I have recently started getting acquainted with explicit Multithreading in swift. I am trying to understand the below method to dispatch a new thread for executing a selector. while I am able to use it successfully, what I don't understand is what is the significance of target in the signature of the method below? is that argument used to hold a monitor lock for thread safety like in java ? I tried referring to the documentation with not much help. I would really appreciate if someone can help me understand what's happening under the hood here.
(void)detachNewThreadSelector:(SEL)selector
toTarget:(id)target
withObject:(id)argument;
The documentation for aTarget says:
The object that will receive the message aSelector on the new thread.
This means that the selector will be called on the object that you pass as the target. It's no different than making any other method call. You call a method on a specific instance of a class. The target is the specific instance. The selector is the method that is called on that instance.
Think of detachNewThreadSelector:toTarget:withObject: as calling the given method of the given object, with the given argument (or ignore the argument if the method has zero parameters), but call the method on a newly created thread.
For example:
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:#selector(expensiveComputationWithObjects:)
target:someCalculatorObject
withObject:someVeryLargeArray]
The method thus provides a very convenient way of dispatching method calls on background threads (though it doesn't allow reusing an existing thread).
Another minor disadvantage is that the methods in discussions need to have at most one parameter, though this limitation can be circumvented by having the target method receive a structure (a dictionary or another class) that holds the actual arguments.
Related
When calling the method
- (void)readPacketsWithCompletionHandler:(void (^)(
NSArray<NSData *> *packets, NSArray<NSNumber *> *protocols))completionHandler;
the completionHandler is either called directly, in case packets are available at call time, or it is called at a later tim when packets become available.
Yet what is nowhere documented is: What happens if I call this method again before the prior set completionHandler has ever been called?
Will the new handler replace the prior set one and the prior set one won't get called at all anymore?
Are both handler scheduled and called as data arrives? And if so, will they be called in the order I passed them, in reverse order, or in random order?
Has anyone any insights on how that method is implemented?
Of course, I can make a demo project, create a test setup, and see what results I get through testing but that is very time consuming and not necessarily reliable. The problem with unspecified behavior is that it may change at will without letting anyone know. This method may behave differently on macOS and iOS, it may behave differently with every new OS release, or depending on the day of the week.
Or does the fact that nothing is documented is by intention? Do I have to interpret that as: You may call this method once and after your callback was executed, you may call it again with the same or a new callback. Everything else is undefined behavior and you cannot and should not rely on any specific behavior if use that API in a different manner.
As nobody has replied so far, I tried my best to figure it out myself. As testing is not good enough for me, here is what I did:
First I extracted the NetworkExtension framework binary from the dyld cache of macOS Big Sur using this utility.
Then I ran otool -Vt over the resulting binary file to get a disassembler dump of the binary.
My assembly skills are a bit rusty but from what I see the completionHandler is stored in a property named packetHandler, replacing any previous stored value there. Also a callback is created in that method and stored on an object obtained by calling the method interface.
When looking at the code of this created callback, it obtains the value of the packetHandler property and sets it to NULL after the value was obtained. Then it creates NSData and NSNumber objects, adds those to NSArray objects and calls the obtained handler with those arrays.
So it seems that calling the method again just replaces the previous completionHandler which is never be called in that case. So you must not rely that a scheduled handler will eventually be called at some time in the future if the tunnel is not teared down if the possibility exists that your code might replace it. Also calling the method multiple times to schedule multiple callbacks has no effect as as only the last one will be kept and eventually be called.
What the difference between a method, a selector and a message in Objective-C?
This is a great question.
Selector - a Selector is the name of a method. You're very familiar with these selectors: alloc, init, release, dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys:, setObject:forKey:, etc. Note that the colon is part of the selector; it's how we identify that this method requires parameters. Also (though it's extremely rare), you can have selectors like this: doFoo:::. This is a method that takes three parameters, and you'd invoke it like [someObject doFoo:arg1 :arg2 :arg3]. There's no requirement that there be letters before each part of the selector components. As I said, this is extremely rare, and you will not find it used in the Cocoa frameworks. You can work with selectors directly in Cocoa. They have the type SEL: SEL aSelector = #selector(doSomething:) or SEL aSelector = NSSelectorFromString(#"doSomething:");
Message - a message is a selector and the arguments you are sending with it. If I say [dictionary setObject:obj forKey:key], then the "message" is the selector setObject:forKey: plus the arguments obj and key. Messages can be encapsulated in an NSInvocation object for later invocation. Messages are sent to a receiver. (ie, the object that "receives" the message).
Method - a method is a combination of a selector and an implementation (and accompanying metadata). The "implementation" is the actual block of code; it's a function pointer (an IMP). An actual method can be retrieved internally using a Method struct (retrievable from the runtime).
Some other related things that you didn't ask for:
Method Signature - a method signature represents the data types returned by and accepted by a method. They can be represented at runtime via an NSMethodSignature and (in some cases) a raw char*.
Implementation - the actual executable code of a method. Its type at runtime is an IMP, and it's really just a function pointer. iOS 4.3 includes a new ability to turn a block into an IMP. This is really cool.
One of the fun things to realize is that the name of a method (the selector) is distinct from the implementation of the method (the IMP). This means that you can swap them around, if you're feeling daring. You can also add and remove methods at runtime, because all you're doing is editing an entry in a hash table: the key is the selector, and the value is the IMP of the method. This allows you to do some really crazy and trippy stuff. It's not for the faint of heart. :)
A method is the implementation which is run when an object or class is asked to perform some action. It is in the scope of its containing class and is therefore different when referenced through some other class. A selector is an identifier which represents the name of a method. It is not related to any specific class or method, and can be used to describe a method of any class, whether it is a class or instance method.
Simply, a selector is like a key in a dictionary. It can tell you what method someone is talking about, but only if you also have the dictionary itself (the class or object). The method is what you get when you ask for the value from the dictionary using the selector as a key.
This site has a good overview of all the terminology in question: http://www.otierney.net/objective-c.html
Check out the link, but I'll give a quick summary:
A method is essentially like a method of function that you are used to in your favourite programming language.
A message (from the article) "A message can be dynamically forwarded to another object. Calling a message on an object in Objective-C doesn't mean that the object implements that message, just that it knows how to respond to it somehow via directly implementing it or forwarding the message to an object that does know how to."
Selectors can mean two things. It can refer to the name of a method, or "refers to the unique identifier that replaces the name when the source code is compiled. Compiled selectors are of type SEL." (from: http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjectiveC/Chapters/ocSelectors.html)
The question here is more of an educational one. I began to think of this an hour ago while
flipping around a lego block (silly, I know).
A block is an object created on stack, from what I understand.
Let say A is an object, which means we can do:
[A message];
Based on that, if a block is an object, we could also do:
[block message];
Am I correct?
And when the runtime sees that, it would call:
objc_msgSend(block, #selector(message), nil);
So my question is, how can we send a block a message?
And if that is possible, I would imagine that it would also be possible to send a block a message with the arguments being blocks as well?
And, if we could call a block by doing:
block();
Does that mean we could even make a block as a message (SEL) as well, because blocks have the signature void (^)(void) which resembles that of a method?
Because if it would be possible, then the following would really surprise me:
objc_msgSend(block, #selector(block), block);
or:
objc_msgSend(block1, #selector(block2), block3);
I hope my imagination is not running a bit wild and that my understanding is not off here (correct me, if it is).
Blocks are objects only for the purposes of storage and referencing. By making them objects, blocks can be retain/release'd and can, therefore, be shoved into arrays or other collection classes. They also respond to copy.
That's about it. Even that a block starts on the stack is largely a compiler implementation detail.
When a block's code is invoked, that is not done through objc_msgSend(). If you were to read the source for the block runtime and the llvm compiler, then you'd find that:
a block is really a C structure that contains a description of the data that has been captured (so it can be cleaned up) and a pointer to a function -- to a chunk of code -- that is the executable portion of the block
the block function is a standard C function where the first argument must always be a reference to the block. The rest of the argument list is arbitrary and works just like any old C function or Objective-C method.
So, your manual calls to objc_msgSend() treat the block like any other random ObjC object and, thus, won't call the code in the block, nor, if it did (and there is SPI that can do this from a method... but, don't use it) could it pass an argument list that was fully controllable.
One aside, though of relevance.
imp_implementationWithBlock() takes a block reference and returns an IMP that can be plugged into an Objective-C class (see class_addMethod()) such that when the method is invoked, the block is called.
The implementation of imp_implementationWithBlock() takes advantage of the layout of the call site of an objective-c method vs. a block. A block is always:
blockFunc(blockRef, ...)
And an ObjC method is always:
methodFunc(selfRef, SEL, ...)
Because we want the imp_implementationWithBlock() block to always take the target object to the method as the first block parameter (i.e. the self), imp_implementationWithBlock() returns a trampoline function that when called (via objc_msgSend()):
- slides the self reference into the slot for the selector (i.e. arg 0 -> arg 1)
- finds the implementing block puts the pointer to that block into arg 0
- JMPs to the block's implementation pointer
The finds the implementing block bit is kinda interesting, but irrelevant to this question (hell, the imp_implementationWithBlock() is a bit irrelevant, too, but may be of interest).
Thanks for response. It's definitely an eye opener. The part about
blocks calling is not done thru objc_msgSend() tells me that it is
because blocks are not part of the normal object-hierachry (but coda's
mentioning of NSBlock seems to refute what I understand so far,
because NSBlock would make it part of the object-hierachy). Feel free
to take a stab at me, if my understanding is still off so far. I am
very interested in hearing more about the followings 1: the SPI and
the way (how) to call that method. 2: the underlying mechanisms of:
sliding the self reference into the slot. 3: finds the implementing
block and puts the pointer to that block into arg 0. If you have time
to share and write a bit more about those in detail, I am all ears; I
find this all very fascinating. Thanks very much in advance.
The blocks, themselves, are very much just a standard Objective-C object. A block instance contains a pointer to some executable code, any captured state, and some helpers used to copy said state from stack to heap (if requested) and cleanup the state on the block's destruction.
The block's executable code is not invoked like a method. A block has other methods -- retain, release, copy, etc... -- that can be invoked directly like any other method, but the executable code is not publicly one of those methods.
The SPI doesn't do anything special; it only works for blocks that take no arguments and it is nothing more than simply doing block().
If you want to know how the whole argument slide thing works (and how it enables tail calling through to the block), I'd suggest reading this or this. As well, the source for the blocks runtime, the objc runtime, and llvm are all available.
That includes the fun bit where the IMP grabs the block and shoves it into arg0.
Yes, blocks are objects. And yes, that means you can send messages to them.
But what message do you think a block responds to? We are not told of any messages that a block supports, other than the memory management messages retain, release, and copy. So if you send an arbitrary message to a block, chances are that it will throw a "does not recognize selector" exception (the same thing that would happen if you sent an arbitrary message to any object you don't know the interface of).
Invoking a block happens through a different mechanism than message sending, and is magic implemented by the compiler, and not exposed to the programmer otherwise.
Blocks and selectors are very different. (A selector is just an interned string, the string of the method name.) Blocks and IMPs (functions implementing methods) are somewhat similar. However, they are still different in that methods receive the receiver (self) and the selector called as special parameters, whereas blocks do not have them (the function implementing the block only receives the block itself as a hidden parameter, not accessible to the programmer).
The Apple Programming with Objective-C document states that:
You should always access the instance variables directly from within
an initialization method because at the time a property is set, the
rest of the object may not yet be completely initialized. Even if you
don’t provide custom accessor methods or know of any side effects from
within your own class, a future subclass may very well override the
behavior.
But I don't know what side effects will be in a setter method, please give me a example to explain why I have to access the instance variable directly from within an initialization method
The answer is simple - it is code smell. Dot notation like self.foobar = something in Objective-C is just a syntactic sugar for messaging.
Sending messages to self is normally fine. But there are two cases you need to avoid them:
1. When the object is being created, and
2. When the object is being destroyed.
At these two times, the object is in a strange in-between state. It lacks integrity. Calling methods during these times is a code smell because every method should maintain invariants as it operates on the object.
If a setter method is overridden by a subclass, you have no guarantee that your instance variable will contain the correct data. If you want to maintain data integrity within your objects during a crucial phase such as initialization, you should do as Apple recommends.
In addition to #JacobRelkin point, side effects can include Key-Value Observing. Other objects can observe changes even during -init* and -dealloc. I've had a KVO -dealloc bug in the past.
It truly is a best practice to setup and tear down the ivars directly.
I understand that these both are bit similar, but there must be any internal difference between two,
[anObject performSelector:#selector(thisMethod:) withObject:passedObject];
is equivalent to:
[anObject thisMethod:passedObject];
Please tell me what is the differnce in terms of compilation, memory etc.
The performSelector family of methods are for special cases, the vast majority of method invocations in Obj-C should be direct. Some differences:
Indirect: When using performSelector to invoke a method you have two method invocations; that of performSelector and the target method.
Arguments are objects: When invoking via performSelector all arguments must be passed as objects, e.g. if invoking a method which takes a double then that value must be wrapped as an NSNumber before being passed to performSelector. The performSelector methods unwraps non-object arguments before calling the target method. In direct invocation no wrapping or unwrapping is required.
Only two arguments: The performSelector family only includes variants which pass 0, 1 or 2 arguments so you cannot use them to invoke a method which takes 3 or more arguments.
You probably see most of the above as negatives, so what are the benefits?
Dynamic selector: The performSelector family allow you to invoke a method which is not known until runtime, only its type need be known (so you can pass the right arguments and get the right result); in other words the selector argument may be an expression of type SEL. This might be used when you wish to pass a method as an argument to another method and invoke it. However if you are compiling with ARC using dynamic selectors is non-trivial and usually produces compiler warnings, as without knowing the selector ARC cannot know the ownership attributes of the arguments.
Delayed execution: The performSelector family includes methods which invoke the method after a delay.
In general use direct method invocation, only if that does not give you what you require do you need to consider the performSelector family (or its even more esoteric cousins).
performSelector:withObject: will be slightly slower than calling the method directly. The indirection also means that the compiler can't do proper type checking. With ARC enabled, you'll also run into issues where the compiler will complain because it is impossible to determine exactly what the memory management policy might be.
In general, such indirection -- often called reflection but more accurately referred to as meta-programming -- is to be avoided exactly because it moves what should be compile time detectable failures to runtime failures.
Such dynamism is only needed when the name of the selector -- the name of the method -- being called cannot be determined at compile time. It should not be used for #optional methods in protocols nor should it be used during delegation (in both cases, respondsToSelector: + a direct method call are a far better pattern to employ).
The performSelector: method allows you to send messages that aren’t determined until runtime. For more info read this.
If your app wants to make use of reflection, where in by changing some values in configuration file you want to invoke a different method (Different adapters). Or based on object type you would like to invoke a different method on runtime.
If you developing a customizable product this a powerful feature.
I like to use [id performSelecter:selector withObject] when declare and implements a custom protocol,and delegate pattern, its also an use case, where we should use performselector rather then direct calling the method...