What is the equivalent for Vector's of Java in Objective-C?
what can i write equivalent of this in Objective-C? ***In Java: Vector getMethod();*** ***In Objective-C: ???// what can be written??? Is this correct **-(Vector)getMethod;*****
suse
2010-02-16 08:44:36
@suse - It's a bit unclear from your statement what you mean by this, but given @Jim's answer, how does `- (NSMutableArray *)getMethod;` sound?
asveikau
2010-02-16 08:51:17
hey ya.Even i tried same thing :). it solved .. thanks..
suse
2010-02-16 08:54:31
A:
The closest thing you will find is NSMutableArray, execpt that contrary to java Vector, it is not thread safe. If you do not need thread safety, NSMutableArray is nice. I suspect that if you use java vector instead of List, it is that you need thread safaty, then in objective-C, you should probably use NSArray. THe API is slightly different, since the add operation of an element to a NSArray returns a new array instance, but it is thread safe, see http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Multithreading/ThreadSafetySummary/ThreadSafetySummary.html
NSArray: http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSArray_Class/NSArray.html#//apple_ref/occ/cl/NSArray NSMutableArray: http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSMutableArray_Class/Reference/Reference.html#//apple_ref/occ/cl/NSMutableArray
tonio
2010-02-16 08:42:55
Well, calling Vector "thread safe" is exagerating: it is synchronized, but in some cases this will not be sufficient for thread safety, e.g. when iterating over the Vector
tonio
2010-02-16 08:45:11
If you're doing operations from multiple threads, why not just protect the thing with a mutex or similar? Are these tangential discussions of synchronization really the kind of detail you need to bring up to answer this question?
asveikau
2010-02-16 08:48:46
Well, I raised the synchronization thing here because if you do not pay attention to those things, then the "equivalent" thing you use has a very different behavior. Yes, protecting the whole thing with a mutex will work, but it is error prone, possibly inefficient (an efficient version requires some thought), and a good solution is already available (and it is what Vector provides in the java world: if you so not need this, use java List).
tonio
2010-02-16 09:02:25
Yes, an efficient version requires some thought, but since when does programming not require some thought? I am certain scalable concurrent use of Java's `Vector` requires some thought too. There is nothing magic about Java's `synchronized` construct, all it is doing is acquiring a per-object lock at every block marked as such, which is essentially what I meant by "protect the thing with a mutex". As such I think your answer views things through a very narrow lense, orthogonal to the actual question.
asveikau
2010-02-19 19:15:45