I have made a big edit in attempt to clarify what help I am asking for and to try to make the question appropriate for Stack Overflow.
The problem in general: I have an existing library class which allows me to query a server for information. That library class is widely used by a large amount of legacy software, so I am somewhat limited in the changes I can make to it. Likewise, reimplementing it in a better fashion might not be time well spent.
The problem in specific: I've create a simplified "toy" model of my approach below with 3 classes. The real thing is more complex, as there are polymorphic variations, more functionality, error handling, etc.
In "toy" model code included below, Gateway is the existing library class. I've tried to show how I would like to use it, with a result set and a way to access each member of the set. The idea is similar to how a well-implemented database API might look, with a statement, result and row -- except in my case, what would be the statement class is hobbled by a poor design which includes part of the result functionality.
The toy example below will not compile as-is because of the following cyclical dependecy. The Gateway class includes the ResultSet class and depends upon it, as it returns a ResultSet object. The ResultSet class depends on the Member class, as it uses it to convert the data returned from the server into primitives (e.g. string). But the Member class refers back to the Gateway class to access that data, and so there is a cycle.
I want to find a solution which will provide the ResultSet and Member functionality.
For a simpler 2 class problem, I know a solution. It is to create a superclass that one class derives from (is-a), and which the other class is composed of (has-a), such that both original classes depend on the third, and all is right with the world. :-)
For my 3 class problem, for some reason I have been unable to wrap my head around how to refactor it to make it work.
// Gateway.h
#include "ResultSet.h"
class Gateway {
ResultSet exec(string params);
};
// Gateway.cpp
ResultSet Gateway::exec(string p) { ... }
// ResultSet.h
#include "Member.h"
class ResultSet {
ResultSet(); // ctor
int index;
bool next();
string getCurrent(Member member);
};
// ResultSet.cpp
ResultSet::ResultSet() { index = 0; }
bool ResultSet::next() { ++index < length; }
string ResultSet::getCurrent(Member member) { member.fetch(index) }
// Member.h
#include "Gateway.h"
class Member {
Gateway gateway;
string fetch(int i);
};
// Member.cpp
string Member::fetch(int i) { return gateway.sGet(i); }
// Example desired usage of the final API.
main() {
Gateway gate;
ResultSet set;
Member member;
set = gate.exec("...");
while (set.next()) {
cout << set.getCurrent(member) << endl;
}
}
The solution to your issue is to forward declare the overlapping classes in the header files, and then to include their actual .h files from your .cpp implementation files.
For instance, to get around Gateway's dependencies on ResultSet,
// Gateway.h
class ResultSet;
class Gateway {
ResultSet exec(string params);
};
This forward declares the class ResultSet.
Now in Gateway.cpp, we have to provide the actual interface to the compiler. So now we include ResultSet.h.
// Gateway.cpp
#include "ResultSet.h"
ResultSet Gateway::exec(string p) { ... }
We do this for your other cyclic relationships, and you will then have source you can compile and build.
For ResultSet, we will forward declare Member.
// ResultSet.h
class Member;
class ResultSet {
ResultSet(); // ctor
int index;
bool next();
string getCurrent(Member member);
};
And in its implementation file, we will finally include Member's header.
// ResultSet.cpp
#include "Member.h"
ResultSet::ResultSet() { index = 0; }
bool ResultSet::next() { ++index < length; }
string ResultSet::getCurrent(Member member) { member.fetch(index) }
And finally, Member...
// Member.h
class Gateway;
class Member {
Gateway gateway;
string fetch(int i);
};
And of course, Member.cpp must then include Gateway's information.
// Member.cpp
#include "Gateway.h"
string Member::fetch(int i) { return gateway.sGet(i); }
Now there are no cyclic dependencies.
Related
First of all, sorry for the title. I didn't know exactly how to give name to the situation I'm facing.
I am developing a project in C++ that will run over QNX (so answers that recur to Windows libraries are not good).
I have one class that holds and manipulates all my data, and a few other classes that are responsible for dealing with my UI.
The UI manipulating classes include my data class, and when they are initialized, they all get a pointer to the same data object (each one uses different parts of it, though). And the normal flow of the program is the UI receiving events from the user, and then making calls to the data class and updating itself, according to the data class replies. That all works just fine.
The problem is, sometimes it might happen that this data class object receives calls from other sorts of external events (let's say a call from a class responsible for communication), asking it to change some of it's values. After doing so, it would have to update the UI (thus, having to make a call to the UI classes).
The actual objects to all the classes (UI and data) are contained by the "main" class. But as the UI classes include the data class to be able to call it's methods, the data class including UI classes in order to be able to call their methods would fall into mutual inclusion.
The problem resumes, in a very simplistic way (I am just trying to give a visual example of the information flow), to something like this:
main.cpp
#include "interface.h"
#include "data.h"
Data data_;
Interface interface_;
// Initialize all data from files, etc
data_.Init();
// Call the interface that will use all of this data
interface_.Init(&data_);
while(1);
interface.h
#include "data.h"
class Interface
{
Data *data_;
void Init(Data *data);
void ReceiveEvent();
void ChangeScreen (int value);
};
interface.cpp
#include "interface.h"
void Interface::Init(Data *data)
{
// Get the pointer locally
data_ = data;
}
// Function called when a (for example) a touch screen input is triggered
void Interface::ReceiveEvent()
{
ChangeScreen(data_->IncreaseParam1());
}
void Interface::ChangeScreen (int value);
{
// Set the value on screen
}
data.h
class Data
{
int param 1;
void Init();
int IncreaseParam1();
void ReceiveExternalEvent();
};
**data.cpp"
#include "data.h"
void Data::Init()
{
// The value actually come from file, but this is enough for my example
param1 = 5;
}
int IncreaseParam1()
{
param1 += 5;
return param1;
}
// This is called from (for example) a communication class that has a
// pointer to the same object that the interface class object has
void ReceiveExternalEvent()
{
IncreaseParam1();
// NOW HERE IT WOULD HAVE TO CALL A METHOD TO UPDATE THE INTERFACE
// WITH THE NEW PARAM1 VALUE!
}
I hope I made myself clear enough.
Can someone please give me ideas on how to deal with this situation?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Both Data and Interface are singletons. You expect to only have one instance of each class in existence. So:
Class Data {
public:
static Data *instance;
Data()
{
instance=this;
}
// Everything else that goes into Data, etc...
};
Class Interface {
public:
static Interface *instance;
Interface()
{
instance=this;
}
// Everything else that goes into Data, etc...
};
Now, ReceiveExternalEvent() will simply invoke Data::instance->method() and/or Interface::instance->method(), and so on...
This is a classical singleton design pattern.
Also, you might find some additional Google food of likely interest to you: "model view controller" and "mvc".
I have the following C++ design problem.
Suppose I have the following class:
class Model {
Model(int numberOfModels, int flag=-1) :
_models(numberOfModels), _flag(flag){ }
void buildModel(){
for (int id=0; id<_models.size(); ++id) {
if (flag == -1){
BuilderOne builder;
builder.build(&_models[id]);
}
else {
BuilderTwo builder;
builder.build(&_models[id]);
}
}
}
private:
vector<SimpleModel> _models;
int _flag;
};
where the member function "buildModel" builds a vector of "SimpleModel" object. "BuilderOne" and "BuilderTwo" are different builder class which all implements a "build" method (or they can be inherited from the same BaseBuilder class using CRTP).
But the above implementation is quite cumbersome, since the type of builder should be predetermined by "_flag" before entering the loop. What I really want is the following implementation of "buildModel" method:
void buildModel(){
if (flag == -1){
BuilderOne builder;
else
BuilderTwo builder;
for (int id=0; id<_models.size(); ++id)
builder.build(&_models[id]);
}
However, the above code doesn't compile because 1) object "builder" is not visible after the if statement 2) type of the "builder" cannot be decided at compile time.
The above functionality can easily be realized by making the "build" method a virtual function in a BaseBuilder. But virtually function is not considered as a solution because of various reasons in our library. But inheritance (like CRTP) would be acceptable.
Some one could help to get around with this problem?
With the [insane] requirement that virtual functions cannot be used your current implementation is just broken. Every time a new builder type is added you will have to update your Model class. This may be exactly what you want (your post is unclear on this) so I'll try to cover both approaches with a single solution.
First you can start by taking advantage of static polymorphism and place the main functionality in a function template. This will help you get around the lack of virtual functions in reducing the amount of code necessary to use it.
class Model
{
public:
template<class BuilderType>
BuilderType buildModel()
{
BuilderType builder;
// Perform other tasks here
for (int id = 0; id<_models.size(); ++id)
{
builder.build(&_models[id]);
}
// Perform other tasks here
return builder;
}
};
This will allow you to use object type as long as it implements a build function that takes a pointer to an instance of SimpleModel. You also have the option of taking a builder as an argument to the function which will allow automatic type deduction. Whether you make it public, private, or protected is up to you and how you decide to move forward. This may be all that you need but if you want to limit the buildModel function to a specific set of builders you can make it protected or private and provide a public function that simplifies the building process.
class Model
{
public:
void buildModel()
{
switch (flag_)
{
case -1:
buildModelByType<BuilderOne>(b);
break;
default:
buildModelByType<BuilderTwo>(b);
break;
}
}
protected:
template<class BuilderType>
BuilderType buildModelByType()
{
BuilderType builder;
// Perform other tasks here
for (int id = 0; id<_models.size(); ++id)
{
builder.build(&_models[id]);
}
// Perform other tasks here
return builder;
}
};
Whether you take the builders by argument or return the result of the building process is up to you. Your post wasn't specific about that aspect of the problem but this should be easily adaptable to whatever you're towards.
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 have a class with a complex construction process with many parameters. Multiple clients share objects of this class, and the union of these clients parameters are used to instantiate the class. Therefore I have a factory class that stores these requirements, checks consistency of the various clients' requests, and instantiates the class.
Additionally, there are a common set of use models (or sets of parameters) which multiple clients use for multiple factories.
For instance, consider an example. (Note that the actual code is C++, but my experience is in Python so I'll pseudo-code in Python. Yes, I know that this example wouldn't actually work as-is.)
class Classroom:
def __init__(self, room_size=None, n_desks=None, n_boards=None,
n_books=None, has_globe=False, ... ):
...
class ClassroomFactory:
def __init__(self):
self._requirements = dict()
def addRequirement(self, name, value):
if name.startswith("n_"):
self._requirements[name] = max(value, self._requirements.get(name, 0))
...
def createClassroom(self):
return Classroom(**self._requirements)
# instantiate the factory
factory = ClassroomFactory()
# "client 1" is a geography teaacher
factory.addRequirement("n_desks", 10)
factory.addRequirement("n_boards", 1)
factory.addRequirement("has_globe", True)
# "client 2" is a math teacher
factory.addRequirement("n_desks", 10)
factory.addRequirement("n_boards", 1)
# "client 3" is a after-school day-care
factory.addRequirement("room_size", (20,20))
factory.addRequirement("has_carpet", True)
room = factory.createClassroom()
The common use model is as a teacher, we need 10 desks and a board. I think this is best served by a non-member function/decorator, something like:
def makeTeacherRoom(factory):
factory.addRequirement("n_desks", 10)
factory.addRequirement("n_boards", 1)
return factory
This seems like a great example of the "prefer non-member/non-friend to member" paradigm.
The thing that I'm struggling with is, within the framework of a much bigger OO code, where should these types of non-member functions/decorators live, both in terms of namespace and in terms of actual file?
Should they live in the factory's file/namespace? They are closely related to the factory, but they're limitations on the general factory, and need not be used to use the factory.
Should they live in the client's file/namespace? The client understands these use models, but this would limit re-use amongst multiple clients.
Should they live with a common base class of the clients (for instance, one could imagine a "teacher" class/namespace which would also provide the non-member function makeTeacherRoom(), which would be inherited by MathTeacher and GeographyTeacher.
Should they live somewhere else completely, in a "utils" file? And if so in which namespace?
This is primarily a personal decision. Most of your options have no technical negative effects. For example:
They could, because of locality of use, but it's not necessary.
They could, because of locality of data, but again...
They could, although this one does seem like it could make things a bit messier. Making utility classes, you may have to end up inheriting them, or making parts virtual to override later, which will get ugly pretty quick.
This is my personal favorite, or a variant of this.
I typically make a relevantly-named util file (or class with static methods) and put it in the same namespace as the classes it utilates (the more helpful version of mutilate). For a Education::Teacher class, you could have a Education::TeacherUtils file or class containing the functions that operate on Teacher. This keeps a pretty obvious naming tie-in, but also puts the util functions in their own area, so they can be included from whatever needs them (in the Teacher.cpp or similar would prevent that). In the case of a class, you can make the util and base classes friends, which is occasionally helpful (but something to use rarely, as it may be a smell).
I've seen a naming variation, Education::Utils::Teacher, but that's somewhat harder to translate to files (unless you put things into a utils dir) and can also cause name resolution oddness (in some contexts, the compiler may try to use Education::Utils::Teacher instead of Education::Teacher when you didn't mean to). Because of this, I prefer to keep utils as a suffix.
You may want to handle non-member functions in a singleton class for your application. A factory maybe executed from the program, or another object.
C++ supports global functions (non member functions), but, using a single object for the application, "does the trick".
Additionally, since the "Classroom" object may be instantiated with many optional parameters, you may want to assign it, after calling the constructor ( "init" in python ).
// filename: "classrooms.cpp"
class ClassroomClass
{
protected:
int _Room_Size;
int _N_Desks;
int _N_Boards;
int _N_Books;
bool _Has_Globe;
public:
// constructor without parameters,
// but, can be declared with them
ClassroomClass()
{
_Room_Size = 0;
_N_Desks = 0;
_N_Boards = 0;
_N_Books = 0;
_Has_Globe = false;
} // ClassroomClass()
public int get_Room_Size()
{
return _Room_Size;
}
public void set_Room_Size(int Value)
{
_Room_Size = Value;
}
// other "getters" & "setters" functions
// ...
} // class ClassroomClass
class ClassroomFactoryClass
{
public:
void addRequirement(char[] AKey, char[] AValue);
} // class ClassroomFactoryClass
class MyProgramClass
{
public:
ClassroomFactoryClass Factory;
public:
void makeTeacherRoom();
void doSomething();
} // class MyProgramClass
void MyProgramClass::addRequirement(char[] AKey, char[] AValue)
{
...
} // void MyProgramClass::addRequirement(...)
void MyProgramClass::makeTeacherRoom()
{
Factory.addRequirement("n_desks", "10")
Factory.addRequirement("n_boards", "1")
} // void MyProgramClass::makeTeacherRoom(...)
void MyProgramClass::doSomething()
{
...
} // void MyProgramClass::doSomething(...)
int main(char[][] args)
{
MyProgramClass MyProgram = new MyProgramClass();
MyProgram->doSomething();
delete MyProgram();
return 0;
} // main(...)
Cheers
Personally I would make them static members of the class.
class File
{
public:
static bool load( File & file, std::string const & fileName );
private:
std::vector< char > data;
};
int main( void )
{
std::string fileName = "foo.txt";
File myFile;
File::load( myFile, fileName );
}
With static methods they have access to the private data of the class while not belonging to a specific instance of the class. It also means the methods aren't separated from the data they act on, as would be the case if you put them in a utility header somewhere.
I have a situation where I have an interface that defines how a certain class behaves in order to fill a certain role in my program, but at this point in time I'm not 100% sure how many classes I will write to fill that role. However, at the same time, I know that I want the user to be able to select, from a GUI combo/list box, which concrete class implementing the interface that they want to use to fill a certain role. I want the GUI to be able to enumerate all available classes, but I would prefer not to have to go back and change old code whenever I decide to implement a new class to fill that role (which may be months from now)
Some things I've considered:
using an enumeration
Pros:
I know how to do it
Cons
I will have to update update the enumeration when I add a new class
ugly to iterate through
using some kind of static list object in the interface, and adding a new element from within the definition file of the implementing class
Pros:
Wont have to change old code
Cons:
Not even sure if this is possible
Not sure what kind of information to store so that a factory method can choose the proper constructor ( maybe a map between a string and a function pointer that returns a pointer to an object of the interface )
I'm guessing this is a problem (or similar to a problem) that more experienced programmers have probably come across before (and often), and there is probably a common solution to this kind of problem, which is almost certainly better than anything I'm capable of coming up with. So, how do I do it?
(P.S. I searched, but all I found was this, and it's not the same: How do I enumerate all items that implement a generic interface?. It appears he already knows how to solve the problem I'm trying to figure out.)
Edit: I renamed the title to "How can I keep track of... " rather than just "How can I enumerate..." because the original question sounded like I was more interested in examining the runtime environment, where as what I'm really interested in is compile-time book-keeping.
Create a singleton where you can register your classes with a pointer to a creator function.
In the cpp files of the concrete classes you register each class.
Something like this:
class Interface;
typedef boost::function<Interface* ()> Creator;
class InterfaceRegistration
{
typedef map<string, Creator> CreatorMap;
public:
InterfaceRegistration& instance() {
static InterfaceRegistration interfaceRegistration;
return interfaceRegistration;
}
bool registerInterface( const string& name, Creator creator )
{
return (m_interfaces[name] = creator);
}
list<string> names() const
{
list<string> nameList;
transform(
m_interfaces.begin(), m_interfaces.end(),
back_inserter(nameList)
select1st<CreatorMap>::value_type>() );
}
Interface* create(cosnt string& name ) const
{
const CreatorMap::const_iterator it
= m_interfaces.find(name);
if( it!=m_interfaces.end() && (*it) )
{
return (*it)();
}
// throw exception ...
return 0;
}
private:
CreatorMap m_interfaces;
};
// in your concrete classes cpp files
namespace {
bool registerClassX = InterfaceRegistration::instance("ClassX", boost::lambda::new_ptr<ClassX>() );
}
ClassX::ClassX() : Interface()
{
//....
}
// in your concrete class Y cpp files
namespace {
bool registerClassY = InterfaceRegistration::instance("ClassY", boost::lambda::new_ptr<ClassY>() );
}
ClassY::ClassY() : Interface()
{
//....
}
I vaguely remember doing something similar to this many years ago. Your option (2) is pretty much what I did. In that case it was a std::map of std::string to std::typeinfo. In each, .cpp file I registered the class like this:
static dummy = registerClass (typeid (MyNewClass));
registerClass takes a type_info object and simply returns true. You have to initialize a variable to ensure that registerClass is called during startup time. Simply calling registerClass in the global namespace is an error. And making dummy static allow you to reuse the name across compilation units without a name collision.
I referred to this article to implement a self-registering class factory similar to the one described in TimW's answer, but it has the nice trick of using a templated factory proxy class to handle the object registration. Well worth a look :)
Self-Registering Objects in C++ -> http://www.ddj.com/184410633
Edit
Here's the test app I did (tidied up a little ;):
object_factory.h
#include <string>
#include <vector>
// Forward declare the base object class
class Object;
// Interface that the factory uses to communicate with the object proxies
class IObjectProxy {
public:
virtual Object* CreateObject() = 0;
virtual std::string GetObjectInfo() = 0;
};
// Object factory, retrieves object info from the global proxy objects
class ObjectFactory {
public:
static ObjectFactory& Instance() {
static ObjectFactory instance;
return instance;
}
// proxies add themselves to the factory here
void AddObject(IObjectProxy* object) {
objects_.push_back(object);
}
size_t NumberOfObjects() {
return objects_.size();
}
Object* CreateObject(size_t index) {
return objects_[index]->CreateObject();
}
std::string GetObjectInfo(size_t index) {
return objects_[index]->GetObjectInfo();
}
private:
std::vector<IObjectProxy*> objects_;
};
// This is the factory proxy template class
template<typename T>
class ObjectProxy : public IObjectProxy {
public:
ObjectProxy() {
ObjectFactory::Instance().AddObject(this);
}
Object* CreateObject() {
return new T;
}
virtual std::string GetObjectInfo() {
return T::TalkToMe();
};
};
objects.h
#include <iostream>
#include "object_factory.h"
// Base object class
class Object {
public:
virtual ~Object() {}
};
class ClassA : public Object {
public:
ClassA() { std::cout << "ClassA Constructor" << std::endl; }
~ClassA() { std::cout << "ClassA Destructor" << std::endl; }
static std::string TalkToMe() { return "This is ClassA"; }
};
class ClassB : public Object {
public:
ClassB() { std::cout << "ClassB Constructor" << std::endl; }
~ClassB() { std::cout << "ClassB Destructor" << std::endl; }
static std::string TalkToMe() { return "This is ClassB"; }
};
objects.cpp
#include "objects.h"
// Objects get registered here
ObjectProxy<ClassA> gClassAProxy;
ObjectProxy<ClassB> gClassBProxy;
main.cpp
#include "objects.h"
int main (int argc, char * const argv[]) {
ObjectFactory& factory = ObjectFactory::Instance();
for (int i = 0; i < factory.NumberOfObjects(); ++i) {
std::cout << factory.GetObjectInfo(i) << std::endl;
Object* object = factory.CreateObject(i);
delete object;
}
return 0;
}
output:
This is ClassA
ClassA Constructor
ClassA Destructor
This is ClassB
ClassB Constructor
ClassB Destructor
If you're on Windows, and using C++/CLI, this becomes fairly easy. The .NET framework provides this capability via reflection, and it works very cleanly in managed code.
In native C++, this gets a little bit trickier, as there's no simple way to query the library or application for runtime information. There are many frameworks that provide this (just look for IoC, DI, or plugin frameworks), but the simplest means of doing it yourself is to have some form of configuration which a factory method can use to register themselves, and return an implementation of your specific base class. You'd just need to implement loading a DLL, and registering the factory method - once you have that, it's fairly easy.
Something you can consider is an object counter. This way you don't need to change every place you allocate but just implementation definition. It's an alternative to the factory solution. Consider pros/cons.
An elegant way to do that is to use the CRTP : Curiously recurring template pattern.
The main example is such a counter :)
This way you just have to add in your concrete class implementation :
class X; // your interface
class MyConcreteX : public counter<X>
{
// whatever
};
Of course, it is not applicable if you use external implementations you do not master.
EDIT:
To handle the exact problem you need to have a counter that count only the first instance.
my 2 cents
There is no way to query the subclasses of a class in (native) C++.
How do you create the instances? Consider using a Factory Method allowing you to iterate over all subclasses you are working with. When you create an instance like this, it won't be possible to forget adding a new subclass later.