I got an object tree. In the object tree I store SceneNodes. A SceneNode is usually the base class for other classes.
I want to implement different behavior for the objects that represent the SceneNodes.
The correct Pattern for this problem should be the visitor pattern. I want to iterate over the SceneNodes and want to call different functions based on the objects stored behind the SceneNodes.
But I not only want to allow one object in the object tree to be one component of the visitor pattern but to share functionality.
For example: I have a BaseObject. I can update this BaseObject (e.g. to a new position) and I can draw a BaseObject (OpenGL stuff).
But I also have a Camera object. The camera object can be updated but not drawn.
Here is the implementation of the Visitor Stuff:
class Visitor
{
public:
virtual void VisitUpdate(ComponentUpdate* element) = 0;
virtual void VisitDraw(ComponentDraw* element) = 0;
virtual void VisitOverlay(ComponentOverlay* element) = 0;
};
Visitor Component:
class Component
{
public:
virtual ~Component() { }
virtual void accept(Visitor* visitor) = 0;
};
Concrete Component:
class ComponentUpdate : public Component
{
public:
void accept(Visitor* visitor) override {
visitor->VisitUpdate(this);
}
virtual void update() = 0;
};
class ComponentDraw : public Component
{
public:
void accept(Visitor* visitor) override {
visitor->VisitDraw(this);
}
virtual void draw() = 0;
};
And finally a concrete visitor:
class SceneNodeVisitor : public Visitor
{
void VisitUpdate(ComponentUpdate* element) override {
element->update();
}
void VisitDraw(ComponentDraw* element) override {
element->draw();
}
};
Now I'd like to do something like this:
class Camera : public ComponentUpdate
{
void update() override { std::cout << "Camnera update" << std::endl; }
};
class ObjectBase : public ComponentDraw, public ComponentUpdate
{
void update() override { std::cout << "ObjectBase update" << std::endl; }
void draw() override { std::cout << "ObjectBase draw" << std::endl; }
};
Ok, so far so good. The problem I have now is that the compiler says "base class is ambiguous". I think this is not correct because ObjectBase is ambiguous because it has two different accept() functions, am I right?
Is there a way to use the visitor pattern so that I can freely anoint the classes with the functionality I need for them?
Here the main function:
int main() {
ObjectBase ob;
Camera cam;
SceneNodeVisitor visitor;
std::vector<Component*> components;
components.push_back(new Camera);
components.push_back(new ObjectBase);
components[0]->accept(&visitor);
components[1]->accept(&visitor);
}
Strange is that I can create the ObjectBase on the stack. I only get the error if I try to create the object on the heap (via new).
Pastebin is down at the moment, I can give you this example code as soon as it's up again.
Okay, I'm not entirely sure, but I think you should separate out some of the concepts you're doing.
As soon as you inherit from two classes that both inherit from the same base class, you need to start looking at virtual inheritance. That might solve your problem. But the path from ObjectBase to Component is either through ComponentDraw or ComponentUpdate. In effect, you probably have two copies of Component because you're not using virtual inheritance.
I would strongly consider using the concept of interfaces. While C++ technically doesn't have them, you can make them, anyway.
And look at virtual inheritance.
Related
I'm having trouble to clearly visualize my idea in words. Below example may explain my thinking. I've two abstract class and two Derived class,
class Base1{
public:
virtual void f1() = 0;
std::string get(){ return "HelloWorld";}
};
class Derived1: public Base1{
public:
void f1() {}
void update (std::string& update){
**should call like** Base2::Derived2::update_data(this);}
};
=> and
class Base2{
public:
virtual void f2 () = 0;
};
class Derived2: public Base2{
public:
void f2() {}
void get (Base1& d1){ d1.Base1::get (); }
void update_data (Base1& d1){ d1.Base1::get (); }
};
=> the classes are called as
int main(){
Derived1 d1;
Derived2 d2;
d2.get (d1);
std::string hi = "hiWorld";
d1.update (hi);
return 0;
}
How can I achieve the **should call like** without passing the Base2 instance in d1.update ().
Another question is, what does it called, when each class objects knows other objects?
Thanks.
It seems like you need a technique called double-dispatch. C++ only directly supports single-dispatch - the behavior you get is only based on a single instance.
a->virtualFunction( params ); // exactly which implementation is called depends on the concrete type of a.
For double dispatch, (which does not exist), you would need something like
(a,b)->virtualFunction( params ); // where the call is based on both parameters.
There are some solutions to the problem. These require work where one type requires the knowledge of the other, but only that way round.
Consider a set of geometric shapes which we want to draw on surfaces.
class Surface;
class Drawable {
public:
virtual ~Drawable () {}
virtual void draw( Surface * ) = 0;
};
class Surface {
public:
virtual ~Surface () {}
// details ommitted.
}
class Rectangle : public Drawable {
};
class Circle : public Drawable {
}
// and some surfaces
class PrinterSurface : public Surface {
};
class PlotterSurface : public Surface {
};
The code we actually want to call, is dependent on both the surface and the shape.
To solve this, we choose one of the hierarchies which is most bounded, and tell the other hierarchy about the concrete instances of the type.
In this example, it is considered that more shapes and drawable objects will exist than technologies for rendering them.
So each drawable item will know how to draw on each of the surfaces.
class Drawable {
public:
virtual ~Drawable () {}
virtual void drawPrinter( Surface * ) = 0;
virtual void drawPlotter( Surface * ) = 0;
virtual void drawSurface( Surface * ) = 0;
};
class Surface {
public:
virtual ~Surface () {}
virtual void draw( Drawable * pDrawable ) = 0;
}
class PrinterSurface : public Surface {
void draw( Drawable * pDrawable ) {
pDrawable->drawPrinter( this );
}
};
Now a call to Surface->draw( Drawable *) will be bounced into a concrete implementation, where each Drawable understands how to render onto a device, but the devices have no knowledge of the gamut of Drawables
For further reading : wikipedia : double dispatch for a more full description.
and I would recommend the design patterns book wikipedia : design patterns
The design patterns give some idea of a vocabulary of design which make asking this form of question much easier.
Here is the situation. Let's say we have a virtual base class (e.g. ShapeJuggler) which contains a method that takes a shared pointer to a virtual base class object (e.g. Shape) as argument. Let's jump into the following pseudo-code to understand:
class Shape {
}
class ShapeJuggler {
virtual void juggle(shared_ptr<Shape>) = 0;
}
// Now deriving a class from it
class Square : public Shape {
}
class SquareJuggler : public ShapeJuggler {
public:
void juggle(shared_ptr<Shape>) {
// Want to do something specific with a 'Square'
// Or transform the 'shared_ptr<Shape>' into a 'shared_ptr<Square>'
}
}
// Calling the juggle method
void main(void) {
shared_ptr<Square> square_ptr = (shared_ptr<Square>) new Square();
SquareJuggler squareJuggler;
squareJuggler.juggle(square_ptr); // how to access 'Square'-specific members?
}
make_shared or dynamic/static_cast don't seem to do the job.
Is it at all possible? Any ideas, suggestions?
Thanks
This is where std::dynamic_pointer_cast (or one of its friends) comes into play.
It's just like dynamic_cast, but for std::shared_ptrs.
In your case (assuming the Shape class is polymorphic so dynamic_cast works):
void juggle(shared_ptr<Shape> shape) {
auto const sq = std::dynamic_pointer_cast<Square>(shape);
assert(sq);
sq->squareSpecificStuff();
}
This is the multiple dispatch problem. Their are many solution to this problem, the cleanest might be using the visitor pattern, but if you just have one function that need multiple dispatch you could avoid using a visitor:
class SquareJuggler;
class TriangleJuggler;
//.... others concrete jugglers.
class Shape {
//The default behaviour for any juggler and any shape
virtual void juggle_by(Juggler& t) {
//default code for any shape an juggle
}
// list each juggler for which you may
// implement a specific behavior
virtual void juggle_by(SquareJuggler& t) {
//provides default behavior in case you will not
// create a specific behavior for a specific shape.
//for example, just call the unspecific juggler:
this->Shape::juggle_by(static_cast<Juggler&>(t));
}
virtual void juggle_by(TriangleJuggler& t) {
//provides default behavior in case you will not
//create a specific behavior for a specific shape.
//for example, just call the unspecific juggler:
this->Shape::juggle_by(static_cast<Juggler&>(t));
}
//...
};
// Now deriving a class from it
class Square : public Shape {
void juggle_by(SquareJuggler& s) override{
//code specific to SquareJuggler and Shape
}
};
class Triangle : public Shape {
void juggle_by(TriangleJuggler& t) override{
//code specific to TriangleJuggler and Shape
}
};
class ShapeJuggler {
virtual void juggle(shared_ptr<Shape> s) {
//by default (if default has sense):
s->juggle_by(*this);
}
};
class SquareJuggler: public ShapeJuggler {
public:
void juggle(shared_ptr<Shape> s) override {
s->juggle_by(*this);
}
};
class TriangleJuggler: public ShapeJuggler {
public:
void juggle(shared_ptr<Shape> s) override {
s->juggle_by(*this);
}
};
// Calling the juggle method
void main(void) {
shared_ptr<Square> square_ptr = (shared_ptr<Square>) new Square();
SquareJuggler squareJuggler;
squareJuggler.juggle(square_ptr);
//This last call, will perform two virtual calls:
// 1. SquareJuggler::juggle(shared_ptr<Shape);
// 2. Square::juggle_by(SquareJuggler&);
}
You could also defines your XXXJuggler as final, which will enable some devirtualization optimization.
I'm relatively new to C++ and I'm right now facing a point in my design where I cannot seem to avoid downcasting. I know this is usually a sign of bad design, so I would like to know what would be a better way to do this.
I have a class Frame that represents geometrical frame trees and allows geometrical transformations between them:
class Frame
{
private:
Frame *_parent;
std::vector<Frame*> _children;
public:
Frame* getParent() const;
std::vector<Frame*> getChildren() const;
... (extra methods for geometrical transformations)
}
I want now to create a new Frame subclass, MechanicalFrame, that adds some functionality to deal with dynamical properties.
class MechanicalFrame
{
private:
double mass;
...
public:
void compute();
}
My problem is that, the "compute" method needs to implement some recursive logic, so it would contain something like this:
MechanicalFrame::compute()
{
for element in getChildren():
element.compute();
}
However, since getChildren returns a vector of Frame* and not MechanicalFrame*, I would need to make a static_cast at this point. I've given the problem a lot of thought, but none of the solutions I've found are fully satisfying to me:
Solution 1) Static cast: somehow it indicates bad design
Solution 2) Add the compute method to the base class (Frame) with a dummy implementation, i.e., throwing an exception: it seems unnatural to force the implementation of the parent class based on the derived class.
Solution 3) Split totally MechanicalFrame from Frame: this would mean reimplementing many of the functionalities already available in Frame.
Any help would be very appreciated.
Many thanks in advance :)
Use polymorphic behaviour, use your Solution 2)
You can follow below pattern (Interface -> Base class -> Derived class)
class IFrame
{
public:
virtual void compute()=0;
}
class Frame:public IFrame
{
public:
virtual void compute() {/*nothing to do*/}
}
class MechanicalFrame:public Frame
{
public:
virtual void compute() {/*your implementation with mass*/}
}
If you are sure that all the Frame* pointers in MechanicalFrame::getChildren() are pointing to MechanicalFrame instances, I don't see any problem with static_cast. Make sure you use dynamic_cast + assert in debug builds to catch mistakes.
void MechanicalFrame::compute()
{
for(auto frame_ptr : getChildren())
{
downcast<MechanicalFrame*>(frame_ptr)->compute();
}
}
Where downcast is something like:
template <typename TOut, typename T>
auto downcast(T* ptr)
{
static_assert(std::is_base_of<T, TOut>{});
assert(ptr != nullptr);
assert(dynamic_cast<TOut>(ptr) == ptr);
return static_cast<TOut>(ptr);
}
(For a more thorough implementation of downcast see my Meeting C++ 2015 lightning talk "Meaningful casts" or my current implementation in vrm_core.)
Notice that there's a performance advantage here, as you avoid virtual dispatch. Play around with this snippet on gcc.godbolt.org to see differences in the generated assembly.
Another option is to use the Visitor pattern:
class Frame;
class MechanicalFrame;
class FrameVisitor
{
public:
virtual ~FrameVisitor() = default;
virtual void visit(Frame&) = 0;
virtual void visit(MechanicalFrame&) = 0;
};
class Frame
{
public:
virtual void accept(FrameVisitor& visitor)
{
visitor.visit(*this);
}
void acceptRecursive(FrameVisitor& visitor)
{
accept(visitor);
for (Frame* child : getChildren())
{
child->acceptRecursive(visitor);
}
}
...
};
class MechanicalFrame : public Frame
{
public:
virtual void accept(FrameVisitor& visitor) override
{
visitor.visit(*this);
}
...
};
Then the client code will be:
class ConcreteVisitor : public FrameVisitor
{
public:
virtual void visit(Frame& frame) override
{
// Deal with Frame (not a subclass) object.
}
virtual void visit(MechanicalFrame& frame) override
{
// Deal with MechanicalFrame object.
}
};
Frame root = ...;
ConcreteVisitor visitor;
root.acceptRecursive(visitor);
In general, the Visitor pattern allows you to traverse a hierarchy of heterogeneous objects and perform operations on them without type casting. It's most useful when the number of operations is expected to grow while your type hierarchy is more or less stable.
Since you're asking for new ideas, I will not explain in detail anything you written about in solutions 1-3.
You could add extra functionality to the MechanicalFrame class, splitting its children of MechanicalFrame class and all other classes, like this:
class Frame {
public:
std::vector<Frame*> getChildren(); // returns children
void addChild(Frame* child); // adds child to children
private:
std::vector<Frame*> children;
}
class MechanicalFrame : public Frame {
public:
void compute();
std::vector<MechanicalFrame*> getMechanicalChildren(); // returns mechanical_children
void addChild(MechanicalFrame* child); // adds child to mechanical_children
private:
std::vector<MechanicalFrame*> mechanical_children;
}
One possible implementation of compute is the following:
void MechanicalFrame::compute() {
...
for (auto* child : getMechanicalChildren()) {
child->compute();
}
}
UP: As far as I understand, one of the problems with casts is that the code starts behaving very differently depending on the actual class of the object, and we cannot substitute the parent class object with child class (see Liskov principle). The approach described in this answer actually changes the principle of using the "mechanicity" of your Frames, allowing adding MechanicalFrame children in such a way that they're ignored in compute method.
I'm facing the following problem.
I implement parent Class - Vehicle, it has some derived classes, one of them - FastVehicle.
In the program I need to store a Vector of Vehicle* pointers. the pointers may point to Vehicle objects or to FastVehicle objects as well.
1) I want to be able to call the method print() for every object in the vector.
The problem is that in case of FastVehicle I also want to tranfer a parameter to the function,
I need to call a function with signature:
void print(int a)
I know a little bit about the virtual function mechanism, but according to my knowledge it works only if both functions have the same signature.
I would like to hear suggestions, about how to work it out.
2) In addition in the derived class FastVehicle has some unique function that it doesn't share with the parent class Vehicle.
It performs a task that should be performed only for FastVehicle objects.
What is the cleanest way to achieve this?
I thought maybe to implement "empty" virtual function in the parent class Vehicle and implement the "real" task inside an overriding method of FastVehicle
Maybe someone can suggest a better solution.
thanks
You can always use a dynamic_cast to cast Vehicle to FastVehicle. It returns NULL if Vehicle is not FastVehicle. It depends on your use situation if you should really do this.
for(Vehicle* vehicle : vehicleVector)
{
FastVehicle* fastVehicle = dynamic_cast<FastVehicle*>(vehicle);
if(fastVehicle)
{
fastVehicle->print(1337);
fastVehicle->somethingElse();
}
else
{
vehicle->print();
}
}
Full example available here: https://ideone.com/69n6Jb
Most likely you have to rethink why you need a parameter for FastVehicle, but not for anything other type of Vehicle. That to me is an indication of bad design.
Just declare print(int) in the base class, override it, but in the classes where you don't need the int, just disregard it.
The pragmatic solutions are:
Pass the int a parameter to the virtual print method but ignore it in Vehicle and only use it in FastVehicle
As you suggest, simply add an "empty" virtual function to the base class that is a no-op in Vehicle and is only implemented in FastVehicle
E.g:
struct Vehicle {
virtual ~Vehicle(){}
virtual void print(int /*a*/) const { std::cout << "Vehicle print\n"; }
virtual void somethingElse() { /* no-op */ }
};
struct FastVehicle : Vehicle {
void print(int a) const override {std::cout << "FastVehicle print " << a << "\n";}
void somethingElse() override { std::cout << "Something else!\n"; }
};
for (auto vehicle : vehicles) {
vehicle->print(512);
vehicle->somethingElse();
}
Live demo
Perhaps you could refactor with an abstract vehicleI:
struct vehicleI {
....
virtual void print(int) = 0;
}
and then your vehicle:
struct vehicle : vehicleI {
....
void print(int i = 0);
}
and your fastVehicle as:
struct fastvehicle: vehicleI {
....
void print(int);
}
if you want to properly use a dynamic call to a Vehicle interface, you need to define a common interface.
If you need to specify a parameter in case of FastVehicle but not in the case of FastVehicle, that's not an interface anymore.
You have two solutions:
Default parameter
struct Vehicle
{
virtual void print(int a=0) {};
};
struct FastVehicle : public Vehicle
{
void print(int a=0) override {};
};
now you can call both with or without a parameter.
Second option:
struct Vehicle
{
virtual void print() {};
};
struct FastVehicle : public Vehicle
{
void print() override {};
void setA(int a) { _a = a; }
_a{};
};
Now you can set your 'a' variable through another method, but not when you access the object through Vehicle's interface.
In a C++ physics simulation, I have a class called Circle, and Square. These are Shapes, and have a method called push(), which applies force to it. There is then a special case of Circle, call it SpecialCircle, in which push() should exhibit slightly different properties. But in fact, there is also SpecialSquare() which should exhibit the same force properties. So I'd like to have an abstract base class called Shape which takes care of Circles and Squares, but then I'd also like an abstract base class called Special, which applies special properties to force().
What's the best way to design this class structure?
So far, I've got:
class Shape {
virtual void push();
};
class Circle : public Shape {};
class Square : public Shape {};
class Special {
virtual void push();
};
class SpecialCircle : public Circle, Special {};
class SpecialSquare : public Square, Special {};
Of course, the above won't compile, since Special::push() and Shape::push() conflict. I get "error: request for member ‘push’ is ambiguous", as expected.
How can I re-organize my class structure so that Circle and Square can share certain properties with each other, but SpecialCircle and SpecialSquare can still inherit from Shape, and also inherit modified functionality from Special?
Thanks.
ps., is this the diamond inheritance problem?
Another solution (it may or may not fit your needs, it depends on the details of your implementation):
Have the class Behavior, and let NormalBehavior and SpecialBehavior inherit from it.
Have the class Shape, and let Square and Circle inherit from it. Let Shape be an aggregate type, with a Behavior member (i.e. you pass a Behavior object to the various Shape constructors). In other words, let a Shape have a Behavior.
Delegate the actual differences in the behavior of shapes to methods of the Behavior hierarchy.
Conversely, you can:
Have the class PhysicalObject, and let NormalObject and SpecialObject inherit from it;
Have the class Shape, and let Square and Circle inherit from it;
Let a PhysicalObject have a Shape.
Prefer aggregation over inheritance. This is an application of the Bridge pattern. The advantage of this strategy with respect to having Square, SpecialSquare, Circle, and SpecialCircle, is that tomorrow you'll have to add Rectangle, Hexagon and so on, and for each shape you add you'll have to implement two classes (duplicated code is evil); this is, in my opinion, the real issue that Bridge addresses.
It's said that every problem in software can be solved by adding an additional layer of indirection.
Herb Sutter has an excellent article on how to solve your problem: Multiple Inheritance - Part III
In short, you use intermediate classes to 'rename' the virtual functions. As Herb says:
Renaming Virtual Functions
If the two inherited functions had different signatures, there would be no problem: We would just override them independently as usual. The trick, then, is to somehow change the signature of at least one of the two inherited functions.
The way to change a base class function's signature is to create an intermediate class which derives from the base class, declares a new virtual function, and overrides the inherited version to call the new function
Here's a long example using your classes:
class Shape {
public:
virtual void push() = 0;
};
class Circle : public Shape
{
public:
void push() {
printf( "Circle::push()\n");
}
};
class Square : public Shape
{
public:
void push() {
printf( "Square::push()\n");
}
};
class Special {
public:
virtual void push() = 0;
};
class Circle2: public Circle
{
public:
virtual void pushCircle() = 0;
void push() {
pushCircle();
}
};
class Square2: public Square
{
public:
virtual void pushSquare() = 0;
void push() {
pushSquare();
}
};
class Special2 : public Special
{
public:
virtual void pushSpecial() = 0;
void push() {
pushSpecial();
}
};
class SpecialCircle : public Circle2, public Special2
{
public:
void pushSpecial() {
printf( "SpecialCircle::pushSpecial()\n");
}
void pushCircle() {
printf( "SpecialCircle::pushCircle()\n");
}
};
class SpecialSquare : public Square2, public Special2
{
public:
void pushSpecial() {
printf( "SpecialSquare::pushSpecial()\n");
}
void pushSquare() {
printf( "SpecialSquare::pushSquare()\n");
}
};
int main( int argc, char* argv[])
{
SpecialCircle sc;
SpecialSquare ss;
// sc.push(); // can't be called - ambiguous
// ss.push();
sc.pushCircle();
ss.pushSquare();
Circle* pCircle = ≻
pCircle->push();
Square* pSquare = &ss;
pSquare->push();
Special* pSpecial = ≻
pSpecial->push();
pSpecial = &ss;
pSpecial->push();
return 0;
}
Rather than thinking of code reuse through inheritance, the use of mixins will give you the code reuse you want without the problems of multiple inheritance.
If you are unfamiliar with the technique, do a search on SO or Google. Make sure you search for both "mixin" and "Curiously Recurring Template Pattern". There are heaps of great articles around to get you started.
When you have to inherit from multiple interfaces with the same method the compiler can't tell which one are you trying to call, you can fix this by overriding such method and call the one you want.
class SpecialCircle : public Circle, Special {
public:
virtual void push() { Special::push(); }
};
class SpecialSquare : public Square, Special {
public:
virtual void push() { Special::push(); }
};
But in this case I think the correct OO approach is to factor out the push behavior in its own class, like Federico Ramponi have suggested.
Have a SpecialShape from Shape and SpecialCircle and SpecialSquare from SpecialShape.
Well, if the special and normal circles can be both applied forces to, and the special circle has another method that applies special forces, why not have two interfaces and two methods?
struct Applicable {
virtual ~Applicable() { }
// if it applies force, better be explicit with naming it.
virtual void applyForce() = 0;
};
struct SpecialApplicable {
virtual ~SpecialApplicable() { }
virtual void applySpecialForce() = 0;
};
struct Shape {
virtual ~Shape() { }
Size getSize();
Point getPosition();
// ...
};
struct Circle : Shape, Applicable {
virtual void applyForce() { /* ... */ }
}
struct SpecialCircle : Circle, SpecialApplicable {
virtual void applySpecialForce() { /* .... */ }
};
If it doesn't make sense if there is both a special and a normal apply method (which the name of the class - SpecialCircle - suggests), then why not do even this:
struct Circle : Shape, Applicable {
virtual void applyForce() { /* ... */ }
}
struct SpecialCircle : Circle {
// applies force, but specially
virtual void applyForce() { /* .... */ }
};
You can also put the applyForce into the Shape class. It also depends on the environment in which those classes are used. What, in any case, you really should avoid is having the same method in two base classes that appear in two difference base-lattices. Because that inevitable will lead to such ambiguity problems. The diamond inheritance is when you use virtual inheritance. I believe there are other good answers on stackoverflow explaining that. It isn't applicable for your problem, because the ambiguity arises because the method appears in two base class sub-objects of different types. (It only solves such cases where the base classes have the same type. In those cases, it will merge the base classes and there will only be one base class sub-object contained - inherited by virtual inheritance)