I've been trying desperately to get share a public variable between two classes in C++, but I can't seem to get the hang of it. I've tried getters and setters and calling it directly as a static variable but nothing.
This is what I've tried:
DataGrabber.h
#pragma once
class DataGrabber {
public:
static float temp;
void readProcess(){
temp = 1.2;
}
}
Particle.h
#pragma once
class Particle {
public:
void update() {
float x = DataGrabber::temp;
}
AND THEN THIS:
DataGrabber.h
#pragma once
class DataGrabber {
public:
float temp;
float get(){return temp;}
void readProcess(){
temp = 1.2;
}
}
Particle.h
#pragma once
class Particle {
public:
void update() {
float x = DataGrabber.get();
}
They are both being #include in another main header, testApp.h.
What is the exact problem? How do you use these classes?
Regardless, there are several problems with your getter code.
First, why do you use getter if you make the variable public? If you are going for this design, you should hide the variable as private, to protect it from direct modification.
Second, if it is a simple member variable, you should access it through an object that you pass to your function:
void update(DataGrabber& grabber) {
float x = grabber.get();
}
In this case, you would have to create this object in your main code, which you have not shown.
If you want to use a static variable instead, take a look at a Singleton pattern, but I would advise against it unless there are no better options for your exact problem.
Finally, you should #include all direct dependencies in your header files. Your Particle depends on DataGrabber, so you should include its header from Particle.h. Or, at least, you should add a forward declaration.
Related
I have many function definitions which I have placed in different cpp files with function declarations in their respective .h files.
I have a set of a variables which I have placed in a .h file. These variables need to modified by different functions. I am using static to keep the changes from each function, but I heard it is a bad coding practice. How else to do it ? For eg -
variables.h
class variable{
static int x;
static int y;
};
function1.h
class function(){
public:
void function1();
}
similar for function 2
function 1.cpp
void function1(){
// does something with x and y (used as (variable::x=2;variable::y=3)
}
function2.cpp
void function2(){
// does something with x and y (used as variable::x+=2;variable::y+=2)
}
main.cpp
int variable::x;
int variable::y;
int main(){
obj.function1(); (obj is object of function1 class)
obj2.function2(); (obj2 is object of function2 class)
cout << variable::x << variable::y << endl;
}
I was was using different objects in different cpp files but changes in one function were not reflecting in other. How it use it please help?
You can simply move these variables into another class:
struct Shared {
int x;
int y;
};
Now you can pass an instance to this class as parameter to your function, this is called dependency injection:
void foo(Shared& shared) {
shared.x = 4;
shared.y = 2;
}
This is better because you don't have any global state anymore. You could use the function multiple times independent from each other by referencing a different instance of the Shared class.
It is very common to take this a step further by "injecting" the instance in the constructor of that class. This is helpful if the instance of that class should always reference the same instance:
struct Foo {
Shared& m_shared;
Foo(Shared& shared)
: m_shared(shared)
{
}
void foo() {
m_shared.x = 4;
m_shared.y = 2;
}
};
Yes, as you mentioned using static variable for this purpose is kind of anti-pattern. A better pattern (without knowing the background of the application) is using a composition pattern. If your functions f1() and f2() are in classes C1 and C2, you would e. g. create an additional data object D1 (with the variables in question), and inject and object of D1 in the constructor of C1 and C2, so both classes operation on a data object. There are also other solutions to this situation, but I guess thats the most general. Google for C++ Design Pattern to find more general patterns.
You can use smart pointers for global objects
struct MyGlobal
{
std::shared_ptr<Core> core;
MyGlobal(){ core=std::make_shared<Core>(); }
void changeVariableX(int X)
{
core->X = X;
}
};
You can move, copy, do whatever you want with MyGlobal instances and they still point to same core item. Just make sure all of them are populated from same instance like this:
int main()
{
MyGlobal global;
auto something = useSomeFunctionWith(global);
auto somethingElse = useAnotherFunctionWith(global);
...
// use something and somethingElse to change X, both point to the same X
}
If functions will not be thread-safe then you should add a lock-guard into changeVariableX method.
I am working with a project that is largely not of my creation, but am tasked with adding in some functionality to it. Currently, there is a device class that has a member variable that is responsible for storing information about a storage location, setup like this:
device.hpp
class device {
public:
// Stuff
private:
// Stuff
StorageInfo storage_info_;
// Even more stuff
}
StorageInfo.hpp
class StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
I am tasked with implementing a different storage option so that the two can be switched between. The information functions that this new storage option has would be the same as the initial storage option, but the implementation in retrieving that information is vastly different. In order to keep things clean and make it easier to maintain this application for years to come, they really need to be defined in two different files. However, this creates an issue inside of device.cpp, and in every single other file that calls the StorageInfo class. If I create two separate member variables, one for each type of storage, then not only will I need to insert a million different ifelse statements, but I have the potential to run into initialization issues in the constructors. What I would instead like to do is have one member variable that has the potential to hold either storage option class. Something like this:
StorageInfoA.hpp
class StorageInfoA: StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
StorageInfoB.hpp
class StorageInfoB: StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
device.hpp
class device {
public:
// Stuff
private:
// Stuff
StorageInfo storage_info_;
// Even more stuff
}
device.cpp
//Somewhere in the constructor of device.cpp
if(save_to_cache){
storage_info_ = StorageInfoA();
} else {
storage_info_ = StorageInfoB();
}
// Then, these types of calls would return the correct implementation without further ifelse calls
storage_info_.updateStorageInfo();
However, I know that cpp absolutely hates anything with dynamic typing, so I don't really know how to implement this. Is this kind of thing even possible? If not, does anyone know of a similar way to implement this that does work with cpp's typing rules?
You are on the right track, but you have to learn how to use polymorphism. In your example, you need the following fixes:
In the base class, make all functions virtual, and add a virtual
destructor:
class StorageInfo {
public:
virtual ~StorageInfo(){}
virtual void initializeStorage();
//...
};
Make your inheritance public:
class StorageInfoA: public StorageInfo {
Instead of holding StorageInfo by value, hold it in a smart pointer:
class device {
private:
std::unique_ptr<StorageInfo> storage_info_;
};
device constructor will look like
//Somewhere in the constructor of device.cpp
if(save_to_cache){
storage_info_ = std::make_unique<StorageInfoA>();
} else {
storage_info_ = std::make_unique<StorageInfoB>();
}
Finally, you will use it like an ordinary pointer:
storage_info_->updateStorageInfo();
I have written a library (doesn't matter what it does), which obviously has its header file. Now, I want to hide private elements of that header file, so if I provide my library to somebody, he/she should only see public members (preferably no class definition, nothing other than function definitions). One way would be creating C-style header, which will contain some kind of "init" method which will be used to create an instance of the actual class of library and the user will have to pass a pointer of that object to every function to do the job.
Is it a good practice?
Are there any other publicly accepted ways of doing something like that?
Thanks in advance.
In addition to the Factory pattern (which, in my opinion, can become unwieldy), you can also hide your private members behind a PIMPL (Pointer to IMPLementation):
// Interface.hpp
class Implementation;
class Interface {
public:
Interface() : pimpl(new Implementation()) {}
void publicMethod();
private:
std::unique_ptr<Implementation> pimpl;
};
// Interface.cpp
class Implementation {
public:
void PrivateMember();
};
void Interface::publicMethod() { pimpl->PrivateMember(); }
This has the advantage of hiding implementation, at the cost of a single pointer indirection, not much different from the typical inheritance-based Factory pattern.
This can also be ABI stable. Changes to your implementation won't affect linkage, since no changes will ever be visible to the rest of the program. This is a good pattern to use when implementing shared objects, for example.
It's also a common C++ idiom, so other C++ programmers will recognize it without question.
In the case of a class which will follow the Singleton pattern, you can avoid exposing the PIMPL at all, and simply write the entire implementation in an anonymous namespace in your .cpp file, where you can put as much state and private functions as you wish, without even hinting at it in your interface.
You can create a publicly-visible interface. Create an abstract class with the functions you want to expose, then have your implementation extend it.
For example, an interface:
class Interface {
public:
virtual void publicMethod() = 0;
...
};
And the implementation:
class Implementation : Interface {
public:
virtual void publicMethod();
private:
int hiddenMethod();
};
Then you only export the symbols for Interface. Now, in order for the user of the library to get instances of Interface which are actually Implementations, you need to provide a factory:
class Factory {
public:
//can create and return an Implementation pointer, but caller will get an Interface pointer
std::shared_ptr<Interface> getImplementationInstance();
}
Base on Eric Finn's answer, you can just declare an interface class to hold all your public methods which considered to be your API, and hide all implementations and private members/methods in implementation class which inherits interface class, here's the example:
Your header file: my_api.h
// your API in header file
// my_api.h
class interface {
public:
static interface* CreateInstance();
virtual void draw() = 0;
virtual void set(int) = 0;
};
your implementation(shared library): my_api.cpp (users won't see this when you make it a shared library)
So you can hide all your implementation and private methods/members here
#include "my_api.h"
// implementation -> in .cc file
class implementation : public interface {
int private_int_;
void ReportValue_();
public:
implementation();
void draw();
void set(int new_int);
};
implementation::implementation() {
// your actual constructor goes here
}
void implementation::draw() {
cout << "Implementation class draws something" << endl;
ReportValue_();
}
void implementation::ReportValue_() {
cout << "Private value is: " << private_int_ << endl;
}
void implementation::set(int new_int) {
private_int_ = new_int;
}
interface* interface::CreateInstance() {
return new implementation;
}
How user uses your API:
#include <iostream>
#include "my_api.h"
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
using namespace std;
interface* a; interface* b;
a = interface::CreateInstance();
a->set(1);
b = interface::CreateInstance();
b->set(2);
b->draw();
a->draw();
return 0;
}
Output:
Implementation class draws
Private int is: 2
Implementation class draws
Private int is: 1
In this pattern, your api is just an abstract class which works like a factory, you can also implement the virtual method in different classes and specify which instance you would like to call.
I think you need to create Dynamic Link Library (dll).
Please take a quick look at this link:
You might want to take a look at the envelope/letter idiom, bridge design pattern, or proxy pattern. Basically, you would create an outer (public) class that would just forward your public method calls to the inner (private) class. Your InnerClass.h header only needs to be visible/known to your OuterClass.cpp and InnerClass.cpp source files.
Each of these patterns provides a mechanism of separating the implementation from the interface so that the caller is not coupled to the implementation. Sometimes this is desired to reduce compiler dependencies on large C++ projects. Another common reason for wanting to do this is just when you want to hide the implementation details so that the caller only sees a single opaque pointer.
======= OuterClass.h =====
class InnerClass; // forward declaration is all that's needed
class OuterClass {
private:
InnerClass *pInner;
public:
InnerClass();
bool doSomething();
};
======= OuterClass.cpp ======
#include "OuterClass.h"
#include "InnerClass.h"
OuterClass::OuterClass() :
pInner(new InnerClass())
{
}
bool OuterClass::doSomething()
{
return pInner->doSomething();
}
There actually is a way to do this without having to use classes. I had the same issue and here is a very simple solution:
Just put your private things into the .cpp file. Your header file will look something like this:
// These will be visible to everyone using this library
void function();
int someNumber = 2;
and your .cpp file:
void function() {
// whatever this function does
}
// This will be only visible to the library itself
static void secretFunction() {
doSomeSecretStuff;
}
static int PIN = 1234;
// Okay, if you write this Number into your library and expect it to be safe,
// then screw you, but at least no one will be able to access it with code
When calling the "public" functions from outside you now don't need any instance of that class anymore: Just place the library in the correct directory and include it, but you probably have already taken care of that) and call the functions by their names in the Lib.h file. In the instance of this example it would look something like this:
#include "Lib.h"
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
function();
return 0;
}
Thanks to Edgar Bonet for helping me find this solution on the Arduino Stackexchange!
I'm writing c++ project, which contains several classes. I created .h file named Position.h, with one array and one function:
class Position
{
public:
Coord positions[25];
public:
void setPos(int index, double x, double y)
{
positions[index].x = x;
positions[index].y = y;
}
};
I want to set values in this array from another classes, so every class in this project will see the same values.
I included "Position.h" in other classes, but i can't access the "positions" array.
Anyone can help me plz??
Just chnage the statement :
Coord positions[25];
to
static Coord positions[25];
also change void setPos
to
static void setPos
while accesing the array ,access it as:
Position::positions[any value]
But before accessing the array,make sure you call the function setPos
positions is a member variable associated with a class instance, and therefore not a global. You can make it similar to a global by making it static. Doing so, it will become a class-scoped variable, and not bound to an instance.
You will need to define it in a single implementation file.
An even better alternative would be having an std::vector<Coord>.
As suggested by others, you can make the members static.
You can also create an instance of the Position class as a global variable, and use that:
Position globalPosition;
void function_using_position()
{
globalPosition.setPos(0, 1, 2);
}
int main()
{
function_using_position();
}
Or make it a local variable, and pass it around as a reference:
void function_using_position(Position &position)
{
position.setPos(0, 1, 2);
}
int main()
{
Position localPosition;
function_using_position(localPosition);
}
I have few files:
main.cpp:
int main{
...
while(1){
...
draw();
...
}
...
return 0;
}
and draw.cpp:
I want to see objects and all manipulations here.
I cant make objects local to draw(), because draw() is inside loop,
so I will get many object constructor/destructor calls - so they are global. Also
I ve made init block to prevent unnecessary calls/assignments
draw.cpp:
Object A, B;
int initialized = 0;
void draw(){
if(!initialized){
A.initialization;
B.initialization;
initialized = 1;
}
A.move(1,1);
B.rotate(45);
}
It works, but Im looking for better way to organize my code
Added:
Thanks for answers, looks like I have to read something about pattern designs
Here's steps to make it work better:
Add a struct containing all your objects near main().
pass it to draw(MyStruct &s); via reference parameter.
you're done.
Option 1
Define a new Class called Draw and put the attributes into it. You need to modify main and draw files for this. With this you can avoid declaring anything global
Option 2
Define a class within draw.cpp called draw and add your current global variables as static member variables. Initialize and use them using static functions. With this you dont have to change main.
This design technique is called Singleton (one of the design patterns)
Example code
draw.cpp
class Draw
{
public:
object A, B;
static void init()
{
// init A
// init B
isInitialized = 1;
}
static int isInitialized;
static Object & getA()
{
if(isInitialized == 0)
{
init();
}
return A;
}
// similarly B
};