I think only the static method can do the following thing, but it can works.
can anybody tell me how it works? what's the principle behind this thing.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Parent {
protected:
unsigned char* buf;
unsigned int bufLenght;
public:
void Setup()
{
buf = nullptr;
bufLenght = 0;
cout << "in Parent class Setup()" << endl;
}
virtual void TearDown()
{
delete[] buf;
}
};
class Child : public Parent{
public:
virtual void Setup()
{
Parent::Setup(); // access Parent method without a parent's object?
cout << "in Child class Setup()" << endl;
}
};
int main(int argc, char const *argv[])
{
Child co;
co.Setup();
return 0;
}
run this code, the result is :
in Parent class Setup()
in Child class Setup()
I find the answer here:
How to call a parent class function from derived class function?
and in thinking in c++, I also find the same description:
However, when you’re redefining a function, you may still want to
call the base-class version. If, inside set( ), you simply call set( )
you’ll get the local version of the function – a recursive function
call. To call the base-class version, you must explicitly name the
base class using the scope resolution operator.
Each Child object is built on top of a Parent object. Whenever you have a Child you also have a Parent.
I can't seem to understand what you're trying to achieve. It appears that you've omitted the 'virtual' keyword on the base class method you're trying to override and hence receiving errors from the compiler.
Although your question is fairly unclear, here is my best attempt at demonstrating how to implement polymorphism in C++:
class A {
protected:
// You will not be able to access this in the
// other class unless you explicitly declare it as
// a 'friend' class.
int m_ProtectedVariable;
public:
// Let's define a virtual function that we can
// override in another class.
virtual void ClassMethod( ) {
printf( "[A::ClassMethod] Called!\n" );
}
}
class B : public A {
public:
// There is no need for the virtual/override keywords
// if you are overloading the function which is already defined
// in another class as 'virtual'. I prefer to keep them for
// pedantic reasons.
/* virtual */ void ClassMethod( ) /* override */ {
//
printf( "[B::ClassMethod] Called!\n" );
// Since the function is a virtual, we can always
// call the base class function.
A::ClassMethod( /* ... */ );
}
}
Hopefully you find this helpful in whatever you're trying to achieve :-)
EDIT: In your particular scenario, where you're supposed to allocate a buffer when you need it and destroy it afterwards - why are you not making use of the class constructor/destructor functionality?
It would be far more intuitive to let the compiler decide when to manage memory (in this case) as it will happen automatically once your object goes out of scope.
I'd like to be able to group similar functions in a class into a group so I don't need to append each name with what it's about.
I've seen this question which says that you can't have namespaces within classes. I've also seen this question which proposes using strongly typed enums. The problem here though, is that I'm not sure whether or not these enums can actually accomodate functions?
The problem contextualised:
class Semaphore
{
public:
void Set(bool State){Semaphore = State;}
bool Get(){return Semaphore;}
void Wait()
{
while (Semaphore)
{
//Wait until the node becomes available.
}
return;
}
private:
bool Semaphore = 0; //Don't operate on the same target simultaneously.
};
class Node : Semaphore
{
public:
unsigned long IP = 0; //IP should be stored in network order.
bool IsNeighbour = 0; //Single hop.
std::vector<int> OpenPorts;
//Rest of code...
};
Currently, NodeClass.Get() is how I can get the semaphore. However this introduces confusion as to what Get() actually gets. I'd like to have something akin to NodeClass.Semaphore::Get(). Otherwise I'd have to have the functions as SemaphoreSet(), SemaphoreGet(), and SemaphoreWait(), which isn't too well organised or nice looking.
I had thought of just having the Semaphore class on it's own, and instantiating it within the other classes, but if I could stick with the inheritance approach, that would be nicer.
So essentially, is it possible to access inherited methods like InheritedClass.Group::Function()?
If you really want to do this, you could force the user to call with the base class name by deleteing the member function in the subclass:
class Base {
public:
void Set(bool) { }
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
void Set(bool) = delete;
};
int main() {
Derived d;
// d.Set(true); // compiler error
d.Base::Set(true);
}
However, if the semantics of calling Set on the subclass are significantly different than what you'd expect them to be when calling Set on the base class, you should probably use a data member and name a member function accordingly as you've described:
class Base {
public:
void Set(bool) { }
};
class Derived {
public:
void SetBase(bool b) {
b_.Set(b);
}
private:
Base b_;
};
int main() {
Derived d;
d.SetBase(true);
}
I have one problem. I am writing my program on C++ language. I have one problem. I need to set signal handler for my process. As the signal is related with the process on system level I have faced the problem.
My program consists of several classes. They are connected together. But it doesn't matter in this case.
The problem is that I need access to member and methods of the class from my signal handler. For instance, I have a class named Foo at it has some members and methods.
So from my handler I need to call its function and change members.
I understand that compiler should know that this class instances will exist during all program execution.
I have tried to set static member class Foo instance in another class , but this didn't solve the problem.
I have no idea what is the correct approach for doing this. Please explain how to correctly implement signal handling in such case.
Here is an example of my code:
class MyContainer
{
private:
std::vector<Foo> container;
public:
int removeFromContainer(Foo* aFoo) {
// DO some stuff
return RESULT_CODE;
}
int addToContainer(Foo* aFoo) {
// DO some stuff
return RESULT_CODE;
}
};
Here is my Main class
class MainClass
{
private:
int member;
public:
void mainLoop(char* args) {
signal(SIGCHLD, &signalHandler);
}
};
Here is my function for signal handling
void static signalHandler_child(int p)
{
this->myContainerInstance->addToContainer(new Foo);
}
A static method is not so different from a global function. If you need to access instance members of a class, your signal handler should take an instance pointer/reference as argument.
Something like this
class Foo
{
private:
int member;
public:
static int Handler(Foo* aFoo) { return aFoo->member; }
};
I have certain functionality encapsulated in classes which I use in another class. I think this is called composition.
class DoesSomething01
{
public:
DoesSomething01();
void functionality01();
void functionality02();
};
class DoesSomething02
{
public:
DoesSomething02();
void functionality01();
void functionality02();
};
class ClassA
{
public:
ClassA();
private:
DoesSomething01 *m_doesSomething01;
DoesSomething02 *m_doesSomething02;
};
If I have now a ClassB which "knows" ClassA and have to use/execute functionality01 and/or functionality02 of classes DoesSomething01 and/or DoesSomething02 I see two possibilities:
a) Add methods like this to ClassA to provide ClassB direct access to DoesSomething01 and/or DoesSomething02:
DoesSomething01 *getDoesSomething01() { return *m_doesSomething01; }
DoesSomething02 *getDoesSomething02() { return *m_doesSomething02; }
ClassB could then do something like this:
m_classA->getDoesSomething01()->functionality01();
b) Add (in this case four) methods to ClassA which forwards the method calls to DoesSomething01 and DoesSomething02 like this:
void doesSomething01Functionality01() { m_doesSomething01->functionality01(); }
void doesSomething01Functionality02() { m_doesSomething01->functionality02(); }
void doesSomething02Functionality01() { m_doesSomething02->functionality01(); }
void doesSomething02Functionality02() { m_doesSomething02->functionality02(); }
Which option is better and why?
What are the advantages/disadvantages of each option?
First option can be considered a code smell. According to Robert C. Martin's 'Clean Code' it is "Transitive Navigation" and should be avoided. Quoting the author:
In general we don’t want a single module to know much about its
collaborators. More specifically, if A collaborates with B, and B
collaborates with C, we don’t want modules that use A to know about C.
(For example, we don’t want a.getB().getC().doSomething();.)
Second option looks better. It is classical use of Facade pattern. And it is better, because it hides other functionalities of classes DoesSomthing01 and DoesSomthing02. Then you ve'got simplified view of it which is easier to use than 1st option.
Edit: there is also one more thing. You've got two classes which have the same functionalites and are aggregated by other class. You should consider using Stratey pattern here. The your code will look like this:
class DoesSomething
{
public:
virtual void functionality01() = 0;
virtual void functionality02() = 0;
}
class DoesSomething01 : DoesSomething
{
public:
DoesSomething01();
void functionality01();
void functionality02();
};
class DoesSomething02 : DoesSomething
{
public:
DoesSomething02();
void functionality01();
void functionality02();
};
class ClassA
{
public:
ClassA();
DoesSomething* doesSomething(); // Getter
void doesSomething(DoesSomething* newDoesSomething); // Setter
// ...
private:
DoesSomething *m_doesSomething;
};
Then you will need only two method instead of four:
void doesFunctionality01() { m_doesSomething->functionality01(); }
void doesFunctionality02() { m_doesSomething->functionality02(); }
The first scenario is a violation of law of Demeter, which says that a class can only talk to its immediate friends. Basically the problem with the first approach is that any change in the inner classes DoSomething01 and DoSomething02 will trigger a change in Class A as well as Class B because both classes are now directly dependent on these inner classes.
The second option is better as it encapsulates the class B from inner classes but a side effect of this solution is that now class A has a lot of methods that does nothing fancy except for delegating to its inner classes. This is fine but imagine if DoSomething01 has an inner class DoSomething03 and class B needs to access its functionality without directly knowing about it than the class A would need to have another method that would delegate to DoSomething01 that would in turn delegate to DoSomething03. In this case I think it is better to let class B directly know about DoSomething01 otherwise class A is going to have a huge interface that simply delegates to its inner classes.
If there are many classes and/or many methods to be called it makes sense to invent
an interface in the form of an abstract parent class:
class SomeInterface
{
public:
SomeInterface(){}
virtual void functionally01() = 0;
virtual void functionally02() = 0;
}
DoesSomthing01 and other classes would then inherit this class:
class DoesSomthing01 : public SomeInterface
and implement the methods.
If it make sense to associate a key with the instantiation of such a class
you could store these objects in ClassA e.g. using a map (here I
use an integer as the key):
class ClassA
{
private:
std::map<int, SomeInterface*> m_Interfaces;
public:
SomeInterface* getInterface(const int key)
{
std::map<int, SomeInterface*>::iterator it(m_Interfaces.find(key));
if (it != m_Interfaces.end())
return it->second;
else
return NULL;
}
};
From ClassB you could then access them
int somekey = ...;
SomeInterface *myInter = m_classA->getInterface(somekey);
if (myInter)
myInter->functionally01();
This way you have just one access method (getInterface()) independent
of the number of objects.
In order to encode the access to the methods using a key you could
create a map which maps a key onto a closure or a simple switch statement:
in SomeInterface:
public:
void executeMethod(const int key)
{
switch(key)
{
case 1: functionally01(); break;
case 2: functionally01(); break;
default:
// error
}
int methodKey = ...;
int objectKey = ...;
SomeInterface *myInter = m_classA->getInterface(objectKey);
if (myInter)
myInter->executeMethod(methodKey);
Looks like a good case for a Mediator Pattern.
This pattern manage communication between 2 objects that he owns.
In my application, there are 10-20 classes that are instantiated once[*]. Here's an example:
class SomeOtherManager;
class SomeManagerClass {
public:
SomeManagerClass(SomeOtherManager*);
virtual void someMethod1();
virtual void someMethod2();
};
Instances of the classes are contained in one object:
class TheManager {
public:
virtual SomeManagerClass* someManagerClass() const;
virtual SomeOtherManager* someOtherManager() const;
/** More objects... up to 10-20 */
};
Currently TheManager uses the new operator in order to create objects.
My intention is to be able to replace, using plugins, the SomeManagerClass (or any other class) implementation with another one. In order to replace the implementation, 2 steps are needed:
Define a class DerivedSomeManagerClass, which inherits SomeManagerClass [plugin]
Create the new class (DerivedSomeManagerClass) instead of the default (SomeManagerClass) [application]
I guess I need some kind of object factory, but it should be fairly simple since there's always only one type to create (the default implementation or the user implementation).
Any idea about how to design a simple factory like I just described? Consider the fact that there might be more classes in the future, so it should be easy to extend.
[*] I don't care if it happens more than once.
Edit: Please note that there are more than two objects that are contained in TheManager.
Assuming a class (plugin1) which inherits from SomeManagerClass, you need a class hierarchy to build your types:
class factory
{
public:
virtual SomeManagerClass* create() = 0;
};
class plugin1_factory : public factory
{
public:
SomeManagerClass* create() { return new plugin1(); }
};
Then you can assign those factories to a std::map, where they are bound to strings
std::map<string, factory*> factory_map;
...
factory_map["plugin1"] = new plugin1_factory();
Finally your TheManager just needs to know the name of the plugin (as string) and can return an object of type SomeManagerClass with just one line of code:
SomeManagerClass* obj = factory_map[plugin_name]->create();
EDIT: If you don't like to have one plugin factory class for each plugin, you could modify the previous pattern with this:
template <class plugin_type>
class plugin_factory : public factory
{
public:
SomeManagerClass* create() { return new plugin_type(); }
};
factory_map["plugin1"] = new plugin_factory<plugin1>();
I think this is a much better solution. Moreover the 'plugin_factory' class could add itself to the 'factory_map' if you pass costructor the string.
I think there are two separate problems here.
One problem is: how does TheManager name the class that it has to create? It must keep some kind of pointer to "a way to create the class". Possible solutions are:
keeping a separate pointer for each kind of class, with a way to set it, but you already said that you don't like this as it violates the DRY principle
keeping some sort of table where the key is an enum or a string; in this case the setter is a single function with parameters (of course if the key is an enum you can use a vector instead of a map)
The other problem is: what is this "way to create a class"? Unfortunately we can't store pointers to constructors directly, but we can:
create, as others have pointed out, a factory for each class
just add a static "create" function for each class; if they keep a consistent signature, you can just use their pointers to functions
Templates can help in avoiding unnecessary code duplication in both cases.
I have answered in another SO question about C++ factories. Please see there if a flexible factory is of interest. I try to describe an old way from ET++ to use macros which has worked great for me.
ET++ was a project to port old MacApp to C++ and X11. In the effort of it Eric Gamma etc started to think about Design Patterns
I'd create a "base" factory that has virtual methods for creation of all the basic managers, and let the "meta manager" (TheManager in your question) take a pointer to the base factory as a constructor parameter.
I'm assuming that the "factory" can customize the instances of CXYZWManager by deriving from them, but alternatively the constructor of CXYZWManager could take different arguments in the "custom" factory.
A lengthy code example that outputs "CSomeManager" and "CDerivedFromSomeManager":
#include <iostream>
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
class CSomeManager
{
public:
virtual const char * ShoutOut() { return "CSomeManager";}
};
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
class COtherManager
{
};
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
class TheManagerFactory
{
public:
// Non-static, non-const to allow polymorphism-abuse
virtual CSomeManager *CreateSomeManager() { return new CSomeManager(); }
virtual COtherManager *CreateOtherManager() { return new COtherManager(); }
};
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
class CDerivedFromSomeManager : public CSomeManager
{
public:
virtual const char * ShoutOut() { return "CDerivedFromSomeManager";}
};
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
class TheCustomManagerFactory : public TheManagerFactory
{
public:
virtual CDerivedFromSomeManager *CreateSomeManager() { return new CDerivedFromSomeManager(); }
};
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
class CMetaManager
{
public:
CMetaManager(TheManagerFactory *ip_factory)
: mp_some_manager(ip_factory->CreateSomeManager()),
mp_other_manager(ip_factory->CreateOtherManager())
{}
CSomeManager *GetSomeManager() { return mp_some_manager; }
COtherManager *GetOtherManager() { return mp_other_manager; }
private:
CSomeManager *mp_some_manager;
COtherManager *mp_other_manager;
};
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
TheManagerFactory standard_factory;
TheCustomManagerFactory custom_factory;
CMetaManager meta_manager_1(&standard_factory);
CMetaManager meta_manager_2(&custom_factory);
std::cout << meta_manager_1.GetSomeManager()->ShoutOut() << "\n";
std::cout << meta_manager_2.GetSomeManager()->ShoutOut() << "\n";
return 0;
}
Here's the solution I thought of, it's not the best one but maybe it will help to think of better solutions:
For each class there would be a creator class:
class SomeManagerClassCreator {
public:
virtual SomeManagerClass* create(SomeOtherManager* someOtherManager) {
return new SomeManagerClass(someOtherManager);
}
};
Then, the creators will be gathered in one class:
class SomeManagerClassCreator;
class SomeOtherManagerCreator;
class TheCreator {
public:
void setSomeManagerClassCreator(SomeManagerClassCreator*);
SomeManagerClassCreator* someManagerClassCreator() const;
void setSomeOtherManagerCreator(SomeOtherManagerCreator*);
SomeOtherManagerCreator* someOtherManagerCreator() const;
private:
SomeManagerClassCreator* m_someManagerClassCreator;
SomeOtherManagerCreator* m_someOtherManagerCreator;
};
And TheManager will be created with TheCreator for internal creation:
class TheManager {
public:
TheManager(TheCreator*);
/* Rest of code from above */
};
The problem with this solution is that it violates DRY - for each class creator I would have to write setter/getter in TheCreator.
This seems like it would be a lot simpler with function templating as opposed to an Abstract Factory pattern
class ManagerFactory
{
public:
template <typename T> static BaseManager * getManager() { return new T();}
};
BaseManager * manager1 = ManagerFactory::template getManager<DerivedManager1>();
If you want to get them via a string, you can create a standard map from strings to function pointers. Here is an implementation that works:
#include <map>
#include <string>
class BaseManager
{
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
};
class DerivedManager1 : public BaseManager
{
public:
virtual void doSomething() {};
};
class DerivedManager2 : public BaseManager
{
public:
virtual void doSomething() {};
};
class ManagerFactory
{
public:
typedef BaseManager * (*GetFunction)();
typedef std::map<std::wstring, GetFunction> ManagerFunctionMap;
private:
static ManagerFunctionMap _managers;
public:
template <typename T> static BaseManager * getManager() { return new T();}
template <typename T> static void registerManager(const std::wstring& name)
{
_managers[name] = ManagerFactory::template getManager<T>;
}
static BaseManager * getManagerByName(const std::wstring& name)
{
if(_managers.count(name))
{
return _managers[name]();
}
return NULL;
}
};
// the static map needs to be initialized outside the class
ManagerFactory::ManagerFunctionMap ManagerFactory::_managers;
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
// you can get with the templated function
BaseManager * manager1 = ManagerFactory::template getManager<DerivedManager1>();
manager1->doSomething();
// or by registering with a string
ManagerFactory::template registerManager<DerivedManager1>(L"Derived1");
ManagerFactory::template registerManager<DerivedManager2>(L"Derived2");
// and getting them
BaseManager * manager2 = ManagerFactory::getManagerByName(L"Derived2");
manager2->doSomething();
BaseManager * manager3 = ManagerFactory::getManagerByName(L"Derived1");
manager3->doSomething();
return 0;
}
EDIT: In reading the other answers I realized that this is very similar to Dave Van den Eynde's FactorySystem solution, but I'm using a function template pointer instead of instantiating templated factory classes. I think my solution is a little more lightweight. Due to static functions, the only object that gets instantiated is the map itself. If you need the factory to perform other functions (DestroyManager, etc.), I think his solution is more extensible.
You could implement an object factory with static methods that return an instance of a Manager-Class. In the factory you could create a method for the default type of manager and a method for any type of manager which you give an argument representing the type of the Manager-Class (say with an enum). This last method should return an Interface rather than a Class.
Edit: I'll try to give some code, but mind that my C++ times are quite a while back and I'm doing only Java and some scripting for the time being.
class Manager { // aka Interface
public: virtual void someMethod() = 0;
};
class Manager1 : public Manager {
void someMethod() { return null; }
};
class Manager2 : public Manager {
void someMethod() { return null; }
};
enum ManagerTypes {
Manager1, Manager2
};
class ManagerFactory {
public static Manager* createManager(ManagerTypes type) {
Manager* result = null;
switch (type) {
case Manager1:
result = new Manager1();
break;
case Manager2:
result = new Manager2();
break;
default:
// Do whatever error logging you want
break;
}
return result;
}
};
Now you should be able to call the Factory via (if you've been able to make the code sample work):
Manager* manager = ManagerFactory.createManager(ManagerTypes.Manager1);
I would use templates like this as I can't see the point of factories classes:
class SomeOtherManager;
class SomeManagerClass {
public:
SomeManagerClass(SomeOtherManager*);
virtual void someMethod1();
virtual void someMethod2();
};
class TheBaseManager {
public:
//
};
template <class ManagerClassOne, class ManagerClassOther>
class SpecialManager : public TheBaseManager {
public:
virtual ManagerClassOne* someManagerClass() const;
virtual ManagerClassOther* someOtherManager() const;
};
TheBaseManager* ourManager = new SpecialManager<SomeManagerClass,SomeOtherManager>;
You should take a look at the tutorial at
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/papafactory/PapaFactory20080622.pdf?use_mirror=fastbull
It contains a great tutorial on implementing an Abstract factory in C++ and the source code that comes with it is also very robust
Chris
Mh I don't understand a hundred percent, and I am not really into factory stuff from books and articles.
If all your managers share a similar interface you could derive from a base class, and use this base class in your program.
Depending on where the decision which class will be created will be made, you have to use an identifier for creation (as stated above) or handle the decision which manager to instantiate internally.
Another way would be to implement it "policy" like by using templates. So that You ManagerClass::create() returns a specific SomeOtherManagerWhatever instance. This would lay the decision which manager to make in the code which uses your Manager - Maye this is not intended.
Or that way:
template<class MemoryManagment>
class MyAwesomeClass
{
MemoryManagment m_memoryManager;
};
(or something like that)
With this construct you can easily use other managers by only changing the instantiation of MyAwesomeClass.
Also A class for this purpose might be a little over the top. In your case a factory function would do I guess. Well it's more a question of personal preference.
If you plan on supporting plugins that are dynamically linked, your program will need to provide a stable ABI (Application Binary Interface), that means that you cannot use C++ as your main interface as C++ has no standard ABI.
If you want plugins to implement an interface you define yourself, you will have to provide the header file of the interface to plugin programmer and standardize on a very simple C interface in order to create and delete the object.
You cannot provide a dynamic library that will allow you to "new" the plugin class as-is. That is why you need to standardize on a C interface in order to create the object. Using the C++ object is then possible as long as none of your arguments use possibly incompatible types, like STL containers. You will not be able to use a vector returned by another library, because you cannot ensure that their STL implementation is the same as yours.
Manager.h
class Manager
{
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
virtual int doSomethingElse() = 0;
}
extern "C" {
Manager* newManager();
void deleteManager(Manager*);
}
PluginManager.h
#include "Manager.h"
class PluginManager : public Manager
{
public:
PluginManager();
virtual ~PluginManager();
public:
virtual void doSomething();
virtual int doSomethingElse();
}
PluginManager.cpp
#include "PluginManager.h"
Manager* newManager()
{
return new PluginManager();
}
void deleteManager(Manager* pManager)
{
delete pManager;
}
PluginManager::PluginManager()
{
// ...
}
PluginManager::~PluginManager()
{
// ...
}
void PluginManager::doSomething()
{
// ...
}
int PluginManager::doSomethingElse()
{
// ...
}
You didnt talk about TheManager. It looks like you want that to control which class is being used? or maybe you trying to chain them together?
It sounds like you need a abstract base class and a pointer to the currently used class. If you wish to chain you can do it in both abstract class and themanager class. If abstract class, add a member to the next class in chain, if themanager then sort it in order you which to use in a list. You'll need a way to add classes so you'll need an addMe() in themanager. It sounds like you know what your doing so w/e you choose should be right. A list with an addMe func is my recommendation and if you want only 1 active class then a function in TheManager deciding it would be good.
This maybe heavier than you need, but it sounds like you are trying to make a frame work class that supports plugins.
I would break it up into to 3 sections.
1) The FrameWork class would own the plugins.
This class is responsable for publishing interfaces supplied by the plugins.
2) A PlugIn class would own the componets that do the work.
This class is responsable for registering the exported interfaces, and binding the imported interfaces to the components.
3) The third section, the componets are the suppliers and consumers of the interfaces.
To make things extensible, getting things up and running might be broke up into stages.
Create everything.
Wire everything up.
Start everything.
To break things down.
Stop everything.
Destroy everything.
class IFrameWork {
public:
virtual ~IFrameWork() {}
virtual void RegisterInterface( const char*, void* ) = 0;
virtual void* GetInterface( const char* name ) = 0;
};
class IPlugIn {
public:
virtual ~IPlugIn() {}
virtual void BindInterfaces( IFrameWork* frameWork ) {};
virtual void Start() {};
virtual void Stop() {};
};
struct SamplePlugin :public IPlugIn {
ILogger* logger;
Component1 component1;
WebServer webServer;
public:
SamplePlugin( IFrameWork* frameWork )
:logger( (ILogger*)frameWork->GetInterface( "ILogger" ) ), //assumes the 'System' plugin exposes this
component1(),
webServer( component1 )
{
logger->Log( "MyPlugin Ctor()" );
frameWork->RegisterInterface( "ICustomerManager", dynamic_cast( &component1 ) );
frameWork->RegisterInterface( "IVendorManager", dynamic_cast( &component1 ) );
frameWork->RegisterInterface( "IAccountingManager", dynamic_cast( &webServer ) );
}
virtual void BindInterfaces( IFrameWork* frameWork ) {
logger->Log( "MyPlugin BindInterfaces()" );
IProductManager* productManager( static_cast( frameWork->GetInterface( "IProductManager" ) ) );
IShippingManager* shippingManager( static_cast( frameWork->GetInterface( "IShippingManager" ) ) );
component1.BindInterfaces( logger, productManager );
webServer.BindInterfaces( logger, productManager, shippingManager );
}
virtual void Start() {
logger->Log( "MyPlugin Start()" );
webServer.Start();
}
virtual void Stop() {
logger->Log( "MyPlugin Stop()" );
webServer.Stop();
}
};
class FrameWork :public IFrameWork {
vector plugIns;
map interfaces;
public:
virtual void RegisterInterface( const char* name, void* itfc ) {
interfaces[ name ] = itfc;
}
virtual void* GetInterface( const char* name ) {
return interfaces[ name ];
}
FrameWork() {
//Only interfaces in 'SystemPlugin' can be used by all methods of the other plugins
plugIns.push_back( new SystemPlugin( this ) );
plugIns.push_back( new SamplePlugin( this ) );
//add other plugIns here
for_each( plugIns.begin(), plugIns.end(), bind2nd( mem_fun( &IPlugIn::BindInterfaces ), this ) );
for_each( plugIns.begin(), plugIns.end(), mem_fun( &IPlugIn::Start ) );
}
~FrameWork() {
for_each( plugIns.rbegin(), plugIns.rend(), mem_fun( &IPlugIn::Stop ) );
for_each( plugIns.rbegin(), plugIns.rend(), Delete() );
}
};
Here's a minimal factory pattern implementation that I came up with in about 15 minutes. We use a similar one that uses more advanced base classes.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <map>
#include <string>
class BaseClass
{
public:
virtual ~BaseClass() { }
virtual void Test() = 0;
};
class DerivedClass1 : public BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void Test() { } // You can put a breakpoint here to test.
};
class DerivedClass2 : public BaseClass
{
public:
virtual void Test() { } // You can put a breakpoint here to test.
};
class IFactory
{
public:
virtual BaseClass* CreateNew() const = 0;
};
template <typename T>
class Factory : public IFactory
{
public:
T* CreateNew() const { return new T(); }
};
class FactorySystem
{
private:
typedef std::map<std::wstring, IFactory*> FactoryMap;
FactoryMap m_factories;
public:
~FactorySystem()
{
FactoryMap::const_iterator map_item = m_factories.begin();
for (; map_item != m_factories.end(); ++map_item) delete map_item->second;
m_factories.clear();
}
template <typename T>
void AddFactory(const std::wstring& name)
{
delete m_factories[name]; // Delete previous one, if it exists.
m_factories[name] = new Factory<T>();
}
BaseClass* CreateNew(const std::wstring& name) const
{
FactoryMap::const_iterator found = m_factories.find(name);
if (found != m_factories.end())
return found->second->CreateNew();
else
return NULL; // or throw an exception, depending on how you want to handle it.
}
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
FactorySystem system;
system.AddFactory<DerivedClass1>(L"derived1");
system.AddFactory<DerivedClass2>(L"derived2");
BaseClass* b1 = system.CreateNew(L"derived1");
b1->Test();
delete b1;
BaseClass* b2 = system.CreateNew(L"derived2");
b2->Test();
delete b2;
return 0;
}
Just copy & paste over an initial Win32 console app in VS2005/2008. I like to point out something:
You don't need to create a concrete factory for every class. A template will do that for you.
I like to place the entire factory pattern in its own class, so that you don't need to worry about creating factory objects and deleting them. You simply register your classes, a factory class gets created by the compiler and a factory object gets created by the pattern. At the end of its lifetime, all factories are cleanly destroyed. I like this form of encapsulation, as there is no confusion over who governs the lifetime of the factories.