Aside from recompiling rt.jar is there any way I can replace the currentTimeMillis() call with one of my own?
1# The right way to do it is use a Clock object and abstract time.
I know it but we'll be running code developed by an endless number of developers that have not implemented Clock or have made an implementation of their own.
2# Use a mock tool like JMockit to mock that class.
Even though that only works with Hotspot disabled -Xint and we have success using the code bellow it does not "persist" on external libraries. Meaning that you'd have to Mock it everywhere which, as the code is out of our control, is not feasible. All code under main() does return 0 milis (as from the example) but a new DateTime() will return the actual system millis.
#MockClass(realClass = System.class)
public class SystemMock extends MockUp<System> {
// returns 1970-01-01
#Mock public static long currentTimeMillis() { return 0; }
}
3# Re-declare System on start up by using -Xbootclasspath/p (edited)
While possible, and though you can create/alter methods, the one in question is declared as public static native long currentTimeMillis();. You cannot change it's declaration without digging into Sun's proprietary and native code which would make this an exercise of reverse engineering and hardly a stable approach.
All recent SUN JVM crash with the following error:
EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (0xc0000005) at pc=0x00000, pid=4668, tid=5736
4# Use a custom ClassLoader (new test as suggested on the comments)
While trivial to replace the system CL using -Djava.system.class.loader JVM actually loads up the custom classLoader resorting to the default classLoader and System is not even pushed trough the custom CL.
public class SimpleClassLoader extends ClassLoader {
public SimpleClassLoader(ClassLoader classLoader) {
super(classLoader);
}
#Override
public Class<?> loadClass(String name) throws ClassNotFoundException {
return super.loadClass(name);
}
}
We can see that java.lang.System is loaded from rt.jar using java -verbose:class
Line 15: [Loaded java.lang.System from C:\jdk1.7.0_25\jre\lib\rt.jar]
I'm running out of options.
Is there some approach I'm missing?
You could use an AspectJ compiler/weaver to compile/weave the problematic user code, replacing the calls to java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis() with your own code. The following aspect will just do that:
public aspect CurrentTimeInMillisMethodCallChanger {
long around():
call(public static native long java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis())
&& within(user.code.base.pckg.*) {
return 0; //provide your own implementation returning a long
}
}
I'm not 100% sure if I oversee something here, but you can create your own System class like this:
public static class System {
static PrintStream err = System.err;
static InputStream in = System.in;
static PrintStream out = System.out;
static void arraycopy(Object src, int srcPos, Object dest, int destPos, int length) {
System.arraycopy(src, srcPos, dest, destPos, length);
}
// ... and so on with all methods (currently 26) except `currentTimeMillis()`
static long currentTimeMillis() {
return 4711L; // Your application specific clock value
}
}
than import your own System class in every java file. Reorganize imports in Eclipse should do the trick.
And than all java files should use your applicatikon specific System class.
As I said, not a nice solution because you will need to maintain your System class whenever Java changes the original one. Also you must make sure, that always your class is used.
As discussed in the comments, it is possible that option #3 in the original question has actually worked, successfully replacing the default System class.
If that is true, then application code which calls currentTimeMillis() will be calling the replacement, as expected.
Perhaps unexpectedly, core classes like java.util.Timer would also get the replacement!
If all of the above are true, then the root cause of the crash could be the successful replacement of the System class.
To test, you could instead replace System with a copy that is functionally identical to the original to see if the crashes disappear.
Unfortunately, if this answer turns out to be correct, it would seem that we have a new question. :) It might go like this:
"How do you provide an altered System.currentTimeMillis() to application classes, but leave the default implementation in place for core classes?"
i've tried using javassist to remove the native currentTimeMills, add a pure java one and load it using bootclasspath/p, but i got the same exception access violation as you did. i believe that's probably because of the native method registerNatives that's called in the static block but it's really too much to disassemble the native library.
so, instead of changing the System.currentTimeMills, how about changing the user code? if the user code already compiled (you don't have source code), we can use tools like findbugs to identify the use of currentTimeMillis and reject the code (maybe we can even replace the call to currentTimeMills with your own implementation).
Related
I'm trying to create simple game in C++. At one point I want to have some setting, save and load from config file.
The config file should be read from the beginning, and should be accessible anywhere it needed.
So far I only see Singleton pattern as a solution.
Another way is to create an object an pass it down, but it can mess
up the current code.
I've also search and found something called Dependency Injection.
Is dependency injection useful in C++
Which design patterns can be applied to the configuration settings problem?
But I don't quite understand it, you still have to create an object in main and pass it down, right?
Singleton is quite simple, but some consider it antipattern, while pass it down the tree can mess up my current code. Is there any other Patterns?
P/S: I'm also curious how games load their setting.
I would suggest something simple as the following example, which circumvents any singleton-related or initialization order issue:
struct global_state
{
config _config;
};
struct game_state
{
global_state& _global_state;
};
int main()
{
global_state globals{load_config_from_file()};
game_state game{globals};
game.run();
}
Since _global_state is a member of game_state, it can be used in member functions without the need of explicitly passing it as a parameter:
void game_state::update_ui()
{
const float text_size = _global_state._config.get_float("text_size");
_some_text.set_size(text_size);
}
Let me elaborate on the title:
I want to implement a system that would allow me to enable/disable/modify the general behavior of my program. Here are some examples:
I could switch off and on logging
I could change if my graphing program should use floating or pixel coordinates
I could change if my calculations should be based upon some method or some other method
I could enable/disable certain aspects like maybe a extension api
I could enable/disable some basic integrated profiler (if I had one)
These are some made-up examples.
Now I want to know what the most common solution for this sort of thing is.
I could imagine this working with some sort of singelton class that gets instanced globally or in some other globally available object. Another thing that would be possible would be just constexpr or other variables floating around in a namespace, again globally.
However doing something like that, globally, feels like bad practise.
second part of the question
This might sound like I cant decide what I want, but I want a way to modify all these switches/flags or whatever they are actually called in a single location, without tying any of my classes to it. I don't know if this is possible however.
Why don't I want to do that? Well I like to make my classes somewhat reusable and I don't like tying classes together, unless its required by the DRY principle and or inheritance. I basically couldn't get rid of the flags without modifying the possible hundreds of classes that used them.
What I have tried in the past
Having it all as compiler defines. This worked reasonably well, however I didnt like that I couldnt make it so if the flag file was gone there were some sort of default settings that would make the classes themselves still operational and changeable (through these default values)
Having it as a class and instancing it globally (system class). Worked ok, however I didnt like instancing anything globally. Also same problem as above
Instancing the system class locally and passing it to the classes on construction. This was kinda cool, since I could make multiple instruction sets. However at the same time that kinda ruined the point since it would lead to things that needed to have one flag set the same to have them set differently and therefore failing to properly work together. Also passing it on every construction was a pain.
A static class. This one worked ok for the longest time, however there is still the problem when there are missing dependencies.
Summary
Basically I am looking for a way to have a single "place" where I can mess with some values (bools, floats etc.) and that will change the behaviour of all classes using them for whatever, where said values either overwrite default values or get replaced by default values if said "place" isnt defined.
If a Singleton class does not work for you , maybe using a DI container may fit in your third approach? It may help with the construction and make the code more testable.
There are some DI frameworks for c++, like https://github.com/google/fruit/wiki or https://github.com/boost-experimental/di which you can use.
If you decide to use switch/flags, pay attention for "cyclometric complexity".
If you do not change the skeleton of your algorithm but only his behaviour according to the objets in parameter, have a look at "template design pattern". This method allow you to define a generic algorithm and specify particular step for a particular situation.
Here's an approach I found useful; I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but maybe it will give you some ideas.
First, I created a BehaviorFlags.h file that declares the following function:
// Returns true iff the given feature/behavior flag was specified for us to use
bool IsBehaviorFlagEnabled(const char * flagName);
The idea being that any code in any of your classes could call this function to find out if a particular behavior should be enabled or not. For example, you might put this code at the top of your ExtensionsAPI.cpp file:
#include "BehaviorFlags.h"
static const enableExtensionAPI = IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("enable_extensions_api");
[...]
void DoTheExtensionsAPIStuff()
{
if (enableExtensionsAPI == false) return;
[... otherwise do the extensions API stuff ...]
}
Note that the IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() call is only executed once at program startup, for best run-time efficiency; but you also have the option of calling IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() on every call to DoTheExtensionsAPIStuff(), if run-time efficiency is less important that being able to change your program's behavior without having to restart your program.
As far as how the IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() function itself is implemented, it looks something like this (simplified version for demonstration purposes):
bool IsBehaviorFlagEnabled(const char * fileName)
{
// Note: a real implementation would find the user's home directory
// using the proper API and not just rely on ~ to expand to the home-dir path
std::string filePath = "~/MyProgram_Settings/";
filePath += fileName;
FILE * fpIn = fopen(filePath.c_str(), "r"); // i.e. does the file exist?
bool ret = (fpIn != NULL);
fclose(fpIn);
return ret;
}
The idea being that if you want to change your program's behavior, you can do so by creating a file (or folder) in the ~/MyProgram_Settings directory with the appropriate name. E.g. if you want to enable your Extensions API, you could just do a
touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/enable_extensions_api
... and then re-start your program, and now IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("enable_extensions_api") returns true and so your Extensions API is enabled.
The benefits I see of doing it this way (as opposed to parsing a .ini file at startup or something like that) are:
There's no need to modify any "central header file" or "registry file" every time you add a new behavior-flag.
You don't have to put a ParseINIFile() function at the top of main() in order for your flags-functionality to work correctly.
You don't have to use a text editor or memorize a .ini syntax to change the program's behavior
In a pinch (e.g. no shell access) you can create/remove settings simply using the "New Folder" and "Delete" functionality of the desktop's window manager.
The settings are persistent across runs of the program (i.e. no need to specify the same command line arguments every time)
The settings are persistent across reboots of the computer
The flags can be easily modified by a script (via e.g. touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/blah or rm -f ~/MyProgram_Settings/blah) -- much easier than getting a shell script to correctly modify a .ini file
If you have code in multiple different .cpp files that needs to be controlled by the same flag-file, you can just call IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("that_file") from each of them; no need to have every call site refer to the same global boolean variable if you don't want them to.
Extra credit: If you're using a bug-tracker and therefore have bug/feature ticket numbers assigned to various issues, you can creep the elegance a little bit further by also adding a class like this one:
/** This class encapsulates a feature that can be selectively disabled/enabled by putting an
* "enable_behavior_xxxx" or "disable_behavior_xxxx" file into the ~/MyProgram_Settings folder.
*/
class ConditionalBehavior
{
public:
/** Constructor.
* #param bugNumber Bug-Tracker ID number associated with this bug/feature.
* #param defaultState If true, this beheavior will be enabled by default (i.e. if no corresponding
* file exists in ~/MyProgram_Settings). If false, it will be disabled by default.
* #param switchAtVersion If specified, this feature's default-enabled state will be inverted if
* GetMyProgramVersion() returns any version number greater than this.
*/
ConditionalBehavior(int bugNumber, bool defaultState, int switchAtVersion = -1)
{
if ((switchAtVersion >= 0)&&(GetMyProgramVersion() >= switchAtVersion)) _enabled = !_enabled;
std::string fn = defaultState ? "disable" : "enable";
fn += "_behavior_";
fn += to_string(bugNumber);
if ((IsBehaviorFlagEnabled(fn))
||(IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("enable_everything")))
{
_enabled = !_enabled;
printf("Note: %s Behavior #%i\n", _enabled?"Enabling":"Disabling", bugNumber);
}
}
/** Returns true iff this feature should be enabled. */
bool IsEnabled() const {return _enabled;}
private:
bool _enabled;
};
Then, in your ExtensionsAPI.cpp file, you might have something like this:
// Extensions API feature is tracker #4321; disabled by default for now
// but you can try it out via "touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/enable_feature_4321"
static const ConditionalBehavior _feature4321(4321, false);
// Also tracker #4222 is now enabled-by-default, but you can disable
// it manually via "touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/disable_feature_4222"
static const ConditionalBehavior _feature4222(4222, true);
[...]
void DoTheExtensionsAPIStuff()
{
if (_feature4321.IsEnabled() == false) return;
[... otherwise do the extensions API stuff ...]
}
... or if you know that you are planning to make your Extensions API enabled-by-default starting with version 4500 of your program, you can set it so that Extensions API will be enabled-by-default only if GetMyProgramVersion() returns 4500 or greater:
static ConditionalBehavior _feature4321(4321, false, 4500);
[...]
... also, if you wanted to get more elaborate, the API could be extended so that IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() can optionally return a string to the caller containing the contents of the file it found (if any), so that you could do shell commands like:
echo "opengl" > ~/MyProgram_Settings/graphics_renderer
... to tell your program to use OpenGL for its 3D graphics, or etc:
// In Renderer.cpp
std::string rendererType;
if (IsDebugFlagEnabled("graphics_renderer", &rendererType))
{
printf("The user wants me to use [%s] for rendering 3D graphics!\n", rendererType.c_str());
}
else printf("The user didn't specify what renderer to use.\n");
I am using Objective-C++ in my firebreath project. The problem is that I am using Xcode 4 and I can not find the way to debug my project. So I have thought about if my method is been called from the web page.
Here is my source code:
In my OpenOnDesktopPluginAPI.h class:
class OpenOnDesktopPluginAPI : public FB::JSAPIAuto
{
public:
OpenOnDesktopPluginAPI(const OpenOnDesktopPluginPtr& plugin, const FB::BrowserHostPtr& host);
virtual ~OpenOnDesktopPluginAPI();
OpenOnDesktopPluginPtr getPlugin();
...
//This is my method
void runNotification();
...
};
In my OpenOnDesktopPluginAPI.mm class:
OpenOnDesktopPluginAPI::OpenOnDesktopPluginAPI(const OpenOnDesktopPluginPtr& plugin, const FB::BrowserHostPtr& host) : m_plugin(plugin), m_host(host)
{
...
//Register my method
registerMethod("runNotification", make_method(this, &OpenOnDesktopPluginAPI::runNotification));
...
}
//DistributedNotification class is my objective-c class with the implementation for post a distributed notification.
void OpenOnDesktopPluginAPI::runNotification()
{
DistributedNotification * notificationClass = [[DistributedNotification alloc] init];
[notificationClass postNotification];
[notificationClass release];
}
In my FBControl.html:
...
function myFunction()
{
plugin().runNotification();
}
...
My new method
...
I put my DistributedNotification.mm class in the
Build Phases -> "Compile Sources"
for my plugin target.
But I donĀ“t know if my runNotification method is called, because when (In my web page) I click on My new method link, nothing happens.
I'll repeat what I said on the forum when you ask; perhaps you haven't seen that answer yet:
First of all, you can debug with Xcode4, at least on some browsers; the trick is figuring out which process to connect to.
Secondly, you can always use NSLog to log things to the console. Thirdly, you could use log4cplus (see http://www.firebreath.org/display/documentation/Logging).
Finally, you haven't specified what browser you're testing on, nor have you indicated what happens. It looks reasonable, but aparently doesn't work? What doesn't work? What does it do?
It's nearly impossible to give you any useful advice without detailed information about what you are encountering.
I've successfully loaded a C++ plugin using a custom plugin loader class. Each plugin has an extern "C" create_instance function that returns a new instance using "new".
A plugin is an abstract class with a few non-virtual functions and several protected variables(std::vector refList being one of them).
The plugin_loader class successfully loads and even calls a virtual method on the loaded class (namely "std::string plugin::getName()".
The main function creates an instance of "host" which contains a vector of reference counted smart pointers, refptr, to the class "plugin". Then, main creates an instance of plugin_loader which actually does the dlopen/dlsym, and creates an instance of refptr passing create_instance() to it. Finally, it passes the created refptr back to host's addPlugin function. host::addPlugin successfully calls several functions on the passed plugin instance and finally adds it to a vector<refptr<plugin> >.
The main function then subscribes to several Apple events and calls RunApplicationEventLoop(). The event callback decodes the result and then calls a function in host, host::sendToPlugin, that identifies the plugin the event is intended for and then calls the handler in the plugin. It's at this point that things stop working.
host::sendToPlugin reads the result and determines the plugin to send the event off to.
I'm using an extremely basic plugin created as a debugging plugin that returns static values for every non-void function.
Any call on any virtual function in plugin in the vector causes a bad access exception. I've tried replacing the refptrs with regular pointers and also boost::shared_ptrs and I keep getting the same exception. I know that the plugin instance is valid as I can examine the instance in Xcode's debugger and even view the items in the plugin's refList.
I think it might be a threading problem because the plugins were created in the main thread while the callback is operating in a seperate thread. I think things are still running in the main thread judging by the backtrace when the program hits the error but I don't know Apple's implementation of RunApplicationEventLoop so I can't be sure.
Any ideas as to why this is happening?
class plugin
{
public:
virtual std::string getName();
protected:
std::vector<std::string> refList;
};
and the pluginLoader class:
template<typename T> class pluginLoader
{
public: pluginLoader(std::string path);
// initializes private mPath string with path to dylib
bool open();
// opens the dylib and looks up the createInstance function. Returns true if successful, false otherwise
T * create_instance();
// Returns a new instance of T, NULL if unsuccessful
};
class host
{
public:
addPlugin(int id, plugin * plug);
sendToPlugin(); // this is the problem method
static host * me;
private:
std::vector<plugin *> plugins; // or vector<shared_ptr<plugin> > or vector<refptr<plugin> >
};
apple event code from host.cpp;
host * host::me;
pascal OSErr HandleSpeechDoneAppleEvent(const AppleEvent *theAEevt, AppleEvent *reply, SRefCon refcon) {
// this is all boilerplate taken straight from an apple sample except for the host::me->ae_callback line
OSErr status = 0;
Result result = 0;
// get the result
if (!status) {
host::me->ae_callback(result);
}
return status;
}
void host::ae_callback(Result result) {
OSErr err;
// again, boilerplate apple code
// grab information from result
if (!err)
sendToPlugin();
}
void host::sendToPlugin() {
// calling *any* method in plugin results in failure regardless of what I do
}
EDIT: This is being run on OSX 10.5.8 and I'm using GCC 4.0 with Xcode. This is not designed to be a cross platform app.
EDIT: To be clear, the plugin works up until the Apple-supplied event loop calls my callback function. When the callback function calls back into host is when things stop working. This is the problem I'm having, everything else up to that point works.
Without seeing all of your code it isn't going to be easy to work out exactly what is going wrong. Some things to look at:
Make sure that the linker isn't throwing anything away. On gcc try the compile options -Wl -E -- we use this on Linux, but don't seem to have found a need for it on the Macs.
Make sure that you're not accidentally unloading the dynamic library before you've finished with it. RAII doesn't work for unloading dynamic libraries unless you also stop exceptions at the dynamic library border.
You may want to examine our plug in library which works on Linux, Macs and Windows. The dynamic loading code (along with a load of other library stuff) is available at http://svn.felspar.com/public/fost-base/trunk/
We don't use the dlsym mechanism -- it's kind of hard to use properly (and portably). Instead we create a library of plugins by name and put what are basically factories in there. You can examine how this works by looking at the way that .so's with test suites can be dynamically loaded. An example loader is at http://svn.felspar.com/public/fost-base/trunk/fost-base/Cpp/fost-ftest/ftest.cpp and the test suite registration is in http://svn.felspar.com/public/fost-base/trunk/fost-base/Cpp/fost-test/testsuite.cpp The threadsafe_store holds the factories by name and the suite constructor registers the factory.
I completely missed the fact that I was calling dlclose in my plugin_loader's dtor and for some reason the plugins were getting destructed between the RunApplicatoinEventLoop call and the call to sendToPlugin. I removed dlclose and things work now.
I am currently writing an application that will serve a similar purpose for multiple clients, but requires adaptations to how it will handle the data it is feed. In essence it will serve the same purpose, but hand out data totally differently.
So I decided to prodeed like this:
-Make common engine library that will hold the common functionalities of all ways and present the default interface ensuring that the different engines will respond the same way.
-Write a specific engine for each way of functioning....each one compiles into its own .dll.
So my project will end up with a bunch of libraries with some looking like this:
project_engine_base.dll
project_engine_way1.dll
project_engine_way2.dll
Now in the configuration file that we use for the user preferences there will an engine section so that we may decide which engine to use:
[ENGINE]
Way1
So somewhere in the code we will want to do:
If (this->M_ENGINE == "Way1")
//load dll for way1
Else If (this->M_ENGINE == "Way2")
//load dll for way2
Else
//no engines selected...tell user to modify settings and restart application
The question is...How will I import my dll(s) this way? Is it even possible? If not can I get some suggestions on how to achieve a similar way of functioning?
I am aware I could just import all of the dlls right at the start and just choose which engine to use, but the idea was that I didn't want to import too many engines for nothing and waste resources and we didn't want to have to ship all of those dlls to our customers. One customer will use one engine another will use a different one. Some of our customer will use more than one possibly hence the reason why I wanted to externalize this and allow our users to use a configuration file for engine switching.
Any ideas?
EDIT:
Just realized that even though each of my engine would present the same interface if they are loaded dynamically at runtime and not all referenced in the project, my project would not compile. So I don't have a choice but to include them all in my project don't I?
That also means they all have to be shipped to my customers. The settings in the configuration would only dictate with class I would use to initialize my engine member.
OR
I could have each of these engines be compiled to the same name. Only import one dll in my main project and that particular engine would be used all the time. That would render my customers unable to use our application for multiple clients of their own. Unless they were willing to manually switch dlls. Yuck
Any suggestions?
EDIT #2:
At this point seeing my options, I could also juste make one big dll containing the base engine as well as all the child ones and my configuration to let the user chose. Instead of referencing multiple dlls and shipping them all. Just have one huge one and ship/reference that one only. I am not too fond of this either as it means shipping one big dll to all of my customers instead of just one or two small ones that suit there needs. This is still the best solution that I've come up with though.
I am still looking for better suggestions or answers to my original question.
Thanks.
Use separate DLLs for each engine and use LoadLibrary in your main project to load the specific engine based on the configuration.
Have your engine interface in some common header file that all engines will derive from and this interface will be used in your main project aswell.
It might look like this:
// this should be an abstract class
class engine {
public:
virtual void func1() = 0;
virtual void func2() = 0;
...
};
In each different engine implementation export a function from the DLL, something like this:
// might aswell use auto_ptr here
engine* getEngine() { return new EngineImplementationNumberOne(); }
Now in your main project simply load the DLL you're interested in using LoadLibrary and then GetProcAddress the getEngine function.
string dllname;
if (this->M_ENGINE == "Way1")
dllname = "dllname1.dll";
else if (this->M_ENGINE == "Way2")
dllname = "dllname2.dll";
else
throw configuration_error();
HMODULE h = LoadLibraryA(dllname.c_str());
typedef engine* (*TCreateEngine)();
TCreateEngine func = (TCreateEngine)GetProcAddress(h, "getEngine");
engine* e = func();
The name of the exported function will probably get mangled, so you could either use DEF files or extern "C" in your DLLs, also don't forget to check for errors.
The solution I came to is the following:
Engine_Base^ engine_for_app;
Assembly^ SampleAssembly;
Type^ engineType;
if (this->M_ENGINE == "A")
{
SampleAssembly = Assembly::LoadFrom("path\\Engine_A.dll");
engineType = SampleAssembly->GetType("Engine_A");
engine_for_app = static_cast<Engine_Base^>(Activator::CreateInstance(engineType, param1, param2));
}
else
{
SampleAssembly = Assembly::LoadFrom("path\\Engine_B.dll");
engineType = SampleAssembly->GetType("Engine_B");
engine_for_app = static_cast<Engine_Base^>(Activator::CreateInstance(engineType, param1, param2, param3, param4));
}
I used the answer from Daniel and the comments that were made on his answer. After some extra research I came across the LoadFrom method.