Ok so basically I have a UITabBarController as my root view controller. I have three tabs that will all have UINavigationController objects nested in them, controlling three table views each.
Each mode will access the same database in the same way, but just sort by different variables. Very similar to the way the iPod app works - whether you narrow down your search by Artist or Genre, you end up at the same "detail view" (the song playing).
My question is, should I link all three tabs in Interface Builder to the same UINavigationController, but just populate the table depending on the selected tab? Or should I create completely independent objects for each tab, and copy and paste code?
The first way seems more efficient and flexible, but the second seems like it will be a little more explicit and easy to read!
Thanks for any help :)
I think clearing the navigation controller stack on every tab switch (assuming it is not hidden when the non-uppermost navigation child is shown) would be much more resource-consuming than having all three/four UINavigationControllers available all the time (mostly for quick tab-switching).
Further, if the owning UINavigationController is the only object that retained (owns) the UIViewControllers on the stack, then you will also deallocate your UIViewControllers should you decide to reset the navigation stack (1-Nav scenario). Assuming of course they are not "statically" present inside a NIB.
TL;DR version
I'd use a separate UINavigationController for each tab, in a low memory-footprint app it will increase the visual performance of your tabs.
Related
I want to hear developers opinions on the best way to swap views on the iphone.
For example, I have a tab bar and one of its tabs defaults to a login view. When The user logs in the view changes to a logged in view.
I was going to just use one view controller and have all the content in one xib hiding and showing content as needed but this seems in no way elegant.
Secondly I was considering having one viewcontroller and simply swapping the xib. I'm a litle reluctant to try this as I've read in an article or 2 that it can lead to memory leaks.
Finally I was considering using 2 view controllers with with 2 seperate xibs. My gut tells me this would probably be the "proper" solution but I so far have failed to hunt down any sample code on the correct way to do it.
Can you offer advice on the best way to solve this problem?
Is there a technique that I have not listed?
Thanks.
I would keep the logic for which view to show in the view controller. The XIB is the view itself, and should have no objects in it that are transient or not always visible for that particular view.
Your second approach (of swapping the views) seems to be the right approach to me, and is always something I, personally, do in these situations. I am not aware of any memory issues if you do it right (remove from superview, followed by loading the new view as a subview of the controller's view). You could perform any custom initialization once the new XIB has been loaded and before showing it to the user.
Multiple view controllers just seems superfluous as then you would ideally require another top level controller to manage the two view controllers.
I have a User Filter section of my iPad app. There is a segmented bar with 5 buttons for 5 types of filters.
Clicking each of the buttons will load up the respective view..
My question is.. would the best way to handle the UI of each filter to have several views in this nib and load/unload accordingly.. or would best practice be to create the information in a scrollable view?
below is the setup..
http://imgur.com/iuufU.png
Thanks in advance...
Generally, go with separate views. The Scrollable view is an approximation of what you're trying to achieve (by the looks of things), whereas the separate-views more closely reflect your aims.
Some typical dvantages:
if you change your UI design, e.g. if one of those filters has to go in a different page, but 4 stay here ... then it's easy to move the whole View without changing the eixsting ones.
you can put each view in a separate NIB file (if they're different), or loaded from a separate ViewController instance (if they're the same), and you get some of the advantages of Apple's automatica memory management of VC's / NIBs.
Usually, people start with the same view for each filter, using a single VC class (instantiated multiple times, once per tab).
Then, as the app evolves, they find that one tab needs a different layout, so they add another VC class, and only need to update the alloc/init line for that one tab.
I have an app that has four tabbar controllers views in it. When the app starts up, all four are loaded via SQL select statements. How do I tell it not to load these controllers at startup, but to do it when I select a value from the first screen?
thx
wes
I'm assuming you have 4 ViewController placed into a single TabBarController. If this is the case, why do you want to defer loading? The actual views (usually the 'heavy' part of the ViewController) are not loaded until you actually select one in the tab bar to bring it forward (which is, I think, the behavior you're looking for).
The whole point of the UIViewController class (well, one of the points, anyway) is to allow you to place your view in a hierarchy without having to create all the UI elements required until it's actually time to show it. This makes app organizations much easier.
make simple UIViewController in tabbar, but when tab is selected make loading
I've Created a UITableViewController subclass. Do I only need one controller? Do I just instantiate multiple instances of that one subclass?
The iPhone App I'm building will start with a Table of a list of people. If the user taps a person, a new table will be pushed in with a list of Companies they've worked for. If the user then taps a company, they'll see a list of Job Positions. And if they tap a position they'll see a list of people holding those positions.
This could go on forever, and the user could always back up the list.
The App Delegate instantiates the Navigation Controller and the Table View Controller and then pushes it onto the Navigation Controller. But when a user taps a row, now the TVC is creating another TVC.
Is that right or should the
AppDelegate be instantiating all
TVC's? Or does it work out since
they all get pushed onto the Nav
Controller anyway?
Does each Table View instance
need to have a different name or can
they all be called 'mainTVC' or
something like that?
tableViewController *mainTVC = [[tableViewController alloc] init];
Won't I run out of memory? Do i
need to start dropping Table Views
when they're 2 or 3 levels away from
current, and then re-create it if
the user backs up to it?
No need to create multiple TableView's, what I've done in the past is simply re-bind to a different datasource. So keep one TableView and have a datasource for people, then companies, etc...
I'd create a view controller for each type. Presumably you'll want to have special display characteristics like a custom tableview cell to display job positions slightly differently then you would people names.
Other then that, #Ben Gottlieb's answer should work quite well. Use lots of view controllers and handle the didReceiveMemoryWarning: method.
One more thing, if the user drills down so far that you want to say they'll never go all the way back (sort of like having an undo stack) you can use the setViewControllers:animated: UINavigationController method to reset the stack to a certain size (say 15 to implement an 'undo buffer' of 15). With this method you can make sure that the first view controller is always your root view controller and the rest are all drilldown instances.
Option number (2) looks good. You can push quite a lot of view controllers onto the stack before memory becomes an issue. The system will clean up most of the heavyweight memory hogs (ie, the views) in the didReceiveMemoryWarning: method. If you're creating a lot of in-memory structures, you may want to clean them up in that method (be sure to call the inherited method).
To answer your third question, as long as you don't have huge data stores in memory, memory shouldn't be an issue. You SHOULD NOT under any circumstances "drop" tableviews - this would lead to crashes(and there's no way to do non-FILO additions/removals to the navigation stack anyway). Under memory pressure, you should only free "nonessential" items like caches. However, this shouldn't be an issue.
Also, if you have more than 3 or so levels, chances are you need to rethink your UI. If users are drilling down 10 levels, it will be tedious to navigate the stack back.
What is the best approach to implement tabs that look like web applications on the iPhone, like the screenshot below (notice the "Checkin-Info-Friends" tabs)? These are not part of the UIKit standard library, but seems to be very common lately.
I've spent considerable time developing applications for the iPhone, but not developing controls like that one. What would be the best approach here:
create a new UIView for each tab content, and add the three subviews to the mainview straight away?
create new UIViews only when the user clicks on each of the tabs?
Put all the content in a UIScrollView, and just change the page as the user clicks on each tab?
Maybe there are open source controls for this out there? I couldn't find anything.
(source: foursquaregame.com)
My approach to a similar problem was to make all 4 (in my case) tab views, but respond to didReceiveMemoryWarning by releasing all but the current tab view. (Then, of course, you must make sure that you create the new view, if it doesn't exist, when the user chooses a new tab.)
I thought this was a good compromise - a speedy reaction to the user at first (and in my case memory footprint is at its lowest at this point in my app), and then a response to low memory to avoid being shot.
I think it best just to have three UIView* references to the subviews in the parent view or view controller, all initially null, then to have subroutine to hide the other two views if they are visible and either construct and show or just show the new view. Assuming no extraordinary memory requirements.
I think with such a small screen area load/unload concerns at the subview level are unlikely to be a concern, but if the parent views need to be loaded/unloaded, the subviews should all go (be both hidden and unloaded), and on reload, loadView should call the routine described in the last paragraph at startup.
If there is in fact a great deal of memory or resource use by any of the three subviews, then my advice is reversed and each of the subviews and/or any memory-intensive objects behind them should be not only hidden but unloaded whenever possible. I think with your use of Google maps there, a need to unload when hidden might apply to that.
Is this th right point to make? Is there some extra detail I'm missing?
You can have each tab be a real view controller with nib and everything. The only catch is that you must forward on the standard view controller calls you want to receive (viewWillAppear, etc) but it makes the coding much cleaner since you code just as you would for any other view (although for a smaller space).
You call each controllers "view" property to get out the view, which you add as a subview of a container view you have under the tabs.
If all three are table views, you might get away with using a single UITableViewController that changes contents based on the selected tab. Otherwise I second KHG's comment of using real view controllers to back up each of the subviews.
For the tabs themselves consider subclassing UISegmentedControl.