I've been coding in Objective-C for a few months now and I've noticed that sometimes a class is instantiated (as recommended by documentation) with an init method. Therefore, one must alloc first, and then init. [[Example Class Alloc] initWithProperty1:andTwo:]. However, sometimes the doc recommends using "factory methods" as constructors. Such as [NSArray arrayWithObjects:__].
It seems that with a factory/class method you get the allocation done behind the scenes and the actual method is indistinguishable from the init, AFAIK.
Therefore, what is the practical reason to prefer one over the other? Is my analysis of the two being nearly identical even correct?
I recommend using factory method if there is one that does what you need. Aside from the syntactic sugar (shorter), there are also differences in the object's ownership (and hence who should free it). You shouldn't worry so much about memory if you use ARC.
From Apple's documentation:
Factory methods can be more than a simple convenience. They can not
only combine allocation and initialization, but the allocation can
inform the initialization. As an example, let’s say you must
initialize a collection object from a property-list file that encodes
any number of elements for the collection (NSString objects, NSData
objects, NSNumber objects, and so on). Before the factory method can
know how much memory to allocate for the collection, it must read the
file and parse the property list to determine how many elements there
are and what object type these elements are.
That is a little mystic but consider a use case like this: you want to populate an NSMutableArray with the content of a file. If you choose "alloc and init", the OS must constantly allocate new memory to store the additional data as you read them from the file. The class method needs to parse the file first, so it know how many lines there are and how big of a memory it should ask for in one go.
Related
It seems like there are two styles for writing NEAR smart contracts in assembly script
Bag of functions like Meme Museum
Singleton style like Lottery.
I was wondering under what circumstance one style is recommended over the other.
When should you use one over the other? What are the advantages/disadvantages of each style?
The big differences is in initialization of the contract.
Bag of Functions (BoF)
For the first style, usually a persistent collection is declared at the top level. All top level code in each file is placed into a function and one start function calls each. The Wasm binary format allows to specify the start function so that anytime the binary is instantiated (e.i. loaded by a runtime) that function is called before any exported functions can be called.
For persistent collections this means allocating the objects, but no data is required from storage, until something is read, including the length or size of the collection.
Singleton
A top level instance of the contract is declared. Then storage is checked for the "STATE" key, which contains the state of the instance. If it is present storage is read and the instance is deserialized from storage. Then each "method" of the contract is an exported function that uses the global instance, e.g. instance.method(...), passing the arguments to the method. If the method is decorated with #mutateState then the instance is written back to storage after the method call.
Which To Use
Singleton's provide a nice interface for the contract and is generally easier to understand. However, since you are reading from storage at every method call, it can be more expensive.
The other advantage of the BoF is it's easier to extend as you can export more functions from a dependency.
However, it's also possible to use a combination of both as well.
So really it's whatever makes sense to you.
OK, Ruby gurus, this is a hard one to describe in the title, so bear with me for this explanation:
I'm looking to pass a string that represents a variable: not an instance, not the collection of properties that make up an object, but the actual variable: the handle to the object.
The reason for this is that I am dealing with resources that can be located on the filesystem, on the network, or in-memory. I want to create URI handler that can handle each of these in a consistent manner, so I can have schemes like eg.
file://
http://
ftp://
inmemory://
you get the idea. It's the last one that I'm trying to figure out: is there some way to get a string representation of a reference to an object in Ruby, and then use that string to create a new reference? I'm truly interested in marshalling the reference, not the object. Ideally there would be something like taking Object#object_id, which is easy enough to get, and using it to create a new variable elsewhere that refers to the same object. I'm aware that this could be really fragile and so is an unusual use case: it only works within one Ruby process for as long as there is an existing variable to keep the object from being garbage collected, but those are both true for the inmemory scheme I'm developing.
The only alternatives I can think of are:
marshal the whole object and cram it into the URI, but that won't work because the data in the object is an image buffer - very large
Create a global or singleton purgatory area to store a variable for retrieval later using e.g. a hash of object_id:variable pairs. This is a bit smelly, but would work.
Any other thoughts, StackOverflowers?
There's ObjectSpace._id2ref :
f = Foo.new #=> #<Foo:0x10036c9b8>
f.object_id #=> 2149278940
ObjectSpace._id2ref(2149278940) #=> #<Foo:0x10036c9b8>
In addition to the caveats about garbage collection ObjectSpace carries a large performance penalty in jruby (so much so that it's disabled by default)
Variables aren't objects in Ruby. You not only cannot marshal/unmarshal them, you can't do anything with them. You can only do something with objects, which variables aren't.
(It would be really nice if they were objects, though!)
You could look into MagLev which is an alternative Ruby implementation built on top of VMware's Gemstone. It has a distributes object model wiht might suit your use-case.
Objects are saved in the central Gemstne instance (with some nifty caching) and can be accessed by any number of remote worker instances. That way, any of the workers act on the same object space and can access the very same objects simultaneously. That way, you can even do things like having the global Garbage Collector running on a single Ruby instance or seamlessly moving execution at any point to different nodes (while preserving all the stack frames) using Continuations.
I'm attempting to understand Cocoa's Key-Value Coding (KVC) mechanism a little better. I've read Apple's Key-Value Programming Guide but am still a little confused about how certain KVC methods search for keys. Particularly, mutableArrayValueForKey:.
Below I'm going to explain how I understand valueForKey: KVC "getters" to work. Then I'll get to my question regarding mutableArrayValueForKey.
There are seven different "getter" KVC methods:
- (id)valueForKey:(NSString *)key;
- (id)valueForKeyPath:(NSString *)keyPath;
- (NSDictionary *)dictionaryWithValuesForKeys:(NSArray *)keys;
- (NSMutableArray *)mutableArrayValueForKey:(NSString *)key;
- (NSMutableArray *)mutableArrayValueForKeyPath:(NSString *)keyPath;
- (NSMutableSet *)mutableSetValueForKey:(NSString *)key;
- (NSMutableSet *)mutableSetValueForKeyPath:(NSString *)keyPath;
When searching for a Value inside a Property (named myKey), Apple's docs state that valueForKey: searches like this:
Tries -getMyKey, -myKey, and -isMyKey (in that order) inside the receiver
If not found, it attempts these ordered, to-many getters (NSArray):
// Required:
- (NSUInteger)countOfMyKey;
// Requires At Least One:
- (id)objectInMyKeyAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index;
- (NSArray *)myKeyAtIndexes:(NSIndexSet *)indexes;
// Optional (improves performance):
- (void)getMyKey:(KeyClass **)buffer range:(NSRange)inRange;
Next, it attempts these unordered, to-many getters (NSSet):
- (NSUInteger)countOfMyKey;
- (NSEnumerator *)enumeratorOfMyKey;
- (KeyClass *)memberOfMyKey:(KeyClass *)anObject;
Next, it attempts to access Instance Variables directly, assuming YES is returned by accessInstanceVariablesDirectly, in this order: _myKey, _isMyKey, myKey, isMyKey.
Lastly, it gives up and calls the receiving class's - (id)valueForUndefinedKey:(NSString *)key method. Usually an error is raised here.
My question is, what is the search order pattern for mutableArrayValueForKey:?
Apple's docs state this:
Accessor Search Pattern for Ordered
Collections
The default search pattern for
mutableArrayValueForKey: is as
follows:
The receiver's class is searched for a
pair of methods whose names match the
patterns -insertObject:inAtIndex:
and -removeObjectFromAtIndex:
(corresponding to the NSMutableArray
primitive methods
insertObject:atIndex: and
removeObjectAtIndex: respectively), or
methods matching the pattern
-insert:atIndexes: and -removeAtIndexes: (corresponding to the
NSMutableArrayinsertObjects:atIndexes:
and removeObjectsAtIndexes: methods).
If at least one insertion method and
at least one removal method are found
each NSMutableArray message sent to
the collection proxy object will
result in some combination of
-insertObject:inAtIndex:, -removeObjectFromAtIndex:, -insert:atIndexes:, and -removeAtIndexes: messages being sent to the original receiver of
mutableArrayValueForKey:.
...etc...
This makes no sense to me as it's discussing "setter" like methods. mutableArrayValueForKey: returns an NSMutableArray. All of the methods listed above return void, and are used to edit an NSMutableArray, not get it. Example:
- (void)insertMyKey:(KeyClass *)keyObject inMyKeyAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index;
- (void)removeObjectFromMyKeyAtIndex:(NSUInteger)index;
Any idea what Apple is trying to say in their docs, or if this is perhaps an error?
My theory is that mutableArrayValueForKey: is likely taking a similar path as valueForKey: when searching to retrieve a KVC value. I'm just not sure what path that really is.
Thanks for any help you can offer! :)
The NSMutableArray you get back from calling mutableArrayValueForKey: is actually a private subclass of NSMutableArray which overrides normal array methods such as -count, -objectAtIndex:, -insertObject:atIndex:, etc. and calls the corresponding KVC methods on the object the array was retrieved from. It basically acts as a proxy for manipulating the to-many relationship of the object, and it's not something you have to worry about creating or returning yourself. A quick example of usage:
Playlist* aPlaylist;
Track* aTrack;
NSMutableArray* mutableTracks = [aPlaylist mutableArrayValueForKey:#"tracks"];
[mutableTracks insertObject:aTrack atIndex:0];
This piece of code adds a track to the beginning of the playlist. If the Playlist class implements KVC methods for its "tracks" relationship, then calling a method on the mutable array will result in the appropriate method being called on the underlying object. So in this example, when you call insertObject:atIndex: on the array, the array will in turn call insertObjectInTracks:atIndex: on the playlist object, and the track gets added to the playlist's array of tracks.
Now, in this example, of course you could just call insertObjectInTracks:atIndex: directly, but there are several advantages you can get out of using mutableArrayValueForKey: instead.
The array wrapper hides the implementation details of the underlying KVC methods. Implementing the entire list of methods isn't strictly required to be KVC compliant. The Playlist class could just implement -tracks and -setTracks:, and the code above will still work. In this case, instead of calling insertObjectInTracks:atIndex:, the mutable array proxy will create a new array with the object inserted at the beginning, and then just call setTracks: on the Playlist object. This is obviously less efficient, so implementing the full list of KVC methods is usually recommended.
In the case where, instead of a constant string for the key, you instead have a variable, using mutableArrayValueForKey: allows you to manipulate the relationship without having to know the exact names of the methods you have to call. As long as the object is KVC compliant for the key you're using, everything will "just work".
It also lets you use any method that NSMutableArray itself implements, so for example you could use methods that search the array for objects, sort the array, etc. without having to rewrite special versions to deal with the KVC stuff.
This feels like such a stupid question, but how can I find a string in an NSArray?
I tried using
[array indexOfObjectIdenticalTo:myString]
but that requires the sting to have the same address.
Does anyone have any tips on how to do this?
You want the indexOfObject: method, which looks for the object by sending each object in the array an isEqual: message.
Peter's answer is correct.
One additional note; if you have tons and tons of strings in the array, -indexOfObject: is going to do a linear search. This may prove to be a performance bottleneck for which you should consider using a different container; an NSSet or NSDictionary, possibly (depending on what the strings mean).
Another gotcha is if the strings are all relatively similar and/or relatively long.
Of course, don't bother optimizing anything until you have used the analysis tools to prove that you have a performance issue.
You can use NSOrderSet as the container, the over view in NSOrderedSet Class Reference is below:
NSOrderedSet and its subclass, NSMutableOrderedSet, declare the programmatic interfaces to an ordered collection of objects.
NSOrderedSet declares the programmatic interface for static sets of distinct objects. You >establish a static set’s entries when it’s created, and thereafter the entries can’t be >modified. NSMutableOrderedSet, on the other hand, declares a programmatic interface for >dynamic sets of distinct objects. A dynamic—or mutable—set allows the addition and deletion >of entries at any time, automatically allocating memory as needed.
You can use ordered sets as an alternative to arrays when the order of elements is important >and performance in testing whether an object is contained in the set is a consideration— >testing for membership of an array is slower than testing for membership of a set.
Visit http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Foundation/Reference/NSOrderedSet_Class/Reference/Reference.html
containsObject:
Returns a Boolean value that indicates whether a given object is present in the array.
(BOOL)containsObject:(id)anObject
Parameters
anObject
An object.
Return Value
YES if anObject is present in the array, otherwise NO.
Discussion
This method determines whether anObject is present in the array by sending an isEqual: message to each of the array’s objects (and passing anObject as the parameter to each isEqual: message).
Declared In
NSArray.h
In my app, I have a NSDictionary whose keys should be instances of a subclass of NSManagedObject.
The problem, however, is that NSManagedObject does not implement the NSCopying protocol which means that no Core Data objects / instances of NSManagedObject can be used as dictionary keys even though the -[hash] method works fine for them.
Was should I do?
There are four options:
Use a different object as the dictionary key instead, and lookup from that. [object objectID] or +[NSValue valueWithNonretainedObject:] seem the most obvious
Use CFDictionaryCreateMutable() to create a dictionary with retained keys, rather than copied, instead, and then call CFDictionarySetValue() to store the objects
On OS X or iOS6+, [NSMapTable mapTableWithStrongToStrongObjects] gives you a purely Objective-C equivalent to CFMutableDictionary
Implement NSCopying for your managed object subclass, such that it returns self (with a bumped reference count if you're not using ARC)
Notes
+valueWithNonretainedObject: is pretty dangerous, since it's possible to be left with a dangling pointer; likely best to avoid.
Storing object IDs is fine, apart from the fact that new objects start out life with a temporary ID. That ID then changes to a permanent one when the context is saved to disk (or -obtainPermanentIDsForObjects:… is called). Your mapping code needs to be smart enough to handle this unless it can guarantee that all incoming objects already have a permanent ID.
Implementing NSCopying like this feels a bit icky, but should work just fine. As it happens, this is exactly the approach NSURLSessionTask takes, I presume for dictionary friendliness.
Prior to OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, it used to be possible to create a regular NSMutableDictionary and then call CFDictionarySetValue() for it. That's no longer the case though; new dictionaries now have proper copy callbacks specified down at the CF level, rather than purely being a feature of NSMutableDictionary.
I suggest to use [[[myManagedObject objectID] URIRepresentation] absoluteString] as your key.
Could you create a wrapper class, that contains a reference to the instance of NSManagedObject that you want to use as a dictionary key? You could then make this wrapper class implement NSCopying, along with a hash method (perhaps just calling the NSManagedObject's hash method), and use this wrapper as the dictionary key.
I had a similar problem, in which I needed to bundle several entities with additional data for each, and initially tried:
#{entity1:data1, #entity2:data2, #entity3:data3}
this didn't work for the reason above (NSCopying), so I did:
#[
#{#"entity":entity1, #"data":data1},
#{#"entity":entity2, #"data":data2},
#{#"entity":entity3, #"data":data3}
]
But this solution makes sense only if you don't need dictionary style access to these entities or are happy to iterate to find what you need. In my case this was a packaging problem. Note that if you pass these entities around the NSManagedObjectContext need to be the same to use them.