Is there a way to convert mutable object converted to immutable one in cocoa?
I have used NSMutableDictionary *mut=[[NSMutableDictionary alloc] initWithDictionary: copyItems:];
But this dictionary is used in many other places without the mutable thing.
Best Regards,
Subrat
NSDictionary dictionaryWithDictionary:
This may be an overly simplistic answer, but:
NSMutableDictionary * mutableDictionary = [NSMutableDictionary dictionaryWithStuff....];
NSDictionary * dictionary = mutableDictionary;
//from this point on, only use dictionary
While dictionary is technically (internally) mutable, you won't be able to access the set methods, since those are methods on NSMutableDictionary.
If I understand your question correctly (given your later comment), you want to convert an immutable copy of an mutable object back to being mutable again.
The problem seems to be this:
NSMutableString *foo = [NSMutableString stringWithString:#"a mutable object"];
NSMutableDictionary *dictionary1, *dictionary2;
dictionary1 = [NSMutableDictionary dictionaryWithObject:foo forKey:#"foo"];
dictionary2 = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc]initWithDictionary:dictionary1
copyItems: YES];
[[dictionary1 objectForKey:#"foo"] appendString:#", mutated"];
[[dictionary2 objectForKey:#"foo"] appendString:#", mutated"];
we can alter the object in dictionary1 just fine, but doing the same to dictionary2 throws an exception.
This is because although NSMutableDictionary's initWithDictionary:copyItems: method makes a mutable copy of the dictionary object, it makes immutable copies of its contents.
Classes that distinguish between immutable and immutable versions (such as cocoa's basic string, array & dictionary classes) are supposed to implement a copyWithZone: and mutableCopyWithZone: method. Since not all classes implement an mutableCopyWithZone: method, NSMutableDictionary's initWithDictionary:copyItems: method copies each of dictionary1's contents immutably, meaning that dictionary2 contains immutable objects.
You can make an mutable copy of an immutable object by sending it a mutableCopy message. But probably a better solution for you would be to add an initWithDictionary:mutableCopyItems: method to NSMutableDictionary with a category:
- (id) initWithDictionary:(NSDictionary *)otherDictionary
mutableCopyItems:(BOOL)flag
{
if (flag) {
self = [self init];
if (self)
for (id key in otherDictionary){
id object = [otherDictionary objectForKey:key];
if ([object respondsToSelector:#selector(mutableCopyWithZone:)])
[self setObject:[object mutableCopy] forKey:key];
else
[self setObject:[object copy] forKey:key];
}
}
else
self = [self initWithDictionary:otherDictionary];
return self;
}
Read these if you want to know the difference between copy, mutableCopy, copyWithZone: and mutableCopyWithZone:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Protocols/NSMutableCopying_Protocol/Reference/Reference.html#//apple_ref/occ/intf/NSMutableCopying
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Protocols/NSCopying_Protocol/Reference/Reference.html#//apple_ref/occ/intf/NSCopying
Related
I added Book object in bookController (NSCreeController). Now i want to get stored Book object when i select the row.
- (IBAction)addClicked:(id)sender {
NSTimeInterval timeStamp = [[NSDate date] timeIntervalSince1970];
// NSTimeInterval is defined as double
NSUInteger indexArr[] = {0,0};
Book *obj = [[Book alloc] init];
NSString *dateString = [NSDateFormatter localizedStringFromDate:[NSDate date] dateStyle:NSDateFormatterNoStyle timeStyle:NSDateFormatterLongStyle];
obj.title = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"New %#",dateString];
obj.filename = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"%d",arc4random()%100000];
[self.booksController insertObject:obj atArrangedObjectIndexPath:[NSIndexPath indexPathWithIndexes:indexArr length:2]];
}
I concede there perhaps could be a better solution--
I am unfamiliar with how NSTreeController works, but I looked a the class reference and noticed that it has a content property, similar to an NSArrayController (Which I am familiar with grabbing specific objects from).
I believe that if the content property is actually of type of some kind of tree data structure, my answer here probably won't work. The class reference says this about content:
The value of this property can be an array of objects, or a
single root object. The default value is nil. This property is
observable using key-value observing.
So this is what I historically have done with the expected results:
NSString *predicateString = [NSString stringWithFormat:NEVER_TRANSLATE(#"(filename == %#) AND (title == %#)"), #"FILENAME_ARGUMENT_HERE", #"TITLE_ARGUMENT_HERE"];
NSArray *matchingObjects = [[self content] filteredArrayUsingPredicate:[NSPredicate predicateWithFormat:predicateString]];
Then simply calling -objectAtIndex: will grab you your object. Note that the NSArray will be empty if the object doesn't exist, and if you have duplicate objects, there will be multiple objects in the array.
I also searched for an answer to your question, and found this SO thread:
Given model object, how to find index path in NSTreeController?
It looks pretty promising if my solution doesn't work, the author just steps through the tree and does an isEqual comparison.
If you could (if it's not too much trouble), leave a comment here to let me know what works for you, I'm actually curious :)
I have
NSMutableDictionary *myDictionary = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] init];
id dict = [myDictionary copy];
but is dict now just a regular NSDictionary? Or is it a copy of the NSMutableDictionary?
Also, is there any way to go from mutable to non-mutable?
There are two methods involved here; -copy and -mutableCopy.
If the class holds a distinction; -copy always creates an immutable copy; and -mutableCopy always creates a mutable copy.
If the class holds no distinction; -copy always creates a true copy.
So yes, dict is now an NSDictionary, containing the objects in the dictionary.
I often use Transformable for Core Data attributes, so I can change them later.
However, it seems like, if I want to use NSPredicate to find a NSManagedObject, using "uniqueKey == %#", or "uniqueKey MATCHES[cd] %#", it's not working as it should.
It always misses matching objects, until I change the attributes of the uniqueKey of the matching object to have specific class like NSString, or NSNumber.
Can someone explain the limitation of using NSPredicate with Transformable attributes?
Note: I'm not sure when/if this has changed since 5/2011 (from Scott Ahten's accepted answer), but you can absolutely search with NSPredicate on transformable attributes. Scott correctly explained why your assumptions were broken, but if Can someone explain the limitation of using NSPredicate with Transformable attributes? was your question, he implied that it is not possible, and that is incorrect.
Since the is the first google hit for "Core Data transformable value search nspredicate" (what I searched for trying to find inspiration), I wanted to add my working answer.
How to use NSPredicate with transformable properties
Short, heady answer: you need to be smart about your data transformers. You need to transfrom the value to NSData that contains what I'll call "primitive identifying information", i.e. the smallest, most identifying set of bytes that can be used to reconstruct your object. Long answer, ...
Foremost, consider:
Did you actual mean to use a transformable attribute? If any supported data type -- even binary data -- will suffice, use it.
Do you understand what transformable attributes actually are? How they pack and unpack data to and from the store? Review Non-Standard Persistent Attributes in Apple's documentation.
After reading the above, ask: does custom code that hides a supported type "backing attribute" work for you? Possibly use that technique.
Now, past those considerations, transformable attributes are rather slick. Frankly, writing an NSValueTransformer "FooToData" for Foo instances to NSData seemed cleaner than writing a lot of adhoc custom code. I haven't found a case where Core Data doesn't know it needs to transform the data using the registered NSValueTransformer.
To proceed simply address these concerns:
Did you tell Core Data what transformer to use? Open the Core Data model in table view, click the entity, click the attribute, load the Data Model Inspector pane. Under "Attribute Type: Transformable", set "Name" to your transformer.
Use a default transformer (again, see the previous Apple docs) or write your own transformer -- transformedValue: must return NSData.
NSKeyedUnarchiveFromDataTransformerName is the default transformer and may not suffice, or may draw in somewhat-transient instance data that can make two similar objects be different when they are equal.
The transformed value should contain only -- what I'll call -- "primitive identifying information". The store is going to be comparing bytes, so every byte counts.
You may also register your transformer globally. I have to do this since I actually reuse them elsewhere in the app -- e.g. NSString *name = #"FooTrans"; [NSValueTransformer setValueTransformer:[NSClassFromString(name) new] forName:name];
You probably don't want to use transforms heavily queried data operations - e.g. a large import where the primary key information uses transformers - yikes!
And then in the end, I simply use this to test for equality for high-level object attributes on models with NSPredicates -- e.g. "%K == %#" -- and it works fine. I haven't tried some of the various matching terms, but I wouldn't be surprised if they worked sometimes, and others not.
Here's an example of an NSURL to NSData transformer. Why not just store the string? Yeah, that's fine -- that's a good example of custom code masking the stored attribute. This example illustrates that an extra byte is added to the stringified URL to record if it was a file URL or not -- allowing us to know what constructors to use when the object is unpacked.
// URLToDataTransformer.h - interface
extern NSString *const kURLToDataTransformerName;
#interface URLToDataTransformer : NSValueTransformer
#end
...
// URLToDataTransformer.m - implementation
#import "URLToDataTransformer.h"
NSString *const kURLToDataTransformerName = #"URLToDataTransformer";
#implementation URLToDataTransformer
+ (Class)transformedValueClass { return [NSData class]; }
+ (BOOL)allowsReverseTransformation { return YES; }
- (id)transformedValue:(id)value
{
if (![value isKindOfClass:[NSURL class]])
{
// Log error ...
return nil;
}
NSMutableData *data;
char fileType = 0;
if ([value isFileURL])
{
fileType = 1;
data = [NSMutableData dataWithBytes:&fileType length:1];
[data appendData:[[(NSURL *)value path] dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]];
}
else
{
fileType = -1;
data = [NSMutableData dataWithBytes:&fileType length:1];
[data appendData:[[(NSURL *)value absoluteString] dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]];
}
return data;
}
- (id)reverseTransformedValue:(id)value
{
if (![value isKindOfClass:[NSData class]])
{
// Log error ...
return nil;
}
NSURL *url = nil;
NSData *data = (NSData *)value;
char fileType = 0;
NSRange range = NSMakeRange(1, [data length]-1);
[data getBytes:&fileType length:1];
if (1 == fileType)
{
NSData *actualData = [data subdataWithRange:range];
NSString *str = [[NSString alloc] initWithData:actualData encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];
url = [NSURL fileURLWithPath:str];
}
else if (-1 == fileType)
{
NSData *actualData = [data subdataWithRange:range];
NSString *str = [[NSString alloc] initWithData:actualData encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];
url = [NSURL URLWithString:str];
}
else
{
// Log error ...
return nil;
}
return url;
}
#end
Transformable attributes are usually persisted as archived binary data. As such, you are attempting to compare an instance of NSData with an instance of NSString or NSNumber.
Since these classes interpret the same data in different ways, they are not considered a match.
you can try this way
NSExpression *exprPath = [NSExpression expressionForKeyPath:#"transformable_field"];
NSExpression *exprKeyword = [NSExpression expressionForConstantValue:nsdataValue];
NSPredicate *predicate = [NSComparisonPredicate predicateWithLeftExpression:exprPath rightExpression:exprKeyword modifier:NSDirectPredicateModifier type:NSEqualToPredicateOperatorType options:0];
I have a situation where I need to use some strings temporarily but I've read so many conflicting things that I'm a bit confused as to what the best way to proceed is.
I need to assign some strings inside an if structure but use them outside the if structure so they need to be created outside the if, I was thinking something like:
NSString *arbString = [[NSString alloc] init];
if(whatever)
{
arbString = #"Whatever"
}
else
{
arbString = #"SomethingElse"
}
myLabel.text = arbString;
[arbString release];
I have seen examples where people just used:
NSString *arbString;
to create the string variable
Google's Objective C guide says it's preferred to autorelease at creation time:
"When creating new temporary objects, autorelease them on the same line as you create them rather than a separate release later in the same method":
// AVOID (unless you have a compelling performance reason)
MyController* controller = [[MyController alloc] init];
// ... code here that might return ...
[controller release];
// BETTER
MyController* controller = [[[MyController alloc] init] autorelease];
So I have no idea, which is the best practice?
In the example you posted, you actually lose the reference to the NSString you created when you assign it in arbString = #"Whatever". You then release the string constant (which is unreleasable, by the way).
So there's a memory leak, since you never release the NSString you created.
Remember that all these types are pointers, so = only reassigns them.
As for the question, in this example, you don't need the [[NSString alloc] init]. You don't need to copy the string into a local variable anyway, you can just set myLabel.text to the string constant #"Whatever".
(edit: that's not to say that you can't use your pointer arbString, arbString = #"Whatever"; myLabel.text = arbString is fine. But this is just pointer assignment, not copying)
If you needed to manipulate the string before you returned it, you would create an NSMutableString, and either release or auto-release it. Personally, create autoreleased objects using class methods, so in this example, I'd use [NSString string], or [NSString stringWithString:], which return autoreleased objects.
What is the difference between copy and mutableCopy when used on either an NSArray or an NSMutableArray?
This is my understanding; is it correct?
// ** NSArray **
NSArray *myArray_imu = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:#"abc", #"def", nil];
// No copy, increments retain count, result is immutable
NSArray *myArray_imuCopy = [myArray_imu copy];
// Copys object, result is mutable
NSArray *myArray_imuMuta = [myArray_imu mutableCopy];
// Both must be released later
// ** NSMutableArray **
NSMutableArray *myArray_mut = [NSMutableArray arrayWithObjects:#"A", #"B", nil];
// Copys object, result is immutable
NSMutableArray *myArray_mutCopy = [myArray_mut copy];
// Copys object, result is mutable
NSMutableArray *myArray_mutMuta = [myArray_mut mutableCopy];
// Both must be released later
copy and mutableCopy are defined in different protocols (NSCopying and NSMutableCopying, respectively), and NSArray conforms to both. mutableCopy is defined for NSArray (not just NSMutableArray) and allows you to make a mutable copy of an originally immutable array:
// create an immutable array
NSArray *arr = [NSArray arrayWithObjects: #"one", #"two", #"three", nil ];
// create a mutable copy, and mutate it
NSMutableArray *mut = [arr mutableCopy];
[mut removeObject: #"one"];
Summary:
you can depend on the result of mutableCopy to be mutable, regardless of the original type. In the case of arrays, the result should be an NSMutableArray.
you cannot depend on the result of copy to be mutable! copying an NSMutableArray may return an NSMutableArray, since that's the original class, but copying any arbitrary NSArray instance would not.
Edit: re-read your original code in light of Mark Bessey's answer. When you create a copy of your array, of course you can still modify the original regardless of what you do with the copy. copy vs mutableCopy affects whether the new array is mutable.
Edit 2: Fixed my (false) assumption that NSMutableArray -copy would return an NSMutableArray.
I think you must have misinterpreted how copy and mutableCopy work. In your first example, myArray_COPY is an immutable copy of myArray. Having made the copy, you can manipulate the contents of the original myArray, and not affect the contents of myArray_COPY.
In the second example, you create a mutable copy of myArray, which means that you can modify either copy of the array, without affecting the other.
If I change the first example to try to insert/remove objects from myArray_COPY, it fails, just as you'd expect.
Perhaps thinking about a typical use-case would help. It's often the case that you might write a method that takes an NSArray * parameter, and basically stores it for later use. You could do this this way:
- (void) doStuffLaterWith: (NSArray *) objects {
myObjects=[objects retain];
}
...but then you have the problem that the method can be called with an NSMutableArray as the argument. The code that created the array may manipulate it between when the doStuffLaterWith: method is called, and when you later need to use the value. In a multi-threaded app, the contents of the array could even be changed while you're iterating over it, which can cause some interesting bugs.
If you instead do this:
- (void) doStuffLaterWith: (NSArray *) objects {
myObjects=[objects copy];
}
..then the copy creates a snapshot of the contents of the array at the time the method is called.
The "copy" method returns the object created by implementing NSCopying protocols copyWithZone:
If you send NSString a copy message:
NSString* myString;
NSString* newString = [myString copy];
The return value will be an NSString (not mutable)
The mutableCopy method returns the object created by implementing NSMutableCopying protocol's mutableCopyWithZone:
By sending:
NSString* myString;
NSMutableString* newString = [myString mutableCopy];
The return value WILL be mutable.
In all cases, the object must implement the protocol, signifying it will create the new copy object and return it to you.
In the case of NSArray there is an extra level of complexity regarding shallow and deep copying.
A shallow copy of an NSArray will only copy the references to the objects of the original array and place them into the new array.
The result being that:
NSArray* myArray;
NSMutableArray* anotherArray = [myArray mutableCopy];
[[anotherArray objectAtIndex:0] doSomething];
Will also affect the object at index 0 in the original array.
A deep copy will actually copy the individual objects contained in the array. This done by sending each individual object the "copyWithZone:" message.
NSArray* myArray;
NSMutableArray* anotherArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithArray:myArray
copyItems:YES];
Edited to remove my wrong assumption about mutable object copying
NSMutableArray* anotherArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithArray:oldArray
copyItems:YES];
will create anotherArray which is a copy of oldArray to 2 levels deep. If an object of oldArray is an Array. Which is generally the case in most applications.
Well if we need a True Deep Copy we could use,
NSArray* trueDeepCopyArray = [NSKeyedUnarchiver unarchiveObjectWithData:
[NSKeyedArchiver archivedDataWithRootObject: oldArray]];
This would ensure that all levels are actually copied retaining the mutability of the original object at each level.
Robert Clarence D'Almeida,
Bangalore, India.
You're calling addObject and removeObjectAtIndex on the original array, rather than the new copy of it you've made. Calling copy vs mutableCopy only effects the mutability of the new copy of the object, not the original object.
To state it simply,
copy returns an immutable (can't be modified) copy of the array,
mutableCopy returns a mutable (can be modified) copy of the array.
Copy (in both cases) means that you get a new array "populated" with object references to the original array (i.e. the same (original) objects are referenced in the copies.
If you add new objects to the mutableCopy, then they are unique to the mutableCopy. If you remove objects from the mutableCopy, they are removed from the original array.
Think of the copy in both cases, as a snapshot in time of the original array at the time the copy was created.
Assume
NSArray *A = xxx; // A with three NSDictionary objects
NSMutableArray *B = [A mutableCopy];
B's content is NSDictionary object not NSMutableDictionary, is it right?
-(id)copy always returns a immutable one & -(id)mutableCopy always returns a mutable object,that's it.
You have to know the return type of these copying stuff and while declaring the new object which one will be assigned the return value must be of immutable or mutable one, otherwise compiler will show you error.
The object which has been copied can not be modified using the new one,they are totally two different objects now.