I have a class method that I want to always execute in the main thread.
Is there a way I could configure XCode Main Thread checker to raise a "purple warning" if that method is called on a background thread (just like it does for UI-related methods) ?
There're some undocumented environment variables like MTC_SUPPRESSION_FILE which allows you to provide a list of classes, methods & selectors to exclude from the checker. An opposite way to what you're looking for. I checked (quickly) the libMainThreadChecker.dylib and can't find more of them.
Then I got a reply from an Apple engineer - there's no documented way. It can mean anything - there's no way or there's a way, but it's not documented1. He suggests to just use ...
dispatchPrecondition(condition: .onQueue(.main))
... at the beginning of your method.
1 The library is available at /Applications/Xcode-beta.app/Contents/Developer/usr/lib/libMainThreadChecker.dylib if anyone wants to dig in.
Related
Is there a way to set an entry point in DWScript?
For example, if I start a script execution, I'd like it to execute a procedure Main, rather than the code in the regular entry point (begin ... end.).
I know it's possible to execute functions from Delphi, but I'm not sure this would be quite the same.
Aside from writing your procedure Main(); and then having your regular script entry point consist of nothing but calling Main, which is probably not what you're thinking of, no, there's no way to do that in DWS.
For all its innovations in syntax, DWS is still Pascal, and it still works the way Pascal works. Asking for some sort of named Main routine would be a radical departure from Pascal style.
EDIT: To answer the clarification posted in comments:
If you want your script to spawn a new script thread, you'll have to handle it in external Delphi code. As of this writing, the DWS system doesn't have any concept of multithreading built in. If you wanted to do it, you'd do something like this:
Create an external routine called something like SpawnThread(EntryPoint: string). Its eval method (out in Native-Delphi-land) would spawn a new thread that loads the current script, then finds the routine with the specified name and executes it.
That's about the only way you could get it to work without language-level support. If you'd like a way to spawn threads from within DWS, try adding it as a feature request to the issue tracker.
Calling functions directly is explicited in
https://code.google.com/p/dwscript/wiki/FirstSteps#Functions
If you want to execute a function in a different thread, you'll need some Delphi-side code to create a new thread, a new execution, and then call your functions. The main and threaded-execution will then be sandboxed from each other (so can't share share global vars etc.).
If you need to share data between the threads, you could do that by exposing functions or external variables, which would call into Delphi code with the proper synchronizations and locks in place (what is "proper" will depend on what your code wants to do, like always in multithreading...).
Note that it is possible to pass objects, interfaces and dynamic arrays between script executions (provided they're executions of the same program), but just like with regular code, you'll have to use locks, critical sections or mutexes explicitly.
I am disassembling a lot of iOS operation system code now (frameworks, system daemons). One of the common methods to do a system call is usage of mach_msg.
So, I can see on the client side, how mach_msg is constructed. Quite often I know a system daemon, which will handle this call. However, I am not sure how to find call handler in this daemon disassembled code.
Is there a good rule of thumb, how to find a handler?
I found following (at least in one deamon)
a) mach_msg_server_once method is called and first parameter to it is callback method
b) Usually this callback method checks for msgh_id and looks up in dispatch table addresses of methods to dispatch call to.
To make things simple, my Delphi XE application contains objects in charge of generating files based on some conditions: one object can generate a text file, other objects (which inherits from the former) can generate an XML or HTML files and so on... All of them have a common ancestor but do not run on a thread!
I'm now trying to add a way to cancel the whole generation process whenever the user hits the cancel button. The problem is that I've got nothing in place for this to work. The most basic action would be to add A LOT of if user_canceled then halt_process all over the place throughout the generation process but I feel this isn't the optimal solution.
My question, is to know if there is some smarter way of doing this ? Or any recommendation you might have on refactoring my code so that this addition could be better integrated in the future when more generation code (and therefore cancellation tests) needs to be added ?
You will need to add manual checks if process needs to be canceled because there's no way to cancel it and leave the program in valid state. Compiler/Program just does not knows which operations are atomic and which not in your applications logic.
E.g.
OpenFile(...); //<- if program halts anywhere before CloseFile you have the file locked
...
CloseFile;
Optimal solution depends on your existing design a lot. In simple case of queued actions A -> B -> C -> D it would work if you wrap it into a thread and add if Terminated then Exit; between actions (of course properly freeing temp objects if any).
I believe that a nice way of implementing a cancel is to use EAbort. As long as you wrap your file open and close in try finally, raising EAbort (eg on a button click)will get you out of a long list of actions quite nicely. It shoud'nt work but it does.
I am creating an action script library.I am calling some APIs which parses some xml and gets me the result. It dispatches an Event.COMPLETE when the parsing is done. I want to monitor whether this event is dispatched in some while loop like "while(eventnotdispatched)"
is it possible? I know the other way would be to addeventlistener. But please let me know if the other thing is possible.
Thanks
NO, it is not possible. Actionscript is single threaded. Thus while you are waiting in your while loop, that is the only thread running, and the process you are waiting for can never complete. This is why everything is done with events, so that's what you should use. If you need to update your display periodically while you are waiting for something to complete...again, use events. Create a Timer object which generates a TIMER event every so often, and use that to make your updates.
EDIT: Davr is right, you would not be able to use the while loop like this. You would need a timer.
Yes, it is possible to poll for it. BUT you will still need to create an event listener. It will work something like this:
private var loadCompleted = false;
private var timer:Timer= new Timer(1);
private function onInitCompleted(event:Event):void
{
timer.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER, timerHandler);
timer.start();
}
private function loadCompleteEventHandler(event:Event):void
{
loadCompleted = true;
...
}
private function timerHandler()
{
if(!loadCompleted)
{
... // stop the timer or something.
timer.stop();
}
}
Please note, this is VERY BAD code. I would NEVER use it in production because Actionscript is a event driven language. There should be absolutely NO REASON for you to need to do this. Whatever you are trying to do could be accomplished using another method much simpler. Tell me what you are trying to accomplish with this and I will present a better solution.
Sorry for yelling, it's late and I am sleepy.
Doing that means forcing a synchronous model of execution on the underlying asynchronous model (that works with callbacks).
What are you trying to achieve exactly, and why not use a callback?
I agree with the statements about it probably being a bad idea and a while loop will certainly not work this way in ActionScript. However, there may be legitimate reasons for doing what you are attempting to do. Only you can prevent bad code. Instead of judging, I'll just get to an answer for your question.
First I'm going to make an assumption, that what you really want to do is monitor a property and for some reason the API for this object does not dispatch an event when this property changes. I'm making this assumption because if you have the event available, I assume you would just use the event.
So... you have an object weirdXmlObj with a property loaded that defaults to false but goes to true when the XML is loaded.
In this case with slight modifications the code posted by CookieOfFortune would in fact work. You wouldn't need the loadCompleteEventHandler function (which was never attached anyway) and in the timer handler you would simply check if( weirdXmlObj.loaded ) and then branch however you wanted to.
Ah but there may be a simpler way, depending on what you are doing.
If you have a display object handy. (i.e. something that makes sense, not just some random object.) You can attach your code to the stage's EnterFrame event instead of using a timer.
myDisplayObject.stage.addEventListner(Event.ENTER_FRAME,frameEnterHandler);
A couple of things to be aware of:
You don't really even need to go to the stage level, all display objects support the EnterFrame event, but it's a nice place to attach the event listener.
You really should keep whatever the function calls to a minimum. In particular the actual frameEnterHandler function should do nothing more than do the if( weirdXmlObj.loaded ) check.
You are attempting to circumvent event-driven programming, which is not a good idea. This is often the case when someone approaches from an older model and does not yet have a good frame of reference to appreciate the elegance of event-driven programming.
Events are your friends. They work very well. Your loadCompleteHandler is all that is required. Want to do something else in response? Add the call in that handler:
private function loadCompletedHandler(event:Event):void
{
waitingObject.fileWasLoadedSoGoDoThatThing();
}
There is no need to make it any more complicated than that. No need for a semaphore or a loop to check the semaphore. Unnecessary environmental semaphores can break the encapsulation that could shield you from unwanted side effects.
Why are inline closures so rarely used in Actionscript? They are very powerful and I think quite readable. I hardly ever see anyone using them so maybe I'm just looking at the wrong code. Google uses them in their Google Maps API for Flash samples, but I think thats the only place I've seen them.
I favor them because you have access to local variables in the scope that defines them and you keep the logic in one method and dont end up with lots of functions for which you have to come up with a name.
Are there any catches of using them? Do they work pretty much the same way as in C#.
I actually only just discovered that AS3 supports them, and I'm quite annoyed becasue I had thought I read that they were deprecated in AS#. So I'm back to using them!
private function showPanel(index:int):void {
_timer = new Timer(1000, 1);
_timer.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER, function(event:Event):void
{
// show the next panel
showPanel(index++);
});
The biggest gotcha to watch out for is that often 'this' is not defined in the inline closure. Sometimes you can set a 'this', but it's not always the right 'this' that you would have available to set, depending on how you're using them.
But I'd say most of the Flex code I've worked on has had inline closures rampantly throughout the code--since callbacks are the only way to get work done, and often you don't need the bring out a whole separate function.
Sometimes when the function nested is getting to be too much, I'll break it out slightly with Function variables in the function; this helps me organize a bit by giving labels to the functions but keeping some of the characteristics of inline closures (access to the local variables, for example).
Hope this helps.
One additional problem is that garbage collection is broken when it comes to closures (at least in Flash 9). The first instance of a given closure (from a lexical standpoint) will never be garbage collected - along with anything else referenced by the closure in the scope chain.
I found what originally made me NOT want to do this, but I had forgotten the details:
http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/16_Event_handling_6.html#119539
(This is what Mitch mentioned - as far as the 'this' keyword being out of scope)
So thats Adobe's answer, however I am much more likely to need to refer to local variables than 'this'.
How do others interpret Adobe's recommendation ?