Supposing a general player that will notify certain events to certain objects of classes. I create a base class with some virtual functions guaranteed to exist in the derived:
class PlayEventsReceiver{
virtual void StartPlay()=0;
virtual void StopPlay()=0;
};
I would derive from PlayEventsReceiver the classes interested in such "signals"
class FooPlayer:public PlayEventsReceiver{
void StartPlay(){...}
void StopPlay(){...}
};
But if I wanted, rather than inheriting, implementing the signaling mechanism as a property, like this:
class BarPlayer{
PlayEventsReceiver receiver;
};
Is it possible to implement the pure virtual functions somehow inside the class BarPlayer in a clean way and not creating intermediate derived classes?
If you don't have a derived class then the compiler has nowhere to put its functions. If you are looking for something clean then creating an explicit derived class is probably as clean as it gets.
You can't escape the fact that somewhere you need to supply the function implementations.
However, it seems you can do this anonymously by creating an unnamed class/struct. But it is not avoiding creating a derived class because an anonymous derived class is still being created:
// public interface so I use struct
struct PlayEventsReceiver {
virtual void StartPlay() = 0;
virtual void StopPlay() = 0;
};
class BarPlayer {
public:
struct : PlayEventsReceiver {
void StartPlay() override
{
std::cout << "Start Play\n";
}
void StopPlay() override
{
std::cout << "Stop Play\n";
}
} receiver;
};
int main()
{
BarPlayer bp;
bp.receiver.StartPlay();
}
Related
Let's say I have a parent class, Arbitrary, and two child classes, Foo and Bar. I'm trying to implement a function to insert any Arbitrary object into a database, however, since the child classes contain data specific to those classes, I need to perform slightly different operations depending on the type.
Coming into C++ from Java/C#, my first instinct was to have a function that takes the parent as the parameter use something like instanceof and some if statements to handle child-class-specific behavior.
Pseudocode:
void someClass(Arbitrary obj){
obj.doSomething(); //a member function from the parent class
//more operations based on parent class
if(obj instanceof Foo){
//do Foo specific stuff
}
if(obj instanceof Bar){
//do Bar specific stuff
}
}
However, after looking into how to implement this in C++, the general consensus seemed to be that this is poor design.
If you have to use instanceof, there is, in most cases, something wrong with your design. – mslot
I considered the possibility of overloading the function with each type, but that would seemingly lead to code duplication. And, I would still end up needing to handle the child-specific behavior in the parent class, so that wouldn't solve the problem anyway.
So, my question is, what's the better way of performing operations that where all parent and child classes should be accepted as input, but in which behavior is dictated by the object type?
First, you want to take your Arbitrary by pointer or reference, otherwise you will slice off the derived class. Next, sounds like a case of a virtual method.
void someClass(Arbitrary* obj) {
obj->insertIntoDB();
}
where:
class Arbitrary {
public:
virtual ~Arbitrary();
virtual void insertIntoDB() = 0;
};
So that the subclasses can provide specific overrides:
class Foo : public Arbitrary {
public:
void insertIntoDB() override
// ^^^ if C++11
{
// do Foo-specific insertion here
}
};
Now there might be some common functionality in this insertion between Foo and Bar... so you should put that as a protected method in Arbitrary. protected so that both Foo and Bar have access to it but someClass() doesn't.
In my opinion, if at any place you need to write
if( is_instance_of(Derived1) )
//do something
else if ( is_instance_of(Derived2) )
//do somthing else
...
then it's as sign of bad design. First and most straight forward issue is that of "Maintainence". You have to take care in case further derivation happens. However, sometimes it's necessary. for e.g if your all classes are part of some library. In other cases you should avoid this coding as far as possible.
Most often you can remove the need to check for specific instance by introducing some new classes in the hierarchy. For e.g :-
class BankAccount {};
class SavingAccount : public BankAccount { void creditInterest(); };
class CheckingAccount : public BankAccount { void creditInterest(): };
In this case, there seems to be a need for if/else statement to check for actual object as there is no corresponsing creditInterest() in BanAccount class. However, indroducing a new class could obviate the need for that checking.
class BankAccount {};
class InterestBearingAccount : public BankAccount { void creditInterest(): } {};
class SavingAccount : public InterestBearingAccount { void creditInterest(): };
class CheckingAccount : public InterestBearingAccount { void creditInterest(): };
The issue here is that this will arguably violate SOLID design principles, given that any extension in the number of mapped classes would require new branches in the if statement, otherwise the existing dispatch method will fail (it won't work with any subclass, just those it knows about).
What you are describing looks well suited to inheritance polymorphicism - each of Arbitrary (base), Foo and Bar can take on the concerns of its own fields.
There is likely to be some common database plumbing which can be DRY'd up the base method.
class Arbitrary { // Your base class
protected:
virtual void mapFields(DbCommand& dbCommand) {
// Map the base fields here
}
public:
void saveToDatabase() { // External caller invokes this on any subclass
openConnection();
DbCommand& command = createDbCommand();
mapFields(command); // Polymorphic call
executeDbTransaction(command);
}
}
class Foo : public Arbitrary {
protected: // Hide implementation external parties
virtual void mapFields(DbCommand& dbCommand) {
Arbitrary::mapFields();
// Map Foo specific fields here
}
}
class Bar : public Arbitrary {
protected:
virtual void mapFields(DbCommand& dbCommand) {
Arbitrary::mapFields();
// Map Bar specific fields here
}
}
If the base class, Arbitrary itself cannot exist in isolation, it should also be marked as abstract.
As StuartLC pointed out, the current design violates the SOLID principles. However, both his answer and Barry's answer has strong coupling with the database, which I do not like (should Arbitrary really need to know about the database?). I would suggest that you make some additional abstraction, and make the database operations independent of the the data types.
One possible implementation may be like:
class Arbitrary {
public:
virtual std::string serialize();
static Arbitrary* deserialize();
};
Your database-related would be like (please notice that the parameter form Arbitrary obj is wrong and can truncate the object):
void someMethod(const Arbitrary& obj)
{
// ...
db.insert(obj.serialize());
}
You can retrieve the string from the database later and deserialize into a suitable object.
So, my question is, what's the better way of performing operations
that where all parent and child classes should be accepted as input,
but in which behavior is dictated by the object type?
You can use Visitor pattern.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Arbitrary;
class Foo;
class Bar;
class ArbitraryVisitor
{
public:
virtual void visitParent(Arbitrary& m) {};
virtual void visitFoo(Foo& vm) {};
virtual void visitBar(Bar& vm) {};
};
class Arbitrary
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething()
{
cout<<"do Parent specific stuff"<<endl;
}
virtual void accept(ArbitraryVisitor& v)
{
v.visitParent(*this);
}
};
class Foo: public Arbitrary
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething()
{
cout<<"do Foo specific stuff"<<endl;
}
virtual void accept(ArbitraryVisitor& v)
{
v.visitFoo(*this);
}
};
class Bar: public Arbitrary
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething()
{
cout<<"do Bar specific stuff"<<endl;
}
virtual void accept(ArbitraryVisitor& v)
{
v.visitBar(*this);
}
};
class SetArbitaryVisitor : public ArbitraryVisitor
{
void visitParent(Arbitrary& vm)
{
vm.DoSomething();
}
void visitFoo(Foo& vm)
{
vm.DoSomething();
}
void visitBar(Bar& vm)
{
vm.DoSomething();
}
};
int main()
{
Arbitrary *arb = new Foo();
SetArbitaryVisitor scv;
arb->accept(scv);
}
I need to store a container of pointers to objects.
These objects have some common methods/attributes (interface) that I want to enforce (possibly at compile time) and use.
Example:
struct A{
void fly(){}
};
struct B{
void fly(){}
};
A a;
B b;
std::vector<some *> objects;
objects.push_back(&a);
objects.push_back(&b);
for(auto & el: objects)
el->fly();
The simpler solution would be A and B inherit a common base class like FlyingClass:
struct FlyingClass{
void fly(){}
};
struct A: public FlyingClass { ...
struct B: public FlyingClass { ...
and create a
std::vector<FlyingClass *> objects;
This will work and also enforce the fact that I can only add to objects things that can fly (implement FlyingClass).
But what if I need to implement some other common methods/attributes WITHOUT coupling them with the above base class?
Example:
struct A{
void fly(){}
void swim(){}
};
struct B{
void fly(){}
void swim(){}
};
And i would like to do:
for(auto & el: objects) {
el->fly();
...
el->swim();
...
}
More in general i would be able to call a function passing one of these pointers and access both the common methods/attributes, like:
void dostuff(Element * el){
el->fly();
el->swim();
}
I could try to inherit from another interface like:
struct SwimmingClass{
void swim(){}
};
struct A: public FlyingClass, public SwimmingClass { ...
struct B: public FlyingClass, public SwimmingClass { ...
But then what the container should contain?
std::vector<FlyingClass&&SwimmingClass *> objects;
Sure, i could implement SwimmingFlyingClass, but what if i need RunningClass etc.. This is going to be a nightmare.
In other words, how can I implement a pointer to multiple interfaces without coupling them?
Or there is some template way of rethinking the problem?
Even run time type information could be acceptable in my application, if there is an elegant and maintainable way of doing this.
It is possible to do this, in a pretty TMP-heavy way that's a little expensive at runtime. A redesign is favourable so that this is not required. The long and short is that what you want to do isn't possible cleanly without language support, which C++ does not offer.
As for the ugly, shield your eyes from this:
struct AnyBase { virtual ~AnyBase() {} }; // All derived classes inherit from.
template<typename... T> class Limited {
AnyBase* object;
template<typename U> Limited(U* p) {
static_assert(all<is_base_of<T, U>...>::value, "Must derive from all of the interfaces.");
object = p;
}
template<typename U> U* get() {
static_assert(any<is_same<U, T>...>::value, "U must be one of the interfaces.");
return dynamic_cast<U*>(object);
}
}
Some of this stuff isn't defined as Standard so I'll just run through it. The static_assert on the constructor enforces that U inherits from all of T. I may have U and T the wrong way round, and the definition of all is left to the reader.
The getter simply requires that U is one of the template arguments T.... Then we know in advance that the dynamic_cast will succeed, because we checked the constraint statically.
It's ugly, but it should work. So consider
std::vector<Limited<Flying, Swimming>> objects;
for(auto&& obj : objects) {
obj.get<Flying>()->fly();
obj.get<Swimming>()->swim();
}
You are asking for something which doesn't make sense in general, that's why there is no easy way to do it.
You are asking to be able to store heterogeneus objects in a collection, with interfaces that are even different.
How are you going to iterate over the collections without knowing the type? You are restricted to the least specific or forced to do dynamic_cast pointers and cross fingers.
class Entity { }
class SwimmingEntity : public Entity {
virtual void swim() = 0;
}
class FlyingEntity : public Entity {
virtual void fly() = 0;
}
class Fish : public SwimmingEntity {
void swim() override { }
}
class Bird : public FlyingEntity {
void fly() override { }
}
std:vector<Entity*> entities;
This is legal but doesn't give you any information to the capabilities of the runtime Entity instance. It won't lead anywhere unless you work them out with dynamic_cast and rtti (or manual rtti) so where's the advantage?
This is pretty much a textbook example calling for type erasure.
The idea is to define an internal abstract (pure virtual) interface class that captures the common behavior(s) you want, then to use a templated constructor to create a proxy object derived from that interface:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
using std::cout;
struct Bird {
void fly() { cout << "Bird flies\n"; }
void swim(){ cout << "Bird swims\n"; }
};
struct Pig {
void fly() { cout << "Pig flies!\n"; }
void swim() { cout << "Pig swims\n"; }
};
struct FlyingSwimmingThing {
// Pure virtual interface that knows how to fly() and how to swim(),
// but does not depend on type of underlying object.
struct InternalInterface {
virtual void fly() = 0;
virtual void swim() = 0;
virtual ~InternalInterface() { }
};
// Proxy inherits from interface; forwards to underlying object.
// Template class allows proxy type to depend on object type.
template<typename T>
struct InternalImplementation : public InternalInterface {
InternalImplementation(T &obj) : obj_(obj) { }
void fly() { obj_.fly(); }
void swim() { obj_.swim(); }
virtual ~InternalImplementation() { }
private:
T &obj_;
};
// Templated constructor
template<typename T>
FlyingSwimmingThing(T &obj) : proxy_(new InternalImplementation<T>(obj))
{ }
// Forward calls to underlying object via virtual interface.
void fly() { proxy_->fly(); }
void swim() { proxy_->swim(); }
private:
std::unique_ptr<InternalInterface> proxy_;
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
Bird a;
Pig b;
std::vector<FlyingSwimmingThing> objects;
objects.push_back(FlyingSwimmingThing(a));
objects.push_back(FlyingSwimmingThing(b));
objects[0].fly();
objects[1].fly();
objects[0].swim();
objects[1].swim();
}
The same trick is used for the deleter in a shared_ptr and for std::function. The latter is arguably the poster child for the technique.
You will always find a call to "new" in there somewhere. Also, if you want your wrapper class to hold a copy of the underlying object rather than a pointer, you will find you need a clone() function in the abstract interface class (whose implementation will also call new). So these things can get very non-performant very easily, depending on what you are doing...
[Update]
Just to make my assumptions clear, since some people appear not to have read the question...
You have multiple classes implementing fly() and swim() functions, but that is all that the classes have in common; they do not inherit from any common interface classes.
The goal is to have a wrapper object that can store a pointer to any one of those classes, and through which you can invoke the fly() and swim() functions without knowing the wrapped type at the call site. (Take the time to read the question to see examples; e.g. search for dostuff.) This property is called "encapsulation"; that is, the wrapper exposes the fly() and swim() interfaces directly and it can hide any properties of the wrapped object that are not relevant.
Finally, it should be possible to create a new otherwise-unrelated class with its own fly() and swim() functions and have the wrapper hold a pointer to that class (a) without modifying the wrapper class and (b) without touching any call to fly() or swim() via the wrapper.
These are, as I said, textbook features of type erasure. I did not invent the idiom, but I do recognize when it is called for.
It seems that it is good to make the virtual methods private in order to separate the interfaces for following two clients -
1. clients that instantiate an object and call the method
2. clients that derive from the class and may want to override the method.
Simply put - the first client does not need to know if a method is virtual. He will call the base class public non-virtual method which in turn will call the private virtual method. See code below for example.
Now in the case where the virtual method needs to super-message its base class' corresponding virtual method such as say a Save method - which has to pass through all virtual methods in the chain of inheritance in order to save data corresponding to each level of derivation - we have no option but to use a protected virtual method - unless there is a way to guarantee saving of data at all levels of derivation without using super messaging (there is none that I know).
I would like to know if above reasoning correct.
Make sure you use the scroll to see the entire code.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A {
string data;
protected:
virtual void SaveData()= 0;
public:
A():data("Data of A"){}
void Save(){
cout << data << endl;
SaveData();
}
};
class B : public A {
string data;
protected:
virtual void SaveData() { cout << data << endl;}
public:
B():data("Data of B") {}
};
class C : public B {
string data;
protected:
virtual void SaveData() {
B::SaveData();
cout << data << endl;
}
public:
C():data("Data of C") {}
};
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
C c;
c.Save();
return 0;
}
Yes, if you need to call the SaveData of another class, it needs to be accessible from that class - so public or protected.
You are exactly right:
NVI (Non-Virtual Interface) requires that virtual methods not be public
Calling the base class method requires that it not private
therefore protected is the obvious solution, at least in C++03. Unfortunately it means you have to trust the derived class developer not to forget to call "super".
In C++11, you can use final to prevent a derived class from overriding a virtual method; it means though that you are forced to introduce a new hook, example:
class Base {
public:
void save() {
// do something
this->saveImpl();
// do something
}
private:
virtual void saveImpl() {}
};
class Child: public Base {
private:
virtual void saveImpl() final {
// do something
this->saveImpl2();
// do something
}
virtual void saveImpl2() {}
};
Of course, there is the trouble of having to come up with a new name each and every time... but at least you are guaranteed that Child::saveImpl will be called because none of its children can override it.
It's difficult to tell what you're asking, but from the example, you do not need to make the method protected. It actually can be private. For details about the subtleties see this post: What is the point of a private pure virtual function?.
So long as you're not calling the private member from derived class (or outside classes), you're ok. Overriding of private members is ok. It does sound quite naughty and wrong that you can override your parent's privates, but in c++ you're allowed to do this.
The following should be ok:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A {
string data;
private:
virtual void SaveData()= 0;
public:
A():data("Data of A"){}
void Save(){
cout << data << endl;
SaveData();
}
};
class B : public A {
string data;
private:
virtual void SaveData() { cout << data << endl;}
public:
B():data("Data of B") {}
};
There probably is a fairly simple and straight-forward answer for this, but for some reason I can't see it.
I need to restrict calling methods from a class only to some methods implemented by derived classes of some interface.
Say I have
class A{
public:
static void foo();
};
class myInterface{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere() = 0;
}
class myImplementation : public myInterface{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere()
{
A::foo(); //this should work
}
void otherFoo()
{
A::foo(); //i want to get a compilation error here
}
}
So I should be able to call A::foo only from the method onlyCallFooFromHere()
Is there a way to achieve this? I'm open to any suggestions, including changing the class design.
EDIT:
So... I feel there's a need to further explain the issue. I have a utility class which interacts with a database (mainly updates records) - class A.
In my interface (which represents a basic database objects) I have the virtual function updateRecord() from which I call methods from the db utility class. I want to enforce updating the database only in the updateRecord() function of all extending classes and nowhere else. I don't believe this to be a bad design choice, even if not possible. However, if indeed not possible, I would appreciate a different solution.
Change the class design - what you want is impossible.
I am unsure of what you are trying to achieve with so little details and I am unable to comment further.
[Disclaimer: this solution will stop Murphy, not Macchiavelli.]
How about:
class DatabaseQueryInterface {
public:
~virtual DatabseQueryInterface() = 0;
virtual Query compileQuery() const = 0; // or whatever
virtual ResultSet runQuery(const Query&) const = 0; // etc
};
class DatabaseUpdateInterface : public DatabaseQueryInterface {
public:
virtual Update compileUpdate() const = 0; // whatever
};
class DatabaseObject {
public:
virtual ~DatabaseObject() = 0;
protected:
virtual void queryRecord(const DatabaseQueryInterface& interface) = 0;
virtual void updateRecord(const DatabaseUpdateInterface& interface) = 0;
};
class SomeConcreteDatabaseObject : public DatabaseObject {
protected:
virtual void updateRecord(const DatabaseUpdateInterface& interface) {
// gets to use interface->compileUpdate()
}
virtual void queryRecord(const DatabaseQueryInterface& interface) {
// only gets query methods, no updates
}
};
So the basic idea is that your DatabaseObject base class squirrels away a private Query object and a private Update object and when it comes time to call the protected members of the subclass it hands off the Update interface to the updateRecord() method, and the Query interface to the queryRecord() method.
That way the natural thing for the subclasses is to use the object they are passed to talk to the database. Of course they can always resort to dirty tricks to store away a passed-in Update object and try to use it later from a query method, but frankly if they go to such lengths, they're on their own.
You could split your project into different TUs:
// A.h
class A
{
public:
static void foo();
};
// My.h
class myInterface
{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere() = 0;
}
class myImplementation : public myInterface
{
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere();
void otherFoo();
};
// My-with-A.cpp
#include "My.h"
#include "A.h"
void myImplementation::onlyCallFooFromHere() { /* use A */ }
// My-without-A.cpp
#include "My.h"
void myImplementation::otherFoo() { /* no A here */ }
You probably know this, but with inheritance, you can have public, protected, and private member access.
If a member is private in the base class, the derived cannot access it, while if that same member is protected, then the derived class can access it (while it still isn't public, so you're maintaining encapsulation).
There's no way to stop specific functions from being able to see whats available in their scope though (which is what you're asking), but you can design your base class so that the derived classes can only access specific elements of it.
This could be useful because class B could inherit from class A as protected (thus getting its protected members) while class C could inherit from the same class A as public (thus not getting access to its protected members). This will let you get some form of call availability difference at least -- between classes though, not between functions in the same class.
This could work.
class myInterface;
class A {
private:
friend class myInterface;
static void foo();
};
class myInterface {
public:
virtual void onlyCallFooFromHere() {callFoo();}
protected:
void callFoo() {A::foo();}
};
Though at this point I think I'd just make A::foo a static of myInterface. The concerns aren't really separate anymore.
class myInterface {
protected:
static void foo();
};
Is there a reason foo is in A?
EDIT: minor fixes (virtual Print; return mpInstance) following remarks in the answers.
I am trying to create a system in which I can derive a Child class from any Base class, and its implementation should replace the implementation of the base class.
All the objects that create and use the base class objects shouldn't change the way they create or call an object, i.e. should continue calling BaseClass.Create() even when they actually create a Child class.
The Base classes know that they can be overridden, but they do not know the concrete classes that override them.
And I want the registration of all the the Child classes to be done just in one place.
Here is my implementation:
class CAbstractFactory
{
public:
virtual ~CAbstractFactory()=0;
};
template<typename Class>
class CRegisteredClassFactory: public CAbstractFactory
{
public:
~CRegisteredClassFactory(){};
Class* CreateAndGet()
{
pClass = new Class;
return pClass;
}
private:
Class* pClass;
};
// holds info about all the classes that were registered to be overridden
class CRegisteredClasses
{
public:
bool find(const string & sClassName);
CAbstractFactory* GetFactory(const string & sClassName)
{
return mRegisteredClasses[sClassName];
}
void RegisterClass(const string & sClassName, CAbstractFactory* pConcreteFactory);
private:
map<string, CAbstractFactory* > mRegisteredClasses;
};
// Here I hold the data about all the registered classes. I hold statically one object of this class.
// in this example I register a class CChildClass, which will override the implementation of CBaseClass,
// and a class CFooChildClass which will override CFooBaseClass
class RegistrationData
{
public:
void RegisterAll()
{
mRegisteredClasses.RegisterClass("CBaseClass", & mChildClassFactory);
mRegisteredClasses.RegisterClass("CFooBaseClass", & mFooChildClassFactory);
};
CRegisteredClasses* GetRegisteredClasses(){return &mRegisteredClasses;};
private:
CRegisteredClasses mRegisteredClasses;
CRegisteredClassFactory<CChildClass> mChildClassFactory;
CRegisteredClassFactory<CFooChildClass> mFooChildClassFactory;
};
static RegistrationData StaticRegistrationData;
// and here are the base class and the child class
// in the implementation of CBaseClass::Create I check, whether it should be overridden by another class.
class CBaseClass
{
public:
static CBaseClass* Create()
{
CRegisteredClasses* pRegisteredClasses = StaticRegistrationData.GetRegisteredClasses();
if (pRegisteredClasses->find("CBaseClass"))
{
CRegisteredClassFactory<CBaseClass>* pFac =
dynamic_cast<CRegisteredClassFactory<CBaseClass>* >(pRegisteredClasses->GetFactory("CBaseClass"));
mpInstance = pFac->CreateAndGet();
}
else
{
mpInstance = new CBaseClass;
}
return mpInstance;
}
virtual void Print(){cout << "Base" << endl;};
private:
static CBaseClass* mpInstance;
};
class CChildClass : public CBaseClass
{
public:
void Print(){cout << "Child" << endl;};
private:
};
Using this implementation, when I am doing this from some other class:
StaticRegistrationData.RegisterAll();
CBaseClass* b = CBaseClass::Create();
b.Print();
I expect to get "Child" in the output.
What do you think of this design? Did I complicate things too much and it can be done easier? And is it OK that I create a template that inherits from an abstract class?
I had to use dynamic_pointer (didn't compile otherwise) - is it a hint that something is wrong?
Thank you.
This sort of pattern is fairly common. I'm not a C++ expert but in Java you see this everywhere. The dynamic cast appears to be necessary because the compiler can't tell what kind of factory you've stored in the map. To my knowledge there isn't much you can do about that with the current design. It would help to know how these objects are meant to be used. Let me give you an example of how a similar task is accomplished in Java's database library (JDBC):
The system has a DriverManager which knows about JDBC drivers. The drivers have to be registered somehow (the details aren't important); once registered whenever you ask for a database connection you get a Connection object. Normally this object will be an OracleConnection or an MSSQLConnection or something similar, but the client code only sees "Connection". To get a Statement object you say connection.prepareStatement, which returns an object of type PreparedStatement; except that it's really an OraclePreparedStatement or MSSQLPreparedStatement. This is transparent to the client because the factory for Statements is in the Connection, and the factory for Connections is in the DriverManager.
If your classes are similarly related you may want to have a function that returns a specific type of class, much like DriverManager's getConnection method returns a Connection. No casting required.
The other approach you may want to consider is using a factory that has a factory-method for each specific class you need. Then you only need one factory-factory to get an instance of the Factory. Sample (sorry if this isn't proper C++):
class CClassFactory
{
public:
virtual CBaseClass* CreateBase() { return new CBaseClass(); }
virtual CFooBaseClass* CreateFoo() { return new CFooBaseClass();}
}
class CAImplClassFactory : public CClassFactory
{
public:
virtual CBaseClass* CreateBase() { return new CAImplBaseClass(); }
virtual CFooBaseClass* CreateFoo() { return new CAImplFooBaseClass();}
}
class CBImplClassFactory : public CClassFactory // only overrides one method
{
public:
virtual CBaseClass* CreateBase() { return new CBImplBaseClass(); }
}
As for the other comments criticizing the use of inheritance: in my opinion there is no difference between an interface and public inheritance; so go ahead and use classes instead of interfaces wherever it makes sense. Pure Interfaces may be more flexible in the long run but maybe not. Without more details about your class hierarchy it's impossible to say.
Usually, base class/ derived class pattern is used when you have an interface in base class, and that interface is implemented in derived class (IS-A relationship). In your case, the base class does not seem to have any connection with derived class - it may as well be void*.
If there is no connection between base class and derived class, why do you use inheritance? What is the benefit of having a factory if factory's output cannot be used in a general way? You have
class CAbstractFactory
{
public:
virtual ~CAbstractFactory()=0;
};
This is perfectly wrong. A factory has to manufacture something that can be used immediately:
class CAbstractFactory
{
public:
virtual ~CAbstractFactory(){};
public:
CBaseClass* CreateAndGet()
{
pClass = new Class;
return pClass;
}
private:
CBaseClass* pClass;
protected:
CBaseClass *create() = 0;
};
In general, you're mixing inheritance, virtual functions and templates the way they should not be mixed.
Without having read all of the code or gone into the details, it seems like you should've done the following:
make b of type CChildClass,
make CBaseClass::Print a virtual function.
Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't find any return statement in your CBaseClass::Create() method!
Personally, I think this design overuses inheritance.
"I am trying to create a system in which I can derive a Child class from any Base class, and its implementation should replace the implementation of the base class." - I don't know that IS-A relationships should be that flexible.
I wonder if you'd be better off using interfaces (pure virtual classes in C++) and mixin behavior. If I were writing it in Java I'd do this:
public interface Foo
{
void doSomething();
}
public class MixinDemo implements Foo
{
private Foo mixin;
public MixinDemo(Foo f)
{
this.mixin = f;
}
public void doSomething() { this.mixin.doSomething(); }
}
Now I can change the behavior as needed by changing the Foo implementation that I pass to the MixinDemo.