What is the difference among NSString alloc:initWithCString versus stringWithUTF8String? - sqlite

I thought these two methods were (memory allocation-wise) equivalent, however, I was seeing "out of scope" and "NSCFString" in the debugger if I used what I thought was the convenient method (commented out below) and when I switched to the more explicit method my code stopped crashing! Notice that I am getting the string that is being stored in my container from sqlite3 query.
p = (char*) sqlite3_column_text (queryStmt, 1);
// GUID = (NSString*) [NSString stringWithUTF8String: (p!=NULL) ? p : ""];
GUID = [[NSString alloc] initWithCString:(p!=NULL) ? p : "" encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];
Also note, that if I looked at the values in the debugger and printed them with NSLog they looked correct, however, I don't think new memory was allocated and the value copied. Instead the memory pointer was stored - went out of scope - referenced later - crash!

If you need to keep a reference to an object around after a method returns, then you need to take ownership of the object. So, if your variable GUID is an instance variable or some kind of global, you will need to take ownership of the object. If you use the alloc/init method, you have ownership of the object returned since you used alloc. You could just as easily use the stringWithUTF8String: method, but you will need to take ownership explicitly by sending a retain message. So, assuming GUID is some kind of non-method-scoped variable:
GUID = [[NSString stringWithUTF8String:"Some UTF-8 string"] copy];
(either copy or retain can be used here to take ownership, but copy is more common when dealing with strings).
Also, your code may be a little easier to read if you did something like:
GUID = p ? [[NSString stringWithUTF8String:p] copy] : #"";

Related

Kotlin Bundle.putString not explicitly adding "String" but instead is "String?"

val args = Bundle()
args.putString("type", details.type)
navigator.navigate(context!!, findNavController(), Destination.TYPE, args)
I am quite confused as to why in the receiving fragment when I go to access the arguments I have passed through it is responding with...
val type: String = arguments.getString("type")
The arguments.getString is all underlined red and says "Required String Found String?" But how when I called method "putString"?!?
It is resulting in text not being rendered in the new fragment and I assume this is a nullability issue.
It's a matter of knowledge that is available in the receiving Fragment.
The Fragment is not aware of how its arguments were created (or modified) so it has to assume the "type" key you're looking for might not be in the arguments Bundle. That's why it returns a nullable (String?) result (the null value would mean absent in arguments).
Your fragment might be created in many places in your app and its arguments might have been modified in many places. We have no way of tracking that.
There are different solutions for this problem, depending on your approach in other parts of the code and how "confident" you are in creating of your Fragment.
I would usually choose a solution in which I assume setting the type is mandatory. Therefore if the type is absent - I fail fast. That would mean the Fragment was misused.
val type: String = arguments!!.getString("type")!!
The code above will crash if either:
a) arguments weren't set, or
b) String with type wasn't put in the arguments Bundle.
You are right, that is a : null ability issue.
First you should be sure if you are expecting a value, so try adding "?" or "!!", i would recommend "?", or go with the block of if {} else
To read the string safely you can use:
val type: String = arguments?.getString("type").orEmpty()
The orEmpty call at the end ensures that a valid String is returned even if either arguments or getString() returns null.
The method signature for getString() returns a nullable String. This is because at compile time, the compiler can't know if the value exists in the bundle or not. You will have the same issue when retrieving anything from any Map.
If you know for certain that the value in the bundle or map should exist at the time you call getString(), you can use the !! operator. That's what it's there for. When you know something should always be there, it is appropriate to want an exception to be thrown (in this case KNPE) if it's not there so you can easily find any programming error during testing.
isEmpty() or ?.let aren't helpful in this particular case because they would just be masking a programming error and making it harder to discover or debug.

Read Request Body in ASP.NET

How does one read the request body in ASP.NET? I'm using the REST Client add-on for Firefox to form a GET request for a resource on a site I'm hosting locally, and in the Request Body I'm just putting the string "test" to try to read it on the server.
In the server code (which is a very simple MVC action) I have this:
var reader = new StreamReader(Request.InputStream);
var inputString = reader.ReadToEnd();
But when I debug into it, inputString is always empty. I'm not sure how else (such as in FireBug) to confirm that the request body is indeed being sent properly, I guess I'm just assuming that the add-on is doing that correctly. Maybe I'm reading the value incorrectly?
Maybe I'm misremembering my schooling, but I think GET requests don't actually have a body. This page states.
The HTML specifications technically define the difference between "GET" and "POST" so that former means that form data is to be encoded (by a browser) into a URL while the latter means that the form data is to appear within a message body.
So maybe you're doing things correctly, but you have to POST data in order to have a message body?
Update
In response to your comment, the most "correct" RESTful way would be to send each of the values as its own parameter:
site.com/MyController/MyAction?id=1&id=2&id=3...
Then your action will auto-bind these if you give it an array parameter by the same name:
public ActionResult MyAction(int[] id) {...}
Or if you're a masochist you can maybe try pulling the values out of Request.QueryString one at a time.
I was recently reminded of this old question, and wanted to add another answer for completeness based on more recent implementations in my own work.
For reference, I've blogged on the subject recently.
Essentially, the heart of this question was, "How can I pass larger and more complex search criteria to a resource to GET a filtered list of objects?" And it ended up boiling down to two choices:
A bunch of GET query string parameters
A POST with a DTO in the request body
The first option isn't ideal, because implementation is ugly and the URL will likely exceed a maximum length at some point. The second option, while functional, just didn't sit right with me in a "RESTful" sense. After all, I'm GETting data, right?
However, keep in mind that I'm not just GETting data. I'm creating a list of objects. Each object already exists, but the list itself doesn't. It's a brand new thing, created by issuing search/filter criteria to the complete repository of objects on the server. (After all, remember that a collection of objects is still, itself, an object.)
It's a purely semantic difference, but a decidedly important one. Because, at its simplest, it means I can comfortably use POST to issue these search criteria to the server. The response is data which I receive, so I'm "getting" data. But I'm not "GETting" data in the sense that I'm actually performing an act of creation, creating a new instance of a list of objects which happens to be composed of pre-existing elements.
I'll fully admit that the limitation was never technical, it was just semantic. It just never "sat right" with me. A non-technical problem demands a non-technical solution, in this case a semantic one. Looking at the problem from a slightly different semantic viewpoint resulted in a much cleaner solution, which happened to be the solution I ended up using in the first place.
Aside from the GET/POST issue, I did discover that you need to set the Request.InputStream position back to the start. Thanks to this answer I found.
Specifically the comment
Request.InputStream // make sure to reset the Position after reading or later reads may fail
Which I translated into
Request.InputStream.Seek(0,0)
I would try using the HttpClient (available via Nuget) for doing this type of thing. Its so much easier than the System.Net objects
Direct reading from the Request.InputStream dangerous because when re-reading will get null even if the data exists. This is verified in practice.
Reliable reading is performed as follows:
/*Returns a string representing the content of the body
of the HTTP-request.*/
public static string GetFromBodyString(this HttpRequestBase request)
{
string result = string.Empty;
if (request == null || request.InputStream == null)
return result;
request.InputStream.Position = 0;
/*create a new thread in the memory to save the original
source form as may be required to read many of the
body of the current HTTP- request*/
using (MemoryStream memoryStream = new MemoryStream())
{
request.InputStream.CopyToMemoryStream(memoryStream);
using (StreamReader streamReader = new StreamReader(memoryStream))
{
result = streamReader.ReadToEnd();
}
}
return result;
}
/*Copies bytes from the given stream MemoryStream and writes
them to another stream.*/
public static void CopyToMemoryStream(this Stream source, MemoryStream destination)
{
if (source.CanSeek)
{
int pos = (int)destination.Position;
int length = (int)(source.Length - source.Position) + pos;
destination.SetLength(length);
while (pos < length)
pos += source.Read(destination.GetBuffer(), pos, length - pos);
}
else
source.CopyTo((Stream)destination);
}

Qt: function returns object, putting it into a pointer

Hopefully this isn't too stupid but I want to make sure I'm doing this right.
Some Qt functions return Qt objects as values, but we may want to store them in a pointer somewhere. For example, in QDomDocument, the function documentElement returns a QDomElement, not a pointer to it. Now, as a member of my class I have:
QDomElement *listRootElement;
In a function that sets things up I am using this:
listRootElement = new QDomElement;
*listRootElement = mainIndex->documentElement();
(mainIndex is a QDomDocument.)
This seems to work, but I just want to make sure I'm doing it right and that nothing will come back to bite me.
It would be very similar for some of the image functions where a QPixmap might be returned, and I want to maintain pointers to QPixMap's.
Thanks for any comments!
Assuming that you want to store a pointer to a QDomElement for some reason, and assuming that you aware of the potential pitfalls with pointers (like, two pointers might point to the same object):
The only thing to keep in mind is that the popular 'parent takes care of deleting children' system which Qt uses is only available for QObject (sub-)classes. So when new'ing a QString or a QDomElement or something like that, keep in mind that you do have to delete it yourself, too.
I'm guessing, but I think this:
listRootElement = new QDomElement(mainIndex->documentElement());
...may allow the compiler to optimise better (see this question for some reasoning).
You're overwriting the initially allocated object:
QDomElement *listRootElement; // undefined ptr value, I'd prefer null or new right away
listRootElement = new QDomElement;
*listRootElement = mainIndex->documentElement();
You're essentially doing:
int *x = new int(42);
*x = 47;
This works because both QDomElement and int implements the assignment operator (=).
Note that there's no need to delete anything, as the returned temporary is copied into your newly allocated object.

Constant NSString release

NSString *string = #"hello";
1) I keep reading that constant NSString does not get released, but this Apple page mentions:
the compiler makes such object
constants unique on a per-module
basis, and they’re never deallocated,
though you can retain and release them
as you do any other object.
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/cocoa/conceptual/strings/Articles/CreatingStrings.html
2) If constant NSString does not get released, would it cause memory problems if used extensively? For example, is this a problem if repeated thousands of times:
NSString *string = #"One";
...
string = #"two";
...
string = #"three";
...
what's a good alternative?
Constant strings are part of you app's binary.
So, you do not need to worry about memory management, as they exist through all the execution and can not be released.

Actionscript - is it better to cast or create a new variable? Or does it matter at all?

I find that in my daily Flex/Flash work, I do this number a lot:
//Calling a function...
MyCustomObject(container.getChildAt(i)).mySpecialFunction();
The question is - is this the best way to do this? Should I do this:
//Calling a function
var tempItem:MyCustomObject = container.getChildAt(i) as MyCustomObject;
tempItem.mySpecialFunction();
It might be incidental but I'm just wondering if there is an "accepted" way or a preferred way to do this. The second option seems more readable but I wonder if it takes more of a performance hit to create a new variable. Or does it all come down to style and preference?
It's important to remember that there is a difference between explicit casting and using the as keyword. Casting throws an error when it fails, whereas the as keyword does not (it just returns null).
// a casting error
try {
var number:int = 666;
var urlreq:URLRequest = URLRequest( number );
} catch(e:TypeError) {
// TypeError: Error #1034: Type Coercion failed: cannot
// convert 666 to flash.net.URLRequest.
trace(e);
}
Whereas the as keyword fails silently:
var number:int = 666;
var urlreq:URLRequest = number as URLRequest;
trace(urlreq); // prints null to the debug pane
Personally, I bear these behaviours in mind when deciding method to use. Generally, I'd recommend casting explicitly, as you'll know exactly how/when a cast failed. Often, though, you might want to fail silently and continue.
It generally doesn't matter. Creating a var just creates a pointer to the object, so it's not using more memory or anything like that.
The second example is definitely more readable and debuggable and should thus be preferred.
The risk you run from creating temp vars is that you might delay or prevent garbage collection for that object. This generally isn't a problem when it's just a local var in a function; just keep scope in mind when you're creating vars and passing them around.
For in-depth on the subject, read Grant Skinner's series on resource management in AVM2:
http://www.gskinner.com/blog/archives/2006/06/as3_resource_ma.html
for the second example you might want to test for the nullity to avoid a NullPointerException when invoking "mySpecialFunction", e.g.
var tempItem:MyCustomObject = container.getChildAt(i) as MyCustomObject;
if ( tempItem )
{
tempItem.mySpecialFunction();
}
I usually prefer the second approach but you have to remember that you can only use the as operator for casting "Date" and "Array" types.

Resources