I am trying to use the boost::signals2 functionalities in my program.
In my "Main Class" called "Solid" I have a member which I initialize inside the constructor body (so after the member initializer list) like this:
pointer_M = boost::make_shared<OtherClass>(/*parameters,...*/);
If the signal is triggered by some function I do not want to call a member of "OtherClass" (to which pointer_M points) but a member from "Solid", i.e. the class which initialized pointer_M just.
I tried the following:
boost::signals2::connection tria_signal = /*...*/.connect( boost::signals2::signal<void()>::slot_type(&Solid::call_this_function, pointer_M.get()).track(pointer_M) );
"call_this_function" is a member function of Solid. Unfortunately there are a bunch of error messages. "OtherClass" and "Solid" are not related by inheritance.
I would appreciated getting some advice how to fix my issue since I am very unexperienced with boost.
Best
But is that what I am trying to achieve possible at all?
The point is we can't tell without a clearer description. It sure sounds like a no-brainer: signals are specifically used to decouple callers and callees.
So let me just make up your "dummycode" for you. I'm going to sidestep the enormous type-overcomplication that you showed in that line:
boost::signals2::connection tria_signal =
/*...*/.connect(boost::signals2::signal<void()>::slot_type(
&Solid::call_this_function, pointer_M.get())
.track(pointer_M));
The whole idea of slots is that they generalize callables using type erasure. Just provide your callable in any compatible form and let the library deduce the arcane implementation types.
Live On Coliru
#include <boost/signals2.hpp>
#include <boost/make_shared.hpp>
#include <iostream>
struct OtherClass {
OtherClass(...) {}
boost::signals2::signal<void()> tria;
void test() {
if (!tria.empty())
tria();
}
};
struct Solid {
boost::shared_ptr<OtherClass> pointer_M;
Solid() {
pointer_M = boost::make_shared<OtherClass>(1,2,3);
auto tria_signal = pointer_M->tria.connect(
boost::bind(&Solid::call_this_function, this));
}
private:
void call_this_function() {
std::cout << "Solid was here" << std::endl;
};
};
int main() {
Solid s;
s.pointer_M->test();
}
Prints
Solid was here
Crystal Ball: Can We Guess The Problem?
Maybe we can guess the problem: it looked like you were putting effort into tracking the lifetime of the object pointed to by pointer_M. That's not useful, since that OtherClass owns the signal in the first place, meaning that all connections are disconnected anyways when the OtherClass disappears.
Correct Lifetime Management
What you likely want is for the connection to disconnect when the lifetime of the Solid object ends, not the OtherClass. In general, I'd suggest using scoped_connection here:
Live On Coliru
#include <boost/signals2.hpp>
#include <boost/make_shared.hpp>
#include <iostream>
struct OtherClass {
OtherClass(...) {}
boost::signals2::signal<void()> tria;
void test() {
if (!tria.empty())
tria();
}
};
struct Solid {
boost::shared_ptr<OtherClass> pointer_M;
Solid() {
pointer_M = boost::make_shared<OtherClass>(1,2,3);
tria_signal = pointer_M->tria.connect(
boost::bind(&Solid::call_this_function, this));
}
private:
boost::signals2::scoped_connection tria_signal;
void call_this_function() {
std::cout << "Solid was here" << std::endl;
};
};
int main() {
boost::shared_ptr<OtherClass> keep;
{
Solid s;
std::cout << "Testing once:" << std::endl;
s.pointer_M->test();
keep = s.pointer_M; // keep the OtherClass alive
} // destructs Solid s
std::cout << "Testing again:" << std::endl;
keep->test(); // no longer connected, due to scoped_connection
}
Prints
Testing once:
Solid was here
Testing again:
Simplify
In your case, the OtherClass is already owned by the Solid (at least it is created). It seems likely that having the shared-pointer is not necessary here at all:
Live On Coliru
#include <boost/signals2.hpp>
#include <boost/make_shared.hpp>
#include <iostream>
struct OtherClass {
OtherClass(...) {}
boost::signals2::signal<void()> tria;
void test() {
if (!tria.empty())
tria();
}
};
struct Solid {
Solid() : oc_M(1,2,3) {
tria_signal = oc_M.tria.connect(
boost::bind(&Solid::call_this_function, this));
}
void test() { oc_M.test(); }
private:
OtherClass oc_M;
boost::signals2::scoped_connection tria_signal;
void call_this_function() {
std::cout << "Solid was here" << std::endl;
};
};
int main() {
Solid s;
s.test();
}
Because the members are destructed in reverse order of declaration, this is completely safe.
Architecture Astronauting
If you know what you're doing, and the pointer_M actually needs to be shared, then likely you want to track that pointer. You should probably be considering making Solid also enable_shared_from_this. If you want to be really "Enterprise Grade Engineer™" about it, you could perhaps do something fancy with the aliasing constructor: What is shared_ptr's aliasing constructor for?
Related
I want to programmatically retrieve the identifier of a C++ class instance at runtime. I'm aware that C++ doesn't support reflection yet, but is there any alternative solution out there?
For instance, given the following example:
class Foo {
Foo() {
auto name = reflect::getIdentifierName(this);
std::cout << name << std::endl;
}
};
void main() {
Foo my_obj;
}
Executing this program should print out "my_obj".
I'm looking for any utility library that I could use to implement this basic reflection function.
I'm particularly wondering if libclang can be used to extract such information - if so, any hint for how to build the reflect function to do this.
Yes, but this is implementation defined. Proceed at your own risk.
Yunnosch's suggestion sounds much more reasonable without more context.
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
class Foo {
public:
Foo() {
const char * const name = typeid(this).name();
std::cout << name << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Foo my_obj;
}
I have a bit of trouble understanding a std::bind call.
In the following example:
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
class Notifier
{
public:
Notifier(std::function<void(Notifier&)> on_notify)
:on_notify_(on_notify)
{ }
void notify()
{
if (on_notify_)
on_notify_(*this);
}
std::function<void(Notifier&)> on_notify_;
};
struct Manager
{
Manager()
{
n_ = std::make_unique<Notifier>(std::bind(&Manager::trigger, this));
}
void trigger()
{
std::cout << "notified" << std::endl;
}
std::unique_ptr<Notifier> n_;
};
int main()
{
Manager s;
s.n_->notify();
}
I don't understand how on_notify_(*this); calls back the functor with a Notifier& parameter, but the functor created by bind doesn't specify it.
The calls result correctly to the void notify() method, but I don't understand what exactly will be the functor created by bind to result in this.
If I were to write a lambda instead, I would need to specify the parameter, otherwise it would compile.
What kind of operation does bind here behind my back? :-)
std::bind basically ignores the invalid given argument according to this.
If some of the arguments that are supplied in the call to g() are not matched by any placeholders stored in g, the unused arguments are evaluated and discarded.
It might surprise you that when even more absurd arguments are provided, the binded functor can still successfully reach Manager::trigger() as follows:
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
// Some classes that have nothing to do with on_notify_
class AAA {};
class BBB {};
class Notifier
{
public:
Notifier(std::function<void(AAA&, BBB&)> on_notify)
:on_notify_(on_notify)
{ }
void notify()
{
if (on_notify_)
{
// Arguments not matching.
AAA a{};
BBB b{};
// Invoke with them.
on_notify_(a, b);
}
}
std::function<void(AAA&, BBB&)> on_notify_;
};
struct Manager
{
Manager()
{
n_ = std::make_unique<Notifier>(std::bind(&Manager::trigger, this));
}
void trigger()
{
std::cout << "it's also notified!" << std::endl;
}
std::unique_ptr<Notifier> n_;
};
int main()
{
Manager s;
s.n_->notify();
}
Live demo is here.
Here's a minimal example of a problem that I'm having, and I can't work out how I should solve it:
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
class Thing {
};
class App {
public:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Thing>> thingVec;
void add_thing(Thing*);
};
void App::add_thing(Thing* thing) {
thingVec.push_back(std::unique_ptr<Thing>(thing));
}
int main() {
App app;
Thing thing;
app.add_thing(&thing);
}
This compiles and runs with no issues, however, upon reaching the end of main, segfaults and spits out:
Error in `/path/testapp': free(): invalid pointer: 0x00007fff97118070 ***
Any possible help? The reason I want to store (unique) pointers is that Thing will usually be derived.
EDIT:
One working solution:
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
class Thing {
};
class App {
public:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Thing>> thingVec;
void add_thing(Thing*);
};
void App::add_thing(Thing* thing) {
thingVec.push_back(std::unique_ptr<Thing>(thing));
}
int main() {
App app;
Thing* thing = new Thing;
app.add_thing(thing);
}
But from what I understand, I should be able to avoid using new entirely, and use make_unique? I can't seem to find where make_unique is actually defined though.
EDIT 2:
Is this more appropriate? Is there a less messy looking way to do this? Otherwise, it works well.
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
class Thing {
public:
int foo = 42;
};
class App {
public:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Thing>> thingVec;
void add_thing(std::unique_ptr<Thing>);
};
void App::add_thing(std::unique_ptr<Thing> thing) {
thingVec.push_back(std::move(thing));
}
int main() {
App app;
app.add_thing(std::unique_ptr<Thing>(new Thing()));
std::cout << app.thingVec.back()->foo << std::endl;
}
Because I may end up with lines like
app.thingVex.back()->barVec.back()->blahMap.emplace("flop", std::unique_ptr<Tree>(new Tree));
std::unique_ptr is attempting to delete a stack-allocated Thing instance.
Your error is essentially in the lines:
Thing thing;
app.add_thing(&thing);
The interface to add_thing is wrong because it takes a "non-owning" raw pointer to a Thing and then assumes that it can take full ownership of the object passed in by constructing a unique_ptr from it.
If you change add_thing to take a unique_ptr<Thing> by value, then the caller will be prevented from implicitly converting a raw pointer and will no that they need to construct a new unique_ptr to a heap allocated thing into the add_thing function.
e.g.
void App::add_thing(std::unique_ptr<Thing> thing) {
thingVec.push_back(std::move(thing));
}
int main() {
App app;
app.add_thing(std::make_unique<Thing>());
}
(Note that std::make_unique is a future feature; std::unique_ptr<Thing>(new Thing) works now.)
You should pass local object to unique_ptr.
Replace
Thing thing;
app.add_thing(&thing);
with
app.add_thing(new Thing);
If you want to also edit the object
Thing *thing = new Thing;
// thing->some_val = val;
app.add_thing(thing);
Make sure not to add the same object twice in the app, as std::unique_ptr take the ownership of pointer pointer would be tried to free more than 1 time.
You are transferring the ownership not properly. You might utilize a shared pointer with a custom deleter to the prevent deletion of the referenced variable:
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
class Thing {
};
class App {
public:
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Thing>> thingVec;
void add_thing(std::shared_ptr<Thing>&& thing) {
thingVec.push_back(std::move(thing));
}
};
template<typename T>
inline std::shared_ptr<T> make_no_delete(T& value)
{
return std::shared_ptr<T>(&value, [](void*){});
}
int main() {
App app;
Thing thing;
// Add without transferring ownership:
app.add_thing(make_no_delete(thing));
// Add and transfer ownership:
app.add_thing(std::make_shared<Thing>());
}
Before I present the code which is found at the bottom of this post I would like to talk about the issue and the fix's that I do not desire. Okay basically I've created a GUI from scratch sort of and one requirement I wanted for this was allow components to have their own click executions so if i click a button or tab etc.. It would call Component->Execute(); Well normally you would do something like a switch statement of ids and if that components ID equaled n number then it would perform this action. Well that seemed kinda dumb to me and I thought there has to be a better way. I eventually tried to incorporate a feature in JAVA where you would do like Component.AddActionListener(new ActionListener( public void execute(ActionEvent ae) { })); or something like that and I thought that this feature has to be possible in C++. I eventually came across storing void functions into a variable in which could be executed at any time and modified at any time. However I hadn't noticed an issue and that was this only worked with static functions. So below you'll see my problem. I've patched the problem by using a pointer to SomeClass however this would mean having an individual function call for every class type is there no way to store a function callback to a non-static class member without doing the below strategy? and instead doing a strategy like the commented out code?
//Main.cpp
#include <iostream> //system requires this.
#include "SomeClass.h"
void DoSomething1(void)
{
std::cout << "We Called Static DoSomething1\n";
}
void DoSomething2(void)
{
std::cout << "We Called Static DoSomething2\n";
}
int main()
{
void (*function_call2)(SomeClass*);
void (*function_call)() = DoSomething1; //This works No Problems!
function_call(); //Will Call the DoSomething1(void);
function_call = DoSomething2; //This works No Problems!
function_call(); //Will Call the DoSomething2(void);
SomeClass *some = new SomeClass(); //Create a SomeClass pointer;
function_call = SomeClass::DoSomething3; //Static SomeClass::DoSomething3();
function_call(); //Will Call the SomeClass::DoSomething3(void);
//function_call = some->DoSomething4; //Non-Static SomeClass::DoSomething4 gives an error.
//function_call(); //Not used because of error above.
function_call2 = SomeClass::DoSomething5; //Store the SomeClass::DoSomething(SomeClass* some);
function_call2(some); //Call out SomeClass::DoSomething5 which calls on SomeClass::DoSomething4's non static member.
system("pause");
return 0;
}
//SomeClass.hpp
#pragma once
#include <iostream>
class SomeClass
{
public:
SomeClass();
~SomeClass();
public:
static void DoSomething3(void);
void DoSomething4(void);
static void DoSomething5(SomeClass* some);
};
//SomeClass.cpp
#include "SomeClass.h"
SomeClass::SomeClass(void)
{
}
SomeClass::~SomeClass(void)
{
}
void SomeClass::DoSomething3(void)
{
std::cout << "We Called Static DoSomething3\n";
}
void SomeClass::DoSomething4(void)
{
std::cout << "We Called Non-Static DoSomething4\n";
}
void SomeClass::DoSomething5(SomeClass *some)
{
some->DoSomething4();
}
Secondary Fix for what I'll do not an exact answer I wanted but it meets my needs for now along with allowing additional features which would have become overly complicate had this not existed.
//Component.hpp
#pragma once
#include <iostream>
#include <windows.h>
#include <d3dx9.h>
#include <d3d9.h>
#include "Constants.hpp"
#include "ScreenState.hpp"
#include "ComponentType.hpp"
using namespace std;
class Component
{
static void EMPTY(void) { }
static void EMPTY(int i) { }
public:
Component(void)
{
callback = EMPTY;
callback2 = EMPTY;
callback_id = -1;
}
Component* SetFunction(void (*callback)())
{
this->callback = callback;
return this;
}
Component* SetFunction(void (*callback2)(int), int id)
{
this->callback_id = id;
this->callback2 = callback2;
return this;
}
void execute(void)
{
callback();
callback2(callback_id);
}
}
The syntax for pointers-to-member-functions is as follows:
struct Foo
{
void bar(int, int);
void zip(int, int);
};
Foo x;
void (Foo::*p)(int, int) = &Foo::bar; // pointer
(x.*p)(1, 2); // invocation
p = &Foo::zip;
(x.*p)(3, 4); // invocation
Mind the additional parentheses in the function invocation, which is needed to get the correct operator precedence. The member-dereference operator is .* (and there's also ->* from an instance pointer).
I’m aware of the tutorial at boost.org addressing this:
Boost.org Signals Tutorial, but the examples are not complete and somewhat over simplified. The examples there don’t show the include files and some sections of the code are a little vague.
Here is what I need:
ClassA raises multiple events/signals
ClassB subscribes to those events (Multiple classes may subscribe)
In my project I have a lower-level message handler class that raises events to a business class that does some processing of those messages and notifies the UI (wxFrames). I need to know how these all might get wired up (what order, who calls who, etc).
The code below is a minimal working example of what you requested. ClassA emits two signals; SigA sends (and accepts) no parameters, SigB sends an int. ClassB has two functions which will output to cout when each function is called. In the example there is one instance of ClassA (a) and two of ClassB (b and b2). main is used to connect and fire the signals. It's worth noting that ClassA and ClassB know nothing of each other (ie they're not compile-time bound).
#include <boost/signal.hpp>
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
#include <iostream>
using namespace boost;
using namespace std;
struct ClassA
{
signal<void ()> SigA;
signal<void (int)> SigB;
};
struct ClassB
{
void PrintFoo() { cout << "Foo" << endl; }
void PrintInt(int i) { cout << "Bar: " << i << endl; }
};
int main()
{
ClassA a;
ClassB b, b2;
a.SigA.connect(bind(&ClassB::PrintFoo, &b));
a.SigB.connect(bind(&ClassB::PrintInt, &b, _1));
a.SigB.connect(bind(&ClassB::PrintInt, &b2, _1));
a.SigA();
a.SigB(4);
}
The output:
Foo
Bar: 4
Bar: 4
For brevity I've taken some shortcuts that you wouldn't normally use in production code (in particular access control is lax and you'd normally 'hide' your signal registration behind a function like in KeithB's example).
It seems that most of the difficulty in boost::signal is in getting used to using boost::bind. It is a bit mind-bending at first! For a trickier example you could also use bind to hook up ClassA::SigA with ClassB::PrintInt even though SigA does not emit an int:
a.SigA.connect(bind(&ClassB::PrintInt, &b, 10));
Hope that helps!
Here is an example from our codebase. Its been simplified, so I don't guarentee that it will compile, but it should be close. Sublocation is your class A, and Slot1 is your class B. We have a number of slots like this, each one which subscribes to a different subset of signals. The advantages to using this scheme are that Sublocation doesn't know anything about any of the slots, and the slots don't need to be part of any inheritance hierarchy, and only need implement functionality for the slots that they care about. We use this to add custom functionality into our system with a very simple interface.
Sublocation.h
class Sublocation
{
public:
typedef boost::signal<void (Time, Time)> ContactSignal;
typedef boost::signal<void ()> EndOfSimSignal;
void endOfSim();
void addPerson(Time t, Interactor::Ptr i);
Connection addSignalContact(const ContactSignal::slot_type& slot) const;
Connection addSignalEndOfSim(const EndOfSimSignal::slot_type& slot) const;
private:
mutable ContactSignal fSigContact;
mutable EndOfSimSignal fSigEndOfSim;
};
Sublocation.C
void Sublocation::endOfSim()
{
fSigEndOfSim();
}
Sublocation::Connection Sublocation::addSignalContact(const ContactSignal::slot_type& slot) const
{
return fSigContact.connect(slot);
}
Sublocation::Connection Sublocation::addSignalEndOfSim(const EndOfSimSignal::slot_type& slot) const
{
return fSigEndOfSim.connect(slot);
}
Sublocation::Sublocation()
{
Slot1* slot1 = new Slot1(*this);
Slot2* slot2 = new Slot2(*this);
}
void Sublocation::addPerson(Time t, Interactor::Ptr i)
{
// compute t1
fSigOnContact(t, t1);
// ...
}
Slot1.h
class Slot1
{
public:
Slot1(const Sublocation& subloc);
void onContact(Time t1, Time t2);
void onEndOfSim();
private:
const Sublocation& fSubloc;
};
Slot1.C
Slot1::Slot1(const Sublocation& subloc)
: fSubloc(subloc)
{
subloc.addSignalContact(boost::bind(&Slot1::onContact, this, _1, _2));
subloc.addSignalEndSim(boost::bind(&Slot1::onEndSim, this));
}
void Slot1::onEndOfSim()
{
// ...
}
void Slot1::onContact(Time lastUpdate, Time t)
{
// ...
}
Did you look at boost/libs/signals/example ?
When compiling MattyT's example with newer boost (f.e. 1.61) then it gives a warning
error: #warning "Boost.Signals is no longer being maintained and is now deprecated. Please switch to Boost.Signals2. To disable this warning message, define BOOST_SIGNALS_NO_DEPRECATION_WARNING."
So either you define BOOST_SIGNALS_NO_DEPRECATION_WARNING to suppress the warning or you could easily switch to boost.signal2 by changing the example accordingly:
#include <boost/signals2.hpp>
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
#include <iostream>
using namespace boost::signals2;
using namespace std;
Boost like QT provides its own implementation of signals and slots. Following are some example of its implementation.
Signal and Slot connection for namespace
Consider a namespace called GStreamer
namespace GStremer
{
void init()
{
....
}
}
Here is how to create and trigger the signal
#include<boost/signal.hpp>
...
boost::signal<void ()> sigInit;
sigInit.connect(GStreamer::init);
sigInit(); //trigger the signal
Signal and Slot connection for a Class
Consider a Class called GSTAdaptor with function called func1 and func2 with following signature
void GSTAdaptor::func1()
{
...
}
void GSTAdaptor::func2(int x)
{
...
}
Here is how to create and trigger the signal
#include<boost/signal.hpp>
#include<boost/bind.hpp>
...
GSTAdaptor g;
boost::signal<void ()> sigFunc1;
boost::signal<void (int)> sigFunc2;
sigFunc1.connect(boost::bind(&GSTAdaptor::func1, &g);
sigFunc2.connect(boost::bind(&GSTAdaptor::func2, &g, _1));
sigFunc1();//trigger the signal
sigFunc2(6);//trigger the signal
Above answer is great with signal2 same answer shoule be rewritten:
#include <boost/signals2.hpp>
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
#include <iostream>
using namespace boost;
using namespace std;
struct ClassA
{
signals2::signal<void ()> SigA;
signals2::signal<void (int)> SigB;
};
struct ClassB
{
void PrintFoo() { cout << "Foo" << endl; }
void PrintInt(int i) { cout << "Bar: " << i << endl; }
};
int main()
{
ClassA a;
ClassB b, b2;
a.SigA.connect(bind(&ClassB::PrintFoo, &b));
a.SigB.connect(bind(&ClassB::PrintInt, &b, _1));
a.SigB.connect(bind(&ClassB::PrintInt, &b2, _1));
a.SigA();
a.SigB(4);
}