• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Spinning the busy indicator
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Spinning the busy indicator


  • Subject: Re: Spinning the busy indicator
  • From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 16:41:05 +1000

> On 1 May 2015, at 3:53 pm, Graham Cox <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> It looks as if to be sure I’m going to have to drop down a level and create my own NSOperations.

Well that’s an interesting result - creating my own NSOperation with a QoS of NSOperationQualityOfServiceBackground and adding it to my queue produces a perfectly smooth and non-blocking app. If I use -addOperationWithBlock: things are screwed up.

For [NSOperation qualityOfService] Apple says:

> The default value of this property is NSOperationQualityOfServiceBackground and you should leave that value in place whenever possible.

But if I leave it at the default, the same blocking problem is apparent. Logging the default QoS, I see it’s -1, which equates to NSQualityOfServiceDefault. Setting it to NSOperationQualityOfServiceBackground things are fine. Therefore at the very least the documentation is incorrect. I do wonder if this isn’t actually a bug though - if something somewhere is interpreting -1 to mean a very high priority instead of a low one, that’s going to screw things up pretty badly all over the place.

I’d be interested to know if this has changed from 10.9 or earlier (I’m on 10.10).


—Graham



_______________________________________________

Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)

Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com

Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Spinning the busy indicator
      • From: Quincey Morris <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Spinning the busy indicator (From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Spinning the busy indicator (From: Quincey Morris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Spinning the busy indicator (From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Spinning the busy indicator (From: Quincey Morris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Spinning the busy indicator (From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Spinning the busy indicator (From: Quincey Morris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Spinning the busy indicator (From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Spinning the busy indicator (From: Quincey Morris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Spinning the busy indicator (From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Spinning the busy indicator
  • Next by Date: Re: Spinning the busy indicator
  • Previous by thread: Re: Spinning the busy indicator
  • Next by thread: Re: Spinning the busy indicator
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread