I am trying to make an architecture for a MMO game and I can't figure out how I can store as many variables as I need in GameObjects without having a lot of calls to send them on a wire at the same time I update them.
What I have now is:
Game::ChangePosition(Vector3 newPos) {
gameobject.ChangePosition(newPos);
SendOnWireNEWPOSITION(gameobject.id, newPos);
}
It makes the code rubbish, hard to maintain, understand, extend. So think of a Champion example:
I would have to make a lot of functions for each variable. And this is just the generalisation for this Champion, I might have have 1-2 other member variable for each Champion type/"class".
It would be perfect if I would be able to have OnPropertyChange from .NET or something similar. The architecture I am trying to guess would work nicely is if I had something similar to:
For HP: when I update it, automatically call SendFloatOnWire("HP", hp);
For Position: when I update it, automatically call SendVector3OnWire("Position", Position)
For Name: when I update it, automatically call SendSOnWire("Name", Name);
What are exactly SendFloatOnWire, SendVector3OnWire, SendSOnWire ? Functions that serialize those types in a char buffer.
OR METHOD 2 (Preffered), but might be expensive
Update Hp, Position normally and then every Network Thread tick scan all GameObject instances on the server for the changed variables and send those.
How would that be implemented on a high scale game server and what are my options? Any useful book for such cases?
Would macros turn out to be useful? I think I was explosed to some source code of something similar and I think it used macros.
Thank you in advance.
EDIT: I think I've found a solution, but I don't know how robust it actually is. I am going to have a go at it and see where I stand afterwards. https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Networking_Entities
On method 1:
Such an approach could be relatively "easy" to implement using a maps, that are accessed via getters/setters. The general idea would be something like:
class GameCharacter {
map<string, int> myints;
// same for doubles, floats, strings
public:
GameCharacter() {
myints["HP"]=100;
myints["FP"]=50;
}
int getInt(string fld) { return myints[fld]; };
void setInt(string fld, int val) { myints[fld]=val; sendIntOnWire(fld,val); }
};
Online demo
If you prefer to keep the properties in your class, you'd go for a map to pointers or member pointers instead of values. At construction you'd then initialize the map with the relevant pointers. If you decide to change the member variable you should however always go via the setter.
You could even go further and abstract your Champion by making it just a collection of properties and behaviors, that would be accessed via the map. This component architecture is exposed by Mike McShaffry in Game Coding Complete (a must read book for any game developer). There's a community site for the book with some source code to download. You may have a look at the actor.h and actor.cpp file. Nevertheless, I really recommend to read the full explanations in the book.
The advantage of componentization is that you could embed your network forwarding logic in the base class of all properties: this could simplify your code by an order of magnitude.
On method 2:
I think the base idea is perfectly suitable, except that a complete analysis (or worse, transmission) of all objects would be an overkill.
A nice alternative would be have a marker that is set when a change is done and is reset when the change is transmitted. If you transmit marked objects (and perhaps only marked properties of those), you would minimize workload of your synchronization thread, and reduce network overhead by pooling transmission of several changes affecting the same object.
Overall conclusion I arrived at: Having another call after I update the position, is not that bad. It is a line of code longer, but it is better for different motives:
It is explicit. You know exactly what's happening.
You don't slow down the code by making all kinds of hacks to get it working.
You don't use extra memory.
Methods I've tried:
Having maps for each type, as suggest by #Christophe. The major drawback of it was that it wasn't error prone. You could've had HP and Hp declared in the same map and it could've added another layer of problems and frustrations, such as declaring maps for each type and then preceding every variable with the mapname.
Using something SIMILAR to valve's engine: It created a separate class for each networking variable you wanted. Then, it used a template to wrap up the basic types you declared (int, float, bool) and also extended operators for that template. It used way too much memory and extra calls for basic functionality.
Using a data mapper that added pointers for each variable in the constructor, and then sent them with an offset. I left the project prematurely when I realised the code started to be confusing and hard to maintain.
Using a struct that is sent every time something changes, manually. This is easily done by using protobuf. Extending structs is also easy.
Every tick, generate a new struct with the data for the classes and send it. This keeps very important stuff always up to date, but eats a lot of bandwidth.
Use reflection with help from boost. It wasn't a great solution.
After all, I went with using a mix of 4, and 5. And now I am implementing it in my game. One huge advantage of protobuf is the capability of generating structs from a .proto file, while also offering serialisation for the struct for you. It is blazingly fast.
For those special named variables that appear in subclasses, I have another struct made. Alternatively, with help from protobuf I could have an array of properties that are as simple as: ENUM_KEY_BYTE VALUE. Where ENUM_KEY_BYTE is just a byte that references a enum to properties such as IS_FLYING, IS_UP, IS_POISONED, and VALUE is a string.
The most important thing I've learned from this is to have as much serialization as possible. It is better to use more CPU on both ends than to have more Input&Output.
If anyone has any questions, comment and I will do my best helping you out.
ioanb7
Related
In a project I am working on, we have several "disposable" classes. What I mean by disposable is that they are a class where you call some methods to set up the info, and you call what equates to a doit function. You doit once and throw them away. If you want to doit again, you have to create another instance of the class. The reason they're not reduced to single functions is that they must store state for after they doit for the user to get information about what happened and it seems to be not very clean to return a bunch of things through reference parameters. It's not a singleton but not a normal class either.
Is this a bad way to do things? Is there a better design pattern for this sort of thing? Or should I just give in and make the user pass in a boatload of reference parameters to return a bunch of things through?
What you describe is not a class (state + methods to alter it), but an algorithm (map input data to output data):
result_t do_it(parameters_t);
Why do you think you need a class for that?
Sounds like your class is basically a parameter block in a thin disguise.
There's nothing wrong with that IMO, and it's certainly better than a function with so many parameters it's hard to keep track of which is which.
It can also be a good idea when there's a lot of input parameters - several setup methods can set up a few of those at a time, so that the names of the setup functions give more clue as to which parameter is which. Also, you can cover different ways of setting up the same parameters using alternative setter functions - either overloads or with different names. You might even use a simple state-machine or flag system to ensure the correct setups are done.
However, it should really be possible to recycle your instances without having to delete and recreate. A "reset" method, perhaps.
As Konrad suggests, this is perhaps misleading. The reset method shouldn't be seen as a replacement for the constructor - it's the constructors job to put the object into a self-consistent initialised state, not the reset methods. Object should be self-consistent at all times.
Unless there's a reason for making cumulative-running-total-style do-it calls, the caller should never have to call reset explicitly - it should be built into the do-it call as the first step.
I still decided, on reflection, to strike that out - not so much because of Jalfs comment, but because of the hairs I had to split to argue the point ;-) - Basically, I figure I almost always have a reset method for this style of class, partly because my "tools" usually have multiple related kinds of "do it" (e.g. "insert", "search" and "delete" for a tree tool), and shared mode. The mode is just some input fields, in parameter block terms, but that doesn't mean I want to keep re-initializing. But just because this pattern happens a lot for me, doesn't mean it should be a point of principle.
I even have a name for these things (not limited to the single-operation case) - "tool" classes. A "tree_searching_tool" will be a class that searches (but doesn't contain) a tree, for example, though in practice I'd have a "tree_tool" that implements several tree-related operations.
Basically, even parameter blocks in C should ideally provide a kind of abstraction that gives it some order beyond being just a bunch of parameters. "Tool" is a (vague) abstraction. Classes are a major means of handling abstraction in C++.
I have used a similar design and wondered about this too. A fictive simplified example could look like this:
FileDownloader downloader(url);
downloader.download();
downloader.result(); // get the path to the downloaded file
To make it reusable I store it in a boost::scoped_ptr:
boost::scoped_ptr<FileDownloader> downloader;
// Download first file
downloader.reset(new FileDownloader(url1));
downloader->download();
// Download second file
downloader.reset(new FileDownloader(url2));
downloader->download();
To answer your question: I think it's ok. I have not found any problems with this design.
As far as I can tell you are describing a class that represents an algorithm. You configure the algorithm, then you run the algorithm and then you get the result of the algorithm. I see nothing wrong with putting those steps together in a class if the alternative is a function that takes 7 configuration parameters and 5 output references.
This structuring of code also has the advantage that you can split your algorithm into several steps and put them in separate private member functions. You can do that without a class too, but that can lead to the sub-functions having many parameters if the algorithm has a lot of state. In a class you can conveniently represent that state through member variables.
One thing you might want to look out for is that structuring your code like this could easily tempt you to use inheritance to share code among similar algorithms. If algorithm A defines a private helper function that algorithm B needs, it's easy to make that member function protected and then access that helper function by having class B derive from class A. It could also feel natural to define a third class C that contains the common code and then have A and B derive from C. As a rule of thumb, inheritance used only to share code in non-virtual methods is not the best way - it's inflexible, you end up having to take on the data members of the super class and you break the encapsulation of the super class. As a rule of thumb for that situation, prefer factoring the common code out of both classes without using inheritance. You can factor that code into a non-member function or you might factor it into a utility class that you then use without deriving from it.
YMMV - what is best depends on the specific situation. Factoring code into a common super class is the basis for the template method pattern, so when using virtual methods inheritance might be what you want.
Nothing especially wrong with the concept. You should try to set it up so that the objects in question can generally be auto-allocated vs having to be newed -- significant performance savings in most cases. And you probably shouldn't use the technique for highly performance-sensitive code unless you know your compiler generates it efficiently.
I disagree that the class you're describing "is not a normal class". It has state and it has behavior. You've pointed out that it has a relatively short lifespan, but that doesn't make it any less of a class.
Short-lived classes vs. functions with out-params:
I agree that your short-lived classes are probably a little more intuitive and easier to maintain than a function which takes many out-params (or 1 complex out-param). However, I suspect a function will perform slightly better, because you won't be taking the time to instantiate a new short-lived object. If it's a simple class, that performance difference is probably negligible. However, if you're talking about an extremely performance-intensive environment, it might be a consideration for you.
Short-lived classes: creating new vs. re-using instances:
There's plenty of examples where instances of classes are re-used: thread-pools, DB-connection pools (probably darn near any software construct ending in 'pool' :). In my experience, they seem to be used when instantiating the object is an expensive operation. Your small, short-lived classes don't sound like they're expensive to instantiate, so I wouldn't bother trying to re-use them. You may find that whatever pooling mechanism you implement, actually costs MORE (performance-wise) than simply instantiating new objects whenever needed.
I understand that only the class can access the data so therefore it is "safer" and what not but I don't really understand why it is such a big deal. Maybe it is because I haven't made any programs complex enough where data could accidentally be changed but it just a bit confusing when learning classes and being told that making things private is important because it is "safer" when the only time I have changed data in a program is when I have explicitly meant to. Could anyone provide some examples where data would have been unintentionally changed had that data not been private?
Depends what you mean by "unintentional changes". All code is written by someone so if he is changing a member variable of a class then the change is intentional (at least from his side). However the implementor of the class might not have expected this and it can break the functionality.
Imagine a very simple stack:
class Stack
{
public:
int Items[10];
int CurrentItemIndex;
}
Now CurrentItemIndex points to the index which represents the current item on top of the stack. If someone goes ahead and changes it then your stack is corrupted. Similarly someone can just write stuff into Items. If something is public then it is usually a sign that it is intended for public usage.
Also making members private provides encapsulation of the implementation details. Imagine someone iterates over stack on the above implementation by examining Items. Then it will break all code if the implementation of the stack gets changed to be a linked list to allow arbitrary number of items. In the end the maintenance will kill you.
The public interface of a class should always be as stable as possible because that's what people will be using. You do not want to touch x lines of code using a class just because you changed some little detail.
The moment you start collaborating with other people on code, you'll appreciate the clarity and security of keeping your privates private.
Say you've designed a class that rotates an image. The constructor takes an image object, and there's a "rotate" method that will rotate the image the requested number of degrees and return it.
During rotation, you keep member variables with the state of the image, say for example a map of the pixels in the image itself.
Your colleagues begin to use the class, and you're responsible for keeping it working. After a few months, someone points out to you a technique that performs the manipulations more efficiently without keeping a map of the pixels.
Did you minimize your exposed interface by keeping your privates private?
If you did, you can swap out the internal implementation to use on the other technique, and the people who've been depending on your code won't need to make any changes.
If you didn't, you have no idea what bits of your internal state your colleagues are depending on, and you can't safely make any changes without contacting all of your colleagues and potentially asking them to change their code, or changing their code for them.
Is this a problem when you're working alone? Maybe not. But it is a problem when you've got an employer, or when you want to open-source that cool new library you're so proud of.
When you make a library that other people use, you want to show the most basic sub-set of your code possible to allow external code to interface with it. This is called information hiding. It would cause more issues if other developers were allowed to modify any field they wanted, perhaps in an attempt of performing some task. An attempt that would cause unspecified program behaviour.
Generally you want to hide "data" (make vars private) so when people that aren't familiar with the class don't access data directly. Instead if they use Public modifiers to access and change that data.
Eg. accessing name via public setter could check for any problems and also make first character upper case
Accessing data directly will not do those checks and possible changes.
You don't want someone to suddenly fiddle with your internals, no? So do C++'s classes.
The problem is, if anyone can suddenly change the state of a variable that is yours, your class will screw up. It's as if someone suddenly fills your gut with something you don't want. Or exchanges your lung for someone elses.
Let's say you have a BankAccount class where you store a person's NIP and cash amount. Let's put all the fields public and see what could go wrong:
class BankAccount
{
public:
std::string NIP;
int cash;
};
Now, let's pretend that you leave it this way and use it throughout your program. Later on, you find a nasty bug caused by a negative amount of cash (whether it is from calculations or simply an accident). So you spend a couple of hours finding where that negative amount came from and fix it.
You don't want this to happen again, so you decide to put the cash amount private and perform checks before setting the cash amount to avoid any other bugs like the previous one. So you go like this:
class BankAccount
{
public:
int getCash() const { return cash; }
void setCash(int amount)
{
if (amount >= 0)
cash = amount;
else
throw std::runtime_exception("Cash amount is negative.");
}
private:
int cash;
}
Now what? You have to find all the cash references and replace them. A quick and dirty Find and Replace won't fix it so easily: you must change accessors to getCash() and setters to setCash. All this time fixing something not so important that could have been avoided by hiding the implementation details within your class and only giving access to the general interface.
Sure, that's indeed a pretty dumb example, but it happened to me so many times with more complex cases(sometimes the bug is much harder to find) that I've really learned to encapsulate as much as I can. Do your future-self and the viewers of your code a favor and hide private members, you never know when your "implementation details" will change.
When you are on a project where 2 or more people are working on the same project, but you work lets, say, 2 people work on Mondays, 2 on Tuesdays, 2 on Wednesdays, etc. The next people that will continue the project won't have to go bother the other coders just to explain what/when/why it has been that way. If you know TORTOISE you will see it's very helpful.
Over time I have come to appreciate the mindset of many small functions ,and I really do like it a lot, but I'm having a hard time losing my shyness to apply it to classes, especially ones with more than a handful of nonpublic member variables.
Every additional helper function clutters up the interface, since often the code is class specific and I can't just use some generic piece of code.
(To my limited knowledge, anyway, still a beginner, don't know every library out there, etc.)
So in extreme cases, I usually create a helper class which becomes the friend of the class that needs to be operated on, so it has access to all the nonpublic guts.
An alternative are free functions that need parameters, but even though premature optimization is evil, and I haven't actually profiled or disassembled it...
I still DREAD the mere thought of passing all the stuff I need sometimes, even just as reference, even though that should be a simple address per argument.
Is all this a matter of preference, or is there a widely used way of dealing with that kind of stuff?
I know that trying to force stuff into patterns is a kind of anti pattern, but I am concerned about code sharing and standards, and I want to get stuff at least fairly non painful for other people to read.
So, how do you guys deal with that?
Edit:
Some examples that motivated me to ask this question:
About the free functions:
DeadMG was confused about making free functions work...without arguments.
My issue with those functions is that unlike member functions, free functions only know about data, if you give it to them, unless global variables and the like are used.
Sometimes, however, I have a huge, complicated procedure I want to break down for readability and understandings sake, but there are so many different variables which get used all over the place that passing all the data to free functions, which are agnostic to every bit of member data, looks simply nightmarish.
Click for an example
That is a snippet of a function that converts data into a format that my mesh class accepts.
It would take all of those parameter to refactor this into a "finalizeMesh" function, for example.
At this point it's a part of a huge computer mesh data function, and bits of dimension info and sizes and scaling info is used all over the place, interwoven.
That's what I mean with "free functions need too many parameters sometimes".
I think it shows bad style, and not necessarily a symptom of being irrational per se, I hope :P.
I'll try to clear things up more along the way, if necessary.
Every additional helper function clutters up the interface
A private helper function doesn't.
I usually create a helper class which becomes the friend of the class that needs to be operated on
Don't do this unless it's absolutely unavoidable. You might want to break up your class's data into smaller nested classes (or plain old structs), then pass those around between methods.
I still DREAD the mere thought of passing all the stuff I need sometimes, even just as reference
That's not premature optimization, that's a perfectly acceptable way of preventing/reducing cognitive load. You don't want functions taking more than three parameters. If there are more then three, consider packaging your data in a struct or class.
I sometimes have the same problems as you have described: increasingly large classes that need too many helper functions to be accessed in a civilized manner.
When this occurs I try to seperate the class in multiple smaller classes if that is possible and convenient.
Scott Meyers states in Effective C++ that friend classes or functions is mostly not the best option, since the client code might do anything with the object.
Maybe you can try nested classes, that deal with the internals of your object. Another option are helper functions that use the public interface of your class and put the into a namespace related to your class.
Another way to keep your classes free of cruft is to use the pimpl idiom. Hide your private implementation behind a pointer to a class that actually implements whatever it is that you're doing, and then expose a limited subset of features to whoever is the consumer of your class.
// Your public API in foo.h (note: only foo.cpp should #include foo_impl.h)
class Foo {
public:
bool func(int i) { return impl_->func(i); }
private:
FooImpl* impl_;
};
There are many ways to implement this. The Boost pimpl template in the Vault is pretty good. Using smart pointers is another useful way of handling this, too.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_46_1/libs/smart_ptr/sp_techniques.html#pimpl
An alternative are free functions that
need parameters, but even though
premature optimization is evil, and I
haven't actually profiled or
disassembled it... I still DREAD the
mere thought of passing all the stuff
I need sometimes, even just as
reference, even though that should be
a simple address per argument.
So, let me get this entirely straight. You haven't profiled or disassembled. But somehow, you intend on ... making functions work ... without arguments? How, exactly, do you propose to program without using function arguments? Member functions are no more or less efficient than free functions.
More importantly, you come up with lots of logical reasons why you know you're wrong. I think the problem here is in your head, which possibly stems from you being completely irrational, and nothing that any answer from any of us can help you with.
Generic algorithms that take parameters are the basis of modern object orientated programming- that's the entire point of both templates and inheritance.
The more I get into writing unit tests the more often I find myself writing smaller and smaller classes. The classes are so small now that many of them have only one public method on them that is tied to an interface. The tests then go directly against that public method and are fairly small (sometimes that public method will call out to internal private methods within the class). I then use an IOC container to manage the instantiation of these lightweight classes because there are so many of them.
Is this typical of trying to do things in a more of a TDD manner? I fear that I have now refactored a legacy 3,000 line class that had one method in it into something that is also difficult to maintain on the other side of the spectrum because there is now literally about 100 different class files.
Is what I am doing going too far? I am trying to follow the single responsibility principle with this approach but I may be treading into something that is an anemic class structure where I do not have very intelligent "business objects".
This multitude of small classes would drive me nuts. With this design style it becomes really hard to figure out where the real work gets done. I am not a fan of having a ton of interfaces each with a corresponding implementation class, either. Having lots of "IWidget" and "WidgetImpl" pairings is a code smell in my book.
Breaking up a 3,000 line class into smaller pieces is great and commendable. Remember the goal, though: it's to make the code easier to read and easier to work with. If you end up with 30 classes and interfaces you've likely just created a different type of monster. Now you have a really complicated class design. It takes a lot of mental effort to keep that many classes straight in your head. And with lots of small classes you lose the very useful ability to open up a couple of key files, pick out the most important methods, and get an idea of what the heck is going on.
For what it's worth, though, I'm not really sold on test-driven design. Writing tests early, that's sensible. But reorganizing and restructuring your class design so it can be more easily unit tested? No thanks. I'll make interfaces only if they make architectural sense, not because I need to be able to mock up some objects so I can test my classes. That's putting the cart before the horse.
You might have gone a bit too far if you are asking this question. Having only one public method in a class isn't bad as such, if that class has a clear responsibility/function and encapsulates all logic concerning that function, even if most of it is in private methods.
When refactoring such legacy code, I usually try to identify the components in play at a high level that can be assigned distinct roles/responsibilities and separate them into their own classes. I think about which functions should be which components's responsibility and move the methods into that class.
You write a class so that instances of the class maintain state. You put this state in a class because all the state in the class is related.You have function to managed this state so that invalid permutations of state can't be set (the infamous square that has members width and height, but if width doesn't equal height it's not really a square.)
If you don't have state, you don't need a class, you could just use free functions (or in Java, static functions).
So, the question isn't "should I have one function?" but rather "what state-ful entity does my class encapsulate?"
Maybe you have one function that sets all state -- and you should make it more granular, so that, e.g., instead of having void Rectangle::setWidthAndHeight( int x, int y) you should have a setWidth and a separate setHeight.
Perhaps you have a ctor that sets things up, and a single function that doesIt, whatever "it" is. Then you have a functor, and a single doIt might make sense. E.g., class Add implements Operation { Add( int howmuch); Operand doIt(Operand rhs);}
(But then you may find that you really want something like the Visitor Pattern -- a pure functor is more likely if you have purely value objects, Visitor if they're arranged in a tree and are related to each other.)
Even if having these many small objects, single-function is the correct level of granularity, you may want something like a facade Pattern, to compose out of primitive operations, often-used complex operations.
There's no one answer. If you really have a bunch of functors, it's cool. If you're really just making each free function a class, it's foolish.
The real answer lies in answering the question, "what state am I managing, and how well do my classes model my problem domain?"
I'd be speculating if I gave a definite answer without looking at the code.
However it sounds like you're concerned and that is a definite flag for reviewing the code. The short answer to your question comes back to the definition of Simple Design. Minimal number of classes and methods is one of them. If you feel like you can take away some elements without losing the other desirable attributes, go ahead and collapse/inline them.
Some pointers to help you decide:
Do you have a good check for "Single Responsibility" ? It's deceptively difficult to get it right but is a key skill (I still don't see it like the masters). It doesn't necessarily translate to one method-classes. A good yardstick is 5-7 public methods per class. Each class could have 0-5 collaborators. Also to validate against SRP, ask the question what can drive a change into this class ? If there are multiple unrelated answers (e.g. change in the packet structure (parsing) + change in the packet contents to action map (command dispatcher) ) , maybe the class needs to be split. On the other end, if you feel that a change in the packet structure, can affect 4 different classes - you've run off the other cliff; maybe you need to combine them into a cohesive class.
If you have trouble naming the concrete implementations, maybe you don't need the interface. e.g. XXXImpl classes implmenting XXX need to be looked at. I recently learned of a naming convention, where the interface describes a Role and the implementation is named by the technology used to implement the role (or falling back to what it does). e.g. XmppAuction implements Auction (or SniperNotifier implements AuctionEventListener)
Lastly are you finding it difficult to add / modify / test existing code (e.g. test setup is long or painful ) ? Those can be signs that you need to go refactoring.
In couple of recent projects that I took part in I was almost addicted to the following coding pattern: (I'm not sure if there is a proper name for this, but anyway...)
Let's say some object is in some determined state and we wan't to change this state from outside. These changes could mean any behaviour, could invoke any algorithms, but the fact is that they focus on changing the state (member state, data state, etc...) of some object.
And let's call one discrete way of changing those object a Mutator. Mutators are applied once (generally) and they have some internal method like apply(Target& target, ...), which instantly provokes changing the state of the object (in fact, they're some sort of functional objects).
They also could be easily assimilated into chains and applied one-by-one (Mutator m1, m2, ...); they also could derive from some basic BasicMutator with virtual void apply(...) method.
I have introduced classes called InnerMutator and ExplicitMutator which differ in terms of access - first of them can also change the internal state of the object and should be declared as a friend (friend InnerMutator::access;).
In those projects my logic turned to work the following way:
Prepare available mutators, choose which to apply
Create and set the object to some determined state
foreach (mutator) mutator.apply(object);
Now the question.
This scheme turnes to work well and
(to me) seems as a sample of some non-standard but useful design
pattern.
What makes me feel uncomfortable is that InnerMutator stuff. I don't
think declaring mutator a friend to
every object which state could be
changed is a good idea and I wan't to
find the appropriate alternative.
Could this situation be solved in terms of Mutators or could you
advice some alternative pattern with
the same result?
Thanks.
I hope this isn't taken offensively, but I can't help but think this design is an overly fancy solution for a rather simple problem.
Why do you need to aggregate mutators, for instance? One can merely write:
template <class T>
void mutate(T& t)
{
t.mutate1(...);
t.mutate2(...);
t.mutate3(...);
}
There's your aggregate mutator, only it's a simple function template relying on static polymorphism rather than a combined list of mutators making one super-mutator.
I once did something that might have been rather similar. I made function objects which could be combined by operator && into super function objects that applied both operands (in the order from left to right) so that one could write code like:
foreach(v.begin(), v.end(), attack && burn && drain);
It was really neat and seemed really clever to me at the time and it was pretty efficient because it generated new function objects on the fly (no runtime mechanisms involved), but when my co-workers saw it, they thought I was insane. In retrospect I was trying to cram everything into functional style programming which has its usefulness but probably shouldn't be over-relied on in C++. It would have been easy enough to write:
BOOST_FOR_EACH(Something& something, v)
{
attack(something);
burn(something);
drain(something);
}
Granted it is more lines of code but it has the benefit of being centralized and easy to debug and doesn't introduce alien concepts to other people working with my code. I've found it much more beneficial instead to focus on tight logic rather than trying to forcefully reduce lines of code.
I recommend you think deeply about this and really consider if it's worth it to continue with this mutator-based design no matter how clever and tight it is. If other people can't quickly understand it, unless you have the authority of boost authors, it's going to be hard to convince people to like it.
As for InnerMutator, I think you should avoid it like the plague. Having external mutator classes which can modify a class's internals as directly as they can here defeats a lot of the purpose of having internals at all.
Would it not be better to simply make those Mutators methods of the classes they're changing? If there's common functionality you want several classes to have then why not make them inherit from the same base class? Doing this will deal with all the inner mutator discomfort I would imagine.
If you want to queue up changes you could store them as sets of function calls to the methods within the classes.