I am writing GUI applicaton in Qt. Currently I waste too much time on routine. It seems something wrong with my architecture. Please tell me how can I change my approach to improve code.
What I am doing:
My program can be decomposed as hierarchy of classes (not inheritance but composition). In example:
class D { /* something */ };
class C { /* something */ };
class B { C c1; C c2; D d1; };
class A { D d1; C c1; };
So, actually it is a tree hierarchy where leaf nodes (class C, class D) are "models" in Qt terminology which hold data. At the top of hierarchy MainWindow (class A) is placed, which holds first level of "views" (class D, i.e. subwidget) and leaf node with data (class C, i.e. text field).
To pass information down from main window to data I use function calls from mainwindow (pushbuttons) to leaf nodes. After that data changes and tells parents about it with signal slot mechanism. Parents continue to pass message up with signaling.
I am really bored by establishing all these communication. Now I have up to 5 levels, however it is not that much in usual code when using composition. Please tell me how can I change my approach. Due to complexity of these connections, development of the code extremely slow, almost stopped.
It is hard to give a concrete example, because there are a lot of code, but the idea of problem which is very difficult to solve is following:
There are two QTreeView, which differently shows data from own model inherited from QAbstractItemModel (tree inside model is not that tree in previous discussion, this tree is only single level of hierarchy). I want to select objects in one QTreeView and change by that selection in second QTreeView. There are total 2 QTreeView, 2 different QAbstractItemModel instances, 2 trees of own objects (for each QAbstractItemModel), and single data.
Sounds like you might have become a victim of going through too many examples. Examples tend to cram functionality where it doesn't belong, creating the possibility to develop bad programming habits.
In actual production things need to be more compartmentalized. The main window should not be the container of the "application logic", all it needs to concern itself with is holding together the main widgets.
But that doesn't seem to be your case, judging by the necessity to delegate things "from mainwindow (pushbuttons) to leaf nodes" as you put it.
On a grander scale, it is not advisable to mix application logic with UI at all, much less cram it all in the main window. The application logic should be its own layer, designed so that it can work without any GUI whatsoever, and then the GUI is another layer that simply hooks up to the logic core.
The logic core should not be monolith either, it should be made of individual components focusing on their particular task.
Your use case doesn't really require any crazy amount of connections, just some basic handlers for the UI elements, which should target the logic core API rather than GUI elements as you appear to be doing now.
Your clarification unfortunately makes absolutely no sense to me, it is still completely unclear what you exactly you want to do.
Let's assume your situation is something like this:
Tree 1 shows a folder structure.
Tree 2 shows the file content of the folder, selected in tree 1.
Data is an editor for the file, assuming a text file, selected in tree 2.
So, in pseudocode, presuming that app is your application core logic object:
Clicking an item in tree 1 says app.setFolder(tree1.selectedItem())
Clicking an item in tree 2 says app.setFile(tree2.selectedItem())
Clicking the editor "save" button says app.save(editorUI.dataField.text())
logic layer gui layer
app mainWindow
folder <-----------select----------- tree1
file <-----------select----------- tree2
save(newData) { editor
if (file) file.rewrite(newData) textField
} saveBtn: app.save(textField.text())
Since there is only a single data source, you could do the following:
Create a general model for that data source. The model should represent the data source generally, without consideration of what the views need.
Create two proxy viewmodels that adapt the general model to the needs of the views.
Couple the selection models of the views that display the viewmodels.
Given the selection models on top of the two proxy models that map to the same source, we can propagate the selection change between them. We leverage the selection mapping provided by the proxy. The QAbstractProxyModel has a functional implementation of mapSelectionxxxx.
void applySel(const QItemSelectionModel *src, const QItemSelection &sel,
const QItemSelection &desel, const QItemSelectionModel *dst) {
// Disallow reentrancy on the selection models
static QHash<QObject*> busySelectionModels;
if (busySelectionModels.contains(src) || busySelectionModels.contains(dst))
return;
busySelectionModels.insert(src);
busySelectionModels.insert(dst);
// The models must be proxies
auto *srcModel = qobject_cast<QAbstractProxyItemModel*>(src->model());
auto *dstModel = qobject_cast<QAbstractProxyItemModel*>(dst->model());
Q_ASSERT(srcModel && dstModel);
// The proxies must refer to the same source model
auto *srcSourceModel = srcModel->sourceModel();
auto *dstSourceModel = dstModel->sourceModel();
Q_ASSERT(srcSourceModel && (srcSourceModel == dstSourceModel));
// Convey the selection
auto const srcSel = srcModel->mapSelectionToSource(sel);
auto const srcDesel = srcModel->mapSelectionToSource(desel);
auto const dstSel = dstModel->mapSelectionFromSource(srcSel);
auto const dstDesel = dstModel->mapSelectionFromSource(srcDesel);
// we would re-enter in the select calls
dst->select(dstSel, QItemSelectionModel::Select);
dst->select(dstDesel, QItemSelectionModel::Deselect);
// Allow re-entrancy
busySelectionModels.remove(src);
busySelectionModels.remove(dst);
}
The above could be easily adapted for a list of destination item selection models, in case you had more than two views.
We can use this translation to couple the selection models of the views:
void coupleSelections(QAbstractItemView *view1, QAbstractItemView *view2) {
auto *sel1 = view1->selectionModel();
auto *sel2 = view2->selectionModel();
Q_ASSERT(sel1 && sel2);
connect(sel1, &QItemSelectionModel::selectionChanged,
[=](const QItemSelection &sel, const QItemSelection &desel){
applySel(sel1, sel, desel, sel2);
});
connect(sel2, &QItemSelectionModel::selectionChanged,
[=](const QItemSelection &sel, const QItemSelection &desel){
applySel(sel2, sel, desel, sel1);
});
}
The above is untested and written from memory, but hopefully will work without much ado.
Related
I'm working on a Wt-based gui, and struggling with something that feels like it should be very simple:
The gui displays 'events'. In our project we have a model (ActiveEventsModel, based on WStandardItemModel) and a view, (ActiveEventsView, based on WTableView). Currently the view simply shows some text corresponding to various properties of the 'events'. The aim is to add an additional column to the table, contain a button (for example, a WPushButton) which allows the user to "acknowledge" the event shown in that row (in context, this essentially translates to dismissing the event - i.e. each event has a button, and clicking the button will remove that event from the model).
I searched online and found this discussion on the Wt-forum, which contains some guidance on putting a button in (derive from WAbstractItemDelegate and use setItemDelegateForColumn) and a code example for creating a button in an item delegate. After some minor changes for Wt-4.0 compatibility I now have my button in the table.
I've defined a very simple class, EventDelegate, derived from WAbstractItemDelegate:
header:
#include <Ui/WebToolkit.h> //convenience header containing all of the Wt elements we use
class EventDelegate : public Wt::WAbstractItemDelegate
{
public:
EventDelegate();
std::unique_ptr<Wt::WWidget> update(Wt::WWidget *widget, const Wt::WModelIndex &index,
Wt::WFlags<Wt::ViewItemRenderFlag> flags) override;
void acknowledge(Wt::WModelIndex &index);
};
source:
#include <Ui/EventDelegate.h>
EventDelegate::EventDelegate()
: WAbstractItemDelegate()
{
}
std::unique_ptr<Wt::WWidget> EventDelegate::update(Wt::WWidget *widget, const Wt::WModelIndex &index,
Wt::WFlags<Wt::ViewItemRenderFlag> flags)
{
std::unique_ptr<Wt::WWidget> w = std::make_unique<Wt::WPushButton>("acknowledge");
Wt::WPushButton *button = dynamic_cast<Wt::WPushButton*>(w.get());
button->clicked().connect(std::bind(&EventDelegate::acknowledge,this,index));
return w;
}
void EventDelegate::acknowledge(Wt::WModelIndex &index) {
//how do I interact with the model?
}
This seemed promising at first, but I just can't figure out how to actually make the button do anything to the model. I thought maybe I need to override WAbstractItemDelegate::setModelData, but for that I need the model, which the ItemDelegate doesn't seem to know anything about.
I do have the ModelIndex, and the ModelIndex knows which Model it belongs to - but will only give me it as const, which is no use to me because setModelData needs to alter it.
Should I just be giving the Model to the Delegate directly, for example as a constructor parameter? That seems an easy solution but feels very inelegant. Or am I just barking up the wrong tree entirely with how I'm trying to do this? I'm extremely new to Wt (and my colleagues only a little less so - this is a relatively new project and the first in our company that's used Wt) so that's very possible.
(I've not included a whole mcve because I'm pretty sure that what I'm missing here is conceptual. I can add one later if people feel it's really necessary to answer the question)
Background: I'm developing application using Qt 5.5.1, compiling with msvc2013. In this app I use my own implementation of QTableView, along with custom QStyledItemDelegate (needed custom cell editing) and QAbstractTableModel. I intend this view to work with massive amount of data that I wrap inside mentioned model. I allow the user few data editing options, custom sorting, 'invalid' rows windup etc.
The problem: scrolling speed of my QTableView subclass is slow - it gets slower the more table is shown (by resizing window), e.g. ~250 cells shown (in fullscreen) = slow, ~70 cells shown (small window) = fast.
Whad did I try so far:
First was to check if my model is slowing things down - I have measured times (using QTime::elapsed()) reading 10k samples and it shown 0 or 1ms. Then I have simply altered QTableView::data method to always return predefined string and not acquire any real data.
QVariant DataSet_TableModel::data(const QModelIndex &index, int role) const
{
if (role == Qt::ItemDataRole::DisplayRole) {
return QVariant("aRatherLongString"); //results in slow scrolling
//return QVariant("a"); // this instead results in fast scrolling
}
else return QVariant();
}
As you can see, the speed seems to be affected by number of characters vieved per cell, and not by underlying connections to data source.
In my custom implementation of QStyledItemDelegate I have tried same 'trick' as above - this time overriging displayText method:
QString DataSet_TableModel_StyledItemDelegate::displayText(const QVariant &value, const QLocale &locale) const
{
return "a" //fast
// return "aRatherLongString"; //slow
// return QStyledItemDelegate::displayText(value, locale); //default
}
After some thought with a friend we concluded that maybe we could disable drawing/painting/updating of cells until whole scroll action is done. It might cause some flickering, but it's worth a try. Unfortunately we dont really know how to aproach this. We have everriden QTableView methods: scrollContentsBy(int dx, int dy) and verticalScrollbarAction(int action) - we have captured scroll action properly (either method intercepts it) and tried to somehow disable repainting like this:
void DataSet_TableView::verticalScrollbarAction(int action) {
this->setUpdatesEnabled(false);
QTableView::verticalScrollbarAction(action);
this->setUpdatesEnabled(true);
}
...but it did not have any visible effect.
How should we approach it? Do we need to use setUpdatesEnabled() on items that are put inside cells directly? (not sure what those are - widgets?)
Here are screenshots taken as part of testing this problem:
Predefined text, no calls to underlying data structure - slow scrolling, 'full screen'
Predefined text, no calls to underlying data structure - fast scrolling, windowed
Request: Could you kindly help me pinpoint the cause of this and suggest solution if possible? Is it limitation of the classes that I use?
First of all, you should also run your application in release mode to check your perfomance, in my experience, the performance decreases greatly when using debug mode.
Secondly, you need to be aware that the model data method and delegates methods are called every time you resize, scroll, focus out, right click etc. These actions trigger those methods to be called for each displayed cell, therefore you would need to make sure that you don't do any unnecessary processing.
The items inside cells are delegates that call their own methods (eg: paint).
Some C++ specific optimisations would be helpful in the implementation of these methods, like using a switch instead of an if statement, see explanation here and here. The usage of Conditional (Ternary) Operators might also speed up the things, more information here, here and some information about expensive checkings here.
Also, QVariant handles text in different ways, as exemplified below, you should try both ways and check if there is any difference in speed. Some conversions are more expensive than others.
v = QVariant("hello"); // The variant now contains a QByteArray
v = QVariant(tr("hello")); // The variant now contains a QString
Say I have two main classes, Application and ApplicationGUI. Application does lots of things and can happily run without any knowledge that ApplicationGUI exists. ApplicationGUI is linked to Application in many ways, it has maybe 50 or 100 different knobs that can change Application's behavior.
ApplicationGUI is a hierarchical structure such that it has many instances of ControlGroup, each containing an arbitrary number of Buttons and Knobs, or even another ControlGroup.
Current design: Upon instantiation of the ApplicationGUI (Application was already running with some set of default parameters), I pass pointers of Application's parameters to various components of the GUI. For example:
my_gui.sound_controlgroup.knob.link_to_param(&(my_application.volume));
If I need to do something more complex, say call a member function of Application, my_application.update_something(), how is this done?
The easy answer is to pass a pointer to my_application to my_gui.sound_controlgroup.knob, but if I only ever need to call one of my_application's functions, it seems like I am giving my knob an option to change all kinds of things that it should even know about (my_application.update_something_unrelated(), for instance). What is the cleanest thing to do in this case?
Additionally, this either requires making all subcomponents of ApplicationGUI public or having a function at each stage of the hierarchy to forward that pointer to the bottom level. This leads to quite a lot of functions. Is this a necessary consequence of a UI with a lot of knobs?
Quick Short Answer
In order to implement interaction between your non GUI related Application object and your GUIApplication object I suggest apply the "Property and Method and Event Handler" paradigm.
Extended Complex Answer
G.U.I. development is one of the most practical implementation of the O.O.P. theory.
What is the "Property and Method and Event Handler" paradigm ?
That means build, both Non GUI Classes, and GUI Classes, should have:
Properties
Methods
Event handlers
"Events" (Handlers) are also called "Signals", and are implemented with functions pointers. Not sure, but, I think your "knob" (s) are like Event Handlers.
It's a technique to apply the my_application.update_something_unrelated(), you have in your question.
Since, C++, like Java, does not have property syntax, you may use "getter" and "setter" methods, or use a "property" template.
For example, if your application has a Close method, you may declare something like the following examples.
Note: They are not full programs, just an idea:
// Applications.hpp
public class BaseApplicationClass
{
// ...
};
public class BaseApplicationClientClass
{
// ...
};
typedef
void (BaseApplicationClientClass::*CloseFunctor)
(BaseApplicationClass App);
public class ApplicationClass: public BaseApplicationClass
{
// ...
public:
Vector<BaseApplicationClientClass::CloseFunctor>
BeforeCloseEventHandlers;
Vector<BaseApplicationClientClass::CloseFunctor>
AfterCloseEventHandlers;
protected:
void ConfirmedClose();
public:
virtual void Close();
} Application;
// Applications.cpp
void ApplicationClass::ConfirmedClose()
{
// do close app. without releasing from memory yet.
} // void ApplicationClass::ConfirmedClose()
void ApplicationClass::Close()
{
// Execute all handlers in "BeforeCloseEventaHandlers"
this.ConfirmedClose();
// Execute all handlers in "AfterCloseEventaHandlers"
} // void ApplicationClass::Close()
// AppShells.cpp
public class AppShell: public BaseApplicationClientClass
{
// ...
};
void AppShell::CloseHandler(ApplicationClass App)
{
// close GUI
} // void AppShell.CloseHandler(ApplicationClass App)
void AppShell::setApp(ApplicationClass App)
{
App->BeforeCloseEventHandlers->add(&this.CloseHandler);
} // void AppShell.setApp(ApplicationClass App)
void main (...)
{
ApplicationClass* AppKernel = new ApplicationClass();
ApplicationGUIClass* AppShell = new ApplicationGUIClass();
AppShell.setApp(App);
// this executes "App->Run();"
AppShell->Run();
free AppShell();
free AppKernel();
}
UPDATE: Fixed type declaration from global function pointer (a.k.a. "global functor") to object function pointer (a.k.a. "method functor").
Cheers.
Do you know about the model-view-controller (MVC) paradigm? Think of the Application class as the model, the entire hierarchy of GUI controls as the view, and the ApplicationGUI class as the controller. You don't want Application to know about the controls, and you don't want the controls to know about Application; they should both talk only to the controller, ApplicationGUI.
Using ApplicationGUI as the conduit for communication between controls and Application means that you can test either Application or controls by replacing the other with a mock object, for example. More importantly, you can change either the controls or Application without impacting the other. Individual controls don't need to know anything about Application -- they only need to know where to send their value when it changes. And Application shouldn't care whether an input comes from a knob or a slider or a text field. Keeping those two areas separate will simplify each of them.
Additionally, this either requires making all subcomponents of
ApplicationGUI public or having a function at each stage of the
hierarchy to forward that pointer to the bottom level. This leads to
quite a lot of functions. Is this a necessary consequence of a UI with
a lot of knobs?
A given control shouldn't care what value it manages. It doesn't need to know whether the value determines the number of alien invaders on the screen or the coolant level in a nuclear reactor. It does needs to know things like the minimum and maximum values, label to display, scale to use (linear, log, etc.), and other things that directly impact the way the control works. It also needs to know who to tell when something changes, and it might need some way to identify itself.
With that in mind, ApplicationGUI doesn't need to expose accessors for every possible parameter of Application. Instead, it should have a general method that lets controls send it updates. When a control changes, it should send a message to ApplicationGUI containing the new value(s) along with its identifier, and ApplicationGUI takes care of mapping that identifier to some particular parameter of Application. A control's identifier could be some identifying number that's given to it, or it could just be a pointer to the control.
Of course, sometimes communication has to go the other way, too... a GUI usually has both inputs and outputs, so you'll want some means for ApplicationGUI to get updates from Application and update the state of the GUI. For the same reasons described above, Application should send those updates to ApplicationGUI and let the latter find the actual UI components that need to be changed.
I don't often have to create GUI's but today I do so I was hoping for some design input.
Basically I have a backend which I intend to add a GUI too using the MVC pattern. The issue is I feel whatever class encapsulates the main GUI window is going to have A LOT of state (all of the sub elements); and on top of that it's going to have a lot of setters, and possibly getter, clear, colour, size, position and refresh functions too.
One option is to march ahead with this idea and have a very large public interface which deals with the types the GUI uses (std::string, std::vector<std::string>...) the more control I want over the UI the more public member function I am going to need.
The other option would be to pass the program state to the GUI and have it decide how it display it, I fear doing this would mean it would give me less fine detail control and would break down the separation of concerns and would mean any changes to the representation of the program state would require changes in the GUI too.
Any input on the matter would be of great help.
If it makes any difference this is a C++ gui using an ncurses abstraction.
It sounds like to me you've thought alot about the M and the V, but not much about the C. The pattern should really be called MCV because the whole idea is that the controller IS the bridge between your model (data) and view (GUI). It sounds like you need a controller with most of the functionality you've mentioned.
Simply put though, your model obviously should know nothing about display and your display (view) should not know how to access the model. You need a controller that reads the data (model) and gives instructions to the display (view). If you have user interaction within the view, the controller can interpret that and modify the model as necessary.
The idea is that you never have to change all 3, but if you change the model or the view, you almost always have to update the controller.
Hope that helps...
There is at least one alternative to the giant interface. Instead of having a function that handles each thing (size, font, color, what-to-display, etc...) have a singular function that accepts a "role" and data that represents the role. This requires some sort of wrapper that can contain multiple data types.
QT's QAbstractItemModel Class Reference has a good example:
QVariant QAbstractItemModel::data ( const QModelIndex & index, int
role = Qt::DisplayRole ) const [pure virtual]
What that function will do is return the QVariant that represents the role indicated at the index provided.
The downside of this approach, is you have to know what roles exist, and what they do. QT's default roles are shown here.
I like to have parts of the model able to instrument themselves:
class Model {
private:
int value;
public:
void instrument(Instrumenter& instrumenter);
};
The Instrumenter manages the creation of controls. The model will tell it how it can be controlled and give it access to the data.
void Model::instrument(Instrumenter& instrumenter) {
instrumenter.addRangeController(0, 100, 5, value);
}
Then for different input devices (e.g keyboard, touchscreen) you can create appropriate controls:
class KeyboardInstrumenter : public Instrumenter {
public:
void addRangeController(int min, int max, int increments, int& controlled) {
// create 3 widgets, up arrow, down arrow, and value
}
};
class TouchscreenInstrumenter : public Instrumenter {
public:
void addRangeController(int min, int max, int increments, int& controlled) {
// create slider with min, max and increments
}
};
Instead of passing in the int directly we could have wrapped it in a controlling object, to aid encapsulation.
I recently met a strange problem of my little program and it would be great if you help me to get the reason of this behavior.
My task is quiet simple - I want to use Qt Graphics Framework to show some objects and I want Box2D to calculate bodies position. So my class hierarchy looks like the following:
I have 1 base abstract class B2DObject. It contains some Box2D staff + some common parameters for its successors (names, some flags, etc.). It also has couple of pure virtual functions that will be reimplemented in successor classes.
Then I implement some classes that represent basic shapes: circles, rectangles, polygons, etc. I am doing it in the following way:
class ExtendedPolygon : public B2DObject, public QGraphicsPolygonItem { ... };
class ExtendedCircle : public B2DObject, public QGraphicsEllipseItem { ... };
etc.
(for those who are not familiar with Qt, QGraphics***Item is inherited from QGraphicsItem).
Also I inherited QGraphicsScene and reimplemented its mousePressEvent. In this function I request an object placed at some point on the screen using QGraphicsScene::itemAt function (which returns QGraphicsItem*), convert it to B2DObject* and try to get some internal field from this object:
void TestScene::mousePressEvent (QGraphicsSceneMouseEvent *event)
{
QGraphicsItem* item = itemAt (event->scenePos ());
if (item)
{
B2DObject* obj = reinterpret_cast < B2DObject* > (item);
QString objName = obj->Name(); // just for example,
// getting other internal fields has
// the same effect (described below)
// use retrieved field somehow (e.g. print in the screen)
}
// give the event to the ancestor
}
Unfortunately, dynamic_cast will not work here because these classes are completely unrelated.
Then I create necessary objects and add it to my scene:
ExtendedPolygon* polygon = new ExtendedPolygon (parameters);
polygon->setName (QString ("Object 1"));
...
TestScene scene;
scene.addItem (polygon);
(for those who are not familiar with Qt, here is the prototype of the last function:
void QGraphicsScene::addItem(QGraphicsItem *item);
I guess it just stores all items in internal index storage and calls QGraphicsItem::paint (...) when item needs to be repainted. I suppose QGraphicsScene doesn't make any significant changes to this item).
So my problems start when I run the program and click on an item on the screen. TestScene::mousePressEvent is called (see a piece of code above).
Mouse click position is retrieved, item is found. Casting works fine: in the debugger window (I'm using Qt Creator) I see that obj points to ExtendedPolygon (address is the same as when I add the item to the scene and in the debugger window I can see all the fields). But when I get some field, I receive garbage in any case (and it does not matter, what I'm trying to get - a QString or a pointer to some other structure).
So first of all, I would like to get any advice about my multiple inheritance. In 95% of cases I try to avoid it, but here it is very effective in the programming point of view. So I would appreciate it if you provide me with your point of view about the architecture of the classes hierarchy - does it even suppose to work as I expect it?
If on this level everything is quite fine, then it would be great if someone gets any idea why doesn't it work.
I have some ideas about workaround, but I really would like to solve this problem (just in order not to repeat the same error anymore).
Looks like I've found the root cause of my problem. It was just lack of knowledge regarding how multiple inheritance really works on data layer.
Let's assume that we have 2 basic classes, A and B. Each of them provides some internal data fields and some interfaces.
Then we create a derived class AABB, inheriting both A and B:
class AABB : public A, public B {...}
AABB could add some additional data fields and reimplement some of the interfaces, but it is not necessary.
Let's create and object of class AABB:
AABB* obj = new AABB ();
For example, obj points at address 0x8416e0. At this address starts data from ancestor class A. Data from ancestor class B starts with some offset (it should bw equal to sizeof (A)), for example, at 0x841700.
If we have some function f (B* b), and if we pass a pointer at AABB object to that function (like this: f (obj), obj is created above), actually not obj start address is passed, but rather a pointer at a start of B data section of AABB object.
Thus this misunderstanding of multiple inheritance inner works has led me to the problem I've got.
I guess Qobjects and multiple inheritance has been already treated. As an example: QObject Multiple Inheritance