In this code headerTable and rowsTable are Java Objects. Here the same method with the same argument is being called on them:
(.setHorizontalAlignment headerTable Element/ALIGN_LEFT)
(.setHorizontalAlignment rowsTable Element/ALIGN_LEFT)
Is there a better way of doing this? I would think there must be a way to combine the two calls into one somehow. But since this is 'side effecting' code, perhaps not??
I'm thinking of an answer without writing a custom function or macro, something like "just use juxt or comp", but then maybe I'm being a bit too prescriptive...
Edit Type hinting was mentioned by Leonid Beschastny, so just in case it helps, here's the Java method signature:
public void setHorizontalAlignment(int horizontalAlignment)
And the class is PdfPTable, from iText. (This code is being used to create PDF files).
There are many possible refactorings, one would be
(run! #(.setHorizontalAlignment ^PdfPTable % Element/ALIGN_LEFT)
[headerTable rowsTable])
Related
In this example...
http://www.sqlite.org/quickstart.html
...I see how to use sqlite3_exec() with a callback class method or function in order to get a recordset and iterate through it.
Well, what if I want to create a class DB and have a static class method
static void * getRS(void *hDB,std::string sSQL) ?
I'm kind of new with C++ but getting the hang of it extremely rapidly. Is there a way in C++ to create like a Lambda function, get the results from that, and pass them back? Or, is there another technique to return a std::map, std::multimap, etc. that I can iterate through each row?
(Note, I'm using XCode and calling C++ from a db.static.mm file in my Objective C project, if that matters.)
This question is not a duplicate of sqlite3_exec() Callback function Clarification. In that question, the author asks essentially how the callback is used in sqlite3_exec(). In my question, I'm asking how to do a top-down approach of SQLite3 code instead of using a callback. It just so happens that someone left an answer (not the approved answer, mind you) that solves my problem, not that author's problem.
The best solution to do this in a top-down (rather than callback) manner is to not use sqlite3_exec(). Instead, do it with sqlite3_prepare_v2(), sqlite3_step(), and then sqlite3_finalize(). Optionally, one can inject/bind query parameters with various sqlite3_bind_*() calls.
Here's an example of the proper code for that.
Hoping someone can provide an explain-like-I’m-five elucidation of the difference between the following types of functions within Famo.us, and when it’s appropriate to use them:
sampleFunction() {}
_sampleFunction() {}
SampleView.prototype.sampleFunction() {}
.bind and .call are also thrown around a lot…I understand them vaguely but not as concretely as I’d like. That might be a different question, but please feel free to use them in your explanation!
Apologies for the vagueness...wish there was more regarding this in famo.us university.
None of what you're looking at is syntax specific to Famo.us. It's actually common, if intermediate level, VanillaJS.
The _ is simply a coding convention to denote that a specific function should belong to the parent scope (ie a member/private function, whatever you prefer to call it). Javascript doesn't really have support for encapsulation - the act of blocking other classes and objects from accessing another class's functions and variables. While it is possible, it's quite cumbersome and hacky.
You'll see that Famo.us uses the underscore convention to denote that a function is a member of the class using it. Some of these functions are actually just aliases to the actual Javascript native function, for example ._add actually just call's Javascript's .add method. Of course, ._add could be updated in the future on Famo.us's end to do more in the future if that's required. You really wouldn't want to try and write over the native Javascript add. That's super bad.
The other upshot is that you can document that class and say that you can and should use the _add method for a specific purpose/scenario. You'll see that in the API docs.
Understanding prototype is a core part of what it means to be a Javascript Programmer, after all, it is a prototype driven language. MDN has a much better explanation than anything I can offer here but it's basically at the core of your classes.
If you want to extend off of an existing class (say, create your own View or Surface type) you would extend it's prototype. Check out Famous Starter Kit's App examples and see how many of them create an "AppView" class, which takes the prototype of the core View, copies it for itself, and then adds it's own functions, thus extending View without ruining the original copy.
For the purposes of interoperability with Java, I need a class that has a nullary constructor that performs initialization.
Objects of this class need to have something resembling mutable java fields (namely, the object represents the backend of a game, and needs to keep game state).
deftype does everything I want to do except provide a nullary constructor (since I'm creating a class with fields).
I don't need the fields to be publicly readable, so I can think of 4 solutions:
Use gen-class; I don't want to do this if I can avoid it.
Somehow encoding private member variables outside of the knowledge of deftype; I've been told this can't be done.
Writing a modified deftype that also creates a nullary constructor; frankly I don't know clojure well enough for this.
Taking the class created by deftype and somehow adding a new constructor to it.
At the end of this, I need to have a Java class, since I will be handing it off to Java code that will be making a new object from the class.
Are any of the solutions I suggested (or any that I haven't thought of) other than using gen-class viable?
There's absolutely no shame in, where appropriate, writing a dash of Java if your Java interop requirements are simultaneously specific and unshakable. You could write a Java class with a single static factory method that returns an instance of the deftype class and that does whatever initialization/setup you need.
Alternatively, you can write a nullary factory function in Clojure, and call that directly from Java all day long.
In any case, neither deftype nor defrecord are intended to be (or will they ever be) fully-featured interop facilities. gen-class certainly comes the closest, which is why it's been recommended.
I'd suggest just writing the object in Java - for Java-like objects with mutable fields it will probably be more elegant, understandable and practical.
I've generally had pretty good results mixing Java and Clojure code in projects. This seems like one of those cases where this might be appropriate. The interoperability is so good that you barely have any extra complexity.
BTW - I'm assuming that you need a nullary constructor to meet the requirements of some persistence library or something similar? It seems like an odd requirement otherwise. If this is the case then you may find it makes sense to rethink your persistence strategy..... arbitrary restrictions like this always seem like a bit of a code smell to me.
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'm writing in second-person just because its easy, for you.
You are working with a game engine and really wish a particular engine class had a new method that does 'bla'. But you'd rather not spread your 'game' code into the 'engine' code.
So you could derive a new class from it with your one new method and put that code in your 'game' source directory, but maybe there's another option?
So this is probably completely illegal in the C++ language, but you thought at first, "perhaps I can add a new method to an existing class via my own header that includes the 'parent' header and some special syntax. This is possible when working with a namespace, for example..."
Assuming you can't declare methods of a class across multiple headers (and you are pretty darn sure you can't), what are the other options that support a clean divide between 'middleware/engine/library' and 'application', you wonder?
My only question to you is, "does your added functionality need to be a member function, or can it be a free function?" If what you want to do can be solved using the class's existing interface, then the only difference is the syntax, and you should use a free function (if you think that's "ugly", then... suck it up and move on, C++ wasn't designed for monkeypatching).
If you're trying to get at the internal guts of the class, it may be a sign that the original class is lacking in flexibility (it doesn't expose enough information for you to do what you want from the public interface). If that's the case, maybe the original class can be "completed", and you're back to putting a free function on top of it.
If absolutely none of that will work, and you just must have a member function (e.g. original class provided protected members you want to get at, and you don't have the freedom to modify the original interface)... only then resort to inheritance and member-function implementation.
For an in-depth discussion (and deconstruction of std::string'), check out this Guru of the Week "Monolith" class article.
Sounds like a 'acts upon' relationship, which would not fit in an inheritance (use sparingly!).
One option would be a composition utility class that acts upon a certain instance of the 'Engine' by being instantiated with a pointer to it.
Inheritance (as you pointed out), or
Use a function instead of a method, or
Alter the engine code itself, but isolate and manage the changes using a patch-manager like quilt or Mercurial/MQ
I don't see what's wrong with inheritance in this context though.
If the new method will be implemented using the existing public interface, then arguably it's more object oriented for it to be a separate function rather than a method. At least, Scott Meyers argues that it is.
Why? Because it gives better encapsulation. IIRC the argument goes that the class interface should define things that the object does. Helper-style functions are things that can be done with/to the object, not things that the object must do itself. So they don't belong in the class. If they are in the class, they can unnecessarily access private members and hence widen the hiding of that member and hence the number of lines of code that need to be touched if the private member changes in any way.
Of course if you want to access protected members then you must inherit. If your desired method requires per-instance state, but not access to protected members, then you can either inherit or composite according to taste - the former is usually more concise, but has certain disadvantages if the relationship isn't really "is a".
Sounds like you want Ruby mixins. Not sure there's anything close in C++. I think you have to do the inheritance.
Edit: You might be able to put a friend method in and use it like a mixin, but I think you'd start to break your encapsulation in a bad way.
You could do something COM-like, where the base class supports a QueryInterface() method which lets you ask for an interface that has that method on it. This is fairly trivial to implement in C++, you don't need COM per se.
You could also "pretend" to be a more dynamic language and have an array of callbacks as "methods" and gin up a way to call them using templates or macros and pushing 'this' onto the stack before the rest of the parameters. But it would be insane :)
Or Categories in Objective C.
There are conceptual approaches to extending class architectures (not single classes) in C++, but it's not a casual act, and requires planning ahead of time. Sorry.
Sounds like a classic inheritance problem to me. Except I would drop the code in an "Engine Enhancements" directory & include that concept in your architecture.