FROM : Jack Repenning
DATE : Mon Apr 28 20:49:15 2008
On Apr 25, 2008, at 7:42 PM, Keary Suska wrote:
> on 4/25/08 6:49 PM, <email_removed> purportedly said:
>
>> - (void) setEntry:(SVNWCEntry *)value
>> {
>> [self willChangeValueForKey:@"entry"];
>>
>> [value retain];
>> [entry release];
>> entry = value;
>>
>> [self didChangeValueForKey:@"entry"];
>> }
>
> If you haven't turned off automatic KVO notifications, the above is
> very
> wrong, and could be the source of your problem.
Thanks. I think your hint worked. That is, I'm not sure what you were
suggesting, but I took a guess, and it seems to have worked. But I
still don't quite grasp what's going on, so I'm begging for a touch of
background?
What I did: remove the will/didChange stuff.
What happened: I no longer get the unable-to-remove-observer warning,
nor the subsequent BAD_ACCESS crash.
Don't willChange and didChange merely notify and observers there may
be that change is happening? Why would redundant notification be a
problem (other than perhaps performance, or possibly some obscure
double-entry kind of response to the change, like adding up each value
placed into an integer field)?
-==-
Jack Repenning
<email_removed>
Project Owner
SCPlugin
http://scplugin.tigris.org
"Subversion for the rest of OS X"
DATE : Mon Apr 28 20:49:15 2008
On Apr 25, 2008, at 7:42 PM, Keary Suska wrote:
> on 4/25/08 6:49 PM, <email_removed> purportedly said:
>
>> - (void) setEntry:(SVNWCEntry *)value
>> {
>> [self willChangeValueForKey:@"entry"];
>>
>> [value retain];
>> [entry release];
>> entry = value;
>>
>> [self didChangeValueForKey:@"entry"];
>> }
>
> If you haven't turned off automatic KVO notifications, the above is
> very
> wrong, and could be the source of your problem.
Thanks. I think your hint worked. That is, I'm not sure what you were
suggesting, but I took a guess, and it seems to have worked. But I
still don't quite grasp what's going on, so I'm begging for a touch of
background?
What I did: remove the will/didChange stuff.
What happened: I no longer get the unable-to-remove-observer warning,
nor the subsequent BAD_ACCESS crash.
Don't willChange and didChange merely notify and observers there may
be that change is happening? Why would redundant notification be a
problem (other than perhaps performance, or possibly some obscure
double-entry kind of response to the change, like adding up each value
placed into an integer field)?
-==-
Jack Repenning
<email_removed>
Project Owner
SCPlugin
http://scplugin.tigris.org
"Subversion for the rest of OS X"
| Related mails | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Jack Repenning | Apr 26, 02:49 | |
| Keary Suska | Apr 26, 04:42 | |
| Jack Repenning | Apr 28, 20:49 | |
| Keary Suska | Apr 28, 23:15 |






Cocoa mail archive

