Exposing fields from an opaque C struct - c++

Question

I am working with an existing C library (that I can't modify) where some structures have opaque fields that must be accessed through specific setters and getters, like in the following crude example (imagining x is private, even though it's written in C).
struct CObject {
int x;
};
void setCObjectX(CObject* o, int x) {
o->x = x;
}
int getCObjectX(CObject* o) {
return o->x;
}
I am writing classes that privately own these types of structures, kind of like wrappers, albeit more complex. I want to expose the relevant fields in a convenient way. At first, I was simply writing setters and getters wherever necessary. However, I thought of something else, and I wanted to know if there are any downsides to the method. It uses function pointers (std::function) to store the C setter-getter pairs and present them as if directly accessing a field instead of functions.
Here is the generic class I wrote to help define such "fake" fields:
template<typename T>
struct IndirectField {
void operator=(const T& value) {
setter(value);
}
auto operator()() const -> T {
return *this;
}
operator T() const {
return getter();
}
std::function<void(const T&)> setter;
std::function<T()> getter;
};
It is used by defining an instance in the C++ class and setting up setter and getter with the corresponding C functions:
IndirectField<int> x;
// ...
x.setter = [=](int x) {
setCObjectX(innerObject.get(), x);
};
x.getter = [=]() {
return getCObjectX(innerObject.get());
};
Here is a complete, working code for testing.
Are there any disadvantages to using this method? Could it lead to eventual dangerous behaviors or something?

Answer 1

The biggest problem I see with your solution is that std::function objects take space inside each instance of IndirectField inside CPPObject, even when CObject type is the same.
You can fix this problem by making function pointers into template parameters:
template<typename T,typename R,void setter(R*,T),T getter(R*)>
struct IndirectField {
IndirectField(R *obj) : obj(obj) {
}
void operator=(const T& value) {
setter(obj, value);
}
auto operator()() const -> T {
return *this;
}
operator T() const {
return getter(obj);
}
private:
R *obj;
};
Here is how to use this implementation:
class CPPObject {
std::unique_ptr<CObject,decltype(&freeCObject)> obj;
public:
CPPObject()
: obj(createCObject(), freeCObject)
, x(obj.get())
, y(obj.get()) {
}
IndirectField<int,CObject,setCObjectX,getCObjectX> x;
IndirectField<double,CObject,setCObjectY,getCObjectY> y;
};
This approach trades two std::function objects for one CObject* pointer per IndirectField. Unfortunately, storing this pointer is required, because you cannot get it from the context inside the template.
Your modified demo.

Answer 2

Are there any disadvantages to using this method?
There's a few things to highlight in your code:
Your getters & setters, being not part of the class, break encapsulation. (Do you really want to tie yourself permanently to this library?)
Your example shows a massive amount of copying being done; which will be slower than it needs to be. (auto operator()(), operator T() to name but 2).
It's taking up more memory than you need to and adds more compexity than just passing around a Cobject. If you don't want things to know that it's a CObject, then create an abstract class and pass that abstract class around (see below for example).
Could it lead to eventual dangerous behaviors or something?
The breaking of encapsulation will result in x changing from any number of routes; and force other things to know about how it's stored in the object. Which is bad.
The creation of IndirectField Means that every object will have to have getters and setters in this way; which is going to be a maintenance nightmare.
Really I think what you're looking for is something like:
struct xProvider {
virtual int getX() const = 0;
virtual void setX() = 0;
};
struct MyCObject : xProvider {
private:
CObject obj;
public:
int getX() const override {return obj.x;}
CObject& getRawObj() {return obj;}
// etc ...
}
And then you just pass a reference / pointer to an xProvider around.
This will remove the dependence on this external C library; allowing you to replace it with your own test struct or a whole new library if you see fit; without having to re-write all your code using it

Answer 3

in a struct by default (as you post) all the fields are public, so they are accessible by client software. I you want to make them accessible to derived classes (you don't need to reimplement anything if you know the field contract and want to access it in a well defined way) they are made protected. And if you want them to be accessed by nobody, then mark them as private.
If the author of such a software doesn't want the fields to be touched by you, he will mark them as private, and then you'll have nothing to do, but to adapt to this behaviour. Failing to do will give you bad consequences.
Suppose you make a field that is modified with a set_myField() method, that calls a list of listeners anytime you make a change. If you bypass the method accessing function, all the listeners (many of them of unknown origin) will be bypassed and won't be notified of the field change. This is quite common in object programming, so you must obey the rules the authors impose to you.