Apache Thrift is one of the more popular choices for an opensource RPC frameworks (gRPC is also one that gets lot of tracktion since release into the open).
In my setup in c++ Im using a TMultiplexedProcessor. I guess this could be any TProcessor for that matter since Im just interested in printing whatever is sent.
This has a method called:
bool process(std::shared_ptr<protocol::TProtocol> in,
std::shared_ptr<protocol::TProtocol> out,
void* connectionContext) override {
My idea was to override this again, so that I could print the in argument - but how can I write TProtocol to output ? (at a glance, it does not seem straightforward to serialize into a string)
I get a feeling there maybe is some other or an easier method. So my question is how can I dump all messages recieved via thrift (for debugging purpose) ?
There's TProtocolTap and TDebugProtocol.
Usage example can be found in thrift_dump.cpp:
shared_ptr<TProtocol> iprot(new TBinaryProtocol(itrans));
shared_ptr<TProtocol> oprot(
new TDebugProtocol(
shared_ptr<TTransport>(new TBufferedTransport(
shared_ptr<TTransport>(new TFDTransport(STDOUT_FILENO))))));
TProtocolTap tap(iprot, oprot);
std::string name;
TMessageType messageType;
int32_t seqid;
for (;;) {
tap.readMessageBegin(name, messageType, seqid);
tap.skip(T_STRUCT);
tap.readMessageEnd();
}
Related
I've been trying to get a persistent object from a thread for hours.
I want to write a shared library in C++ that starts a persistent loop in a function.
In the following code snippets there is a class called Process. Process initializes a TCP/IP interface to read and write data from a Simulink model.
This is only for declaration and should not be important for this problem, but now you know what I talk about when mentioning the processes.
main.cpp
I know, it looks kinda ugly/unprofessional, but I'm fairly new to C++..
// frustrated attempt to make everything persistent
static vector<std::thread> processThreads;
static ProcessHandle processHandle;
static vector<std::promise<Process>> promiseProcess;
static vector<std::future<Process>> futureProcess;
EXPORT int initializeProcessLoop(const char *host, int port)
{
std::promise<Process> promiseObj;
futureProcess.push_back(std::future<Process>(promiseObj.get_future()));
processThreads.push_back(std::thread(&ProcessHandle::addProcess, processHandle, host, port, &promiseProcess[0]));
Process val = futureProcess[0].get();
processHandle.handleList.push_back(val);
return (processHandle.handleList.size() - 1);
}
ProcessHandle.cpp
The addProcess function from ProcessHandle creates the Process that should be persistent, adds it to a static vector member of ProcessHandle and passes the promise to the execution loop.
int ProcessHandle::addProcess(const char *address, int port, std::promise<Process> * promiseObj) {
Process process(address, port);
handleList.push_back(process);
handleList[handleList.size() - 1].exec(promiseObj);
return handleList.size() - 1;
}
To the main problem now...
If I change "initializeProcessLoop" to include:
if(processHandle.handleList[0].isConnected())
{
processHandle.handleList[0].poll("/Compare To Constant/const");
}
after i've pushed "val" to the processHandle.handleList everything works fine and I can poll the data as it should be.
If I instead poll it from - for examle - the main function, the loop crashes inside of the "initializeProcessLoop" because "Process val" is reassigned (?) with futureProcess[0].get().
How can I get the Process variable and the threaded loop to be consistent after the function returns?
If there are any questions to the code (and I bet there will be), feel free to ask. Thanks in advance!
PS: Obligatory "English is not my native language, please excuse any spelling errors or gibberish"...
Okay, first I have to declare, that the coding style above and following are by any means not best practice.
While Sam Varshavchik is still right with how to learn C++ the right way, just changing
Process val = futureProcess[0].get();
to
static Process val = futureProcess[0].get();
did the job.
To be clear: don't do this. It's a quick fix but it will backfire in the future. But I hope that it'll help anyone with a similar problem.
If anyone has a better solution (it can't get any worse, can it?), feel free to add your answer to this question.
I have been researching both the C++ (or Windows API) method for creating a socket, and the .Net method for creating a socket. My concern is whether the same error codes that are available in Windows sockets are also available in the .Net Socket class. I have looked at this page on "Windows Sockets Error Codes" and also this page, which describes the error codes for the .Net Socket class.
After looking at both of the above pages, it seems that the .Net Socket class provides just as much in regards to socket error reporting as the Windows API. I would prefer to use .Net to implement a Socket due to the fact that I feel it would be easier for me as someone who does not have a wide range of knowledge when it comes to C++ and network programming. However, this job requires that I be able to report errors of the same granularity as the Windows API.
I'm trying to be as specific as possible here, but with the information provided, what can you tell me in regards to comparing the two with error codes in mind? With my knowledge, I am thinking that the C# Socket class is just as strong in this aspect as the Windows API.
If you receive a SocketException in .NET the exception has a property called ErrorCode which maps to all of the values you posted in your first link.
So both API's are just as granular in their error reporting. The enum you linked to is just for convince so you don't need to make your own constants for the more popular error codes.
const int WSA_E_NO_MORE= 10110;
const int WSAEACCES = 10013;
void Foo()
{
try
{
//...
}
catch(SocketException ex)
{
// These two lines are equivalent.
//if(ex.ErrorCode == WSAEACCES)
if(ex.ErrorCode == SocketError.AccessDenied)
{
//Do something special for access denied.
}
else if(ex.ErrorCode == WSA_E_NO_MORE)
{
//Do something special with the WSA_E_NO_MORE error code
}
}
}
If you want a easy way to see which enum maps to which error code exactly the reference source shows what native constant each enum represents.
I have the following statements:
static Logging::Logger* common_logger = new Logging::Logger(Logging::Logger::LEVEL);
In the Logger.h i have
class Logger {
public:
enum LEVEL {
Debug,
Warning,
Notification,
Error
};
}
I have included the file Logger.h inside my another class as :
Logging::log(CustomDialog::logger, Logging::Entry, CustomDialog::CLASSNAME, "CustomDialog");
I need to know if this is the right way to do the reason why i am doing this is to get logs based upon the level.
Regards,
Take a look at Log4cxx - it's easy to use and contains just about every feature you might want in a logging framework for C++. It's extensible, it can be configured through configuration files, and it even supports remote logging out of the box.
You can use ACE_DEBUG, it seems old-school (ala printf) but thread-safe, reliable and fully configurable (use logfiles, stdout etc..) You'll have to link against libACE(Adaptive Communication Framework) of course, but it's development packages are easily available in many linux distros per default nowadays. I've been looking over the list from that C++ logging libraries post, mentioned by Als, but it seems most people are running into mem leaks with many of the frameworks and boost::Log is not out yet.
Another point is that most logging libraries using streams, for example like this:
// from thread 1
mlog(mlog::DEBUG) << "Debug message goes here" << mlog::endl;
// from thread 2
mlog(mlog::INFO) << "Info message goes here" << mlog::endl;
will not work as expected in a multithreaded environment, while ACE will perform correctly there.
The output of the above will look something like this:
[thread1 | 12:04.23] Debug me[thread2 | 12:04.24] Info message goesssage goes herehere
At my server, we receive Self Described Messages (as defined here... which btw wasn't all that easy as there aren't any 'good' examples of this in c++).
At this point I am having no issue creating messages from these self-described ones. I can take the FileDescriptorSet, go through each FileDescriptorProto, adding each to a DescriptorPool (using BuildFile, which also gives me every defined FileDescriptor).
From here I can create any of the messages which were defined in the FileDescriptorSet with a DynamicMessageFactory instanced with the DP and calling GetPrototype (which is very easy to do as our SelfDescribedMessage required the messages full_name() and thus we can call the FindMessageTypeByName method of the DP, giving us the properly encoded Message Prototype).
The question is how can I take each already defined Descriptor or message and dynamically BUILD a 'master' message that contains all of the defined messages as nested messages. This would primarily be used for saving the current state of the messages. Currently we're handling this by just instancing a type of each message in the server(to keep a central state across different programs). But when we want to 'save off' the current state, we're forced to stream them to disk as defined here. They're streamed one message at a time (with a size prefix). We'd like to have ONE message (one to rule them all) instead of the steady stream of separate messages. This can be used for other things once it is worked out (network based shared state with optimized and easy serialization)
Since we already have the cross-linked and defined Descriptors, one would think there would be an easy way to build 'new' messages from those already defined ones. So far the solution has alluded us. We've tried creating our own DescriptorProto and adding new fields of the type from our already defined Descriptors but got lost (haven't deep dived into this one yet). We've also looked at possibly adding them as extensions (unknown at this time how to do so). Do we need to create our own DescriptorDatabase (also unknown at this time how to do so)?
Any insights?
Linked example source on BitBucket.
Hopefully this explanation will help.
I am attempting to dynamically build a Message from a set of already defined Messages. The set of already defined messages are created by using the "self-described" method explained(briefly) in the official c++ protobuf tutorial (i.e. these messages not available in compiled form). This newly defined message will need to be created at runtime.
Have tried using the straight Descriptors for each message and attempted to build a FileDescriptorProto. Have tried looking at the DatabaseDescriptor methods. Both with no luck. Currently attempting to add these defined messages as an extension to another message (even tho at compile time those defined messages, and their 'descriptor-set' were not classified as extending anything) which is where the example code starts.
you need a protobuf::DynamicMessageFactory:
{
using namespace google;
protobuf::DynamicMessageFactory dmf;
protobuf::Message* actual_msg = dmf.GetPrototype(some_desc)->New();
const protobuf::Reflection* refl = actual_msg->GetReflection();
const protobuf::FieldDescriptor* fd = trip_desc->FindFieldByName("someField");
refl->SetString(actual_msg, fd, "whee");
...
cout << actual_msg->DebugString() << endl;
}
I was able to solve this problem by dynamically creating a .proto file and loading it with an Importer.
The only requirement is for each client to either send across its proto file (only needed at init... not during full execution). The server then saves each proto file to a temp directory. An alternative if possible is to just point the server to a central location that holds all of the needed proto files.
This was done by first using a DiskSourceTree to map actual path locations to in program virtual ones. Then building the .proto file to import every proto file that was sent across AND define an optional field in a 'master message'.
After the master.proto has been saved to disk, i Import it with the Importer. Now using the Importers DescriptorPool and a DynamicMessageFactory, I'm able to reliably generate the whole message under one message. I will be putting an example of what I am describing up later on tonight or tomorrow.
If anyone has any suggestions on how to make this process better or how to do it different, please say so.
I will be leaving this question unanswered up until the bounty is about to expire just in case someone else has a better solution.
What about serializing all the messages into strings, and making the master message a sequence of (byte) strings, a la
message MessageSet
{
required FileDescriptorSet proto_files = 1;
repeated bytes serialized_sub_message = 2;
}
I'm trying to get my head around AOP and some Qt Code would really help.
From wikipedia here is some sample code (easy for a Qt/C++ programmer to read):
void transfer(Account fromAcc, Account toAcc, int amount, User user, Logger logger)
throws Exception {
logger.info("transferring money...");
if (! checkUserPermission(user)){
logger.info("User has no permission.");
throw new UnauthorizedUserException();
}
if (fromAcc.getBalance() < amount) {
logger.info("Insufficient Funds, sorry :( ");
throw new InsufficientFundsException();
}
fromAcc.withdraw(amount);
toAcc.deposit(amount);
//get database connection
//save transactions
logger.info("Successful transaction. :) ");
}
And then "aspectized":
void transfer(Account fromAcc, Account toAcc, int amount) throws Exception {
if (fromAcc.getBalance() < amount) {
throw new InsufficientFundsException();
}
fromAcc.withdraw(amount);
toAcc.deposit(amount);
}
aspect Logger
{
void Bank.transfer(Account fromAcc, Account toAcc, int amount, User user, Logger logger)
{
logger.info("transferring money...");
}
void Bank.getMoneyBack(User user, int transactionId, Logger logger)
{
logger.info("User requested money back");
}
// other crosscutting code...
}
Qt has signals and slots to decouple objects. But I still need to emit signals.
So: Can this be done with Qt or do I need some special framework/preprocessors as referenced in the wikipedia article?
I have a feeling that there must be some trick since Qt uses the Meta Object Compiler and some functionality might be "injected" with dynamic methods.... just spit-balling here ;)
Edit: To give a better context: I really like the dynamic aspects (power) of the Qt meta object with signals and slots and would like to keep a Qt feel to it. Thus, my idea is to make use of slots (or signals) as point cuts. For example:
If I define slot Bank::transfer(...) and then signal Bank::OnBeforeTranfer() and signal Bank::OnAfterTransfer(). If I then connect them to other aspects say Security::transfer() and Logger::transfer() (all QObjects) I can block calls (like fail OnBeforeTransfer).
But, if we then take it to the next evolution to get less and cleaner code I would like to get rid of the OnXXXX signals and connect the Bank::transfer slot to Security::transfer slot and Logger::transfer. Anything dynamic in Qt? : Like order of calling slots and and preventing next call in the "slot chain"?
This whole context can still be considered AOP right? I'm trying to stick to "method level point cuts" or am I totally beside the point here?
In what language are you planning to use Qt? I recently had to build a simple GUI in Qt around a python script and used the AOP python package Aspyct to do some quick before and after stuff. Qt is event-driven programming, I'd say get familiar with the Qt basics, many things are similar to AOP-style operations and then find some AOP libraries for the language you plan to use Qt in.
Another AOP framework you may consider using is AspectC++. I've played with it a bit and it seems to work quite well. They even have a whitepaper on the site that describes how AspectC++ can be used with Qt.
If you want to stay within the Qt framework, you could take a look at the State Machine Framework. (And get rid of the exceptions :)
Then you could just connect the Logger to state change events.