I know there are few questions similar to this one, but in all cases the answer is to make it asynchronous.
According to the apple documentation (even though it is not recommended) polling is an available option. However, I just couldn't implement it.
Should probably mention I am doing it in c# using Xamarin, but if you
can give me an answer on how to do this in Objective-C that would be
good too.
Here is my attempt
while(true)
{
if (outStream.HasSpaceAvailable())
{
int output = ((NSOutputStream)outStream).Write(data, (uint)data.Count());
}
}
The problem here is that outStream.HasSpaceAvailable() is false indefinitely.
Reason why I want to do it synchronously:
Currently (in a test app) I am doing it asynchronously and it works for sending one stream of data per call to the method. However in the real App I will need to send lots of small data packets one after the other. Therefore, I need to wait for the data to be sent before I can send another packet.
If I try putting many calls to the delegate the data keeps overwriting the previous call...
It would be great if you could let me know how to do it synchronously first (for the sake of having one answer out there on it). If you think there is a better way to do it in an async way let me know too.
Thanks
EDIT :
Here is how I set up the session
SESSION=new EASession (Accessory, Protocol);
NSStreamStatus outputStream= SESSION.OutputSream;
outputStream.Open();
This is done when a button is pressed and before the while loop above (obviously).
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.
I’ve been learning Rxswift and applying it on a project since start. I would like your help to fell more assured about a concept.
I understand the changes in the UI should be performed on the Mainscheduler, and you should explicitly use .observeOn(MainSchedule… in case you don’t use Drivers.
My doubt is: normally, should I explicitly switch to a background thread when performing network requests?.
I haven’t found many literature talking about exactly this, but I’ve read some projects code and most of them don’t, but a few do. Those eventually use Drivers or .observeOn(MainSchedule… to make the changes on the UI.
In https://www.thedroidsonroids.com/blog/rxswift-examples-4-multithreading, for instance, he says
So as you may guessed, in fact everything we did was done on a MainScheduler. Why? Because our chain starts from searchBar.rx_text and this one is guaranteed to be on MainScheduler. And because everything else is by default on current scheduler – well our UI thread may get overwhelmed. How to prevent that? Switch to the background thread before the request and before the mapping, so we will just update UI on the main thread
So what he does to solve the problem he mentions, is to explicitly declare
.observeOn(ConcurrentDispatchQueueScheduler(globalConcurrentQueueQOS: .Background))
Assuming the API Request would be performed on background anyway, what this does is to perform all other computations in the background as well, right?
Is this a good practice? Should I, in every API request, explicitly change to background and then changes back to Main only when necessary?
If so, what would be best way? To observe on background and then on Main? Or to subscribe on background and observe on Main, as is done in this gist:
https://gist.github.com/darrensapalo/711d33b3e7f59b712ea3b6d5406952a4
?
Or maybe another way?
P.S.: sorry for the old code, but among the links I found, these better fit my question.
Normally, i.e. if you do not specify any schedulers, Rx is synchronous.
The rest really depends on your use case. Four instance, all UI manipulations must happen on main thread scheduler.
Background work, including network requests, should run on background schedulers. Which ones - depends on priority and preference for concurrent/serial execution.
.subscribeOn() defines where the work is being done and .observeOn() defines where the results of it are handled.
So the answer to your specific questions: in case of a network call which results will be reflected in UI, you must subscribe on background scheduler and observe on main.
You can declare schedulers like that (just an example):
static let main = MainScheduler.instance
static let concurrentMain = ConcurrentMainScheduler.instance
static let serialBackground = SerialDispatchQueueScheduler.init(qos: .background)
static let concurrentBackground = ConcurrentDispatchQueueScheduler.init(qos: .background)
static let serialUtility = SerialDispatchQueueScheduler.init(qos: .utility)
static let concurrentUtility = ConcurrentDispatchQueueScheduler.init(qos: .utility)
static let serialUser = SerialDispatchQueueScheduler.init(qos: .userInitiated)
static let concurrentUser = ConcurrentDispatchQueueScheduler.init(qos: .userInitiated)
static let serialInteractive = SerialDispatchQueueScheduler.init(qos: .userInteractive)
static let concurrentInteractive = ConcurrentDispatchQueueScheduler.init(qos: .userInteractive)
P.S. Some 3rd-party libraries may provide observables that are pre-configured to execute on a background scheduler. In that case explicitly calling .subscribeOn() is not necessary. But you need to know for sure whether this is the case.
And a recap:
normally, should I explicitly switch to a background thread when performing network requests?. - yes, unless a library does it for you
Should I, in every API request, explicitly change to background and then changes back to Main only when necessary? - yes
If so, what would be best way? [...] subscribe on background and observe on Main
You are right. Of course the actual network request, and waiting for and assembling the response, is all done on a background thread. What happens after that depends on the network layer you are using.
For example, if you are using URLSession, the response already comes back on a background thread so calling observeOn to do anything other than come back to the main thread is unnecessary and a reduction of performance. In other words, in answer to your question you don't need to change to a background thread on every request because it's done for you.
I see in the article that the author was talking in the context of Alamofire which explicitly responds on the main thread. So if you are using Alamofire, or some other networking layer that responds on the main thread, you should consider switching to a background thread if the processing of the response is expensive. If all you are doing is creating an object from the resulting dictionary and pushing it to a view the switch in context is probably overkill and could actually degrade performance considering you have already had to suffer through a context switch once.
I feel it's also important to note that calling subscribeOn is absolutely pointless for either network layer. That will only change the thread that the request is made on, not the background thread that waits for the response, nor the thread that the response returns on. The networking layer will decide what thread it uses to push the data out and subscribeOn can't change it. The best you can do is use observeOn to reroute the data flow to a different thread after the response. The subscribeOn operator is for synchronous operations, not network requests.
I am able to observe the CNContactStoreDidChangeNotification when the contact database is changed while the app is in background state. I am pretty sure that only one observer was added to NSNotificationCenter.
The problem is NSNotificationCenter posts MULTIPLE times (2, 3, 5, and even more times) even if I only add one new contact.
Where is the problem?
Make certain you aren't adding the observer multiple times. This can happen without you realizing it if (for example) you call -addObserver from -viewDidLoad or -viewDidAppear in your view controller (as these might get called more than once throughout the life of your application), or from any of the application state callbacks in your app delegate (-applicationDidBecomeActive, -applicationWillResignActive, -applicationDidEnterBackground, -applicationWillEnterForeground, etc).
Wrap the call to -addObserver in a conditional that ensures it can only be called once (set a flag), and put NSLog statements around it so you can see in the debug console if you are getting there more than once. Search your code for other calls to -addObserver that you might have forgotten about.
Call -removeObserver before adding it, just to be sure (making sure to pass the same name and object as when you added it). Calling -removeObserver on an observer that doesn't exist is okay. Note that this is more of a band-aid than a fix - your code should be smart enough to know whether or not you've already added it - but this might help you diagnose the problem).
I just wrote a quick minimal test program that adds an observer (once!) on CNContactStoreDidChangeNotification and I only get the notification once when I add or change a contact. Write a similar test program for yourself and see if you get the same result. If your test program works correctly, then it is likely that your app is doing something you don't expect (and calling -addObserver multiple times).
I had the same problem, the number of times it fired varied between 2 & 3. The solution that worked for me was to set a semaphore variable, set in the handler and reset the semaphore when finished. Wrap the address book processing in an if statement on the semaphore to ignore further calls.
addressBkSemphore is reset to false in buildFrendsAndContacts
- (void)addressBkChange:(NSNotification *)note
{
if (addressBkSemphore == false)
{
addressBkSemphore = TRUE;
[self buildFrendsAndContacts];
}
}
Hope it helps.
You can start a one time execution timer or a dispatch after few seconds and cancel it in case there's a new contacts update within those seconds, thus ensuring that only the timer or dispatch_after triggered by the last update will actually execute (taking into account that all update calls come one after the other within under a sec. difference, as far as I tested)
And btw, I could reproduce the issue only when making change to contacts on the same device with my app. If I change the contacts on another device linked to the same apple account, there was only one update.
So i've got this code that tries to find an unused upload name, using the user's email and a number at its end. It does this with a list of uploaded objects we've already collected, the user's email.(upload_name), and the
current number that might be open (it is incremented when a match is found).
The list is not sorted, and it's pretty tricky to sort for a few reasons, so I'm having the method read through the list again if it reaches the end and the upload_number has changed.
- (NSString*)findUnusedUploadNameWithPreviousUploads:(NSMutableArray*)objects withBaseUploadName:(NSString*)upload_name {
previous_upload_number = upload_number;
for (NSString *key in objects) {
// the component of the object name before the first / is the upload name.
NSLog([key componentsSeparatedByString:#"/"][1]);
if ([[key componentsSeparatedByString:#"/"][1]
isEqualToString:([NSString stringWithFormat:#"%#_%ld", S3KeyUploadName1, upload_number])]) {
upload_number++;
NSLog([NSString stringWithFormat:#"upload name: %#_%ld", S3KeyUploadName1, upload_number]);
}
NSLog(#"pang");
}
NSLog(#"ping");
if (previous_upload_number == upload_number) {
return [NSString stringWithFormat:#"%#%ld", upload_name, upload_number];
}
return [self findUnusedUploadNameWithPreviousUploads:objects withBaseUploadName:upload_name];
}
The problem is, the program never reads the "ping". it just leaves the method after the first for loop is done.
Edit: No the NSlogs are fine, you can do simple string OR StringWithFormat.
Edit: Don't mind the unnecessary use of recursion, I did this because the simple way was having the same problem and i wanted to see if a different (albeit unnecessarily recursive) way would share that problem. It does.
Edit: I set a breakpoint in the for loop, and I set a break point at the "ping". It does not reach the ping. It completes the for loop and the ditches the whole thing.
Edit: Please try to help me figure out why it's exiting the the method immediately after the for loop. I'm aware this is stylistically meh, and I promise I'll make it shiny and spotless when it works. =]
Edit: to be clear, the method DOES exit. it does so early I know this because the rest of the program following this method (which is not threaded such that it wouldn't have to wait for it) runs AFTER this for loop, consistently.
There are a couple of possible explanations for the described behavior:
The method never exits. For some reason it blocks or performs infinitely somewhere in the loop. Make sure this is not the case by setting a breakpoint after the place where the message is called (i.e. the place to where it should return).
The method, or some method it calls, throws an exception. While seldom and unsupported in productive Cocoa code it could be some misbehaving 3rd party library or just a simple programmer error, where Cocoa actually does throw. Make sure this does not happen by setting an exception breakpoint in Xcode.
Undefined behavior. This is, sadly, part of official C and heavily exploited by modern compilers. It basically means: Anything can happen, if there's something in your code, where the standard says that the behavior is not defined. One example would be accessing a deallocated object. Another fine reason of undefined behavior can be threads accessing common data in an unsynchronized way.
Other than exceptions there's no explanation for a method to "exit early". If you still can't find the reason I suggest you invest some time to learn the debugger. Single stepping, like Aris suggested, might be a way to find out what's going on.
I have the following code below that loops through an array. I need to check if the finish or fail selector has been called iterating to the next object in my dataArray.
for (id object in dataArray) {
[client setDidFinishSelector:#selector(getDataFinish:)];
[client setDidFailSelector:#selector(getDataFail:)];
[client getData:object];
}
In my getDataFinish method I assign values and I am trying to keep it in order. If I use the above method, the values can get out of order since the client response time can be different for each request..
I see two possible solutions, depending on what you're actually trying to do. It sounds like you're making calls to the internet, so yes you will get varied response time (or no response at all). Because of this, I would recommend using NSNotification. See this answer for more information about that.
Another option is making a flag in your code (AKA a BOOL) that you set to YES when your method has completed. Again, if you're making calls to the web I would not recommend this method as you are setting yourself up for an infinite loop if the user has no service and the BOOL never changes.
If you are still having trouble let me know and I can provide a more detailed answer.