As an example, a string that contains only a valid email address, as defined by some regex.
If a field of this type would be a part of a more complex data structure, or would be used as a function parameter, or used in any other context, the client code would be able to assume the field is a string containing a valid email address. Thus, no checks like "valid?" should be ever necessary, so approach of domaintypes would not work.
In Haskell this could be accomplished by a smart constructor (section 1.2) and in Java by ensuring the type is immutable (all setters private) and by adding a check in the constructor that throws a RuntimeException if the string used to create the type doesn't contain a valid email address.
If this is impossible in plain Clojure, I would like to see an example implementation in some well known extensions of the language, like Typed Clojure.
Ok, maybe, I understand now a question and I formulate in the comment my thoughts not really well. So I try to suggest an admissible solution to your question and then I try to explain some ideas I tried to tell in the comment.
1) There is a gen-class that generates compiled bytecode for a class and you can set constructor for the class there.
2) You can create a record with defrecord in some namespace that is private by convention in your project, then you
create another namespace with public api and define your factory function here. So the user of your public namespace will be able to call only public functions of your public namespace. (Of course, he can call also private ones, but with some another code)
3) You can just define a function like make-email that will return a map.
So you didn't specify your data structure anywhere.
4) You can just document your code where you will warn people to use the factory function for construction.
But! In Java if your code requires some interface, then it's user problem to give to your code the valid interface implementation. So if you write even a little bit general code in Java you already has lost the property of the valid email string. This stuff with interfaces is because Java is statically typed language.
Clojure is, in general, dynamically typed, so the user, in general, should be able to pass arbitrary data structure to arbitrary function without any type problems in compile time and it's his fault if he pass the wrong data. That makes, for example, this thing possible: You create a record and create a factory (constructor) function. And you expect a record to be passed in your code. But the user can pass a map with the same keys as your record fields names and the code will work.
So, in general, if you want the user of your code to be responsible for passing a required typed in dynamically typed language, then it cost nothing for user to be responsible for constructing it in a correct way that you provide to him.
Another solutions are: User just write tests. You can specify in your api functions :pre and :post conditions to check the structure. You can use typed clojure with the ideas I wrote above. And you can use some additional declarative libraries, like that was mentioned in the first comment of #Thumbnail.
P.S. I'm not a clojure professional, so I could easily miss some better solutions.
Related
Is there a way to create generic set/get functions in C++? I have a class with a large number of attributes but no functions (ok I should probably use a struct), and really don't want to write individual set and get functions for each data member. The functions I'm thinking of would be something like 'set_member( T variable ), where T could be anything, primitive types or user defined. I imagine perhaps you could create a struct with a struct as a member, then whenever you want to access a specific member of the member struct, you refer to it by the appropriate pointer. I've tried writing something to achieve this but no luck so far.
C++ has (as far as I know) no inbuilt way to autogenerate setter/getter functions.
You might be able to work some macro-magic (with all its pitfalls), otherwise your options are slim.
I can think of following alternatives:
Some IDEs generate get, set methods automatically for the data members of class. I am not sure if it is possible for C++ IDE. But I know that Eclipse IDE for Java does it. You may check once if Eclipse IDE for C++ has this facility.
You may write a short shell script or python script for automatically generating get, set method given a text file containing names and types of variables in each line.
By default all the members of struct are public. So use struct. Or if you decide to use class, then, put all the data members in public section. If you are not doing anything other than simple set, get, then, it might be ok to do so. However, debugging will be tedious in case if you encounter issues with changes in the data members.
Following my reading of the article Programmers Are People Too by Ken Arnold, I have been trying to implement the idea of progressive disclosure in a minimal C++ API, to understand how it could be done at a larger scale.
Progressive disclosure refers to the idea of "splitting" an API into categories that will be disclosed to the user of an API only upon request. For example, an API can be split into two categories: a base category what is (accessible to the user by default) for methods which are often needed and easy to use and a extended category for expert level services.
I have found only one example on the web of such an implementation: the db4o library (in Java), but I do not really understand their strategy. For example, if we take a look at ObjectServer, it is declared as an interface, just like its extended class ExtObjectServer. Then an implementing ObjectServerImpl class, inheriting from both these interfaces is defined and all methods from both interfaces are implemented there.
This supposedly allows code such as:
public void test() throws IOException {
final String user = "hohohi";
final String password = "hohoho";
ObjectServer server = clientServerFixture().server();
server.grantAccess(user, password);
ObjectContainer con = openClient(user, password);
Assert.isNotNull(con);
con.close();
server.ext().revokeAccess(user); // How does this limit the scope to
// expert level methods only since it
// inherits from ObjectServer?
// ...
});
My knowledge of Java is not that good, but it seems my misunderstanding of how this work is at an higher level.
Thanks for your help!
Java and C++ are both statically typed, so what you can do with an object depends not so much on its actual dynamic type, but on the type through which you're accessing it.
In the example you've shown, you'll notice that the variable server is of type ObjectServer. This means that when going through server, you can only access ObjectServer methods. Even if the object happens to be of a type which has other methods (which is the case in your case and its ObjectServerImpl type), you have no way of directly accessing methods other than ObjectServer ones.
To access other methods, you need to get hold of the object through different type. This could be done with a cast, or with an explicit accessor such as your ext(). a.ext() returns a, but as a different type (ExtObjectServer), giving you access to different methods of a.
Your question also asks how is server.ext() limited to expert methods when ExtObjectServer extends ObjectServer. The answer is: it is not, but that is correct. It should not be limited like this. The goal is not to provide only the expert functions. If that was the case, then client code which needs to use both normal and expert functions would need to take two references to the object, just differently typed. There's no advantage to be gained from this.
The goal of progressive disclosure is to hide the expert stuff until it's explicitly requested. Once you ask for it, you've already seen the basic stuff, so why hide it from you?
I have a function which exposes all of my required C++ functions to Lua, there are various tables representing different aspects of my "Scripting API", what I wish to do is use doxygen to make a scripting reference using the C++ code that exposes these script functions.
I have tried to make 'fake' classes in the body of the function, which successfully makes a new entry with the name I have given it, for instance if I make a table named 'Math' which has several functions exposed on it, how would I also make 'fake' member functions in this 'fake' class, I have tried to simply pass in \fn defining the function, however it does not show up as they are not actually real members to add a description to. How would I create this sort of effect in doxygen without hand righting a verbatim definition of every class, but instead treat the comment block as if it were a real class with real members?
It sounds like you're trying to document Lua code as if they were C++. Maybe it's possible, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
If you're trying to document Lua code with doxygen, maybe you could try doxygen-lua.
If your Lua API is small, you could just write a page by hand, with \ref's to the relavent C++ code. (Kind of hacky, but I've done this before.)
You could also consider using some other doc generator for your Lua API, such as LuaDoc, or anything else listed on the lua-users wiki DocumentingLuaCode.
I ended up writing a fake .doxy file which had typenames similar to lua values, apparently doxygen will document any type to throw at it.
I am attempting to make my code as testable as possible, which means using dependency injection correctly.
I have read that it's okay to use new() to instantiate an object, if that object meets certain criteria. Notably - it should not accept a "non newable" in its constructor.
For example, I should be able to go
new Form('signup');
because there is no way that my DI container would know how to create the "signup" form ahead of time.
I can make this work most of the time, but now I'd like the Form to be able to validate itself, using a third party validator, like:
$form->validate()->isValid();
...which means that I would have to pass in a validator service.
I'd really prefer to have the validator included already because most of the time the form will need to be validated, and I'd have to go through the extra work to set the validator on my own otherwise.
Is it okay, in this instance to do:
new Form(Validator $validator,$name);
I'd say that any value or object which an object requires in order to be in a valid state is one of that object's dependencies; in your example that would entirely validly include the form's name. I don't think the type of a dependency can be used to say whether it should be injected or not - Martin Fowler in this article for instance shows objects having strings injected into them, and DI containers can usually be configured to supply string values.
With this in mind, injecting the validator and the string is fine and entirely correct in my opinion.
I am developing a C++ application used to simulate a real world scenario. Based on this simulation our team is going to develop, test and evaluate different algorithms working within such a real world scenrio.
We need the possibility to define several scenarios (they might differ in a few parameters, but a future scenario might also require creating objects of new classes) and the possibility to maintain a set of algorithms (which is, again, a set of parameters but also the definition which classes are to be created). Parameters are passed to the classes in the constructor.
I am wondering which is the best way to manage all the scenario and algorithm configurations. It should be easily possible to have one developer work on one scenario with "his" algorithm and another developer working on another scenario with "his" different algorithm. Still, the parameter sets might be huge and should be "sharable" (if I defined a set of parameters for a certain algorithm in Scenario A, it should be possible to use the algorithm in Scenario B without copy&paste).
It seems like there are two main ways to accomplish my task:
Define a configuration file format that can handle my requirements. This format might be XML based or custom. As there is no C#-like reflection in C++, it seems like I have to update the config-file parser each time a new algorithm class is added to project (in order to convert a string like "MyClass" into a new instance of MyClass). I could create a name for every setup and pass this name as command line argument.
The pros are: no compilation required to change a parameter and re-run, I can easily store the whole config file with the simulation results
contra: seems like a lot of effort, especially hard because I am using a lot of template classes that have to be instantiated with given template arguments. No IDE support for writing the file (at least without creating a whole XSD which I would have to update everytime a parameter/class is added)
Wire everything up in C++ code. I am not completely sure how I would do this to separate all the different creation logic but still be able to reuse parameters across scenarios. I think I'd also try to give every setup a (string) name and use this name to select the setup via command line arg.
pro: type safety, IDE support, no parser needed
con: how can I easily store the setup with the results (maybe some serialization?)?, needs compilation after every parameter change
Now here are my questions:
- What is your opinion? Did I miss
important pros/cons?
- did I miss a third option?
- Is there a simple way to implement the config file approach that gives
me enough flexibility?
- How would you organize all the factory code in the seconde approach? Are there any good C++ examples for something like this out there?
Thanks a lot!
There is a way to do this without templates or reflection.
First, you make sure that all the classes you want to create from the configuration file have a common base class. Let's call this MyBaseClass and assume that MyClass1, MyClass2 and MyClass3 all inherit from it.
Second, you implement a factory function for each of MyClass1, MyClass2 and MyClass3. The signatures of all these factory functions must be identical. An example factory function is as follows.
MyBaseClass * create_MyClass1(Configuration & cfg)
{
// Retrieve config variables and pass as parameters
// to the constructor
int age = cfg->lookupInt("age");
std::string address = cfg->lookupString("address");
return new MyClass1(age, address);
}
Third, you register all the factory functions in a map.
typedef MyBaseClass* (*FactoryFunc)(Configuration *);
std::map<std::string, FactoryFunc> nameToFactoryFunc;
nameToFactoryFunc["MyClass1"] = &create_MyClass1;
nameToFactoryFunc["MyClass2"] = &create_MyClass2;
nameToFactoryFunc["MyClass3"] = &create_MyClass3;
Finally, you parse the configuration file and iterate over it to find all the entries that specify the name of a class. When you find such an entry, you look up its factory function in the nameToFactoryFunc table and invoke the function to create the corresponding object.
If you don't use XML, it's possible that boost::spirit could short-circuit at least some of the problems you are facing. Here's a simple example of how config data could be parsed directly into a class instance.
I found this website with a nice template supporting factory which I think will be used in my code.