I need to register functions like the following in a list of functions with arguments.
void func1( int a , char* b ) {}
void func2( vec3f a , std::vector<float> b , double c) {}
...
And call them back when I receive data over network with proper arguments. I imagined va_list would solve, but it doesnt work :
void func1(int a, char* b)
{
printf("%d %s",a,b);
}
void prepare(...)
{
va_list argList;
int args = 2;
va_start(argList, args);
((void (*)(va_list))func1)(argList);
va_end(argList);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
prepare(1, "huhu");
return 0;
}
What is the most elegant way to solve this ?
I know std::bind / std::function has similar abilities, but the internal data is hidden deep in std I assume. I just need a few basic data types, doesnt have to be for arbitrary types. If preprocessor tricks with ##VA_ARGS or using templates would solve, I am also OK with that. Priority is that it is most simple to use.
Edit1 : I found that assembly can solve ( How do I pass arguments to C++ functions when I call them from inline assembly ) - but I would prefer a more platform independent solution.
If your goal is to create your own, small and ad-hoc "rpc" solution, possibly one of the major drivers for making decisions should be: 1. Minimal amount of code 2. Easy as possible.
Keeping that in mind, it is paying off to ponder, what the difference is between the following 2 scenarios:
"Real" RPC: The handlers shall be as you wrote with rpc-method-specific signature.
"Message passing": The handlers receive messages of either "end point-determined type" or simply of a unified message type.
Now, what has to be done to get a solution of type 1?
Incoming byte streams/network packets need to get parsed to some sort of message with regards to some chosen protocol. Then, using some meta-info (contract), according to { serviceContract, serviceMethod }, a specific set of data items needs to be confirmed in the packet and if present, the respective, registered handler function needs to be called. Somewhere within that infrastructure you typically have a (likely code generated) function which does something like that:
void CallHandlerForRpcXYCallFoo( const RpcMessage*message )
{
uint32_t arg0 = message->getAsUint32(0);
// ...
float argN = message->getAsFloat(N);
Foo( arg0, arg1, ... argN );
}
All that can, of course also be packed into classes and virtual methods with the classes being generated from the service contract meta data. Maybe, there is also a way by means of some excessive template voodoo to avoid generating code and having a more generic meta-implementation. But, all that is work, real work. Way too much work to do it just for fun. Instead of doing that, it would be easier to use one of the dozens technologies which do that already.
Worth noting so far is: Somewhere within that piece of art, there is likely a (code generated) function which looks like the one given above.
Now, what has to be done to get a solution of type 2?
Less than for case 1. Why? Because you simply stop your implementation at calling those handler methods, which all take the RpcMessage as their single argument. As such, you can get away without generating the "make-it-look-like-a-function-call" layer above those methods.
Not only is it less work, it is also more robust in the presence of some scenarios where the contract changes. If one more data item is being added to the "rpc solution", the signature of the "rpc function" MUST change. Code re-generated, application code adapted. And that, whether or not the application needs that new data item. On the other hand, in approach 2, there are no breaking changes in the code. Of course, depending on your choices and the kind of changes in the contract, it still would break.
So, the most elegant solution is: Don't do RPC, do message passing. Preferably in a REST-ful way.
Also, if you prefer a "unified" rpc message over a number of rpc-contract specific message types, you remove another reason for code bloat.
Just in case, what I say seems a bit too abstract, here some mock-up dummy code, sketching solution 2:
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstdint>
#include <map>
#include <vector>
#include <deque>
#include <functional>
// "rpc" infrastructure (could be an API for a dll or a lib or so:
// Just one way to do it. Somehow, your various data types need
// to be handled/represented.
class RpcVariant
{
public:
enum class VariantType
{
RVT_EMPTY,
RVT_UINT,
RVT_SINT,
RVT_FLOAT32,
RVT_BYTES
};
private:
VariantType m_type;
uint64_t m_uintValue;
int64_t m_intValue;
float m_floatValue;
std::vector<uint8_t> m_bytesValue;
explicit RpcVariant(VariantType type)
: m_type(type)
{
}
public:
static RpcVariant MakeEmpty()
{
RpcVariant result(VariantType::RVT_EMPTY);
return result;
}
static RpcVariant MakeUint(uint64_t value)
{
RpcVariant result(VariantType::RVT_UINT);
result.m_uintValue = value;
return result;
}
// ... More make-functions
uint64_t AsUint() const
{
// TODO: check if correct type...
return m_uintValue;
}
// ... More AsXXX() functions
// ... Some ToWire()/FromWire() functions...
};
typedef std::map<uint32_t, RpcVariant> RpcMessage_t;
typedef std::function<void(const RpcMessage_t *)> RpcHandler_t;
void RpcInit();
void RpcUninit();
// application writes handlers and registers them with the infrastructure.
// rpc_context_id can be anything opportune - chose uint32_t, here.
// could as well be a string or a pair of values (service,method) or whatever.
void RpcRegisterHandler(uint32_t rpc_context_id, RpcHandler_t handler);
// Then according to taste/style preferences some receive function which uses the registered information and dispatches to the handlers...
void RpcReceive();
void RpcBeginReceive();
void RpcEndReceive();
// maybe some sending, too...
void RpcSend(uint32_t rpc_context_id, const RpcMessage_t * message);
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
RpcInit();
RpcRegisterHandler(42, [](const RpcMessage_t *message) { puts("message type 42 received."); });
RpcRegisterHandler(43, [](const RpcMessage_t *message) { puts("message type 43 received."); });
while (true)
{
RpcReceive();
}
RpcUninit();
return 0;
}
And if RpcMessage then is traded, while packed in a std::shared_ptr, you can even have multiple handlers or do some forwarding (to other threads) of the same message instance. This is one particularly annoying thing, which needs yet another "serializing" in the rpc approach. Here, you simply forward the message.
Related
EDIT:
I have modified the example API so it better reflects the real API I am dealing with. The way the API get's the message argument passed to it is by user input so the message argument cannot be used to pass additional data.
I am dealing with a very frustrating API that uses callback routines that don't take "void* userarg" pointers.
Assuming the function that uses the callback routine as defined by the API expects a string argument (that will be assigned by user input), is there ANY possible way to get more data into my callback routine without using global variables?
Here is a simplified example of what the API might look like:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// ASSUME EVERYTHING IN THIS SECTION IS PART OF AN API AND IS NOT MY OWN CODE...
// I DO NOT HAVE THE SOURCE AND IT CANNOT BE MODIFIED
typedef void (*CALLBACK)(string message);
void call_callback(CALLBACK cb) {
// Gets a message from user input
string message = "hello"; // pretend this is user input
cb(message);
}
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
int data = 42;
void callback_function(string message) {
// I want to access "data" here WITHOUT it being global
cout << message << ' ' << data << endl;
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
call_callback(&callback_function);
}
Typically an API that uses callbacks would also pass a "void* userarg" argument into the callback routine so you could pass additional data of any type, but that is not the case here.
This API is used extensively throughout our whole codebase and it is 100% necessary to pass a lot more data in every case where it is used. The current way we get more data in *prepare to cringe* is by storing practically all of our data in singletons so nearly everything is global and can be accessed from literally anywhere in the program.
This whole concept seems EVIL to me, but without a better API I can't figure out any better way to get the data into the callback. I have already contacted the vendor and asked that they fix their API to make it accept a "void* userarg" argument, but it doesn't look like it will be fixed anytime in the near future...
All I am hoping for is ANY better way of doing things than we are now.
If it is really an std::string which is an argument to the callback (and not something else) and you really have access to the argument (as in your sample code which invokes call_callback with supplied string) you can put an entity-serialized pointer to your allocated object into std::string (which is allowed to have arbitrary data in it) and invoke call_callback with it.
One challenge here would be the fact that you'd than have to manually manage this pointer.
My most straightforward idea would be to provide unique strings in place of the void* you would normally expect. You'd then have one map singleton that maps the strings to your callbacks.
So something like this:
class Dispatcher
{
public:
// TODO: Thread safety etc.
std::string makeCallback(std::function<void()> callback)
{
std::string uid = std::to_string(_index);
_callbacks[uid] = std::move(callback);
_index++;
return uid;
}
void runCallback(std::string uid)
{
_callbacks[uid]();
}
private:
size_t _index = 0;
std::map<std::string, std::function<void()>> _callbacks;
};
void leaveAPI(std::string uid)
{
getSingleton<Dispatcher>()->runCallback(uid);
}
void enterAPI(std::function<void()> userCallback)
{
std::string uid = getSingleton<Dispatcher>()->makeCallback(userCallback);
call_callback(leaveAPI, uid);
}
Demo
You just count up a number every time you call the API and use its string version as the callback parameter. The class also maps each of those strings to the callback you wanted called. You could remove the map entries or do any number of performance optimizations, but this is the gist of it.
(This would work just as well with const char* if you figure out the ownership/lifetime questions that it opens.)
You should really petition the writers of the API to use std::function instead of raw pointers to functions.
Then you can easily use e.g. std::bind or lambda expressions to be able to call functions taking more arguments than the callback takes.
For example:
// The callback is a function taking one string argument, and return nothing
using CALLBACK = std::function<void(std::string)>;
// Do some processing and then call the callback function
void call_callback(CALLBACK cb, std::string message)
{
// ...
cb(message);
}
// Our callback takes a string *and* an integer argument
void callback_function(std::string message, int data)
{
std::cout << message << ' ' << data << '\n';
}
int main()
{
int local_data = 42;
// Using std::bind...
using namespace std::placeholders; // for _1, _2, _3...
call_callback(std::bind(&callback_function, _1, local_data), "Foobar");
// Using lambdas...
call_callback([local_data](std::string message)
{
callback_function(message, local_data);
}, "Foobar");
}
Using std::function also makes it easy to use member functions as callbacks as well, not only non-member functions (or static member functions).
However, if you can't modify the API, or the creator of it won't change it and it have to use C-style plain pointers to non-member functions, you can still solve it with lambdas, but you can't have any captures for the lambda:
call_callback([/*empty!*/](std::string message)
{
// Call the function as defined in the previous snippet
callback_function(message, 42); // Pass the value directly
}, "Foobar");
I am writing an adapter to combine two APIs (one in C and another in C++).
If a function is called on the one API I need to pass the callers ID and the function's arguments to an adapter and call the according function with this information passed.
Now aparently they can not be mapped directly as one interface requires C++ compilation and the name mangling would screw the other so that is why I am using a set of adapters in the first place.
As the number of arguments varies, I looked up variadic functions and found the idea pretty useful, however I am operating on POD only and have to deal with structs, enums and a lot of different arguments per call, which might need to be put back into a struct before feeding it to the target function.
Every example I stumbled upon was far simpler and involved mostly arithmetic operations like summing stuff up , finding largest numbers or printing. Mostly done with for loops on the var_list.
Maybe I got stuck on the idea and it won't work at all, but I am just curious...
Say I wanted to assign the arguments from the list to my target functions parameters (the order of the arguments passed is the correct one), what would be a good way?
BOOL Some_Function(
/* in */ CallerId *pObjectId,
/* in */ someDataType argument1 )
{
BOOL ret = Adapter_Call(pFunction, pObjectId, argument1);
return ret;
}
and so once I made it to the right adapter I want to do
BOOL Adapter_Call(*pFunction, *pObjectId, argument1, ...)
{
va_list args;
va_start(args, argument1);
/*go over list and do `var_list[i] = pFunctionArgList[i]` which is
of whatever type so I can use it as input for my function */
va_end(args);
pObjectId.pFunction(arg1,...,argn);
}
Can I access the input parameters of a function to perform assignments like this?
Has anyone done something like this before? Is there a conceptual mistake in my thinking?
All I found on the net was this, http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/extracting-function-parameter-and-return/240000586but due to the use of templates I am not sure if it wouldn't create another problem and so in the end implementing an adapter for each and every single functioncall may be simpler to do.
A SO search only returned this: Dynamic function calls at runtime (va_list)
First, you should heed Kerrek's advice about extern "C". This is C++'s mechanism for giving an identifier C linkage, meaning that the name won't be mangled by the C++ compiler.
Sometimes, and adapter still needs to be written for a C++ interface, because it manipulates objects that do not map to a C POD. So, the adapter gives the C interface a POD or opaque pointer type to manipulate, but the implementation of that interface converts that into an C++ object or reference and then calls the C++ interface. For example, suppose you wanted to provide a C interface for C++ std::map<int, void *>, you would have a common header file in C and C++ that would contain:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
struct c_map_int_ptr;
// ...
// return -1 on failure, otherwise 0, and *data is populated with result
int c_map_int_ptr_find (struct c_map_int_ptr *, int key, void **data);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
Then, the C++ code could implement the function like:
typedef std::map<int, void *> map_int_ptr;
int c_map_int_ptr_find (struct c_map_int_ptr *cmap, int key, void **data) {
map_int_ptr &map = *static_cast<map_int_ptr *>(cmap);
map_int_ptr::iterator i = map.find(key);
if (i != map.end()) {
*data = i->second;
return 0;
}
return -1;
}
Thus, there is no need to pass the arguments passed via the C interface through a variable argument adapter. And so, there is no need for the C++ code to tease out the arguments from a variable argument list. The C code calls directly into the C++ code, which knows what to do with the arguments.
I suppose if you are trying to implement some kind of automated C adapter code generator by parsing C++ code, you could think that using variable arguments would provide a regular mechanism to communicate arguments between the generated C code interface and the generated C++ adapter code that would call the original C++ interface. For such a scenario, the code for the above example would look something like this:
// C interface
typedef struct c_map_int_ptr c_map_int_ptr;
typedef struct c_map_int_ptr_iterator c_map_int_ptr_iterator;
//...
c_map_int_ptr_iterator c_map_int_ptr_find (c_map_int_ptr *map, int key) {
c_map_int_ptr_iterator result;
cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter(__func__, map, key, &result);
return result;
}
// C++ code:
struct cpp_adapter {
virtual ~cpp_adapter () {}
virtual void execute (va_list) {}
};
void cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter(const char *func, ...) {
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, func);
cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter_method_lookup(func).execute(ap);
va_end(ap);
}
//...
struct cpp_map_int_ptr_find_adapter : cpp_adapter {
void execute (va_list ap) {
map_int_ptr *map = va_arg(ap, map_int_ptr *);
int key = va_arg(ap, int);
c_map_int_ptr_iterator *c_iter = va_arg(ap, c_map_int_ptr_iterator *);
map_int_ptr::iterator i = map->find(key);
//...transfer result to c_iter
}
};
Where cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter_method_lookup() returns an appropriate cpp_adapter instance based on a table lookup.
As previously discussed here, I'm trying to find a workaround for the LNK2019 issue that arises when building a static library which utilizes C++ templates, and separating the source from the header to keep the code private from other projects. I believe I've nearly come to a working conclusion (for my particular situation), but I'm not entirely sure if this is the correct/best way to go about it and was wondering if anyone has any suggestions, improvements/comments to add?
The goal is to do some type checking to see if the template's signature matches the target prototype function's signature, do some private processing, and return whether or not it was sucessful. NOTE that I have removed SdkHookMgr.h and SdkHookMgr.cpp from the prior version of the solution in the above link, and merged everything back into SdkLib.h and SdkLib.cpp, into a static class for a bit of clarity.
SdkLib.h:
#include <typeinfo>
#ifdef MY_EXPORTS
# define MYDECL __declspec(dllexport)
#else
# define MYDECL
#endif
// Prototypes
typedef HMODULE (WINAPI *HookLoadLibraryA)( LPCSTR lpFileName );
//...
class CHook;
class CHookManager;
MYDECL BOOL WINAPI ValidateHook( CHook *hook );
class CHook
{
public:
CHook() : m_type(NULL), m_target(NULL), m_result(FALSE) {};
CHook( const char *type, PVOID target ) : m_type(type), m_target(target) {
m_result = ValidateHook(this);
};
const char *m_type;
PVOID m_target;
BOOL m_result;
};
class CHookManager
{
public:
template <typename HookFunction> static BOOL Hook(HookFunction target)
{
const type_info& type = typeid(HookFunction);
CHook *hook = new CHook( type.name(), target );
return hook->m_result;
}
};
SdkLib.cpp:
#include <SdkLib.h>
IDXDECL BOOL WINAPI ValidateHook( CHook *hook )
{
// Do type checking, private processing, etc here...
return TRUE;
}
DemoDLL.cpp:
#include <SdkLib.h>
HMODULE WINAPI Hooked_LoadLibraryA( LPCSTR lpFileName )
{
DebugBreak();
}
// The function that starts the rollercoaster.
// - Syntax: Hook< prototype >( target )
if!(CHookManager::Hook<HookLoadLibraryA>(Hooked_LoadLibraryA))
cout << "Failed to create hook for LoadLibraryA!" << endl;
You may find that the results of typeid are not consistent between the DLL and the main program. (See, for example, typeid result across different dll's.)
Since your list of possible hooks is limited, it strikes me that overloaded functions would be a better choice than templates. You'd then have no DLL issues, and the validity of each hook would be checked at compile time. Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm thinking of; obviously in practice you'd split this into separate definition and declaration, with the definitions living in the DLL so it's all cleanly separated out.
class CHookManager {
public:
BOOL Hook(HookLoadLibraryA hook) {
assert(sizeof hook<=sizeof(uintptr_t));
return ValidateHook((uintptr_t)hook,"LoadLibraryA");
}
BOOL Hook(HookLoadLibraryW hook) {
assert(sizeof hook<=sizeof(uintptr_t));
return ValidateHook((uintptr_t)hook,"LoadLibraryW");
}
};
(Note that this shows up one disadvantage of this approach - you can only have one hook per function signature. I mention this for completeness' sake, but I'll assume this hasn't proven an issue.)
(You might like to replace the assert with a compile-time assert, if you have one.)
ValidateHook would use strcmp to figure out which hook is being hooked. Once it's figured out which hook it is, it would then cast the uintptr_t to the appropriate function pointer type. It knows the pointer was originally of the correct type for that hook, because you're using the C++ overload mechanism to do it all. (Or you could have an enum, say, for all the hook types, rather than passing in a string - it's up to you. The key part is that you have full control over the values being passed, so that the DLL and the calling code are definitely using matching values.)
This code would be a little tiresome to generate, but if you already have the list of typedef names then you could create the corresponding code using regular expression search and replace, or keyboard macros, in your editor of choice. Or you could use something like the so-called "X-Macro" to automate the generation of the whole thing.
this is my first question after long time checking on this marvelous webpage.
Probably my question is a little silly but I want to know others opinion about this. What is better, to create several specific methods or, on the other hand, only one generic method? Here is an example...
unsigned char *Method1(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand1Struct *params)
{
if(params == NULL) return NULL;
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
return buffer; // buffer is a member of the class
}
unsigned char *Method2(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand2Struct *params)
{
...
}
unsigned char *Method3(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand3Struct *params)
{
...
}
unsigned char *Method4(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand4Struct *params)
{
...
}
or
unsigned char *Method(CommandTypeEnum command, void *params)
{
switch(command)
{
case CMD_1:
{
if(params == NULL) return NULL;
ParamsCommand1Struct *value = (ParamsCommand1Struct *) params;
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
return buffer;
}
break;
// ...
default:
break;
}
}
The main thing I do not really like of the latter option is this,
ParamsCommand1Struct *value = (ParamsCommand1Struct *) params;
because "params" could not be a pointer to "ParamsCommand1Struct" but a pointer to "ParamsCommand2Struct" or someone else.
I really appreciate your opinions!
General Answer
In Writing Solid Code, Steve Macguire's advice is to prefer distinct functions (methods) for specific situations. The reason is that you can assert conditions that are relevant to the specific case, and you can more easily debug because you have more context.
An interesting example is the standard C run-time's functions for dynamic memory allocation. Most of it is redundant, as realloc can actually do (almost) everything you need. If you have realloc, you don't need malloc or free. But when you have such a general function, used for several different types of operations, it's hard to add useful assertions and it's harder to write unit tests, and it's harder to see what's happening when debugging. Macquire takes it a step farther and suggests that, not only should realloc just do _re_allocation, but it should probably be two distinct functions: one for growing a block and one for shrinking a block.
While I generally agree with his logic, sometimes there are practical advantages to having one general purpose method (often when operations is highly data-driven). So I usually decide on a case by case basis, with a bias toward creating very specific methods rather than overly general purpose ones.
Specific Answer
In your case, I think you need to find a way to factor out the common code from the specifics. The switch is often a signal that you should be using a small class hierarchy with virtual functions.
If you like the single method approach, then it probably should be just a dispatcher to the more specific methods. In other words, each of those cases in the switch statement simply call the appropriate Method1, Method2, etc. If you want the user to see only the general purpose method, then you can make the specific implementations private methods.
Generally, it's better to offer separate functions, because they by their prototype names and arguments communicate directly and visibly to the user that which is available; this also leads to more straightforward documentation.
The one time I use a multi-purpose function is for something like a query() function, where a number of minor query functions, rather than leading to a proliferation of functions, are bundled into one, with a generic input and output void pointer.
In general, think about what you're trying to communicate to the API user by the API prototypes themselves; a clear sense of what the API can do. He doesn't need excessive minutae; he does need to know the core functions which are the entire point of having the API in the first place.
First off, you need to decide which language you are using. Tagging the question with both C and C++ here makes no sense. I am assuming C++.
If you can create a generic function then of course that is preferable (why would you prefer multiple, redundant functions?) The question is; can you? However, you seem to be unaware of templates. We need to see what you have omitted here to tell if you if templates are suitable however:
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
In the general case, assuming templates are appropriate, all of that turns into:
template <typename T>
unsigned char *Method(CommandTypeEnum command, T *params) {
// more here
}
On a side note, how is buffer declared? Are you returning a pointer to dynamically allocated memory? Prefer RAII type objects and avoid dynamically allocating memory like that if so.
If you are using C++ then I would avoid using void* as you don't really need to. There is nothing wrong with having multiple methods. Note that you don't actually have to rename the function in your first set of examples - you can just overload a function using different parameters so that there is a separate function signature for each type. Ultimately, this kind of question is very subjective and there are a number of ways of doing things. Looking at your functions of the first type, you would perhaps be well served by looking into the use of templated functions
You could create a struct. That's what I use to handle console commands.
typedef int (* pFunPrintf)(const char*,...);
typedef void (CommandClass::*pKeyFunc)(char *,pFunPrintf);
struct KeyCommand
{
const char * cmd;
unsigned char cmdLen;
pKeyFunc pfun;
const char * Note;
long ID;
};
#define CMD_FORMAT(a) a,(sizeof(a)-1)
static KeyCommand Commands[]=
{
{CMD_FORMAT("one"), &CommandClass::CommandOne, "String Parameter",0},
{CMD_FORMAT("two"), &CommandClass::CommandTwo, "String Parameter",1},
{CMD_FORMAT("three"), &CommandClass::CommandThree, "String Parameter",2},
{CMD_FORMAT("four"), &CommandClass::CommandFour, "String Parameter",3},
};
#define AllCommands sizeof(Commands)/sizeof(KeyCommand)
And the Parser function
void CommandClass::ParseCmd( char* Argcommand )
{
unsigned int x;
for ( x=0;x<AllCommands;x++)
{
if(!memcmp(Commands[x].cmd,Argcommand,Commands[x].cmdLen ))
{
(this->*Commands[x].pfun)(&Argcommand[Commands[x].cmdLen],&::printf);
break;
}
}
if(x==AllCommands)
{
// Unknown command
}
}
I use a thread safe printf pPrintf, so ignore it.
I don't really know what you want to do, but in C++ you probably should derive multiple classes from a Formatter Base class like this:
class Formatter
{
virtual void Format(unsigned char* buffer, Command command) const = 0;
};
class YourClass
{
public:
void Method(Command command, const Formatter& formatter)
{
formatter.Format(buffer, command);
}
private:
unsigned char* buffer_;
};
int main()
{
//
Params1Formatter formatter(/*...*/);
YourClass yourObject;
yourObject.Method(CommandA, formatter);
// ...
}
This removes the resposibility to handle all that params stuff from your class and makes it closed for changes. If there will be new commands or parameters during further development you don't have to modifiy (and eventually break) existing code but add new classes that implement the new stuff.
While not full answer this should guide you in correct direction: ONE FUNCTION ONE RESPONSIBILITY. Prefer the code where it is responsible for one thing only and does it well. The code whith huge switch statement (which is not bad by itself) where you need cast void * to some other type is a smell.
By the way I hope you do realise that according to standard you can only cast from void * to <type> * only when the original cast was exactly from <type> * to void *.
First, some background:
(Note: Though I'm in non-.NET Win32 land, this is really a C++ question)
I'm using a 3rd party API which requires you to register a callback function in order to know when an async operation is complete. Gotta use the callback, no way around it.
A non-OOP implementation would be something like this:
void __stdcall MyCbFcn(int value)
{
do something with 'value'...
}
API_RegisterCallback(MyCbFcn);
Pretty standard stuff.
BUT...
My code is OOP, with multiple instances rx'ing the callback, thus the callback needs to be routed to the object that registered it.
Knowing that folks do this, callbacks typically include a user var, something like:
void __stdcall MyCbFcn(int value, U32 user)
{
do something with 'value'...
}
API_RegisterCallback(MyCbFcn, someUserValue);
and more specifically, when combined with OOP, this user arg allows you to get back into context:
(written inline for brevity):
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass()
{
API_RegisterCallback(MyClass::StaticCbFcn, (U32)this);
}
private:
static void __stdcall StaticCbFcn(int value, U32 user)
{
MyClass* pThis = (MyClass*)user;
pThis->InstanceCbFcn(value);
}
void InstanceCbFcn(int value)
{
... do some work in context ...
}
}
BUT, my API doesn't feature a user arg :(
So now my question:
How I can get back into context?
I've considered kinda sketchy things like defining a "pool" of 100 distinct callbacks and assigning them as objects are created, but that seems like a real hack.
An obvious solution ... if I were in e.g. JavaScript :) ... would be to use an anonymous function, but AFAIK C++ doesn't have anything like that.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
"100 distinct callbacks" is really the only thing you can do, thus you use the function address as identifying parameter. It might help to implement the different functions as template with a constant parameter:
template < unsinged N >
void StaticCbFcn( int value )
{
map[ N ].InstanceCbFcn( value );
}
You can do this with boost bind:
boost::bind(&my::function_to_call_cb, this, _1, context));
void my_impl::function_to_call_cb(int result, std::string context)