First q here, so trying to get protocol right...what I've done works, in that the data and views display correctly, but memory is not deallocating (still getting used to ARC after many years of allocating/deallocating), and I'm trying to figure out the right strategy. Document based app. When doc is created, view controller is instantiated, which creates several views which need to refer to each other for size/position/methods, and all of which need access to the doc data.
class MyDoc: UIDocument {
var data: Int
etc...
}
class MyController: UIViewController {
var doc: myDoc! // code which creates MyDoc instance assigns self to this property
var thisView1: MyView1!
var thisView2: MyView2!
thisView1 = MyView1(...)
thisView2 = MyView2(...)
thisView1.theOtherView2 = thisView2
thisView2.theOtherView1 = thisView1
thisView1.doc = self.doc
thisView2.doc = self.doc
}
class MyView1: UIView {
var theOtherView2: MyView2!
var doc: MyDoc!
}
class MyView2: UIView {
var theOtherView1: MyView1!
var doc: MyDoc!
}
I don't think I excluded anything meaningful. Assigning thisView1 and thisView2 to each other creates a strong reference cycle, right? I tried combining an unowned property on one with implicitly unwrapped on the other, per The Swift Programming Language, but kept having trouble with the init() methods of the views. Is using weak references and then unwrapping the optional all the time (though I make sure there's a valid value before proceeding from viewController) the only thing that'll work? I've read so many explanations that each new one now confuses me more.
Thank you!
Related
I'm trying to figure out how NSMapTable works
So I'm trying in playground the following code:
class Person {
var name: String
init(name: String ) {
self.name = name
print("\(name) is being initialized")
}
deinit {
print("\(name) is being deinitialized")
}
}
var hobyePerson : NSMapTable? = NSMapTable<Person, NSMutableString>
(keyOptions: .weakMemory, valueOptions: .weakMemory)
var rob : Person? = Person(name: "Rob Appleseed") // print : Rob Appleseed is being initialized
hobyePerson?.setObject("golf", forKey: rob)
hobyePerson?.count // return : 1
rob = nil // print : Rob Appleseed is being deinitialized
hobyePerson?.count // return : 1 (WHY ???!!!!)
as written in the documentation: "Keys and/or values are optionally held “weakly” such that entries are removed when one of the objects is reclaimed."
why even though I initialized the object so that it has a weak reference to the key-value pair when rob is deallocated, I still have an element in hobyePerson?
NSMapTable's weak behavior options work best when you don't care when keys/values are released, but rather, you do care that the keys/values aren't strongly retained and will be released at some point after the object of interest becomes nil.
Why so?
As a Foundation class, the authors of NSMapTable had to balance both features and performance.
Consequently, as an "optimization" for performance, they chose that weakly referenced objects that become nil are NOT immediately removed from the map table...! Rather, this happens "later" when it can be efficiently done -- such as when the map table internally gets resized, etc.
As #Luke also mentions in his answer, see this excellent writeup about an experiment done on NSMapTable's behavior for more details:
http://cocoamine.net/blog/2013/12/13/nsmaptable-and-zeroing-weak-references/
Yes, this is a strange and unfortunate behavior. This article goes into it in some depth. Although it doesn't explore weak-to-weak specifically, the behavior described is the same. As that author notes, hobyePerson.keyEnumerator().allObjects.count and hobyePerson.objectEnumerator().allObjects.count will contain 0 as expected at the end of all this. He also points out that Apple has sort of documented this behavior in the Mountain Lion release notes.
However, weak-to-strong NSMapTables are not currently recommended, as
the strong values for weak keys which get zero’d out do not get
cleared away (and released) until/unless the map table resizes itself.
Sorry I don't have a better explanation for you.
It didn't work for me so I implemented simple weak map like this.. Will improve it overtime but for now works:
import Foundation
private struct WeakValue<Value:AnyObject> {
weak var value: Value?
}
public class CSWeakValueDictionary<Key:AnyObject, Value:AnyObject> {
private let dictionary = NSMutableDictionary()
public subscript(source: Key) -> Value? {
get {
let value = (dictionary["\(source)"] as? WeakValue<Value>)?.value
if value == nil { dictionary.removeObject(forKey: "\(source)") }
return value
}
set { dictionary["\(source)"] = WeakValue(value: newValue) }
}
}
I'm creating an app in Swift 2.0 xCode7 using the Tabbed-Application template, with each screen having a separate ViewController. I have a struct to manage a variable I want to be accessed by all view controllers. I created the instance of the struct in the first view controller. I'm able to access the struct data and methods in the other views, but if update the data in one view, it doesn't change for all... It's acting as if each View Controller is creating its own instance on its own. I don't want that. I want each ViewController to share the same updated data in the struct. Does this mean that I should be creating a Singleton Pattern? Or, something else? I'm quite new at this, so thanks for your patience.
I'm not sure how exactly you access the structure but it might be that you only need to change struct to class because structs are value types so if you assign it or pass into a method it is copied whereas an instance of a class will avoid copying
Because you didn't give me any code, this is just my guess.
Structs are different from classes. The former stores values and the latter stores references. Let's look at this code:
var obj = SomethingCool()
obj.somethingCooler = 20
var obj2 = obj
obj2.somethingCooler = 10
If SomethingCool were a struct, obj.somethingCooler would still be 20 but obj2.somethingCooler would be 10. On the other hand, if SomethingCool were a class, both obj.somethingCooler and obj2.somethingCooler would be 20.
This is because the third line. The third line is VERY important. If SomethingCool were a struct, the values stored in obj will be copied to obj2. i.e. Two set of independent values would be created. If it were a class, the object that obj will also be referenced by obj2. i.e. There would still be just one object.
Now that you know the difference, I can tell you that you must have done something like the third line in your view controllers, haven't you?
To solve this problem, you can change from a struct to a class. Or you can create something like this:
public class SomeName {
static var myData: SomeTypeOfStruct {
return something
}
}
If you are so hellbent on keeping it as a struct you could do something that swift actually helps u out with.....AppDelegate!
The appdelegate.swift is a single instance object for any application. So in case you want to save a value that you need to access throughout the application or update throughtout the application, you might want to use AppDelegate.
E.g.
In FirstViewController.swift set the AppDelegate variable that you want to reflect on the remaining screens:
(UIApplication.sharedApplication().delegate as! AppDelegate).commonVariableName = NewValueYouWant;
In the SecondViewController.swift, take up that value from the AppDelegate
var updatedValue = (UIApplication.sharedApplication().delegate as! AppDelegate).commonVariableName;
Again...as #Sweeper said, you can always switch to class which is more reliable and used to achieve something like this.
It's acting as if each View Controller is creating its own instance on
its own.
It's all explained in Apple's Swift guide:
Structs:
struct Dog {
var name: String
}
var d1 = Dog(name: "Rover")
var d2 = d1
d2.name = "Sally"
print(d1.name)
print(d2.name)
--output:--
Rover
Sally
Classes:
class Cat {
var name: String = ""
}
var c1 = Cat()
c1.name = "Kitty"
var c2 = c1
c2.name = "Gerald"
print(c1.name)
print(c2.name)
--output:--
Gerald
Gerald
See the difference?
I'm having trouble grasping the proper way of instantiating variables that always need to be set before an object is fully functional but may need to be instantiated after the constructor. Based on Swift's other conventions and restrictions it seems like there is a design pattern I'm unaware of.
Here is my use case:
I have a class that inherits from UIViewController and will programmatically create views based on user actions
I need to attach these views to this class, but to do so I need to retrieve their content based on configuration data supplied by another controller
I don't care if this configuration data is passed to the constructor (in which case it would always be required) or supplied by a secondary call to this object before it is used
My problem seems to be that both of the approaches in bullet 3 seem flawed.
In the first case, there is only one legitimate constructor this class can be called with, yet I'm forced to override other constructors and initialize member variables with fake values even if the other constructors are never intended to be used (I'm also trying to keep these variables as let types based on Swift's best practices).
In the second case, I'm effectively splitting my constructor into two parts and introduce an additional point of failure in case the second part fails to be called prior to class being used. I also can't move this second part to a method that's guaranteed to be called prior to usage (such as viewDidLoad) because I still need to pass in additional arguments from the config. While I can make sure to call the initPartTwo manually, I'd prefer to have a mechanism that better groups it with the actual constructor. I can't be the first one to run into this and it seems like there is a pattern I'm not seeing to make this cleaner.
UPDATE:
I ended up going with a modified version of the pattern matt suggested:
struct Thing {
let item1: String
let item2: String
struct Config {
let item3: String
let item4: String
}
var config:Config! {
willSet {
if self.config != nil {
fatalError("tried to initialize config twice")
}
}
}
init() {
self.item1 = ...
self.item2 = ...
...
}
public func phaseTwoInit(item3: String, item4: String) {
self.item3 = item3
self.item4 = item4
...
}
}
var t = Thing()
...
t.phaseTwoInit(...)
...
// start using t
If an initial instance variable property value can't be supplied at object initialization time, the usual thing is to declare it as an Optional. That way it doesn't need to be initialized by the class's initializers (it has a value - it is nil automatically), plus your code subsequently can distinguished uninitialized (nil) from initialized (not nil).
If the Optional if an implicitly unwrapped Optional, this arrangement need have no particular effect on your code (i.e. it won't have to be peppered with unwrappings).
If your objection is that you are forced to open the door to multiple settings of this instance variable because now it must be declared with var, then close the door with a setter observer:
struct Thing {
var name:String! {
willSet {
if self.name != nil {
fatalError("tried to set name twice")
}
}
}
}
var t = Thing()
t.name = "Matt" // no problem
t.name = "Rumplestiltskin" // crash
I am new to Swift/iOS, so please bear with me:
I am trying to access a function in one class from another class, and update an UIImage name.
Within my viewcontroller class I have
class Documents: UIViewController, UITableViewDataSource, UITableViewDelegate {
#IBOutlet var UpdateImage: UIImageView
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
UpdateImage()
}
func UpdateImage() {
UpdateImage.image = UIImage(named: "NewImage")
}
}
Everything works, the Image gets updated to "NewImage"
Question: I can access the UpdateImage func from another class, but why is it generating an error when trying to change the image in the Documents class?
class GetChanges {
var success = { operation:AFHTTPRequestOperation!, response:AnyObject!) -> Void in
var MakeChange = Documents()
MakeChange.UpdateImage()
}
}
This generates an error on the "UpdateImage.image = UIImage(named: "NewImage")" in the Documents Class; "fatal error: unexpectedly found nil while unwrapping an Optional value"
When you call it within the class itself, it is operating on itself and it has already been created from a nib/storyboard. This means that UpdateImage exists.
When you call the method from another class, when you call this line:
var MakeChange = Documents()
You are creating a new instance of Documents. This is not initialized through the nib/storyboard, and thus it never populated the IBOutlet value UpdateImage. Because this value doesn't exist, it unexpectedly finds nil and throws an error.
You need to somehow retain a reference to the instance of Documents you're trying to display. I'd need more information to tell you how to do that.
Also, because you mentioned that you're new, I'd like to point out a few issues I notice with your code that is making it very difficult to read.
Capitalized names are reserved for Types variable names should (almost) never begin with a capital letter.
Variable names should reflect the object they represent. UpdateImage sounds like it is an image. It would be better to name this updateImageView
Functions should be lowercase as well. It is strange to see capitalization this way and makes the code a bit uncomfortable to read.
Good luck!
Read about View Contoller's lifecycle, it's very important knowledge for iOS developer.
As Logan said:
You are creating a new instance of Documents. This is not initialized through the nib/storyboard, and thus it never populated the IBOutlet value UpdateImage
This means that after call init for ViewController (i.e. Documents()) nib isn't loaded. You can use outlets of viewController in another code only after viewDidLoad stage. Apple docs:
The nib file you specify is not loaded right away. It is loaded the first time the view controller's view is accessed. If you want to perform additional initialization after the nib file is loaded, override the viewDidLoad() method and perform your tasks there.
You can remove MakeChange.UpdateImage(), because it will be called in viewDidLoad. Or, if you want pass specific image name to view controller:
class Documents: UIViewController, UITableViewDataSource,
UITableViewDelegate {
#IBOutlet var UpdateImage: UIImageView
var imageName: String?
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
updateImageView()
}
func updateImageView() {
if let imageName = imageName {
UpdateImage.image = UIImage(named: imageName)
}
}
}
After that, you can use
let documentsViewController = Documents
documentsViewController.imageName = "newImage"
When you load documentsViewController, newImage will be presented
I came across a strange behaviour in Swift while programming a Master-Detail application.
Here's the scenario:
It's a simple Task Manager application. I have two text controls (TaskName, TaskDescription) on the TaskDetailView and two string variables with the same name but in lowerCamelCase (taskName, taskDescription) declared in the TaskDetailViewController.
#IBOutlet var TaskName:UITextField! //UpperCamelCase
#IBOutlet var TaskDescription:UITextView! //UpperCamelCase
var taskName:String? //lowerCamelCase
var taskDescription:String? //lowerCamelCase
I am setting the values of Text controls on ViewDidLoad() as usual:
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
TaskName.text = taskName
TaskDescription.text = taskDescription
}
And I am passing the data in prepareForSegue (from TaskListViewController) as usual:
override func prepareForSegue(segue: UIStoryboardSegue!, sender: AnyObject!) {
if(segue.identifier == "TaskListSegue"){
let detailViewController = segue.destinationViewController as ToDoTaskViewController
let (task, desc) = m_ToDoListManager.GetTask(TaskListView.indexPathForSelectedRow().row)
println("selected \(task) \(desc)")
detailViewController.taskName = task
detailViewController.taskDescription = desc
}
}
The way everything is implemented is correct.
But now when you run the application, the values of text controls are not set.
In fact, the values of the variables also are not set.
What must be happening here?
I have already investigated this problem and also came up with a solution (see my answer below). Please also see Martin R's answer below for a detailed explanation. I just wanted to share this with everyone. I am not sure if anyone has come across this issue.
Update:
Here's the actual code:https://github.com/Abbyjeet/Swift-ToDoList
Here is an explanation:
Your Swift class is (ultimately) a subclass of NSObject.
Therefore the properties are Objective-C properties with getter and setter method.
The name of the setter method for a property is built by capitalizing the first
letter of the property name, e.g. property "foo" has the setter method setFoo:
As a consequence, the setter method for both properties TaskName and taskName is called setTaskName:.
In an Objective-C file, you would get a compiler error
synthesized properties 'taskName' and 'TaskName' both claim setter 'setTaskName:' - use of this setter will cause unexpected behavior
but the Swift compiler does not notice the conflict.
A small demo of the problem:
class MyClass : NSObject {
var prop : String?
var Prop : String?
}
let mc = MyClass()
mc.prop = "foo"
mc.Prop = "bar"
println(mc.prop) // bar
println(mc.Prop) // nil
In your case
TaskName.text = ...
sets the "taskName" property, not the "TaskName". The properties have different type,
so that the behavior is undefined.
Note that the problem does only occur for "Objective-C compatible" properties. If you remove the
NSObject superclass in above example, the output is as expected.
Conclusion: You cannot have two Objective-C properties that differ only in the
case of the first letter. The Swift compiler should fail with an error here (as the
Objective-C compiler does).
The problem you were facing with was not connected to the swift language. Method prepareForSegue is called before loadView. That mean UITextField and UITextView are not initialized yet. That's why fields were not initialized.
You also asked: Why compiler doesn't show any error? That's because any selector performed on nil object doesn't throw an exception. So for example (sorry for obj-c):
UITextField *tf = nil;
[tf setText:#"NewText"];
Will not show any error.
As you said on your own answer to solve your problem you need to add additional fields to your destination controller (copy-paste):
var tAskName:String? //cUstomCamelCase
var tAskDescription:String? //cUstomCamelCase
Why is it happening?
I believe that internally Swift is using lowerCamelCase for text controls names which are not yet initialized and thus failing to set the values. But it is also strange that I didn't get any kind of error.
How did I solve it?
I know that the Swift is case-sensitive. So that was not the issue. So I just changed the case of one letter and named the variables as (tAskName, tAskDescription) and the values were set as expected.
#IBOutlet var TaskName:UITextField! //UpperCamelCase
#IBOutlet var TaskDescription:UITextView! //UpperCamelCase
var tAskName:String? //cUstomCamelCase
var tAskDescription:String? //cUstomCamelCase
So the conclusion is that if I have a control named TaskName, I cannot have a variable named as taskName