also, in Xcode, enable NSZombieEnabled and the console will show you when you try to message the object after its been released.
I have a static method that creates an instance of the class and puts it in the static variable. I am wondering what the proper way of memory management is in this situation.
You can't put it in the dealloc-method, because although it can access the static variable any instance method that is created that get's released will also release the sharedInstance.
I guess there might be an option of creating a static destroy method which will manualy release the memory and can be called by the user from appWillTerminate, but that seems a bit odd.
So, again, the question:
What is the proper way of releasing a static variable?
// MyClass.m
#import "MyClass.h"
static MyClass *myClass; // How to properly do memory management
#implementation MyClass
+ (MyClass *)sharedMyClass {
if (myClass == nil) myClass = [[MyClass alloc] init];
return myClass;
}
#end
You can either not release them, which is fine since the app is shutting down anyway. Cocoa on the iPhone already does this, it doesn't completely delete everything, it just lets the app get blown away.
Or you can delete it from appWillTerminate or some other shutdown function.
You'll want to have a look at "Creating a Singleton" on the iPhone dev center to see how to properly implement that pattern. You won't be releasing your singleton, just letting it die when the application exits.
Also, if you're multithreaded you'll probably want to wrap that alloc in a #synchronize( self ) {}
Here is the full text:
Some classes of Foundation and the
Application Kit create singleton
objects. In a “strict” implementation,
a singleton is the sole allowable
instance of a class in the current
process. But you can also have a more
flexible singleton implementation in
which a factory method always returns
the same instance, but you can
allocate and initialize additional
instances.The NSFileManager class fits
this latter pattern, whereas the
UIApplication fits the former. When
you ask for an instance of
UIApplication, it passes you a
reference to the sole instance,
allocating and initializing it if it
doesn’t yet exist.
A singleton object acts as a kind of
control center, directing or
coordinating the services of the
class. Your class should generate a
singleton instance rather than
multiple instances when there is
conceptually only one instance (as
with, for example, NSWorkspace). You
use singleton instances rather than
factory methods or functions when it
is conceivable that there might be
multiple instances one day.
To create a singleton as the sole
allowable instance of a class in the
current process, you need to have an
implementation similar to Listing
2-15. This code does the following:
Declare a static instance of your
singleton object and initialize it to
nil. In your class factory method for
the class (named something like
“sharedInstance” or “sharedManager”),
generate an instance of the class but
only if the static instance is nil.
Override the allocWithZone: method to
ensure that another instance is not
allocated if someone tries to allocate
and initialize an instance of your
class directly instead of using the
class factory method. Instead, just
return the shared object. Implement
the base protocol methods
copyWithZone:, release, retain,
retainCount, and autorelease to do the
appropriate things to ensure singleton
status. (The last four of these
methods apply to memory-managed code,
not to garbage-collected code.)
Listing 2-15 Strict implementation of
a singleton static MyGizmoClass
*sharedGizmoManager = nil;
+ (MyGizmoClass*)sharedManager {
if (sharedGizmoManager == nil) {
sharedGizmoManager = [[super allocWithZone:NULL] init];
}
return sharedGizmoManager; }
+ (id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone {
return [[self sharedManager] retain]; }
- (id)copyWithZone:(NSZone *)zone {
return self; }
- (id)retain {
return self; }
- (NSUInteger)retainCount {
return NSUIntegerMax; //denotes an object that cannot be released }
- (void)release {
//do nothing }
- (id)autorelease {
return self; }
If you want a singleton instance (created and
controlled by the class factory
method) but also have the ability to
create other instances as needed
through allocation and initialization,
do not override allocWithZone: and the
other methods following it as shown in
Listing 2-15.
UPDATE: There is now a much easier way to create a singleton
+ (MyClass*)sharedInstance
{
static MyClass* _sharedInstance = nil;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
_sharedInstance = [[MyClass alloc] init];
});
return _sharedInstance;
}
Using this new style you don't need to worry about the #syncronize or overriding the memory management methods.
static variable or class remains in memory Untill lifetime of your application
So if it is UnUsed then make
Your_variable = nil;
while declaring use static _datatype variable = nil;
which help while initializing .. and memory management
///**************************
// MyClass.m
#import "MyClass.h"
static MyClass *myClass = nil;
#implementation MyClass
+ (MyClass *)sharedMyClass {
if (myClass == nil)
myClass = [[MyClass alloc] init];
return myClass;
}
#end