I am encountering the same problem over and over, in the last weeks. Boiled down to its core, I build a (directed acyclic) hierarchy of objects like:
a -> c
b -> c
b -> d
An instance can have more than one parent, and more than one child. c might be a value shared among readers and writers. b might be a composite value. The hierarchy is easily created by a factory - e.g. a.setChild(new C()). Later, a client only cares about the root, on which she calls getValue() or setValue().
My question is: Who cleans up the hierarchy? Who is responsible to call delete on b or c?
Option - The factory created the nodes, the factory must delete the nodes:
I do not like this option, because I understand a factory as a replacement for new. It feels weird to keep a factory until the instances it created can be destroyed.
Option - "Smart" pointers:
Much less good, because it pollutes the interface, and introduces a lot of complexity for a simple thing such as pointers.
Option - A graph-like class that does the memory management:
The class collects all nodes a, b, c, d, ... and provides access to the root. The nodes themselves reference each other, but do not delete children, or parents. If the "graph" or composite manager is destroyed, it destroys all nodes.
I prefer the last option. It, however, complicates the construction of the hierarchy. Either you build the hierarchy outside, and tell the graph about every single node, or you build the hierarchy inside the graph, which smells like option 1. The graph can only delete, what it knows. Therefore, memory leaks are somehow in the design, if you have to pass the nodes to the graph.
Is there a pattern for this problem? Which strategy do you prefer?
Edit 1 - Sep 1st, 2014: Sorry, for being unspecific with respect to smart pointers. I tried to avoid yet another "when to use smart pointers question", and instead focus the question on alternative solutions. However, I am willing to use smart pointers, if they indeed are the best option (or if necessary).
In my opinion, the signature setChild(C* child) should be preferred over setChild(std::shared_ptr<C> child) for the same reason as for-each loops should be preferred over iterators. However, I must admit that like std:string a shared pointer is more specific about its semantic.
In terms of complexity, every operation inside a node, now, have to deal with shared pointers. std::vector<C*> becomes std::vector< std::shared_ptr<C> >, ... Furthermore, every pointer carries a reference count around, which could be avoided if there were other options.
I should add that I develop a low level part of a real-time system. It is not a firmware but close.
Edit 2 - Sep 1st, 2014:
Thank you for all the input. My specific problem is: I get a byte array with lets say sensor data. At some point, I am told which value is written where in that array. On the one hand, I want to have a mapping from a position in the array to a primitive value (int32, double, ...). On the other hand, I want to merge primitive values to complex types (structures, vectors, ...). Unfortunately, not all mappings are bidirectional. Eg. I can read a comparison between values, but I can not write values according to the comparison result. Therefore, I separated readers and writers and let them, if necessary, access the same value.
Option - "Smart" pointers: Much less good, because it pollutes the
interface, and introduces a lot of complexity for a simple thing such
as pointers.
Smart pointers are pointers with memory management, which is exactly what you need.
You are not forced to expose the smart pointers in your interface, you can get a raw pointer from the smart one as long as the object is still owned by a smart pointer somewhere (Note that this is not necessarily the best idea though, smart pointers in an interface is far from being an ugly thing).
Actually exposing raw pointers in your interface indirectly introduce much more pollution and complexity because you need to document ownership and lifetime rules which are explicit when using smart pointers, which makes them even more simpler to use than "simple pointers".
Also it is most likely the "futur" way of doing things: since c++11/14 smart pointers are part of the standard as much as std::string, would you say that std::string pollutes the interface and introduces a lot of complexity compared to a const char* ?
If you have performance issues, then the question is: will your hand crafted alternative solution be truly more performant (this need to be measured) and is it worth it in term of development time required to develop the feature and maintain the code ?
Related
I've got some code that is using shared_ptr quite widely as the standard way to refer to a particular type of object (let's call it T) in my app. I've tried to be careful to use make_shared and std::move and const T& where I can for efficiency. Nevertheless, my code spends a great deal of time passing shared_ptrs around (the object I'm wrapping in shared_ptr is the central object of the whole caboodle). The kicker is that pretty often the shared_ptrs are pointing to an object that is used as a marker for "no value"; this object is a global instance of a particular T subclass, and it lives forever since its refcount never goes to zero.
Using a "no value" object is nice because it responds in nice ways to various methods that get sent to these objects, behaving in the way that I want "no value" to behave. However, performance metrics indicate that a huge amount of the time in my code is spent incrementing and decrementing the refcount of that global singleton object, making new shared_ptrs that refer to it and then destroying them. To wit: for a simple test case, the execution time went from 9.33 seconds to 7.35 seconds if I stuck nullptr inside the shared_ptrs to indicate "no value", instead of making them point to the global singleton T "no value" object. That's a hugely important difference; run on much larger problems, this code will soon be used to do multi-day runs on computing clusters. So I really need that speedup. But I'd really like to have my "no value" object, too, so that I don't have to put checks for nullptr all over my code, special-casing that possibility.
So. Is there a way to have my cake and eat it too? In particular, I'm imagining that I might somehow subclass shared_ptr to make a "shared_immortal_ptr" class that I could use with the "no value" object. The subclass would act just like a normal shared_ptr, but it would simply never increment or decrement its refcount, and would skip all related bookkeeping. Is such a thing possible?
I'm also considering making an inline function that would do a get() on my shared_ptrs and would substitute a pointer to the singleton immortal object if get() returned nullptr; if I used that everywhere in my code, and never used * or -> directly on my shared_ptrs, I would be insulated, I suppose.
Or is there another good solution for this situation that hasn't occurred to me?
Galik asked the central question that comes to mind regarding your containment strategy. I'll assume you've considered that and have reason to rely on shared_ptr as a communical containment strategy for which no alternative exists.
I have to suggestions which may seem controversial. What you've defined is that you need a type of shared_ptr that never has a nullptr, but std::shared_ptr doesn't do that, and I checked various versions of the STL to confirm that the customer deleter provided is not an entry point to a solution.
So, consider either making your own smart pointer, or adopting one that you change to suit your needs. The basic idea is to establish a kind of shared_ptr which can be instructed to point it's shadow pointer to a global object it doesn't own.
You have the source to std::shared_ptr. The code is uncomfortable to read. It may be difficult to work with. It is one avenue, but of course you'd copy the source, change the namespace and implement the behavior you desire.
However, one of the first things all of us did in the middle 90's when templates were first introduced to the compilers of the epoch was to begin fashioning containers and smart pointers. Smart pointers are remarkably easy to write. They're harder to design (or were), but then you have a design to model (which you've already used).
You can implement the basic interface of shared_ptr to create a drop in replacement. If you used typedefs well, there should be a limited few places you'd have to change, but at least a search and replace would work reasonably well.
These are the two means I'm suggesting, both ending up with the same feature. Either adopt shared_ptr from the library, or make one from scratch. You'd be surprised how quickly you can fashion a replacement.
If you adopt std::shared_ptr, the main theme would be to understand how shared_ptr determines it should decrement. In most implementations shared_ptr must reference a node, which in my version it calls a control block (_Ref). The node owns the object to be deleted when the reference count reaches zero, but naturally shared_ptr skips that if _Ref is null. However, operators like -> and *, or the get function, don't bother checking _Ref, they just return the shadow, or _Ptr in my version.
Now, _Ptr will be set to nullptr (or 0 in my source) when a reset is called. Reset is called when assigning to another object or pointer, so this works even if using assignment to nullptr. The point is, that for this new type of shared_ptr you need, you could simply change the behavior such that whenever that happens (a reset to nullptr), you set _Ptr, the shadow pointer in shared_ptr, to the "no value global" object's address.
All uses of *,get or -> will return the _Ptr of that no value object, and will correctly behave when used in another assignment, or reset is called again, because those functions don't rely upon the shadow pointer to act upon the node, and since in this special condition that node (or control block) will be nullptr, the rest of shared_ptr would behave as though it was pointing to nullptr correctly - that is, not deleting the global object.
Obviously this sounds crazy to alter std::pointer to such application specific behavior, but frankly that's what performance work tends to make us do; otherwise strange things, like abandoning C++ occasionally in order to obtain the more raw speed of C, or assembler.
Modifying std::shared_ptr source, taken as a copy for this special purpose, is not what I would choose (and, factually, I've faced other versions of your situation, so I have made this choice several times over decades).
To that end, I suggest you build a policy based smart pointer. I find it odd I suggested this earlier on another post today (or yesterday, it's 1:40am).
I refer to Alexandrescu's book from 2001 (I think it was Modern C++...and some words I don't recall). In that he presented loki, which included a policy based smart pointer design, which is still published and freely available on his website.
The idea should have been incorporated into shared_ptr, in my opinion.
Policy based design is implemented as the paradigm of a template class deriving from one or more of it's parameters, like this:
template< typename T, typename B >
class TopClass : public B {};
In this way, you can provide B, from which the object is built. Now, B may have the same construction, it may also be a policy level which derives from it's second parameter (or multiple derivations, however the design works).
Layers can be combined to implement unique behaviors in various categories.
For example:
std::shared_ptr and std::weak_ptrare separate classes which interact as a family with others (the nodes or control blocks) to provide smart pointer service. However, in a design I used several times, these two were built by the same top level template class. The difference between a shared_ptr and a weak_ptr in that design was the attachment policy offered in the second parameter to the template. If the type is instantiated with the weak attachment policy as the second parameter, it's a weak pointer. If it's given a strong attachment policy, it's a smart pointer.
Once you create a policy designed template, you can introduce layers not in the original design (expanding it), or to "intercept" behavior and specialize it like the one you currently require - without corrupting the original code or design.
The smart pointer library I developed had high performance requirements, along with a number of other options including custom memory allocation and automatic locking services to make writing to smart pointers thread safe (which std::shared_ptr doesn't provide). The interface and much of the code is shared, yet several different kinds of smart pointers could be fashioned simply by selecting different policies. To change behavior, a new policy could be inserted without altering the existing code. At present, I use both std::shared_ptr (which I used when it was in boost years ago) and the MetaPtr library I developed years ago, the latter when I need high performance or flexible options, like yours.
If std::shared_ptr had been a policy based design, as loki demonstrates, you'd be able to do this with shared_ptr WITHOUT having to copy the source and move it to a new namespace.
In any event, simply creating a shared pointer which points the shadow pointer to the global object on reset to nullptr, leaving the node pointing to null, provides the behavior you described.
This is definitely subjective, but I'd like to try to avoid it
becoming argumentative. I think it could be an interesting question if
people treat it appropriately.
In my several recent projects I used to implement architectures where long delegation chains are a common thing.
Dual delegation chains can be encountered very often:
bool Exists = Env->FileSystem->FileExists( "foo.txt" );
And triple delegation is not rare at all:
Env->Renderer->GetCanvas()->TextStr( ... );
Delegation chains of higher order exist but are really scarce.
In above mentioned examples no NULL run-time checks are performed since the objects used are always there and are vital to the functioning of the program and
explicitly constructed when execution starts. Basically I used to split a delegation chain in these cases:
1) I reuse the object obtained through a delegation chain:
{ // make C invisible to the parent scope
clCanvas* C = Env->Renderer->GetCanvas();
C->TextStr( ... );
C->TextStr( ... );
C->TextStr( ... );
}
2) An intermediate object somewhere in the middle of the delegation chain should be checked for NULL before usage. Eg.
clCanvas* C = Env->Renderer->GetCanvas();
if ( C ) C->TextStr( ... );
I used to fight the case (2) by providing proxy objects so that a method can be invoked on non-NULL object leading to an empty result.
My questions are:
Is either of cases (1) or (2) a pattern or an antipattern?
Is there a better way to deal with long delegation chains in C++?
Here are some pros and cons I considered while making my choice:
Pros:
it is very descriptive: it is clear out of 1 line of code where did the object came from
long delegation chains look nice
Cons:
interactive debugging is labored since it is hard to inspect more than one temporary object in the delegation chain
I would like to know other pros and cons of the long delegation chains. Please, present your reasoning and vote based on how well-argued opinion is and not how well you agree with it.
I wouldn't go so far to call either an anti-pattern. However, the first has the disadvantage that your variable C is visible even after it's logically relevant (too gratuitous scoping).
You can get around this by using this syntax:
if (clCanvas* C = Env->Renderer->GetCanvas()) {
C->TextStr( ... );
/* some more things with C */
}
This is allowed in C++ (while it's not in C) and allows you to keep proper scope (C is scoped as if it were inside the conditional's block) and check for NULL.
Asserting that something is not NULL is by all means better than getting killed by a SegFault. So I wouldn't recommend simply skipping these checks, unless you're a 100% sure that that pointer can never ever be NULL.
Additionally, you could encapsulate your checks in an extra free function, if you feel particularly dandy:
template <typename T>
T notNULL(T value) {
assert(value);
return value;
}
// e.g.
notNULL(notNULL(Env)->Renderer->GetCanvas())->TextStr();
In my experience, chains like that often contains getters that are less than trivial, leading to inefficiencies. I think that (1) is a reasonable approach. Using proxy objects seems like an overkill. I would rather see a crash on a NULL pointer rather than using a proxy objects.
Such long chain of delegation should not happens if you follow the Law of Demeter. I've often argued with some of its proponents that they where holding themselves to it too conscientiously, but if you come to the point to wonder how best to handle long delegation chains, you should probably be a little more compliant with its recommendations.
Interesting question, I think this is open to interpretation, but:
My Two Cents
Design patterns are just reusable solutions to common problems which are generic enough to be widely applied in object oriented (usually) programming. Many common patterns will start you out with interfaces, inheritance chains, and/or containment relationships that will result in you using chaining to call things to some extent. The patterns are not trying to solve a programming issue like this though - chaining is just a side effect of them solving the functional problems at hand. So, I wouldn't really consider it a pattern.
Equally, anti-patterns are approaches that (in my mind) counter-act the purpose of design patterns. For example, design patterns are all about structure and the adaptability of your code. People consider a singleton an anti-pattern because it (often, not always) results in spider-web like code due to the fact that it inherently creates a global, and when you have many, your design deteriorates fast.
So, again, your chaining problem doesn't necessarily indicate good or bad design - it's not related to the functional objectives of patterns or the drawbacks of anti-patterns. Some designs just have a lot of nested objects even when designed well.
What to do about it:
Long delegation chains can definitely be a pain in the butt after a while, and as long as your design dictates that the pointers in those chains won't be reassigned, I think saving a temporary pointer to the point in the chain you're interested in is completely fine (function scope or less preferably).
Personally though, I'm against saving a permanent pointer to a part of the chain as a class member as I've seen that end up in people having 30 pointers to sub objects permanently stored, and you lose all conception of how the objects are laid out in the pattern or architecture you're working with.
One other thought - I'm not sure if I like this or not, but I've seen some people create a private (for your sanity) function that navigates the chain so you can recall that and not deal with issues about whether or not your pointer changes under the covers, or whether or not you have nulls. It can be nice to wrap all that logic up once, put a nice comment at the top of the function stating which part of the chain it gets the pointer from, and then just use the function result directly in your code instead of using your delegation chain each time.
Performance
My last note would be that this wrap-in-function approach as well as your delegation chain approach both suffer from performance drawbacks. Saving a temporary pointer lets you avoid the extra two dereferences potentially many times if you're using these objects in a loop. Equally, storing the pointer from the function call will avoid the over head of an extra function call every loop cycle.
For bool Exists = Env->FileSystem->FileExists( "foo.txt" ); I'd rather go for an even more detailed breakdown of your chain, so in my ideal world, there are the following lines of code:
Environment* env = GetEnv();
FileSystem* fs = env->FileSystem;
bool exists = fs->FileExists( "foo.txt" );
and why? Some reasons:
readability: my attention gets lost till I have to read to the end of the line in case of bool Exists = Env->FileSystem->FileExists( "foo.txt" ); It's just too long for me.
validity: regardles that you mentioned the objects are, if your company tomorrow hires a new programmer and he starts writing code, the day after tomorrow the objects might not be there. These long lines are pretty unfriendly, new people might get scared of them and will do something interesting such as optimising them... which will take more experienced programmer extra time to fix.
debugging: if by any chance (and after you have hired the new programmer) the application throws a segmentation fault in the long list of chain it is pretty difficult to find out which object was the guilty one. The more detailed the breakdown the more easier to find the location of the bug.
speed: if you need to do lots of calls for getting the same chain elements, it might be faster to "pull out" a local variable from the chain instead of calling a "proper" getter function for it. I don't know if your code is production or not, but it seems to miss the "proper" getter function, instead it seems to use only the attribute.
Long delegation chains are a bit of a design smell to me.
What a delegation chain tells me is that one piece of code has deep access to an unrelated piece of code, which makes me think of high coupling, which goes against the SOLID design principles.
The main problem I have with this is maintainability. If you're reaching two levels deep, that is two independent pieces of code that could evolve on their own and break under you. This quickly compounds when you have functions inside the chain, because they can contain chains of their own - for example, Renderer->GetCanvas() could be choosing the canvas based on information from another hierarchy of objects and it is difficult to enforce a code path that does not end up reaching deep into objects over the life time of the code base.
The better way would be to create an architecture that obeyed the SOLID principles and used techniques like Dependency Injection and Inversion Of Control to guarantee your objects always have access to what they need to perform their duties. Such an approach also lends itself well to automated and unit testing.
Just my 2 cents.
If it is possible I would use references instead of pointers. So delegates are guaranteed to return valid objects or throw exception.
clCanvas & C = Env.Renderer().GetCanvas();
For objects which can not exist i will provide additional methods such as has, is, etc.
if ( Env.HasRenderer() ) clCanvas* C = Env.Renderer().GetCanvas();
If you can guarantee that all the objects exist, I don't really see a problem in what you're doing. As others have mentioned, even if you think that NULL will never happen, it may just happen anyway.
This being said, I see that you use bare pointers everywhere. What I would suggest is that you start using smart pointers instead. When you use the -> operator, a smart pointer will usually throw if the pointer is NULL. So you avoid a SegFault. Not only that, if you use smart pointers, you can keep copies and the objects don't just disappear under your feet. You have to explicitly reset each smart pointer before the pointer goes to NULL.
This being said, it wouldn't prevent the -> operator from throwing once in a while.
Otherwise I would rather use the approach proposed by AProgrammer. If object A needs a pointer to object C pointed by object B, then the work that object A is doing is probably something that object B should actually be doing. So A can guarantee that it has a pointer to B at all time (because it holds a shared pointer to B and thus it cannot go NULL) and thus it can always call a function on B to do action Z on object C. In function Z, B knows whether it always has a pointer to C or not. That's part of its B's implementation.
Note that with C++11 you have std::smart_ptr<>, so use it!
I know what is the difference and how they both work but this question is more about coding style.
Whenever I'm coding I make many classes, they all have variables and some of them are pointers and some are normal variables. I usually prefer variables to pointers if that members lasts as long as the class does but then my code becomes like this:
engine->camera.somevar->x;
// vs
engine->camera->somevar->x;
I don't like the dot in the middle. Or with private variables:
foo_.getName();
// vs
foo_->gatName();
I think that dot "disappears" in a long code. I find -> easier to read in some cases.
My question would be if you use pointers even if the variable is going to be created in the constructor and deleted in the destructor? Is there any style advice in this case?
P.S. I do think that dot is looks better in some cases.
First of all it is bad form to expose member variables.
Second your class should probably never container pointers.
Slight corolary: Classes that contain business logic should never have pointers (as this means they also contain pointer management code and pointer management code should be left to classes that have no business logic but are designed specifically for the purpose of managing pointers (smart pointers and containers).
Pointer management classes (smart pointers/containers) should be designed to manage a single pointer. Managing more than one is much more difficult than you expect and I have yet to find a situation where the extra complexity paid off.
Finally public members should not expose the underlying implementation (you should not provide access to members even via getters/setters). This binds the interface to tightly to the implementation. Instead your public interface should provide a set of actions that can be performed on the object. i.e. methods are verbs.
In C++ it is rare to see pointers.
They are generally hidden inside other classes. But you should get used to using a mixture of -> and . as it all depends on context and what you are trying to convey. As long as the code is clean and readable it does not matter too much.
A personal addendum:
I hate the _ at then end of your identifier it makes the . disapear foo_.getName() I think it would look a lot better as foo.getName()
If the "embedded" struct has exactly the same lifetime as the "parent" struct and it is not referenced anywhere else, I prefer to have it as a member, rather than use a pointer. The produced code is slightly more efficient, since it saves a number of calls to the memory allocator and it avoids a number of pointer dereferences.
It is also easier to handle, since the chance of pointer-related mistakes is reduced.
If, on the other hand, there is the slightest chance that the embedded structure may be referenced somewhere else I prefer to use a separate struct and pointers. That way I won't have to refactor my code if it turns out that the embedded struct needs to be pulled out from its parent.
EDIT:
I guess that means that I usually go with the pointer alternative :-)
EDIT 2:
And yes, my answer is assuming that you really want (or have) to chose between the two i.e. that you write C-style code. The proper object-oriented way to access class members is through get/set functions.
My comments regarding whether to include an actual class instance or a pointer/reference to one are probably still valid, however.
You should not make your choice because you find '->' easier to read :)
Using a member variable is usually better as you can not make mistakes with you pointer.
This said, using a member variable force you to expose your implementation, thus you have to use references. But then you have to initialize then in your constructor, which is not always possible ...
A solution is to use std::auto_ptr or boost::scoped_ptr ot similar smart pointer. There you will get advantage of both solution, with very little drawbacks.
my2c
EDIT:
Some useful links :
Article on std::auto_ptr
boost::scoped_ptr
Pimpl : private implementation
Ideally, you shouldn't use either: you should use getter/setter methods. The performance hit is minimal (the compiler will probably optimize it away, anyway).
The second consideration is that using pointers is a generally dangerous idea, because at some point you're likely to screw it up.
If neither of these faze you, then I'd say all that's left is a matter of personal preference.
My application problem is the following -
I have a large structure foo. Because these are large and for memory management reasons, we do not wish to delete them when processing on the data is complete.
We are storing them in std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<foo>>.
My question is related to knowing when all processing is complete. First decision is that we do not want any of the other application code to mark a complete flag in the structure because there are multiple execution paths in the program and we cannot predict which one is the last.
So in our implementation, once processing is complete, we delete all copies of boost::shared_ptr<foo>> except for the one in the vector. This will drop the reference counter in the shared_ptr to 1. Is it practical to use shared_ptr.use_count() to see if it is equal to 1 to know when all other parts of my app are done with the data.
One additional reason I'm asking the question is that the boost documentation on the shared pointer shared_ptr recommends not using "use_count" for production code.
Edit -
What I did not say is that when we need a new foo, we will scan the vector of foo pointers looking for a foo that is not currently in use and use that foo for the next round of processing. This is why I was thinking that having the reference counter of 1 would be a safe way to ensure that this particular foo object is no longer in use.
My immediate reaction (and I'll admit, it's no more than that) is that it sounds like you're trying to get the effect of a pool allocator of some sort. You might be better off overloading operator new and operator delete to get the effect you want a bit more directly. With something like that, you can probably just use a shared_ptr like normal, and the other work you want delayed, will be handled in operator delete for that class.
That leaves a more basic question: what are you really trying to accomplish with this? From a memory management viewpoint, one common wish is to allocate memory for a large number of objects at once, and after the entire block is empty, release the whole block at once. If you're trying to do something on that order, it's almost certainly easier to accomplish by overloading new and delete than by playing games with shared_ptr's use_count.
Edit: based on your comment, overloading new and delete for class sounds like the right thing to do. If anything, integration into your existing code will probably be easier; in fact, you can often do it completely transparently.
The general idea for the allocator is pretty much the same as you've outlined in your edited question: have a structure (bitmaps and linked lists are both common) to keep track of your free objects. When new needs to allocate an object, it can scan the bit vector or look at the head of the linked list of free objects, and return its address.
This is one case that linked lists can work out quite well -- you (usually) don't have to worry about memory usage, because you store your links right in the free object, and you (virtually) never have to walk the list, because when you need to allocate an object, you just grab the first item on the list.
This sort of thing is particularly common with small objects, so you might want to look at the Modern C++ Design chapter on its small object allocator (and an article or two since then by Andrei Alexandrescu about his newer ideas of how to do that sort of thing). There's also the Boost::pool allocator, which is generally at least somewhat similar.
If you want to know whether or not the use count is 1, use the unique() member function.
I would say your application should have some method that eliminates all references to the Foo from other parts of the app, and that method should be used instead of checking use_count(). Besides, if use_count() is greater than 1, what would your program do? You shouldn't be relying on shared_ptr's features to eliminate all references, your application architecture should be able to eliminate references. As a final check before removing it from the vector, you could assert(unique()) to verify it really is being released.
I think you can use shared_ptr's custom deleter functionality to call a particular function when the last copy has been released. That way, you're not using use_count at all.
You would need to hold something other than a copy of the shared_ptr in your vector so that the shared_ptr is only tracking the outstanding processing.
Boost has several examples of custom deleters in the shared_ptr docs.
I would suggest that instead of trying to use the shared_ptr's use_count to keep track, it might be better to implement your own usage counter. this way you will have full control over this rather than using the shared_ptr's one which, as you rightly suggest, is not recommended. You can also pre-set your own counter to allow for the number of threads you know will need to act on the data, rather than relying on them all being initialised at the beginning to get their copies of the structure.
class MyContainedClass {
};
class MyClass {
public:
MyContainedClass * getElement() {
// ...
std::list<MyContainedClass>::iterator it = ... // retrieve somehow
return &(*it);
}
// other methods
private:
std::list<MyContainedClass> m_contained;
};
Though msdn says std::list should not perform relocations of elements on deletion or insertion, is it a good and common way to return pointer to a list element?
PS: I know that I can use collection of pointers (and will have to delete elements in destructor), collection of shared pointers (which I don't like), etc.
I don't see the use of encapsulating this, but that may be just me. In any case, returning a reference instead of a pointer makes a lot more sense to me.
In a general sort of way, if your "contained class" is truly contained in your "MyClass", then MyClass should not be allowing outsiders to touch its private contents.
So, MyClass should be providing methods to manipulate the contained class objects, not returning pointers to them. So, for example, a method such as "increment the value of the umpteenth contained object", rather than "here is a pointer to the umpteenth contained object, do with it as you wish".
It depends...
It depends on how much encapsulated you want your class to be, and what you want to hide, or show.
The code I see seems ok for me. You're right about the fact the std::list's data and iterators won't be invalidated in case of another data/iterator's modification/deletion.
Now, returning the pointer would hide the fact you're using a std::list as an internal container, and would not let the user to navigate its list. Returning the iterator would let more freedom to navigate this list for the users of the class, but they would "know" they are accessing a STL container.
It's your choice, there, I guess.
Note that if it == std::list<>.end(), then you'll have a problem with this code, but I guess you already know that, and that this is not the subject of this discussion.
Still, there are alternative I summarize below:
Using const will help...
The fact you return a non-const pointer lets the user of you object silently modify any MyContainedClass he/she can get his/her hands on, without telling your object.
Instead or returning a pointer, you could return a const pointer (and suffix your method with const) to stop the user from modifying the data inside the list without using an accessor approved by you (a kind of setElement ?).
const MyContainedClass * getElement() const {
// ...
std::list<MyContainedClass>::const_iterator it = ... // retrieve somehow
return &(*it);
}
This will increase somewhat the encapsulation.
What about a reference?
If your method cannot fail (i.e. it always return a valid pointer), then you should consider returning the reference instead of the pointer. Something like:
const MyContainedClass & getElement() const {
// ...
std::list<MyContainedClass>::const_iterator it = ... // retrieve somehow
return *it;
}
This has nothing to do with encapsulation, though..
:-p
Using an iterator?
Why not return the iterator instead of the pointer? If for you, navigating the list up and down is ok, then the iterator would be better than the pointer, and is used mostly the same way.
Make the iterator a const_iterator if you want to avoid the user modifying the data.
std::list<MyContainedClass>::const_iterator getElement() const {
// ...
std::list<MyContainedClass>::const_iterator it = ... // retrieve somehow
return it;
}
The good side would be that the user would be able to navigate the list. The bad side is that the user would know it is a std::list, so...
Scott Meyers in his book Effective STL: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your Use of the Standard Template Library says it's just not worth trying to encapsulate your containers since none of them are completely replaceable for another.
Think good and hard about what you really want MyClass for. I've noticed that some programmers write wrappers for their collections just as a matter of habit, regardless of whether they have any specific needs above and beyond those met by the standard STL collections. If that's your situation, then typedef std::list<MyContainedClass> MyClass and be done with it.
If you do have operations you intend to implement in MyClass, then the success of your encapsulation will depend more on the interface you provide for them than on how you provide access to the underlying list.
No offense meant, but... With the limited information you've provided, it smells like you're punting: exposing internal data because you can't figure out how to implement the operations your client code requires in MyClass... or possibly, because you don't even know yet what operations will be required by your client code. This is a classic problem with trying to write low-level code before the high-level code that requires it; you know what data you'll be working with, but haven't really nailed down exactly what you'll be doing with it yet, so you write a class structure that exposes the raw data all the way to the top. You'd do well to re-think your strategy here.
#cos:
Of course I'm encapsulating
MyContainedClass not just for the sake
of encapsulation. Let's take more
specific example:
Your example does little to allay my fear that you are writing your containers before you know what they'll be used for. Your example container wrapper - Document - has a total of three methods: NewParagraph(), DeleteParagraph(), and GetParagraph(), all of which operate on the contained collection (std::list), and all of which closely mirror operations that std::list provides "out of the box". Document encapsulates std::list in the sense that clients need not be aware of its use in the implementation... but realistically, it is little more than a facade - since you are providing clients raw pointers to the objects stored in the list, the client is still tied implicitly to the implementation.
If we put objects (not pointers) to
container they will be destroyed
automatically (which is good).
Good or bad depends on the needs of your system. What this implementation means is simple: the document owns the Paragraphs, and when a Paragraph is removed from the document any pointers to it immediately become invalid. Which means you must be very careful when implementing something like:
other objects than use collections of
paragraphs, but don't own them.
Now you have a problem. Your object, ParagraphSelectionDialog, has a list of pointers to Paragraph objects owned by the Document. If you are not careful to coordinate these two objects, the Document - or another client by way of the Document - could invalidate some or all of the pointers held by an instance of ParagraphSelectionDialog! There's no easy way to catch this - a pointer to a valid Paragraph looks the same as a pointer to a deallocated Paragraph, and may even end up pointing to a valid - but different - Paragraph instance! Since clients are allowed, and even expected, to retain and dereference these pointers, the Document loses control over them as soon as they are returned from a public method, even while it retains ownership of the Paragraph objects.
This... is bad. You've end up with an incomplete, superficial, encapsulation, a leaky abstraction, and in some ways it is worse than having no abstraction at all. Because you hide the implementation, your clients have no idea of the lifetime of the objects pointed to by your interface. You would probably get lucky most of the time, since most std::list operations do not invalidate references to items they don't modify. And all would be well... until the wrong Paragraph gets deleted, and you find yourself stuck with the task of tracing through the callstack looking for the client that kept that pointer around a little bit too long.
The fix is simple enough: return values or objects that can be stored for as long as they need to be, and verified prior to use. That could be something as simple as an ordinal or ID value that must be passed to the Document in exchange for a usable reference, or as complex as a reference-counted smart pointer or weak pointer... it really depends on the specific needs of your clients. Spec out the client code first, then write your Document to serve.
The Easy way
#cos, For the example you have shown, i would say the easiest way to create this system in C++ would be to not trouble with the reference counting. All you have to do would be to make sure that the program flow first destroys the objects (views) which holds the direct references to the objects (paragraphs) in the collection, before the root Document get destroyed.
The Tough Way
However if you still want to control the lifetimes by reference tracking, you might have to hold references deeper into the hierarchy such that Paragraph objects holds reverse references to the root Document object such that, only when the last paragraph object gets destroyed will the Document object get destructed.
Additionally the paragraph references when used inside the Views class and when passed to other classes, would also have to passed around as reference counted interfaces.
Toughness
This is too much overhead, compared to the simple scheme i listed in the beginning. It avoids all kinds of object counting overheads and more importantly someone who inherits your program does not get trapped in the reference dependency threads traps that criss cross your system.
Alternative Platforms
This kind-of tooling might be easier to perform in a platform that supports and promotes this style of programming like .NET or Java.
You still have to worry about memory
Even with a platform such as this you would still have to ensure your objects get de-referenced in a proper manner. Else outstanding references could eat up your memory in the blink of an eye. So you see, reference counting is not the panacea to good programming practices, though it helps avoid lots of error checks and cleanups, which when applied the whole system considerably eases the programmers task.
Recommendation
That said, coming back to your original question which gave raise to all the reference counting doubts - Is it ok to expose your objects directly from the collection?
Programs cannot exist where all classes / all parts of the program are truly interdependent of each other. No, that would be impossible, as a program is the running manifestation of how your classes / modules interact. The ideal design can only minimize the dependencies and not remove them totally.
So my opinion would be, yes it is not a bad practice to expose the references to the objects from your collection, to other objects that need to work with them, provided you do this in a sane manner
Ensure that only a few classes / parts of your program can get such references to ensure minimum interdependency.
Ensure that the references / pointers passed are interfaces and not concrete objects so that the interdependency is avoided between concrete classes.
Ensure that the references are not further passed along deeper into the program.
Ensure that the program logic takes care of destroying the dependent objects, before cleaning up the actual objects that satisfy those references.
I think the bigger problem is that you're hiding the type of collection so even if you use a collection that doesn't move elements you may change your mind in the future. Externally that's not visible so I'd say it's not a good idea to do this.
std::list will not invalidate any iterators, pointers or references when you add or remove things from the list (apart from any that point the item being removed, obviously), so using a list in this way isn't going to break.
As others have pointed out, you may want not want to be handing out direct access to the private bits of this class. So changing the function to:
const MyContainedClass * getElement() const {
// ...
std::list<MyContainedClass>::const_iterator it = ... // retrieve somehow
return &(*it);
}
may be better, or if you always return a valid MyContainedClass object then you could use
const MyContainedClass& getElement() const {
// ...
std::list<MyContainedClass>::const_iterator it = ... // retrieve somehow
return *it;
}
to avoid the calling code having to cope with NULL pointers.
STL will be more familiar to a future programmer than your custom encapsulation, so you should avoid doing this if you can. There will be edge cases that you havent thought about which will come up later in the app's lifetime, wheras STL is failry well reviewed and documented.
Additionally most containers support somewhat similar operations like begin end push etc. So it should be fairly trivial to change the container type in your code should you change the container. eg vector to deque or map to hash_map etc.
Assuming you still want to do this for a more deeper reason, i would say the correct way to do this is to implement all the methods and iterator classes that list implements. Forward the calls to the member list calls when you need no changes. Modify and forward or do some custom actions where you need to do something special (the reason why you decide to this in the first place)
It would be easier if STl classes where designed to be inherited from but for efficiency sake it was decided not to do so. Google for "inherit from STL classes" for more thoughts on this.