i have a large application where task part is modeling objects and the other part is timeline-backed animation of objects. It may be possible that a user deletes an animateable object while the timeline is still animating it.
The timeline accesses (animates) the objects through smart pointers, so it would be perfectly easy to check the object for existence by checking the smart pointer for validity before using it. But this feels a little bit 'dirty' ... like using a safety belt for fixing luggage. But whatever other mechanism we discussed was more or less the same: an object being registered somewhere else and de-registering itself on deletion, exactly what a smart pointer does anyways.
Is this a valid use case for testing smart pointer validity?
In my opinion std::weak_ptr will be good for this job. Weak pointer does not guaratee existence of object under the pointer, if object will be deleted it will be known to other objects referencing for animateable object. Always to use this pointer it has to be locked ( enforcing checking its existence ).
I don't see how you can use std::shared_ptr, here, because it's an Observer Effect problem (by testing something, you're altering it). If you hold an std::shared_ptr to an object, it will be valid by definition.
OTOH, there is std::weak_ptr, which is built exactly for this purpose. It acts as an observer for the shared_ptr only.
std::weak_ptris a smart pointer that holds a non-owning ("weak") reference to an object that is managed by std::shared_ptr. It must be converted to std::shared_ptr in order to access the referenced object.
If your program is multithreaded, incidentally, you need to handle the case of someone deleting the object while you're observing it, through some other mechanism (e.g., locking).
Related
Is it appropriate for a class to return a a raw pointer in a "create" method and take a raw pointer argument in its "destroy" method? The aforementioned class stores the pointer in a container and finds/deletes the specified object through the destroy method.
Or should I be using smart pointers? If I understand correctly, smart pointers indicate ownership, but the class is solely responsible for both creation and destruction of the object.
The question is: Can you programatically describe the acquire/release behaviour that the code should have? If yes, i.e. the behaviour isn't a series of unique events without any pattern, then you can write a handle class that implements this behaviour. Even more, this handle class will be able to guarantee the behaviour, which is what smart pointers are all about. It's not just about correctness of code, but about extended guarantees that make it easier to write correct code.
Also, smart pointers don't always indicate ownership, though they do in most cases. There is also a distinction between shared ownership (shared_ptr) and exclusive ownership (auto_ptr, unique_ptr). Then, there is e.g. a mere reference without ownership (weak_ptr).
To me, it sounds like you might want to return a shared_ptr with an according deleter. The factory can then e.g. keep a weak_ptr to retain some access to the according objects, while the shared_ptr guarantees correct cleanup. Make sure you regularly purge expired weak_ptrs from the factories internals though.
In no case would I return a raw pointer. The question this bears is: What should the caller do with it when they are done? Call delete? Call some specific destroy() function? Both of these are better handled by a smart pointer. Also, if the factory retains ownership and reserves itself the right to discard the object at any time, how is the one holding a raw pointer informed about the fact that this pointer will become invalid? A simple answer would be to use a smart pointer that gets notified, like e.g. weak_ptr.
I have a set of objects in a vector of pointers to their baseclass held inside a manager:
std::vector<object*> objectVec;
Classes may wish to spawn one of these objects using the Add() method in the manager. The problem is that they then subsequently need to set or update these objects themselves. I've decided to have Add() return a pointer to the object itself, which is stored in whatever class has decided to spawn one. The problem is dealing with the case where the object behind that pointer may have been deleted.
Add looks like this:
object* ObjectManager::Add(object* obj)
{
objectVec.push_back(obj);
return objectVec.back();
}
and used like this:
objectptr = ObjectManager::OMan()->Add(new object());
Where objectptr is a member of whatever class has called the function. So should that particular object be deleted, the pointer returned by Add would point to rubbish.
Is it my responsibility to ensure that whateverclass::objectptr is always set to NULL if this object is deleted? Or can this be dealt with using some sort of smart pointer? The problem being that I don't need to use a smart pointer to deal with the possibility of a memory leak, but to deal with the case where the stored pointer has become invalid.
Please let me know if i've been unclear, or if the question is badly formed.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Yes, you can store smart ptr's instead of raw ptr's in your vector. In this case if somebody releases an object, it's not deleted until the last reference is not released (the one held in vector in your case). You can use boost::shared_ptr or std::shared_ptr (C++11).
If this is not what you want, you can use boost::weak_ptr to store references in your vector. weak_ptr doesn't increment reference counter so if somebody releases an object, it's get deleted, but reference (weak_ptr) stored in your vector allows you to check this.
You likely want weak_ptr and shared_ptr. shared_ptr is a general smart pointer class. weak_ptr is an observer of shared_ptr. When all the references of the shared_ptr go away, instances of weak_ptr "become null" and are easier to deal with than a pointer to a deleted object.
These classes come with Boost.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/smart_ptr/weak_ptr.htm
And if I'm not mistaken, there are equivalents built into std namespace on compilers that implement newer C++0x standards. Visual C++ keeps has this built in.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2011/02/16/10128357.aspx
Oh shoot, looks like everyone else beat me to the answer...
Best is to forget this "manager" idea, but if you do or if you don't, the solution to shared ownership is the same as always, use boost::shared_ptr.
Or, with relatively new compiler, use std::shared_ptr.
Considering that with shared_ptr the ownership issue is taken care of already, then ask yourself, what is it that the "manager" manages?
Cheers & hth.,
Is it my responsibility to ensure that whateverclass::objectptr is always set to NULL if this object is deleted?
You're writing the class, so it's up to you to decide. This is a design decision and either choice is admissible, provided that you document it:
design the application
write the documentation/specification
write the code to matches the specification
Or can this be dealt with using some sort of smart pointer?
Using a smart pointer (strong or weak version) will help achieve whatever behavior you chose for the class. However, it will also strongly affect the client code. In the following code:
class Scene
{
// can't use this object in a call to `ObjectManager::Add()`,
// assuming it uses a smart pointer to deal with object lifetimes.
Object myLight;
};
The use cases for the ObjectManager class should be taken into consideration, on top of simplicity of implementation. Think "write once, use a lot".
Dangling pointers and memory leaks are two different issues, but a proper shared pointer can protect from both. For this particular case, I'd suggest boost::shared_ptr.
Use std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<BaseType>> for the vector type and also have the objects that hold the bare pointers now hold instead a boost::shared_ptr<BaseType>. This will ensure that the pointers will stay valid in the vector and in the objects as long as one of those objects still exist.
If you have differing requirements, you can use a boost::weak_ptr in one of the places holding the pointer (either the vector or the object).
Also, the object can hold a derived type instead of a base type (boost::shared_ptr<DerivedType>) and you can convert between them using boost::shared_static_cast.
Here is the documentation for all of these concepts.
I have a class that contains a vector of object pointers. I have a GetObject(..) function in that class that looks through the vector, finds the object desired, and returns a pointer to it. However, if the user of the class does a delete() on that returned pointer, my program will crash because the vector still has a pointer to that, now invalid, object. So, in my GetObject() class, I can return a const pointer, but that doesn't solve the problem because you can still delete the object. The object is mutable so I can't return a pointer to a const object. I suppose I could prevent deletion by returning a reference to the object but I have my function returning NULL if there is an error. I guess I can pass back the object reference via the parameters and then return and error number like this
//-1 on object on found. 0 for success. Object is passed back in
// the function parameter result.
int MyObject::GetObject(int object_id, Item& result)
Is this the best solution for such a situation?
The best way to solve this problem is to use a shared-ownership smart pointer like shared_ptr, which you can find in Boost, C++ TR1, and C++0x.
A smart pointer is a container that manages the lifetime of your dynamically allocated object for you. It takes responsibility for deleteing the object when you are done using it.
With a shared ownership smart pointer, you can have multiple smart pointers that all share ownership of the dynamically allocated object. A reference count is kept that keeps track of how many smart pointers have ownership of the object, and when the last owning smart pointer is destroyed, the dynamically allocated object is deleted.
It is extremely difficult to manage resources manually in C++, and it's very easy to write code that looks correct and works right most of the time but that is still not correct. By using smart pointers and other resource-owning containers (like the standard library containers), you no longer have to manage resource manually. It is significantly easier to write correct code when all of your resource management is automatic.
Automatic resource management in C++ is accomplished using a design pattern called Resource Acquisition is Initialization (RAII), which is arguably the most important design pattern you as a C++ programmer should become familiar with.
Anybody in your code could also try to de-reference NULL. You going to stop them doing that too? If your container owns the object, and you make this clear (returning a raw pointer is usually pretty clear or mention in docs), then anyone who deletes it, the result is their own fault. The only way that you could guarantee the prevention of the deletion of the object is to prevent the user from ever gaining a native reference or pointer - in which case they just can't access the object.
Who are clients of your class? If they are not your mortal enemies you could just ask them nicely not to delete the object. Otherwise, there will always be a way for "them" to mess you up.
Okay, one possible solution is to make destructor private. That will prevent everyone from deleting the object. But then the object has to delete itself (delete this) somehow, maybe through some function called DeletObjectButDontBlameMeIfAppCrashes. If the owner is some other class then you can set the destructor to protected and owner class as friend of this class.
You should return a reference to the object. There are two ways to handle the case when there is no object found.
First, you can use the Null Object Pattern in order to implement a special value for that case. That might not make sense for your case though.
The other way is to split it up into two methods, one which can be used to check if an appropriate element exists, and one to retrieve it.
Many STL-containers or algorithms implement both of these, either by returned a past-the-end iterator, or by having empty() returns false as a prerequisite of calling a method like front or back.
If you can use the boost libraries, smart pointers can be used to ensure that pointers stay valid. Essentially, each reference to a smart pointer increases its "use count" by 1. When the reset function is called on a reference, the reference goes away and the use counter decrements. As long as some object is still holding on to a smart pointer, the reference will be valid. Note that the other classes will be able to change what its pointing to, but can't delete it.
(My description deals mainly with smart pointers specifically - the different types of pointers vary a little, but the general idea remains the same).
In my current project I am using boost::shared_ptr quite extensively.
Recently my fellow team mates have also started using weak_ptr. I don't know which one to use and when.
Apart from this, what should I do if I want to convert weak_ptr to shared_ptr. Does putting a lock on weak_ptr to create a shared_ptr affect my code in other thread?
In general and summary,
Strong pointers guarantee their own validity. Use them, for example, when:
You own the object being pointed at; you create it and destroy it
You do not have defined behavior if the object doesn't exist
You need to enforce that the object exists.
Weak pointers guarantee knowing their own validity. Use them, for example, when:
You access it, but it's not yours.
You have defined behavior if the object doesn't exist
Lock() on a weak pointer returns a strong pointer; this is how you access the weak pointer. If the object is no longer valid (it's been deleted, etc), then the strong pointer will be NULL, otherwise, it will point at the object. You will need to check this.
It's set up this way so that you cannot accidentally delete the object while you're using it, because you've made a temporary (local) strong pointer, and thus garunteed the object's existence while that strong pointer remains. When you're done using the object, you generally let the strong pointer fall out of scope (or reassigning it), which then allows the object to be deleted. For multithreading, treat them with same care you treat other things that don't have built-in thread safety, noting that the guarantee I mentioned above will hold when multithreading. AFAIK they don't do anything special past that.
The boost shared pointers also have garbage-collector like features, since when the last strong pointer to an object goes away or points somewhere else, the object gets deleted.
There's also the performance and circular dependencies mentioned in the other answers.
Fundamentally, I would say that the boost shared pointer library allows you to not mess up putting together a program, but it is no substitute for taking the time to properly design your pointers, object ownerships and lifetimes. If you have such a design, you can use the library to enforce it. If you don't have such a design, you're likely to run into different problems than before.
Use weak_ptr when the objects you create contain cyclical references, i.e. shared_ptr to an object with a shared_ptr back to yourself. This is because shared_ptr cannot handle cyclical references - when both objects go out of scope, the mutual referencing means that they are not "garbage collected", so the memory is lost and you have a memory leak. Since weak_ptr does not increase the reference count, the cyclical reference problem does not occur. This also means in general that if you just want to take a pointer to something that is reference counted and do not want to increase its reference count, then use weak_ptr.
Otherwise, you can use shared_ptr.
For more information, check the Boost documentation.
Shared pointers implement reference counting, weak pointers do not affect reference counting and if you don't have shared pointers to an object, only weak pointers, the object gets deleted and the weak pointers now tell you that the object has been lost.
There are two reasons to use a weak pointer:
To eliminate the cost of reference count increase / decrease; however you shouldn't do this because it is error-prone and doesn't really save much time
In bookkeeping data structures, e.g. you have an index of all objects Foo that are "alive", i.e. used somewhere else, and you don't want to keep a Foo alive in the index if all the "real" uses have ended. This is the basic realistic use case for weak pointers. Of course others exist also.
So in general, my recommendation would be to use weak pointers only when you know that you want to let the referenced objects be deleted and want to detect that. In other cases use shared pointers (reference counting), or direct pointers, esp. in method local variables when you know that the objects are not going to get deleted. Also errorprone, though, but faster than shared pointers.
N.B. cyclical objects do not need weak pointers, you can use non-cooked, regular pointers instead in most properly constructed programs. Weak pointers less risky, though.
You should probably not be trying to use weak pointers at all unless you are trying to implement a garbage collector, which is not a hot idea in C++ because it's too hard to keep track of everything that could go wrong closely enough.
In a C++ project that uses smart pointers, such as boost::shared_ptr, what is a good design philosophy regarding use of "this"?
Consider that:
It's dangerous to store the raw pointer contained in any smart pointer for later use. You've given up control of object deletion and trust the smart pointer to do it at the right time.
Non-static class members intrinsically use a this pointer. It's a raw pointer and that can't be changed.
If I ever store this in another variable or pass it to another function which could potentially store it for later or bind it in a callback, I'm creating bugs that are introduced when anyone decides to make a shared pointer to my class.
Given that, when is it ever appropriate for me to explicitly use a this pointer? Are there design paradigms that can prevent bugs related to this?
Wrong question
In a C++ project that uses smart pointers
The issue has nothing to do with smart pointers actually. It is only about ownership.
Smart pointers are just tools
They change nothing WRT the concept of ownership, esp. the need to have well-defined ownership in your program, the fact that ownership can be voluntarily transferred, but cannot be taken by a client.
You must understand that smart pointers (also locks and other RAII objects) represent a value and a relationship WRT this value at the same time. A shared_ptr is a reference to an object and establishes a relationship: the object must not be destroyed before this shared_ptr, and when this shared_ptr is destroyed, if it is the last one aliasing this object, the object must be destroyed immediately. (unique_ptr can be viewed as a special case of shared_ptr where there is zero aliasing by definition, so the unique_ptr is always the last one aliasing an object.)
Why you should use smart pointers
It is recommended to use smart pointers because they express a lot with only variables and functions declarations.
Smart pointers can only express a well-defined design, they don't take away the need to define ownership. In contrast, garbage collection takes away the need to define who is responsible for memory deallocation. (But do not take away the need to define who is responsible for other resources clean-up.)
Even in non-purely functional garbage collected languages, you need to make ownership clear: you don't want to overwrite the value of an object if other components still need the old value. This is notably true in Java, where the concept of ownership of mutable data structure is extremely important in threaded programs.
What about raw pointers?
The use of a raw pointer does not mean there is no ownership. It's just not described by a variable declaration. It can be described in comments, in your design documents, etc.
That's why many C++ programmers consider that using raw pointers instead of the adequate smart pointer is inferior: because it's less expressive (I have avoided the terms "good" and "bad" on purpose). I believe the Linux kernel would be more readable with a few C++ objects to express relationships.
You can implement a specific design with or without smart pointers. The implementation that uses smart pointer appropriately will be considered superior by many C++ programmers.
Your real question
In a C++ project, what is a good design philosophy regarding use of "this"?
That's awfully vague.
It's dangerous to store the raw pointer for later use.
Why do you need to a pointer for later use?
You've given up control of object deletion and trust the responsible component to do it at the right time.
Indeed, some component is responsible for the lifetime of the variable. You cannot take the responsibility: it has to be transferred.
If I ever store this in another variable or pass it to another function which could potentially store it for later or bind it in a callback, I'm creating bugs that are introduced when anyone decides to use my class.
Obviously, since the caller is not informed that the function will hide a pointer and use it later without the control of the caller, you are creating bugs.
The solution is obviously to either:
transfer responsibility to handle the lifetime of the object to the function
ensure that the pointer is only saved and used under the control of the caller
Only in the first case, you might end up with a smart pointer in the class implementation.
The source of your problem
I think that your problem is that you are trying hard to complicate matters using smart pointers. Smart pointers are tools to make things easier, not harder. If smart pointers complicate your specification, then rethink your spec in term of simpler things.
Don't try to introduce smart pointers as a solution before you have a problem.
Only introduce smart pointers to solve a specific well-defined problem. Because you don't describe a specific well-defined problem, it is not possible to discuss a specific solution (involving smart pointers or not).
While i don't have a general answer or some idiom, there is boost::enable_shared_from_this . It allows you to get a shared_ptr managing an object that is already managed by shared_ptr. Since in a member function you have no reference to those managing shared_ptr's, enable_shared_ptr does allow you to get a shared_ptr instance and pass that when you need to pass the this pointer.
But this won't solve the issue of passing this from within the constructor, since at that time, no shared_ptr is managing your object yet.
One example of correct use is return *this; in functions like operator++() and operator<<().
When you are using a smart pointer class, you are right that is dangerous to directly expose "this". There are some pointer classes related to boost::shared_ptr<T> that may be of use:
boost::enable_shared_from_this<T>
Provides the ability to have an object return a shared pointer to itself that uses the same reference counting data as an existing shared pointer to the object
boost::weak_ptr<T>
Works hand-in-hand with shared pointers, but do not hold a reference to the object. If all the shared pointers go away and the object is released, a weak pointer will be able to tell that the object no longer exists and will return you NULL instead of a pointer to invalid memory. You can use weak pointers to get shared pointers to a valid reference-counted object.
Neither of these is foolproof, of course, but they'll at least make your code more stable and secure while providing appropriate access and reference counting for your objects.
If you need to use this, just use it explicitly. Smart pointers wrap only pointers of the objects they own - either exclusivelly (unique_ptr) or in a shared manner (shared_ptr).
I personally like to use the this pointer when accessing member variables of the class. For example:
void foo::bar ()
{
this->some_var += 7;
}
It's just a harmless question of style. Some people like it, somepeople don't.
But using the this pointer for any other thing is likely to cause problems. If you really need to do fancy things with it, you should really reconsider your design. I once saw some code that, in the constructor of a class, it assigned the this pointer to another pointer stored somewhere else! That's just crazy, and I can't ever think of a reason to do that. The whole code was a huge mess, by the way.
Can you tell us what exactly do you want to do with the pointer?
Another option is using intrusive smart pointers, and taking care of reference counting within the object itself, not the pointers. This requires a bit more work, but is actually more efficient and easy to control.
Another reason to pass around this is if you want to keep a central registry of all of the objects. In the constructor, an object calls a static method of the registry with this. Its useful for various publish/subscribe mechanisms, or when you don't want the registry to need knowledge of what objects/classes are in the system.