I have a template class with all functions declared as static.
template <class T>
class Cache {
private:
Cache() {}
static std::map<std::string, std::string> c_files;
public:
~Cache() {}
template<class T> static void add(T const &file, std::string id) {
return;
}
//... here are some other functions
static void init() {
// do some initialization
}
}
Normally I would call it like:
Cache<BITMAP*>::add(my_bitmap, "my_identifier");
which works fine.
But the thing is, I need to do some one-time initialization when my app starts. (checking for cached files on the HDD, push them into the map).
At the moment I'm using a "fake" call like:
Cache<bool>::update();
which I think is really a mess.
Now, is this messy call okay, or is it complete against some programming standards? How would you solve that problem?
Related
I am just thinking about a way to check an object to be valid in a automated way.
I have a couple of hardware related objects (like class A), which can be deleted by external (physical) events.
To detect this I have used shared/weak pointer. But now I am struggling with the checking of the weak pointer. Since this is done in the same way for each member function for many objects, I am currently searching for a way to do this with less redundant code.
In addition I am writing a library and do not want the user to handle this (simply return the weak pointer to the user to handle it by himself is therefor no option)
My best guess is shown below. My problem is, I could not find a way to generate the member functions (func1, and many more ...) automatically within the template. Doing it by myself would result in lot of redundant code for every member function to be validated (and there are a lot)
Each member function of A (and many more other objects) shall be wrapped by a function doing the validation shown below. This is same for all member functions and done for many classes which can be used as type for the Validator.
Does anyone has an idea how to solve this? Maybe there are other (better) ways to solve this.
Many thanks for your help.
Some constraints:
Only C++11 possible,
No exceptions
class A {
public:
void func1() {}
//many more functions
};
template<typename T>
class Validator
{
//has to be done for all functions of A
void func1()
{
if (!wptr.expired())
{
wptr.lock()->func1();
}
else
errorHandling();
}
private:
std::weak_ptr<T> wptr;
void errorHandling() {}
};
I would protect the full user function call:
class A {
public:
void func1() {}
//many more functions
};
template <typename T>
class Validator
{
public:
#if 1 // template way, but no-expressive signature
template <typename F>
void do_job(F f)
#else // type-erasure way, expressive, but with some overhead
void do_job(std::function<void (T&)> f)
#endif
{
auto t = wptr.lock();
if (t) {
f(*t);
} else {
errorHandling();
}
}
private:
void errorHandling();
private:
std::weak_ptr<T> wptr;
};
So user might chain call:
Validator<A> val;
val.do_job([](A& a)
{
a.func1();
a.func2();
});
If the caller can live with clunky syntax you can use member function pointers:
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
void func1() {
std::cout << "hello func1\n";
}
};
template<typename T>
class Validator
{
public:
Validator(std::shared_ptr<T> p) : wptr(p) {}
template <typename MemFun>
void call(MemFun mf) {
if (!wptr.expired())
{
(wptr.lock().get()->*mf)();
}
else
errorHandling();
}
private:
std::weak_ptr<T> wptr;
void errorHandling() {}
};
int main() {
auto x = std::make_shared<A>();
Validator<A> v{x};
v.call(&A::func1);
}
I am working on game engine as a project during the summer. Every scriptable component should have access to some methods in the scene which they are in. To make this possible i pass lambdas from the scene that calls the respective methods to the scriptable where they are implicitly converted to std::function types.
Scene.h:
class Scene
{
private:
unsigned int _currentId;
std::vector<System*> _systems;
//SCRIPTABLE NEEDS THE BELOW METHODS THESE EXCLUSIVELY:
bool exists(unsigned id);
void destroy(unsigned int);
void addComponent(Component*, unsigned int);
template<typename T> T& getComponent(unsigned int);
template<typename T> bool hasComponent(unsigned int);
template<typename T> void removeComponent(unsigned int);
protected:
unsigned int instantiate(std::vector<Component*>);
public:
Scene(ChangeSceneCallback);
~Scene();
void initiate();
void update(long dt);
};
template<typename T>
inline T & Scene::getComponent(unsigned int id)
{
for (System* system : _systems) {
if (system->corresponds(T)) {
return static_cast<T*>(system->getComponent(entityId));
}
}
}
template<typename T>
inline bool Scene::hasComponent(unsigned int id)
{
for (System* system : _systems) {
if (system->corresponds(T)) {
return system->contains(id);
}
}
}
template<typename T>
inline void Scene::removeComponent(unsigned int id)
{
for (System* system : _systems) {
if (system->corresponds(T)) {
return system->destroy(id);
}
}
}
The callback method works for the non-template functions i need access to, but not the templated ones, so it's out of the question.
Scriptable:
typedef std::function<void(int)> ChangeSceneCallback;
typedef std::function<int(std::vector<Component*>)> InstantiateCallback;
typedef std::function<void(int)> DestroyCallback;
typedef std::function<bool(int)> ExistCallback;
typedef std::function<void(Component*, unsigned int)> AddComponentCallback;
class Scriptable: public Component
{
protected:
ChangeSceneCallback changeScene;
InstantiateCallback instantiate;
DestroyCallback destroy;
ExistCallback exists;
public:
~Scriptable();
Scriptable();
void assignCallbacks(ChangeSceneCallback, InstantiateCallback etc ...);
virtual void init() = 0;
virtual void update() = 0;
};
Scriptable can't have access to public methods in scene because this would give the user / developer access to them (Scriptable is a base class for the behaviour of the game). That is why i need to come up with something that gives scriptable limited access to scene.
Any thoughts?
You cannot have a type erased "template callback". You have to choose between the template or the type erasure. Let me explain.
This is what a "template callback" look like. This is in fact a generic lambda:
auto print_callback = [](auto var) {
std::cout << var << std::endl;
}
print_callback(4) ; // prints "4"
print_callback(4.5); // prints "4.5"
print_callback("hello"); // prints "hello"
It seems good but notice that you can't do that with std::function, since you have to predefine the signature.
std::function<void(int)> func_print_callback = print_callback;
func_print_callback(5); // Yay! Prints "5"
func_print_callback("hello"); // error
The thing is, you might think the limitation is only because std::function need a specific signature to work with, but the limitation is much deeper than that.
The thing is, the is no template function. They don't exists. Function template on the other hand, do exist. Why I emphasize so much on the order of my words is because the name of this thing says it all: it is not a function, it a template that is used to make functions.
Here's a simple example:
template<typename T>
void foo(T t) {
std::cout << t << std::endl;
}
This function is not compiled. Because it's not a function. No function foo will exist until the hole T has been filled.
How do you fill the hole named T supposed to be a type?
By filling it with a type of course!
foo(5.4); // the hole T is `double`
When the compiler sees this, it knows you need a function named foo that takes a double as parameter. There is no function named foo that takes a double. But we gave the compiler a tool to create one: the template!
So the compiler will generate this function:
void foo_double(double t) {
std::cout << t std::endl;
}
The word here is this: generate. The compiler need to create the function in order to exist. The compiler generate code for you.
When the function is generated and compiled, T do not exist anymore. A template parameter is a compile-time entity, and only the compiler knows about them.
Now, I'll explain to you why there is no such thing as a template callback.
Type erased container such as std::function are implemented with pointer to function. I'll use type aliases to ease the syntax a bit. It works like this:
// A function
void foo(int) {}
// The type of the pointer to function
using func_ptr = void(*)(int);
// A pointer to foo
func_ptr ptr = &foo;
The pointer to the function foo has a value that points to the location of foo in the memory.
Now imagine we have a way to have template function pointer. We would have to point to a function that does not exist yet. It has no memory location, so it cannot make sense. And through the pointer, when invoked as a function, you'd have to generate the function code.
Since a pointer to function can point to any function, even functions that aren't known to the compiler yet, you'd have to somehow generate the function code and compile it. But the value of the pointer, to which function our pointer points to, is defined at runtime! So you'd have to compile code at runtime, for code that you don't know yet, from a value that does not exist, when the compiler don't exist anymore. As you can see, pointer to template function, template std::function or virtual template function cannot exist.
Now that you have understood the problem, let me propose a solution: drop the callback usage. You should call those functions directly.
You seem to use callback only to be able to call private member functions. This is the wrong way to do it, even if it works. What you need is friend, the feature of C++ that allows you to access private members.
class Scene {
friend Component;
// ...
};
class Component {
protected:
// Let `scene` be a reference to your scene
void addComponent(Component* c, unsigned int id) {
scene.addComponent(c, id);
}
template<typename T>
T& getComponent(unsigned int id) {
return scene.getComponent<T>(id);
}
template<typename T>
bool hasComponent(unsigned int id) {
return scene.hasComponent(id);
}
template<typename T>
void removeComponent(unsigned int id) {
removeComponent(id);
}
// ...
};
Since the Component class is the only friend to Scene, only it can call private member functions. Since all those newly defined functions in Component are protected, only class that extends from Component can call those. They are invoked like this:
class Scriptable : public Component {
void foo() {
hasComponent<Bar>(87); // works, call function defined in `Component`
}
};
I'm trying to create the program that executes some code only if the template is instantiated (it will be used for low-level driver initialization).
Now I have the following solution.
class Initializer
{
public:
Initializer(){
// This code is executed once
}
void silly() const{
}
};
template <class T>
class Proxy{
protected:
static const Initializer init;
};
template<class T>
const Initializer Proxy<T>::init;
template<class T>
class MyTemplate : public Proxy<void>{
public:
static void myMethod1(){
init.silly();
// ... Something useful
}
static void myMethod2(){
init.silly();
// ... Something useful
}
};
The Initializer default constructor is executed only in case I call myMethod1() or myMethod2() somewhere.
But is there a way to get rid of those init.silly(); lines?
Your problem, is that members of a template are not instantiated unless they are referenced.
Rather than calling init.silly(), you can just reference the member:
static void myMethod1(){
(void)init;
// ... Something useful
}
Or, if you want init to be defined absolutely always, you can explicitly instantiate it:
template<>
const Initializer Proxy<void>::init{};
template and low-level driver initialization?.. I'd try to make it as C as possible :) to ensure exact behavior.
You can do something like this perhaps:
class Initializer
{
public:
Initializer() {
// This code is executed once
}
};
template <class T>
class Proxy {
protected:
Proxy()
{
static Initializer init;
}
};
template<class T>
class MyTemplate : public Proxy<void> {
public:
void myMethod1() {
// ... Something useful
}
void myMethod2() {
// ... Something useful
}
};
All your code uses only static functions and doesn't really show why you would use classes and templates. With my change I made myMethod1 and myMethod2 non static and Proxy() constructor would create Initializer once.
Note that because of all that template mess your Initializer might be executed as many times as you instantiate Proxy template. Did you really mean it? If not, convert to clear readable code that doesn't have this unexpected results. This will also be better maintainable and readable for others:
class Initializer
{
Initializer() {
// This code is executed once
}
public:
void init()
{
static Initializer init;
}
};
template<class T>
class MyTemplate {
public:
static void myMethod1() {
Initializer::init();
// ... Something useful
}
static void myMethod2() {
Initializer::init();
// ... Something useful
}
};
This makes it absolutely clear that Initializer will be created only once just before myMethod1 or myMethod2 is called. If nothing calls your Initializer::init then that code from Initializer should be removed at link time.
I'm making a template library in c++. I think it needs to be in the form of a template class because it has to be able to store some data. I would like to be able to create an instance of that class without having to specify a data type.
Here's what the class template would look like
template<class T>
class MyTemplateClass{
public:
void saveData(T data);
private:
T my_data;
};
template<class T>
void MyTemplateClass<T>::saveData(T data){
//bunch of code goes here
}
and here's how I would like to declare it:
class LibraryUser{
public:
void saveDoubleData(double data);
void saveFloatData(float data);
private:
MyTemplateClass<UNKNOWN_TYPE> my_generic_object;
};
and use it:
void LibraryUser::saveDoubleData(double data){
my_generic_object.saveData(data);
}
void LibraryUser::saveFloatData(float data){
my_generic_object.saveData(data);
}
What should UNKNOWN_TYPE be? Is this possible?
EXTRA NOTES: I cannot edit the function prototypes of the LibraryUser class because it is part of an existing plug-in framework. I'd rather not use template specialization because I don't want to double the code in saveData() since it's actually pretty long.
You should make the LibraryUser class a template as well:
template<class T>
class LibraryUser{
public:
void saveData(T data);
private:
MyTemplateClass<T> my_generic_object;
};
Alternatively, you can use boost::any if the type is really unknown, or boost::variant if the type is in a specified set of types.
The template classes are actually different from each other so you can't really change the template type runtime without using some trick. If you don't want to make LibraryUser also a template, you can store multiple variables. In this case, if you want to save yourself the trouble of duplicating every code, but you have a limited number of different types just use multiple variables and store which one is actually used. Not really nice, but saves you from making more template classes.
class LibraryUser{
public:
void saveIntData(int data);
void saveFloatData(float data);
private:
MyTemplateClass<int> my_int;
MyTemplateClass<float> my_float;
};
Use it:
void LibraryUser::saveFloatData(float data){
my_float.saveData(data);
}
void LibraryUser::saveIntData(int data){
my_int.saveData(data);
}
Instead of having a class member, why not use local instances of your template class?
void LibraryUser::saveIntData(float data){
MyTemplateClass<float> saver;
saver.saveData(data);
}
void LibraryUser::saveFloatData(int data){
MyTemplateClass<int> saver;
saver.saveData(data);
}
If MyTemplateClass needs s.th. you want to have initialized once (e.g. a database connection), make a class member for that one separately (in LibraryUser) and pass a reference to the constructor of MyTemplateClass:
template<class T>
class MyTemplateClass{
public:
MyTemplateClass(DBConnection& conn);
void saveData(T data);
private:
T my_data;
DBConnection& my_conn;
};
class LibraryUser{
public:
void saveIntData(int data);
void saveFloatData(float data);
private:
DBConnection my_conn;
};
void LibraryUser::saveIntData(float data){
MyTemplateClass<float> saver(my_conn);
saver.saveData(data);
}
About your EXTRA NOTES:
It is also safe to assume that a given OtherClass object will consistently only call either saveFloatData or saveIntData, not both.
IMHO that's a bad assumption (restriction) made for client usage, if you're going to design a framework.
UPDATE:
Another option I can think of, is to just templating the function in question, not the whole class:
class MyGenericClass{
public:
MyGenericClass();
template<class T>
void saveData(T data);
};
I am working on an event daemon in C++ that I would like to use member function callbacks. Basically an event queue would collect events which the daemon continuously services. There is a base class Event struct with an ID and all events would derive from it. I would like the methods registered for each event to use the derived event type in their signature.
struct Event
{
unsigned int eventId;
};
struct EventA : public Event
{
unsigned int x;
unsigned int y;
};
// and struct EventB, EventC (use your imagination...)
const unsigned int EVENT_A = 1;
const unsigned int EVENT_B = 2;
const unsigned int EVENT_C = 3;
class Foo
{
public:
void handlerMethod_A(const EventA& e);
void handlerMethod_B(const EventB& e);
};
class Bar
{
public:
void handlerMethod_C(const EventC& e);
};
Then the Daemon would allow these classes to subscribe their member functions using their 'this' pointer.
class EventDaemon
{
public:
void serviceEvents();
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
void subscribe(
const unsigned int eventId,
CallbackClass* classInstancePtr,
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(EventType));
private:
Queue<Event*> eventQueue_;
};
So outside this class you could do something like:
EventDaemon* ed = new EventDaemon();
Foo* foo = new Foo();
Bar* bar = new Bar();
ed->subscribe(EVENT_A, foo, Foo::handlerMethod_A);
ed->subscribe(EVENT_B, foo, Foo::handlerMethod_B);
ed->subscribe(EVENT_C, bar, Bar::handlerMethod_C);
And the EventDaemon loop would be along the lines of
void EventDaemon::serviceEvents()
{
while (true)
{
if (eventQueue_.empty())
{
// yield to other threads
}
else
{
// pop an event out of the FIFO queue
Event e* = eventQueue_.pop();
// somehow look up the callback info and use it
classInstancePtr->*funcPtr(reinterpret_cast<?*>(e));
}
}
}
So my question is how I can store the 'this' pointers and member function pointers in some sort of array by event ID. That way I could look up the 'classInstancePtr' and 'funcPtr' by using e->eventId and the event type as well for the reinterpret cast.
You are working too hard. Use boost functions:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/doc/html/function.html
These work whether you have a object or not. They will increase your compile time.
Note, whenever you come across these types of questions where you know many people must have had the same problem, there is probably a simple option and, if it is not in the standard library, it is probably in boost.
In response to Nick, I'm constantly throwing boost function objects into vectors and whatnot.
I've found that, while boost function objects can hold object references, having them do so can lead to bugs with object lifetimes and it is better to have them hold copies of the class objects (you run into the same bugs however you try to hold a reference to a object instance that you don't necessarily control the lifetime of). The pattern:
class Foo
{
struct Member
{
// member variable definitions
};
shared_ptr<Member> m_; // the only real member variable
public:
// etc. including the all-important copy
// constructor and assignment operator and
// don't forget the member function that gets stuck into
// the boost function as a callback!
};
where all the member variables get held in a shared_ptr allows for good performance and you don't have to worry about lifetimes of objects held by function objects because you can copy them by value. Threaded code (what I always seem to be writing nowadays) needs additional things like at least one boost mutex element in Member or some other way to assure values don't get stomped on.
boost::function [or, if your system supports it, std::function] will take care of holding the this pointer quite well, with the added benefit of not requiring an actual object if it isn't necessary. So instead of void (SomeType::*)(EventA) you have std::function<void(EventA)>, and you call std::bind as appropriate.
subscribe(EVENT_A, std::bind(&foo::handleEventA, &foo, std::placeholders::_1));
A trivial wrapper function can be used to provide the same signature as you originally proposed and hide the nasty placeholders.
You do, of course, still have the issue of each event type having its own signature, and the need to ensure you use the correct Event ID code. In both cases, your base Event type can help out. Your callback need not accept an EventA&; it can accept an Event&, and dynamic_cast it to an EventA at runtime. For the ID, query the type directly.
struct Event {
virtual void ~Event() { }
virtual int ID() =0;
};
template<typename E>
struct EventHelper : Event {
virtual int ID() { return E::EventID; }
};
struct EventA : EventHelper<EventA> {
static const int EventID = 89;
};
Now, if you have an Event* object [when you go to dispatch your events], you can do p->ID() to get the appropriate ID, and if you have a EventA type [when you register your callbacks] you can do EventA::EventID.
So now, all you have to store is a std::function<void(const Event&)> and an associated int value for each of your callbacks, no matter what the actual type of event you have.
void subscribe(int id, std::function<void(const Event&)> f) {
callbacks.insert(std::make_pair(id, f));
}
template<typename E>
void subscribe(std::function<void(const Event&)> f) {
subscribe(E::EventID, f);
}
template<typename O, typename E>
void subscribe(O* p, void (O::*f)(const Event&)) {
subscribe<E>(std::bind(f, p, std::placeholders::_1));
}
You still have the issue that user error when subscribing can result in a function being called incorrectly. If you've used dynamic_cast correctly within the callback, this will get caught at runtime, but a compile time check would be nice. So what if we automate that dynamic_cast? For this step, I'm going to use c++11 lambdas, but it can be implemented in C++03 as well using a variety of methods.
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
void subscribe(CallbackClass* classInstancePtr, void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(EventType)) {
subscribe<EventType::EventID>([&](const Event& e) {
(classInstancePtr->*funcPtr)(dynamic_cast<const EventType&>(e));
});
}
So now we've gone full circle back to your original interface where your callbacks accept the actual type they are going to be working on, but internally you've squeezed them all into a common signature.
Okay, so I finished an implementation of my original desired interface. I was looking through Dennis' answer but eventually got lead to functors and I realized what I was looking for was a simple polymorphic solution. I failed to grasp before that I could create a non-templated base class with which to use for storing templated classes in vectors/arrays. I think this is what mheyman was trying to tell me... so I apologize I didn't get it right away. Just to clarify though I was really looking for the implementation solution for my own benefit and knowledge, not just a 3rd party library to get the job done. So I guess I would be looking for how Boost functions work, not just that they exist and are awesome.
If anyone is still interested here are the important parts of what I ended up with (minus some extraneous stuff and error checking):
EventFunctor is basically a pointer to member function template class
EventFunctorBase is the non-templated base class used to store them in a vector
The Event is dynamic cast using the templated type before being used to invoke the callback
class EventDaemon
{
public:
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
void subscribe(
const EventId eventId,
CallbackClass* callbackClassInstancePtr,
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(const EventType&));
private:
EventFunctorBase* callbacks_[MAX_NUM_EVENTS];
};
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
void EventDaemon::subscribe(
const EventId eventId,
CallbackClass* callbackClassInstancePtr,
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(const EventType&))
{
callbacks_[eventId] = new EventFunctor<CallbackClass,EventType>(callbackClassInstancePtr,funcPtr);
}
class EventFunctorBase
{
public:
EventFunctorBase();
virtual ~EventFunctorBase();
virtual void operator()(const Event& e)=0;
};
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
class EventFunctor : public EventFunctorBase
{
public:
EventFunctor(
CallbackClass* callbackClassInstancePtr,
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(const EventType&));
virtual void operator()(const Event& e);
private:
CallbackClass* callbackClassInstancePtr_;
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr_)(const EventType&);
};
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
EventFunctor<CallbackClass,EventType>::EventFunctor(
CallbackClass* callbackClassInstancePtr,
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(const EventType&))
:
callbackClassInstancePtr_(callbackClassInstancePtr),
funcPtr_(funcPtr)
{
}
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
/*virtual*/ void EventFunctor<CallbackClass,EventType>::operator()(const Event& e)
{
(callbackClassInstancePtr_->*funcPtr_)(dynamic_cast<const EventType&>(e));
}
EventDaemon loop
while (true_)
{
if (eventQueue_->empty())
{
// yield to other threads
}
else
{
Event* e = eventQueue_.pop();
(*(callbacks_[e->ID]))(*e);
}
}
My final steps here will be to try and remove the need to have the developer define an ID for each event... of course this might end up a new post later this week.