I have an app which communicates with an ExternalAccessory over Bluetooth, there is some delay in responses so I want the IO to happen on a background thread.
I setup an NSOperationQueue for single-threaded operation to enqueue my requests:
self.sessionQueue = [NSOperationQueue new];
self.sessionQueue.maxConcurrentOperationCount = 1;
If I schedule reads and writes to the EAAccessory streams from that queue, my app crashes because data from the socket can't be delivered without an NSRunLoop on the thread that the queue is using. Immediately after initializing the queue, I create a run loop with an empty NSMachPort to keep it running and start it:
[self.sessionQueue addOperationWithBlock:^{
NSRunLoop* queueLoop = [NSRunLoop currentRunLoop];
[queueLoop addPort:[NSMachPort port] forMode:NSRunLoopCommonModes];
[queueLoop run]; // <- this blocks
}];
This blocks the queue as the run loop will never exit, but I'm not sure how to correctly manage the run loop so that I can successfully read from the accessory streams.
You shouldn't try to run a run loop inside an NSOperation. Grand Central Dispatch owns the thread on which the operation is running. You should start your own thread and use its run loop for your session streams.
However, you need to be aware that NSRunLoop is not generally thread safe, but CFRunLoop is. This means that you need to drop down to the CFRunLoop level when you want to run a block on your session-handling thread.
Also, the only way to get a reference to a background thread's run loop is to run something on that background thread. So step one is to create your own NSThread subclass that exports its own run loop:
typedef void (^MyThreadStartCallback)(CFRunLoopRef runLoop);
#interface MyThread: NSThread
/// After I'm started, I dispatch to the main queue to call `callback`,
// passing my runloop. Then I destroy my reference to `callback`.
- (instancetype)initWithCallback:(MyThreadStartCallback)callback;
#end
#implementation MyThread {
MyThreadStartCallback _callback;
}
- (instancetype)initWithCallback:(MyThreadStartCallback)callback {
if (self = [super init]) {
_callback = callback;
}
return self;
}
- (void)main {
CFRunLoopRef runLoop = CFRunLoopGetCurrent();
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
_callback(runLoop);
});
_callback = nil;
CFRunLoopRun();
}
#end
Now you can create an instance of MyThread, passing in a callback. When you start MyThread, it will make that callback run back on the main thread, and it will pass its own (MyThread's) run loop to the callback. So you can use a MyThread as your session-handling thread, like this:
#implementation Thing {
CFRunLoopRef _sessionRunLoop;
}
- (void)scheduleStreamsOfSession:(EASession *)session {
MyThread *thread = [[MyThread alloc] initWithCallback:^(CFRunLoopRef runLoop) {
// Here I'm on the main thread, but the session-handling thread has
// started running and its run loop is `runLoop`.
[self scheduleStreamsOfSession:session inRunLoop:runLoop];
}];
[thread start];
}
- (void)scheduleStreamsOfSession:(EASession *)session inRunLoop:(CFRunLoopRef)runLoop {
// Here I'm on the main thread. I'll save away the session-handling run loop
// so I can run more blocks on it later, perhaps to queue data for writing
// to the output stream.
_sessionRunLoop = runLoop;
NSInputStream *inputStream = session.inputStream;
NSOutputStream *outputStream = session.outputStream;
// Here I'm on the main thread, where it's not safe to use the
// session-handling thread's NSRunLoop, so I'll send a block to
// the session-handling thread.
CFRunLoopPerformBlock(runLoop, kCFRunLoopCommonModes, ^{
// Here I'm on the session-handling thread, where it's safe to
// use NSRunLoop to schedule the streams.
NSRunLoop *currentRunLoop = [NSRunLoop currentRunLoop];
[inputStream scheduleInRunLoop:currentRunLoop forMode:NSRunLoopCommonModes];
[outputStream scheduleInRunLoop:currentRunLoop forMode:NSRunLoopCommonModes];
});
// CFRunLoopPerformBlock does **not** wake up the run loop. Since I want
// to make sure the block runs as soon as possible, I have to wake up the
// run loop manually:
CFRunLoopWakeUp(_sessionRunLoop);
}
#end
Any thread can have an NSRunLoop created for it if needed, the main thread of any Cocoa or AppKit application has one running by default and any secondary threads must run them programmatically. If you were spawning an NSThread the thread body would be responsible for starting the NSRunLoop but an NSOperationQueue creates it's own thread or threads and dispatches operations to them.
When using an API which expects an NSRunLoop to deliver events to and from a background thread, either of your own creation, or one that libdispatch has created, you are responsible for making sure the NSRunLoop is run. Typically you will want to run the loop until some condition is met in each of your NSBlockOperation tasks, I wrote a category on NSRunLoop which simplifies this:
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#interface NSRunLoop (Conditional)
-(BOOL)runWhileCondition:(BOOL *)condition inMode:(NSString *)mode inIntervals:(NSTimeInterval) quantum;
#end
#pragma mark -
#implementation NSRunLoop (Conditional)
-(BOOL)runWhileCondition:(BOOL *)condition inMode:(NSString *)mode inIntervals:(NSTimeInterval) quantum {
BOOL didRun = NO;
BOOL shouldRun = YES;
NSPort *dummyPort = [NSMachPort port];
[self addPort:dummyPort forMode:NSDefaultRunLoopMode];
while (shouldRun) {
#autoreleasepool {
didRun = [self runMode:NSDefaultRunLoopMode beforeDate:[NSDate dateWithTimeIntervalSinceNow:quantum]];
shouldRun = (didRun ? *condition : NO);
}
}
[self removePort:dummyPort forMode:NSDefaultRunLoopMode];
return didRun;
}
#end
With this condition you can schedule an NSBlockOperation which will start the run loop and run until the specified condition is NO:
__block BOOL streamOperationInProgress = YES;
[self.sessionQueue addOperationWithBlock:^{
NSRunLoop *queueLoop = [NSRunLoop currentRunLoop];
NSStream *someStream = // from somewhere...
[someStream setDelegate:self];
[someStream scheduleInRunLoop:queueLoop forMode:NSDefaultRunLoopMode]:
// the delegate implementation of stream:handleEvent:
// sets streamOperationInProgress = NO;
[queueLoop
runWhileCondition:&streamOperationInProgress
inMode:NSDefaultRunLoopMode
inIntervals:0.001];
}];
The wrinkle in the above example is putting the BOOL someplace that the delegate can set it to NO when the operation is complete.
Here's a gist of the NSRunLoop+Condition category.
all.
i have test codes as below:
- (void)viewDidLoad
{
[super viewDidLoad];
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:#selector(test) toTarget:self withObject:nil];
}
-(void)test
{
MyClass *obj = [[[MyClass alloc] init] autorelease];
NSLog(#"%#",[my description]);
}
i create a autorelease object in NSThread's method but no user-created autoreleasepool.
when NSThread exit,obj just dealloced(i have a breakpoint int method delloc).
why? dose NSThread create it's own autoreleasepool by itself？
I think it is that.
normally you need to create a autoreleasepoll,because you may need your thread to be always runing,if you dont create a autoreleasepoll,memory using will increase all the time.
but in your code,you just run a method in another thread, after run it, the thread exit.so the memory that used in the thread are all released.
Sorry, it's a bit wordy, but I wanted to make sure I was clear! ;-)
I have an iOS app that uses FFMPEG for streaming RTSP. I've multi-threaded FFMPEG using NSOperationQueue such that most its work, other than painting the image to the screen, of course, happens in background threads.
Works great! ...except for the fact that threads the NSOperationQueue creates never die!
I init the Queue in the class' init method with:
self->opQ = [[NSOperationQueue alloc] init];
[self->opQ setMaxConcurrentOperationCount:1];
I add methods to the Queue using blocks:
[self->opQ addOperationWithBlock:^{
[self haveConnectedSuccessfullyOperation];
}];
Or
[self->opQ addOperationWithBlock:^{
if (SOME_CONDITION) {
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(DO_SOME_CRAP) withObject:nil waitUntilDone:NO];
}
}];
Later, when I need to tear down the RTSP stream, in addition to telling FFMPEG to shut down, I call:
[self->opQ cancelAllOperations];
Which does indeed stop the threads from doing any work , but never actually destroys them. Below, you'll see a screen shot of threads that are doing nothing at all. This is what my threads look like after starting/stoping FFMPEG several times.
I seem to remember reading in Apple's documentation that NSOperations and the threads they are run on are destroyed once they are done executing, unless otherwise referenced. This doesn't appear to be the case.
Do I just need to destroy the NSOperationQueue, then re-init it when I need to start up FFMPEG again (I just realized I haven't tried this)? Anyone know how I need to kill these extra threads?
THANKS!
I solved it by creating NSBlockOperations so that I could monitor the isCancelled state, while also making the new NSBlockOperations' content more intelligent, such that I simplified the routine that would add the operations to the queue.
... Plus, I made an NSOperationQueue n00b mistake: I was adding operations to the queue on a looping basis, which fired up to 30 times per second (matching the video's frame rate). Now, however, the operation is added to the queue only once and the looping behavior is contained within the operation instead of having the loop add the operation to the queue.
Previously, I had something like this (pseudo code, since I don't have the project with me):
NSTimer *frameRateTimeout = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:1/DESIRED_FRAMES_PER_SECOND target:self selector:#selector(ADD_OPERATION_TO_QUEUE_METHOD:) userInfo:nil repeats:YES];
-(void)ADD_OPERATION_TO_QUEUE_METHOD:(NSTimer *)timer {
[opQ addOperation:displayFrame];
}
Which worked well, as the OS would correctly manage the queue, but it was not very efficient, and kept those threads alive forever.
Now, it's more like:
-(id)init {
self = [super init];
if (self) {
// alloc/init operation queue
...
// alloc/init 'displayFrame'
displayFrame = [NSBlockOperation blockOperationWithBlock:^{
while (SOME_CONDITION && ![displayFrame isCancelled]) {
if (playVideo) {
// DO STUFF
[NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:FRAME_RATE];
}
else { // teardown stream
// DO STUFF
break;
}
}
}];
}
return self;
}
- (void)Some_method_called_after_getting_video_ready_to_play {
[opQ addOperation:displayFrame];
}
Thanks, Jacob Relkin, for responding to my post.
If anyone needs further clarification, let me know, and I'll post better code once I have the project in my hands again.
I am creating a new Thread which runs one of my method:
Now what i am doing is as follows:
NSThread *thread = [[NSThread alloc] initWithTarget:self selector:#selector(myThreadFunc) object:nil];
[thread start];
in myThreadFunc
{
while(isRunning){
[self updateSomething];
[NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:3.0];
}
NSLog(#"out");
}
In another func,i set isRunning = NO and thread = nil or [thread cancel] but myThreadFunc is sleeping so thread cannot exit.
How can i control this case?
Thanks so much.
Don't use a thread. Use a timer. If the something is expensive, dispatch it off to some queue other than the main queue and set some state variable to show it's still running (if the something isn't meant to run concurrently). Then, just cancel your timer. A simple example of the timer call-back function might be:
- (void)doSomething:(NSTimer*)timer
{
// this assumes that this "something" only ever
// runs once at a time no matter what, adjust this
// to an ivar if it's per-class instance or something
static BOOL alreadyDoingSomething = NO;
if( alreadyDoingSomething ) return;
alreadyDoingSomething = YES;
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
[self updateSomething];
alreadyDoingSomething = NO;
});
}
Now, if you simply cancel the timer, this will stop running. When you're ready to start it again, schedule a new timer with this method as the designated selector. To make this behave similar to your example above, you might set the timer interval to three seconds.
If you are an advanced user of drawRect, you will know that of course drawRect will not actually run until "all processing is finished."
setNeedsDisplay flags a view as invalidated and the OS, and basically waits until all processing is done. This can be infuriating in the common situation where you want to have:
a view controller 1
starts some function 2
which incrementally 3
creates a more and more complicated artwork and 4
at each step, you setNeedsDisplay (wrong!) 5
until all the work is done 6
Of course, when you do the above 1-6, all that happens is that drawRect is run once only after step 6.
Your goal is for the view to be refreshed at point 5. What to do?
If I understand your question correctly, there is a simple solution to this. During your long-running routine you need to tell the current runloop to process for a single iteration (or more, of the runloop) at certain points in your own processing. e.g, when you want to update the display. Any views with dirty update regions will have their drawRect: methods called when you run the runloop.
To tell the current runloop to process for one iteration (and then return to you...):
[[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] runMode: NSDefaultRunLoopMode beforeDate: [NSDate date]];
Here's an example of an (inefficient) long running routine with a corresponding drawRect - each in the context of a custom UIView:
- (void) longRunningRoutine:(id)sender
{
srand( time( NULL ) );
CGFloat x = 0;
CGFloat y = 0;
[_path moveToPoint: CGPointMake(0, 0)];
for ( int j = 0 ; j < 1000 ; j++ )
{
x = 0;
y = (CGFloat)(rand() % (int)self.bounds.size.height);
[_path addLineToPoint: CGPointMake( x, y)];
y = 0;
x = (CGFloat)(rand() % (int)self.bounds.size.width);
[_path addLineToPoint: CGPointMake( x, y)];
x = self.bounds.size.width;
y = (CGFloat)(rand() % (int)self.bounds.size.height);
[_path addLineToPoint: CGPointMake( x, y)];
y = self.bounds.size.height;
x = (CGFloat)(rand() % (int)self.bounds.size.width);
[_path addLineToPoint: CGPointMake( x, y)];
[self setNeedsDisplay];
[[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] runMode: NSDefaultRunLoopMode beforeDate: [NSDate date]];
}
[_path removeAllPoints];
}
- (void) drawRect:(CGRect)rect
{
CGContextRef ctx = UIGraphicsGetCurrentContext();
CGContextSetFillColorWithColor( ctx, [UIColor blueColor].CGColor );
CGContextFillRect( ctx, rect);
CGContextSetStrokeColorWithColor( ctx, [UIColor whiteColor].CGColor );
[_path stroke];
}
And here is a fully working sample demonstrating this technique.
With some tweaking you can probably adjust this to make the rest of the UI (i.e. user-input) responsive as well.
Update (caveat for using this technique)
I just want to say that I agree with much of the feedback from others here saying this solution (calling runMode: to force a call to drawRect:) isn't necessarily a great idea. I've answered this question with what I feel is a factual "here's how" answer to the stated question, and I am not intending to promote this as "correct" architecture. Also, I'm not saying there might not be other (better?) ways to achieve the same effect - certainly there may be other approaches that I wasn't aware of.
Update (response to the Joe's sample code and performance question)
The performance slowdown you're seeing is the overhead of running the runloop on each iteration of your drawing code, which includes rendering the layer to the screen as well as all of the other processing the runloop does such as input gathering and processing.
One option might be to invoke the runloop less frequently.
Another option might be to optimize your drawing code. As it stands (and I don't know if this is your actual app, or just your sample...) there are a handful of things you could do to make it faster. The first thing I would do is move all the UIGraphicsGet/Save/Restore code outside the loop.
From an architectural standpoint however, I would highly recommend considering some of the other approaches mentioned here. I see no reason why you can't structure your drawing to happen on a background thread (algorithm unchanged), and use a timer or other mechanism to signal the main thread to update it's UI on some frequency until the drawing is complete. I think most of the folks who've participated in the discussion would agree that this would be the "correct" approach.
Updates to the user interface happen at the end of the current pass through the run loop. These updates are performed on the main thread, so anything that runs for a long time in the main thread (lengthy calculations, etc.) will prevent the interface updates from being started. Additionally, anything that runs for a while on the main thread will also cause your touch handling to be unresponsive.
This means that there is no way to "force" a UI refresh to occur from some other point in a process running on the main thread. The previous statement is not entirely correct, as Tom's answer shows. You can allow the run loop to come to completion in the middle of operations performed on the main thread. However, this still may reduce the responsiveness of your application.
In general, it is recommended that you move anything that takes a while to perform to a background thread so that the user interface can remain responsive. However, any updates you wish to perform to the UI need to be done back on the main thread.
Perhaps the easiest way to do this under Snow Leopard and iOS 4.0+ is to use blocks, like in the following rudimentary sample:
dispatch_queue_t main_queue = dispatch_get_main_queue();
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
// Do some work
dispatch_async(main_queue, ^{
// Update the UI
});
});
The Do some work part of the above could be a lengthy calculation, or an operation that loops over multiple values. In this example, the UI is only updated at the end of the operation, but if you wanted continuous progress tracking in your UI, you could place the dispatch to the main queue where ever you needed a UI update to be performed.
For older OS versions, you can break off a background thread manually or through an NSOperation. For manual background threading, you can use
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:#selector(doWork) toTarget:self withObject:nil];
or
[self performSelectorInBackground:#selector(doWork) withObject:nil];
and then to update the UI you can use
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(updateProgress) withObject:nil waitUntilDone:NO];
Note that I've found the NO argument in the previous method to be needed to get constant UI updates while dealing with a continuous progress bar.
This sample application I created for my class illustrates how to use both NSOperations and queues for performing background work and then updating the UI when done. Also, my Molecules application uses background threads for processing new structures, with a status bar that is updated as this progresses. You can download the source code to see how I achieved this.
You can do this repeatedly in a loop and it'll work fine, no threads, no messing with the runloop, etc.
[CATransaction begin];
// modify view or views
[view setNeedsDisplay];
[CATransaction commit];
If there is an implicit transaction already in place prior to the loop you need to commit that with [CATransaction commit] before this will work.
In order to get drawRect called the soonest (which is not necessarily immediately, as the OS may still wait until, for instance, the next hardware display refresh, etc.), an app should idle it's UI run loop as soon as possible, by exiting any and all methods in the UI thread, and for a non-zero amount of time.
You can either do this in the main thread by chopping any processing that takes more than an animation frame time into shorter chunks and scheduling continuing work only after a short delay (so drawRect might run in the gaps), or by doing the processing in a background thread, with a periodic call to performSelectorOnMainThread to do a setNeedsDisplay at some reasonable animation frame rate.
A non-OpenGL method to update the display near immediately (which means at the very next hardware display refresh or three) is by swapping visible CALayer contents with an image or CGBitmap that you have drawn into. An app can do Quartz drawing into a Core Graphics bitmap at pretty much at any time.
New added answer:
Please see Brad Larson's comments below and Christopher Lloyd's comment on another answer here as the hint leading towards this solution.
[ CATransaction flush ];
will cause drawRect to be called on views on which a setNeedsDisplay request has been done, even if the flush is done from inside a method that is blocking the UI run loop.
Note that, when blocking the UI thread, a Core Animation flush is required to update changing CALayer contents as well. So, for animating graphic content to show progress, these may both end up being forms of the same thing.
New added note to new added answer above:
Do not flush faster than your drawRect or animation drawing can complete, as this might queue up flushes, causing weird animation effects.
Without questioning the wisdom of this (which you ought to do), you can do:
[myView setNeedsDisplay];
[[myView layer] displayIfNeeded];
-setNeedsDisplay will mark the view as needing to be redrawn.
-displayIfNeeded will force the view's backing layer to redraw, but only if it has been marked as needing to be displayed.
I will emphasize, however, that your question is indicative of an architecture that could use some re-working. In all but exceptionally rare cases, you should never need to or want to force a view to redraw immediately. UIKit with not built with that use-case in mind, and if it works, consider yourself lucky.
Have you tried doing the heavy processing on a secondary thread and calling back to the main thread to schedule view updates? NSOperationQueue makes this sort of thing pretty easy.
Sample code that takes an array of NSURLs as input and asynchronously downloads them all, notifying the main thread as each of them is finished and saved.
- (void)fetchImageWithURLs:(NSArray *)urlArray {
[self.retriveAvatarQueue cancelAllOperations];
self.retriveAvatarQueue = nil;
NSOperationQueue *opQueue = [[NSOperationQueue alloc] init];
for (NSUInteger i=0; i<[urlArray count]; i++) {
NSURL *url = [urlArray objectAtIndex:i];
NSInvocation *inv = [NSInvocation invocationWithMethodSignature:[self methodSignatureForSelector:#selector(cacheImageWithIndex:andURL:)]];
[inv setTarget:self];
[inv setSelector:#selector(cacheImageWithIndex:andURL:)];
[inv setArgument:&i atIndex:2];
[inv setArgument:&url atIndex:3];
NSInvocationOperation *invOp = [[NSInvocationOperation alloc] initWithInvocation:inv];
[opQueue addOperation:invOp];
[invOp release];
}
self.retriveAvatarQueue = opQueue;
[opQueue release];
}
- (void)cacheImageWithIndex:(NSUInteger)index andURL:(NSURL *)url {
NSData *imageData = [NSData dataWithContentsOfURL:url];
NSFileManager *fileManager = [NSFileManager defaultManager];
NSString *filePath = PATH_FOR_IMG_AT_INDEX(index);
NSError *error = nil;
// Save the file
if (![fileManager createFileAtPath:filePath contents:imageData attributes:nil]) {
DLog(#"Error saving file at %#", filePath);
}
// Notifiy the main thread that our file is saved.
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(imageLoadedAtPath:) withObject:filePath waitUntilDone:NO];
}
I think, the most complete answer comes from the Jeffrey Sambell's blog post 'Asynchronous Operations in iOS with Grand Central Dispatch' and it worked for me!
It's basically the same solution as proposed by Brad above but fully explained in terms of OSX/IOS concurrency model.
The dispatch_get_current_queue function will return the current queue
from which the block is dispatched and the dispatch_get_main_queue
function will return the main queue where your UI is running.
The dispatch_get_main_queue function is very useful for updating the
iOS app’s UI as UIKit methods are not thread safe (with a few
exceptions) so any calls you make to update UI elements must always be
done from the main queue.
A typical GCD call would look something like this:
// Doing something on the main thread
dispatch_queue_t myQueue = dispatch_queue_create("My Queue",NULL);
dispatch_async(myQueue, ^{
// Perform long running process
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
// Update the UI
});
});
// Continue doing other stuff on the
// main thread while process is running.
And here goes my working example (iOS 6+). It displays frames of a stored video using the AVAssetReader class:
//...prepare the AVAssetReader* asset_reader earlier and start reading frames now:
[asset_reader startReading];
dispatch_queue_t readerQueue = dispatch_queue_create("Reader Queue", NULL);
dispatch_async(readerQueue, ^{
CMSampleBufferRef buffer;
while ( [asset_reader status]==AVAssetReaderStatusReading )
{
buffer = [asset_reader_output copyNextSampleBuffer];
if (buffer!=nil)
{
//The point is here: to use the main queue for actual UI operations
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
// Update the UI using the AVCaptureVideoDataOutputSampleBufferDelegate style function
[self captureOutput:nil didOutputSampleBuffer:buffer fromConnection:nil];
CFRelease (buffer);
});
}
}
});
The first part of this sample may be found here in Damian's answer.
I'd like to offer a clean solution to the given problem.
I agree with other posters that in an ideal situation all the heavy lifting should be done in a background thread, however there are times when this simply isn't possible because the time consuming part requires lots of accessing to non thread-safe methods such as those offered by UIKit. In my case, initialising my UI is time consuming and there's nothing I can run in the background, so my best option is to update a progress bar during the init.
However, once we think in terms of the ideal GCD approach, the solution is actually a simple. We do all the work in a background thread, dividing it into chucks that are called synchronously on the main thread. The run loop will be run for each chuck, updating the UI and any progress bars etc.
- (void)myInit
{
// Start the work in a background thread.
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(0, 0), ^{
// Back to the main thread for a chunk of code
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
...
// Update progress bar
self.progressIndicator.progress = ...:
});
// Next chunk
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
...
// Update progress bar
self.progressIndicator.progress = ...:
});
...
});
}
Of course, this is essentially the same as Brad's technique, but his answer doesn't quite address the issue at hand - that of running a lot of non thread safe code while updating the UI periodically.
Joe -- if you are willing to set it up so that your lengthy processing all happens inside of drawRect, you can make it work. I just wrote a test project. It works. See code below.
LengthyComputationTestAppDelegate.h:
#import <UIKit/UIKit.h>
#interface LengthyComputationTestAppDelegate : NSObject <UIApplicationDelegate> {
UIWindow *window;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) IBOutlet UIWindow *window;
#end
LengthComputationTestAppDelegate.m:
#import "LengthyComputationTestAppDelegate.h"
#import "Incrementer.h"
#import "IncrementerProgressView.h"
#implementation LengthyComputationTestAppDelegate
#synthesize window;
#pragma mark -
#pragma mark Application lifecycle
- (BOOL)application:(UIApplication *)application didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:(NSDictionary *)launchOptions {
// Override point for customization after application launch.
IncrementerProgressView *ipv = [[IncrementerProgressView alloc]initWithFrame:self.window.bounds];
[self.window addSubview:ipv];
[ipv release];
[self.window makeKeyAndVisible];
return YES;
}
Incrementer.h:
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
//singleton object
#interface Incrementer : NSObject {
NSUInteger theInteger_;
}
#property (nonatomic) NSUInteger theInteger;
+(Incrementer *) sharedIncrementer;
-(NSUInteger) incrementForTimeInterval: (NSTimeInterval) timeInterval;
-(BOOL) finishedIncrementing;
incrementer.m:
#import "Incrementer.h"
#implementation Incrementer
#synthesize theInteger = theInteger_;
static Incrementer *inc = nil;
-(void) increment {
theInteger_++;
}
-(BOOL) finishedIncrementing {
return (theInteger_>=100000000);
}
-(NSUInteger) incrementForTimeInterval: (NSTimeInterval) timeInterval {
NSTimeInterval negativeTimeInterval = -1*timeInterval;
NSDate *startDate = [NSDate date];
while (!([self finishedIncrementing]) && [startDate timeIntervalSinceNow] > negativeTimeInterval)
[self increment];
return self.theInteger;
}
-(id) init {
if (self = [super init]) {
self.theInteger = 0;
}
return self;
}
#pragma mark --
#pragma mark singleton object methods
+ (Incrementer *) sharedIncrementer {
#synchronized(self) {
if (inc == nil) {
inc = [[Incrementer alloc]init];
}
}
return inc;
}
+ (id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone {
#synchronized(self) {
if (inc == nil) {
inc = [super allocWithZone:zone];
return inc; // assignment and return on first allocation
}
}
return nil; // on subsequent allocation attempts return nil
}
- (id)copyWithZone:(NSZone *)zone
{
return self;
}
- (id)retain {
return self;
}
- (unsigned)retainCount {
return UINT_MAX; // denotes an object that cannot be released
}
- (void)release {
//do nothing
}
- (id)autorelease {
return self;
}
#end
IncrementerProgressView.m:
#import "IncrementerProgressView.h"
#implementation IncrementerProgressView
#synthesize progressLabel = progressLabel_;
#synthesize nextUpdateTimer = nextUpdateTimer_;
-(id) initWithFrame:(CGRect)frame {
if (self = [super initWithFrame: frame]) {
progressLabel_ = [[UILabel alloc]initWithFrame:CGRectMake(20, 40, 300, 30)];
progressLabel_.font = [UIFont systemFontOfSize:26];
progressLabel_.adjustsFontSizeToFitWidth = YES;
progressLabel_.textColor = [UIColor blackColor];
[self addSubview:progressLabel_];
}
return self;
}
-(void) drawRect:(CGRect)rect {
[self.nextUpdateTimer invalidate];
Incrementer *shared = [Incrementer sharedIncrementer];
NSUInteger progress = [shared incrementForTimeInterval: 0.1];
self.progressLabel.text = [NSString stringWithFormat:#"Increments performed: %d", progress];
if (![shared finishedIncrementing])
self.nextUpdateTimer = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:0. target:self selector:(#selector(setNeedsDisplay)) userInfo:nil repeats:NO];
}
- (void)dealloc {
[super dealloc];
}
#end
Regarding the original issue:
In a word, you can (A) background the large painting, and call to the foreground for UI updates or (B) arguably controversially there are four 'immediate' methods suggested that do not use a background process. For the result of what works, run the demo program. It has #defines for all five methods.
Alternately per Tom Swift
Tom Swift has explained the amazing idea of quite simply manipulating the run loop. Here's how you trigger the run loop:
[[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] runMode: NSDefaultRunLoopMode beforeDate: [NSDate date]];
This is a truly amazing piece of engineering. Of course one should be extremely careful when manipulating the run loop and as many pointed out this approach is strictly for experts.
However, a bizarre problem arises ...
Even though a number of the methods work, they don't actually "work" because there is a bizarre progressive-slow-down artifact you will see clearly in the demo.
Scroll to the 'answer' I pasted in below, showing the console output - you can see how it progressively slows.
Here's the new SO question:
Mysterious "progressive slowing" problem in run loop / drawRect
Here is V2 of the demo app...
http://www.fileswap.com/dl/p8lU3gAi/stepwiseDrawingV2.zip.html
You will see it tests all five methods,
#ifdef TOMSWIFTMETHOD
[self setNeedsDisplay];
[[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop]
runMode:NSDefaultRunLoopMode beforeDate:[NSDate date]];
#endif
#ifdef HOTPAW
[self setNeedsDisplay];
[CATransaction flush];
#endif
#ifdef LLOYDMETHOD
[CATransaction begin];
[self setNeedsDisplay];
[CATransaction commit];
#endif
#ifdef DDLONG
[self setNeedsDisplay];
[[self layer] displayIfNeeded];
#endif
#ifdef BACKGROUNDMETHOD
// here, the painting is being done in the bg, we have been
// called here in the foreground to inval
[self setNeedsDisplay];
#endif
You can see for yourself which methods work and which do not.
you can see the bizarre "progressive-slow-down". Why does it happen?
you can see with the controversial TOMSWIFT method, there is actually no problem at all with responsiveness. tap for response at any time (but still the bizarre "progressive-slow-down" problem)
So the overwhelming thing is this weird "progressive-slow-down": on each iteration, for unknown reasons, the time taken for a loop decreases. Note that this applies to both doing it "properly" (background look) or using one of the 'immediate' methods.
Practical solutions?
For anyone reading in the future, if you are actually unable to get this to work in production code because of the "mystery progressive slowdown", Felz and Void have each presented astounding solutions in the other specific question.