I want to create an object in Objective C but I don't hold a reference to it.
Is it allowed to let the object control its own lifetime by calling [self release]?
In case you're wondering why I need this: I want to create an object that subscribes to some notifications, but after a while the object is no longer needed and should go away.
So, is the following allowed?
- (void) destroyMyself {
[[NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] removeObserver:self];
[self release];
}
If you see this in code, its probably wrong. However there are legitimate response for it in certain circumstances that are arguably defensible. (So make sure you are doing it for the right reasons.)
A good example of when this makes sense, is when you create an object that goes off to download a url. The object sits in memory while downloading the url, then sends a message to its delegate saying the data is ready (or url couldn't be downloaded). Once its message has been sent it destroys itself as its no longer needed. In this situation the code/function that created the 'url downloader' may no longer even be in memory, i.e. if it was called in response to a user selection a menu item or an action in a view controller that is no longer on the screen.
This is useful when the code that creates the "download" object doesn't care if the download completes or not.
The rules are simple. You should only release an object if you own it. i.e. the object was obtained with a method starting "new" or "alloc" or a method containing copy.
Cocoa Memory Management Rules
An object must not therefore do [self release] or [self autorelease] unless it has previously done [self retain].
To quote the great philosopher Alicia Silverstone, "I had an overwhelming sense of ickiness" when I read that. But I couldn't really tell you why.
I think I would use autorelease rather than a simple release since you're still executing code in self when you call it, but other than that I can't think of any technical reasons why it wouldn't work.
It's legal, but be careful. You want to be sure nothing else is going to send you a message after you release yourself.
I've done this kind of thing for a faulting scheme back before we had CoreData.
Well part of the protocol is that if you send release to self, then you should have sent retain once as well, which I suppose you do. Then there is nothing fishy. I mean the allocing code must be able to control the lifetime of your instance; it itself can only prolong its life, never make it shorter (since making it shorter, then you'd suddenly leave the allocing owner of the instance with an invalid pointer).
And I will use [self autorelease] instead of [self release]. Because usually it's called in
- (void)aMethod
{
[self.delegate aDelegateMethod:self];
[self release];
//If you add code related to self here, after [self release], you are making a huge mistake.
}
If I use [self autorelease], I can still do something after autorelease.
Related
I'm coding a library (Obj-C for iPhone) that I want to package and sell, so I obviously need to work out any design kinks before listing it for sale. I am also utilizing this library to help me develop another app.
My library is heavily built on task delegation. The primary function I have is to launch a (potentially) long-running process, and when it's done, I call a Delegate Protocol method in the class's delegate.
An additional complicating factor here is that I will often schedule this task to fire off every 30 seconds or so. Usually, I do this with [self performSelector:#selector(someMethod:) withObject:nil afterDelay:30] rather than using an NSTimer. Then, when the delegate method successfully returns, I process the returned data and trigger the method to fire in another 30 seconds. This gives me 30 seconds BETWEEN method calls, rather than 30 seconds FROM THE START OF ONE CALL TO THE NEXT. (This is mainly just in case the call ever takes more than 30 seconds, which shouldn't happen.)
The error that I'm catching is that sometimes, the Delegate callback method is failing with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS error. Based upon my investigation, it appears that the delegate of my class library has disappeared (been released/dealloced) since the long-running process was initiated. Thus, when it calls [[self Delegate] doSomeDelegateMethod], it's accessing a released object.
I tried first checking [[self Delegate] respondsToSelector:#selector(doSomeDelegateMethod)], but even that access apparently also throws the EXC_BAD_ACCESS.
It doesn't yet seem that checking for [self Delegate] == nil is the right way to go, either.
One way I think I have solved the problem, in this specific instance, is when the view controller that instantiates my object is disappearing (and therefore on its way to the garbage dump), I call [NSObject cancelPreviousPerformRequestsWithTarget:self]. This apparently fixes the problem. (Does this "fix" also indicate that my object "knows" about the call to come and keeps itself in memory until it can successfully, desperately, fire off its final shot?)
This appears to put a band-aid on a bullet wound. Yes, it appears to stop my app from breaking this time, but my gut tells me that this is a poor solution.
I've also considered setting the custom object to nil in my viewWillDisappear:animated: method, which is probably the correct coding pattern, but it doesn't seem right that the customer has to be so precise in handling my objects.
What's really bugging me, though, is that I haven't yet found a way, as a library developer, to "box in" my code so that it won't throw an exception for the user if they don't do just the right things. Basically, I'd like a way to have my object:
Get a request.
Go look for the answer.
Find the answer.
Try to return the answer.
Realize that there's nothing on the other end.
Give up and die on its own. (OK, so "die on its own" probably won't happen, but you get the point.)
One interesting side point:
A main reason I have for preventing this type of error from occurring is this:
I did the following steps:
Built my library's .h/.m files.
Generated my library's .a output file.
Imported my library's .a/.h files into another project.
Had the error described above.
Got to peruse the code from one of the .m files that SHOULD have been hidden inside the .a file.
Am I missing something here? Am I really risking exposing my entire source code if it ever throws an error for a client? (This is just a side issue, but I'm fairly concerned here!)
Thanks for any help you can provide to help me be a better programmer!
---EDIT---
I have found another reason why this is important. In another view controller, where I am using this library, I implemented the NSTimer strategy. If the view is popped from the navigation stack (i.e., in the viewWillDisappear:animated: method), I invalidate said timer. So, no more calls will go to my library after the view disappears.
Here's the rub: what if the view disappears IN THE MIDDLE of the long-running call? Yes, it's tricky and unlikely to do, but I just had it happen on the simulator. In particular, THIS is why I'm looking for a workaround to let my code realize "hey, there's nothing on the other end of this pipe" and then fail gracefully. Anyone?
Thanks!
There are several approaches to this problem:
The traditional delegate approach (UITableViewDelegate) makes it a requirement to clear yourself as delegate before going away. This is traditionally done in dealloc of the delegate with otherObject.delegate = nil. Failure to do so is a programming error. That's basically what you're seeing. This is the common pattern when the delegate and the delegator have basically the same lifespan.
Another approach is how NSURLConnection handles it: retain your delegate until you're done. The key to this working well is that NSURLConnection has a lifespan of its own, so the retain loop will work itself out automatically. UITableView could not retain its delegate because this would almost always create a permanent retain loop. If your object lives for a while and then goes away, then this makes sense. Typically here the delegate has a much shorter lifespan than the delegator, so the retain loop doesn't hurt anything.
Any object that calls performSelector:withObject:afterDelay: should always call cancelPreviousPerformRequestsWithTarget:self in its own dealloc. This has nothing to do with your delegate, though. It should be self-contained to the object itself. (I don't know why I keep thinking this is true, and then proving to myself again that it isn't. When you call performSelector:...afterDelay:, you are retained, so you can't deallocate before it fires. My SIDE NOTE, while true, isn't relevant here.)
SIDE NOTE cancelPrevious... is really expensive in my experience. If you have to call cancelPrvious... very often, I recommend keeping your own one-shot NSTimer and just resetting it when it fires to get the same effect. performSelector:withObject:afterDelay: is just a wrapper around a one-shot timer.
I'm answering myself because the page warned me to not have extended discussions in the comments... :)
OK, so it appears that part of my answer is that [self performSelector:withObject:afterDelay:] automatically retains my object until it gets to "fire that shot", at which point I'm guessing the view controller dies.
So, now it makes sense why my custom class is trying to access a released object when it tries to return its answer to its delegate, which is an __unsafe_unretained object, meaning that it can die at will (I think).
What I'd like now is a way to prevent this from causing an error. In .NET, I've got all sorts of error handling options to do this, but I'm unable to think of a fail-safe "bail out" here.
I've tried [[self Delegate] isKindOfClass:..., but can't be sure what kind of class the delegate will be, so it won't work.
I've also tried [[self Delegate] respondsToSelector:#selector(...)]. I'm not sure why this fails, but I get the EXC_BAD_ACCESS here, too.
What I don't want is my customers to be able to crash my product with such a simple, innocent mistake.
As an aside, does anyone know why this sort of failure gives me such easy access to the contents of the .m file that should be hidden inside my .a file? Did I build my library incorrectly?
Thanks!
Try setting Delegates to nil in dealloc.
example:
self.fetchedResultsController.delegate = nil;
I've seen this problem a lot lately and usually fix the problem. Even though delegates are supposed to be weak references, sometimes some private implementation is using them as well.
If I release, I get bad access, if I retain, I leak
That's where I had a similar problem.
Edit: When using ARC, you can still override dealloc for cleanup, you just can't call [super dealloc] or release anything.
I'm trying to figure out what the recommended practice is for the following situation. Certain objects, such as CLLocationManager or MKReverseGeocoder, send their results asynchronously to a delegate callback method. Is it OK to release that CLLocationManager or MKReverseGeocoder instance (or whatever class it may be) in the callback method? The point is that you no longer need that object around, so you tell it to stop sending updates, set its delegate to nil, and release the object.
Pseudo code:
#interface SomeClass <CLLocationManagerDelegate>
...
#end
#implementation SomeClass
...
- (void)someMethod
{
CLLocationManager* locManager = [[CLLocationManager alloc] init];
locManager.delegate = self;
[locManager startUpdatingLocation];
}
- (void)locationManager:(CLLocationManager *)manager didUpdateToLocation:(CLLocation *)newLocation fromLocation:(CLLocation *)oldLocation
{
// Do something with the location
// ...
[manager stopUpdatingLocation];
manager.delegate = nil;
[manager release];
}
#end
I am wondering if this usage pattern is considered to be always OK, if it's considered to be never OK, or if it depends on the class?
There is an obvious case where releasing the delegating object would go wrong and that is if it needs to do stuff after it has notified the delegate. If the delegate releases the object, its memory may get overwritten and the application crashes. (That appears to be what happens in my app with CLLocationManager in a particular circumstance, both only on the simulator. I'm trying to figure out if it is a simulator bug or if what I am doing is fundamentally flawed.)
I have been searching and I cannot find a conclusive answer to this. Does anyone have an authoritative source that can answer this question?
No. That pattern is always considered to be wrong. It breaks the Cocoa Memory Management Rules. The manager object was passed in as a parameter. You did not obtain it by new, alloc or copy, nor did you retain it. You therefore must not release it.
This is a very good question, I waited few hours in hope someone would give a sufficient answer, but because no one even replied, I'll give it a try. First I'll comment on your approach, then I try to suggest how I would go around this.
It's definitely a very bad idea to release - thus deallocate an object from its delegate. Just think about how objects (like a CLLocationManager) do call their delegates - they just call them in the middle of some method. When call to delegate is finished, code's execution comes back to a method of an object that has already been deallocated. BAM!
Let's forget for a moment about the fact that this is a bad idea. I see two options how to fix that easily. First, autorelease instead of release gives an object a little longer time spam - it'd at least survive returning from delegate. That should be sufficient for most of the cases, at least if author of API did her job well and encapsulated logic behind the main API class (in case of CLLocationManager it might be waiting for GPS to turn off...). Second option would be to delay releasing (performSelector:withObject:afterDelay: comes to mind), but that's more of a workaround for badly implemented APIs.
So if releasing it is not a good idea, then what is ?
Well, what do you really gain by releasing a CLLocationManager ? Freeing those few bytes of memory is not going to save your app from terminating when system is out of memory. Anyway, is it really only once that you need the current user's location ?
I suggest that you encapsulate tasks related to CLLocationManager into a separate class, probably even a singleton - that class would become its delegate, and it would take care of communicating with CLLocationManager and informing your application about results (probably by sending NSNotification). CLLocationManager would be released from that class's dealloc, and never as a result of a delegate callback. stopUpdatingLocation should suffice, freeing few bytes of memory - well, you can do it when your app is entering background, but as long as your app runs, freeing those few bytes do not make any significant improvement in memory consumption.
** Addition **
It's natural, and correct, for a delegate to have ownership of an object for which it acts as delegate. But the delegate should not release the object as a result of a callback. There's one exception to this though, and it is the callback telling you processing is over. As an example for this is NSURLConnection's connectionDidFinishLoading: which states in documentation "The delegate will receive no further messages". You can have a class downloading bunch of files, each with a different NSURLConnection (having your class as delegate), allocating AND releasing them as download of files progress.
CLLocationManager's behavior is different. You should have only one instance of CLLocationManager in your program. That instance is managed by some code, probably a singleton - one that could be released when application goes into background, reinitialized when it wakes up. CLLocationManager's lifespan would be the same as of its managing class, which acts as delegate as well.
Just like Michal said there is absolutely no good reason to release the manager object for memeory savings.
Also, just likeJeremyP said, it would be completely incorrect pattern wise and design wise to release an object inside another function that only receives that object. It goes against all the rules.
However, what would be correct is to simply stop the updates and set the managers delegate to nil as you are already doing. So the only thing you need to remove is the [manager release] line.
My guess is that you are creating a manager in a local scope and therefore are trying to work out how to make sure the the manager gets released. The correct thing to do here would be to create a manager as an instance variable of your class and then just release it in the class dealloc.
Another reason why your pattern is a bad idea, is that for something like a CLLocationManager you generally want to tell it to stop receiving updates if the screen goes to sleep - you can only do that if you maintain a reference somewhere that you can tell to start/stop. And if you are maintaining a reference, then you might as well fully manage it.
I have a simple query that I'd like cleared up by someone... Is it bad-practice to retain self?
I have a server request object that I'd like to make. I'd like to be able to use it in the following fashion:
ARequest *request = [ARequest request: someParam];
request.delegate = self;
[request begin];
In order for the object not to self destruct as soon as the autorelease pool is drained, I imagine I need to call a retain in it's init method and then a release once the server response has been received, processed and delivered to it's delegate.
However, something is raising a warning bell in my head with this approach. Better ways to do it?
There is nothing wrong with retaining self, as long as you release it at some well-defined point in accordance with normal memory management protocol. If an object requires itself to exist until some condition is met, it should take responsibility for that, in the same way as it does for any other object it requires to continue existing.
Introducing otherwise extraneous manager objects or foisting the responsibility off on the object’s owner for superstitious reasons would be the real anti-pattern here.
(The equivalent approach in garbage-collected code would be for the object to exclude itself from garbage collection while results are pending, or root it through a collection of some sort if you dislike that idea.)
It's not unheard-of, but it is somewhat uncommon. The main way I've seen it used (and used it myself) is when you're dealing with some sort of semi-synchronous object (by semi-synchronous I mean that it does not block the main thread, but it also does not execute on a background thread; an NSURLConnection would fit this bill). For example, I wrote a subclass of NSWindowController that was specifically for displaying a window as a sheet and for invoking some certain delegate callbacks. Basically, you'd alloc/init a new sheet controller and invoke beginSheetForWindow:. This would run the sheet semi-synchronously, and then invoke an appropriate callback when the sheet was dismissed.
Since the invoking object doesn't necessarily "own" the sheet (think of it as a Mac version of a modal view controller on iOS), the sheet controller does [self retain] immediately before showing the sheet, and [self release] immediately after cleaning up and invoking callbacks. The purpose behind this was to ensure that the controller object would stick around until the sheet was done. (The sheet, IIRC, was retained by the runloop, but I also needed the controller to stick around)
Like I said, it's very rare to come across a situation where you would want to [self retain], but it's not impossible. However, as a general rule of thumb, if you think that you need to [self retain], you may want to think again.
Easiest way to do this would be to create an iVar for your request, retain the request when you start it and release it when the last delegate method is called.
Is ARequest a class you created? Does it create a new thread to asynchronously submit the request?
I once did the same thing as you. I wrote a Category-Method on NSString to send it it to a server, that will print it. In the Category-Method I had to call [self retain], so that the callback methods could be a NSString-Categroy-Method to.
I felt so bad about it, that I rewrote everything to use a Singleton, that is accessed by the Category-Method. So the Singleton will retain the string as long as necessary.
I have a situation where occasionally my -tableView: numberOfRowsInSection: method asks for the count of a deallocated NSArray. I'd like to be able to test for this array being deallocated in a way that's safe and doesn't make a call to a zombie.
My code currently looks like:
-(NSInteger)tableView:(UITableView *)table numberOfRowsInSection:(NSInteger)section
{
if (! self.offers){
return 0;
}
return [self.offers count];
}
I just debugger-stepped through this and observed it passing the ! self.offers test and then crashing brutally on [self.offers count]. I have NSZombies turned on, and at that line I get the NSLog message:
-[__NSArrayM count]: message sent to deallocated instance 0x283dc0
So whatever self.offers is, at this point, is not nil, but is also not pointed at anything valid. How do I test for that?
EDIT: Thanks for the tough-love, friends. I've figured out why I've been having trouble with my memory management--it's actually been an issue of delegate relationships lingering longer than they were useful. See here for the full answer to my problem:
Managing calls to objects that get deallocated when the view is backed out of
It's not possible to "test" for this-- once an object is deallocated, it's gone, and the pointer to it is effectively garbage. Doing anything with it is liable to crash.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the only way to get this to work right is to make sure the memory management around (in this case) offers is correct at all uses-- retain and release correctly at all the points where that instance variable is manipulated, and it will never be non-nil garbage.
You should try running the static analyzer (Build->Build and Analyze) to start with-- this tool can help flag memory management pattern issues without a lot of extra digging on your part.
You should avoid the problem by fixing the code so it does not deallocate the array when you obviously still need it.
You can add
-(void)dealloc { ... }
And leave it empty if it's the right to do, and add breakpoint in it.
This answer correct to ARC and NON-ARC
This might not be relevant to your question (testing if it is deallocated) - but it seems like your offers array has the same or longer lifetime than your UITableViewController, are you certain you are retaining this array or that you aren't accidentally releasing it somewhere else.
I concur with what quixoto has said above.
Another thing you have to ask yourself is, is my application designed correctly? A tableview relies on a datasource to populate it (which in your case is the offers array), so if you're deallocating it somewhere in the code then you need to step back and rethink your design.
If you're testing for whether it's deallocated because you're trying to 'fix' it from a previous problem, then it might be worth looking into your code to see where it is being retained/released.
Yes, once an object is deallocated, it's gone, and the pointer to it is effectively garbage. Doing anything with it is liable to crash.
However it is POSSIBLE to test. There is a workaround for it. (Although workarounds are not a substitute for good design practices!):
You have a global BOOL variable, which you set on the alloc. Here's an example of use for checking whether a AVAudioPlayer isPlaying. If it was playing, and the view was closed, the app would crash. Simply stopping the music was not an option due to background threads, etc. But calling [newPlayer isPlaying] crashes when newPlayer is already released! So a BOOL flag workaround made it work. (Any good design practice comments on this would be valuable.)
// In implementation
static AVAudioPlayer *newPlayer;
static BOOL hasMusicFinishedPlaying;
// When Playing the music, set flag
newPlayer =[[AVAudioPlayer alloc] initWithContentsOfURL:[NSURL fileURLWithPath: soundPath] error:nil];
hasMusicFinishedPlaying = NO;
// Callback method to release new player in playKeySound
- (void)audioPlayerDidFinishPlaying:(AVAudioPlayer *)newPlayer successfully:(BOOL)flag {
[newPlayer release];
hasMusicFinishedPlaying = YES;
}
// On going back to another page. We don't want to keep ViewController in stack.
if (!hasMusicFinishedPlaying){
return;
}
[self.navigationController popViewControllerAnimated:YES];
Is it acceptable for a instance method of a class to release itself?
ie to have a method that calls:
[self release]
Assume that my code is not going to access self after calling [self release]
Is it acceptable for a instance method of a class to release itself?
ie to have a method that calls:
[self release]
Assume that my code is not going to access self after calling [self release]
First, I would want to have a really good reason to release myself. The only time I've done it is in a singleton that I dump to free up large chunks of memory on an iPhone. This is a rare event.
Your code is part of the class object. Hence, it is not really a problem to call [self release]. Of course, you are much safer, from an encapsulation perspective, if you call [self autorelease]. At least then, if someone up the call chain calls your methods, you don't cause an exception.
Andrew
You should only do this if you've done something like
[self retain];
But it's unclear why you would do that. The Cocoa Memory Management Documentation might help
While I doubt that immediately after your release, memory would move much, keep in mind that the code that your [self release] is in, resides in a memory block inside your object, self. Thus, it is possible that after returning from [self release], you end up in code that is no longer allocated and is being written over by some other process. Can't say for sure how probable that is, but it seems possible.
I have used this technique once before, for a similar situation (standalone object handling response from a web delegate that may outlive the view that launched the request).
It does work, but is actually rather tricky to get right. Since then I have found that using NSOperations in an NSOperationQueue is a much more solid and well-understood approach to encapsulating background actions that run independent of the requestors. Usually when an operation is done a notification is sent out on the main thread informing whatever caller might still be around that data is ready for pickup.
Plus for simple remote requests you can use the simpler synchronous URL calls in your Operation since they run in a separate thread and will not block the main thread while data is incoming (handy when fetching small images from URL's, for example).
You can do it. It works. It is a bit dangerous, especially since optimizing compilers can rearrange your code in ways you didn't intend them to.
A little bit safer is to call [self autorelease], which will release the current object at some point in the near future (the next time through the runloop typically) rather than right away.