I implemented the composite pattern using smart pointers, it works until a point.
The problem is that I just can use the methods that is implemented in the interface and I can not use the methods that is defined in the derived class without using dynamic_pointer_cast and I don't want it.
I want to know if it's possible to do it without using dynamic_pointer_cast.
I heard that I need to implement the visitor pattern, but I really don't know how to and if it fits in that problem.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
class Fruit
{
public:
virtual void getOld() = 0;
};
class Orange : Fruit
{
public:
Orange() {}
void add(std::shared_ptr<Fruit> f)
{
v.push_back(f);
}
std::shared_ptr<Fruit> get(int k)
{
return v[k];
}
void getOld()
{
std::cout << "Orange - I'm old." << std::endl;
}
private:
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Fruit>> v;
};
class Bitter : public Fruit
{
public:
Bitter() {}
void getOld()
{
std::cout << "Bitter - I'm old." << std::endl;
}
void getNew()
{
std::cout << "Bitter - I'm new." << std::endl;
}
};
int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
auto orange = new Orange;
orange->add(std::make_shared<Bitter>());
auto bitter = orange->get(0);
bitter->getOld();
return 0;
}
It works as you can see here on the live preview, but when I try to use:
int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
auto orange = new Orange;
orange->add(std::make_shared<Bitter>());
auto bitter = orange->get(0);
bitter->getOld();
bitter->getNew();
return 0;
}
I got errors:
error: 'class Fruit' has no member named 'getNew'
Thanks in advance.
The problem here I think is that it would work with polymorphism but the method 'getNew' doesn't exist in the mother class so you need to define it and make it virtual. It's the only way to do it without using a cast on the object.
With this line it should work.
virtual void getNew() = 0;
One possible solution is to have the following function in Orange.
template <typename T>
T* get(int k)
{
return dynamic_cast<T*>(v[k].get());
}
And then use:
auto bitter = orange->get<Bitter>(0);
bitter->getOld();
bitter->getNew();
This performs a dynamic_cast but is localized to Orange.
Following information can be found about "composite pattern" from the GOF book. Of course it has been explained based on graphics class.
The key to the Composite pattern is an abstract class that represents both primitives and their containers. For the graphics system, this class is Graphic. Graphic declares operations like Draw that are specific to graphical objects. It also declares operations that all composite objects share, such as operations for accessing and managing its children.
Based on the above explanation,we should ideally declare all possible interfaces of leaf and non-leaf(container) type of node while using composite pattern.I think that this is essential in order to let client treating individual objects and compositions of objects uniformly. So ideally you should declare your classes in the following way while using this particular pattern. Any logic which has been written based on the exact type of object in the client code violates the essence of this pattern.
//Abstract class which should have all the interface common to
// Composite and Leaf class. It may also provide the default
// implementation wherever appropriate.
class Fruit {
public:
virtual void getOld() = 0;
virtual void getNew() = 0;
virtual void add(std::shared_ptr<Fruit> f) { }
virtual std::shared_ptr<Fruit> get(int index ) {return nullptr; }
virtual ~Fruit() { }
};
//Composite Node
class Orange : Fruit {
public:
Orange() {}
void add(std::shared_ptr<Fruit> f) { v.push_back(f); }
std::shared_ptr<Fruit> get(int k) { return v[k]; }
void getOld() { std::cout << "Orange - I'm old." << std::endl; }
void getNew() { std::cout << "Orange - I'm new." << std::endl; }
private:
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Fruit>> v;
};
//Leaf node
class Bitter : public Fruit {
public:
Bitter() {}
void getOld() { std::cout << "Bitter - I'm old." << std::endl; }
void getNew() { std::cout << "Bitter - I'm new." << std::endl; }
};
Related
I'm relatively new to C++, and I'm hoping someone can help me resolve an issue I'm having with unique_ptr and vectors. Essentially I'm trying to use polymorphism so that I have a vector of type "Base", which is an abstract class (pure virtual). I'm then attempting to fill this vector with derived classes. I've included a trivial example below, showcasing exactly what I'm trying to achieve. Please note that I need to use C++11, which is why I haven't made use of "std::make_unique".
The code compiles fine, but I get run-time errors about "default_delete" in class Animal.
A related question is should I be using unique_ptrs for run-time polymorphism as below? Or should I be using raw pointers instead?
Header file and CPP files below. Error output from VS is included below this. Very many thanks in advance for any help with this.
HEADER FILE:
#ifndef START_H
#define START_H
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
class Animal
{
public:
virtual ~Animal() = default;
void run();
void setNumLegs(int a) { numLegs = a; }
const int getLegs() const { return numLegs; }
private:
double numLegs;
virtual void useLegs() = 0;
};
class Biped : public Animal
{
private:
void useLegs();
};
class Multiped : public Animal
{
public:
double costOfShoes{ 12.0 };
private:
void useLegs();
void payForShoes();
void becomeDestitute();
};
class Farm
{
public:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Animal>> animals;
};
class Countryside
{
public:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Farm>> farms;
};
#endif // START_H
CPP FILE:
#include "start.h"
#include <iostream>
int main() {
Countryside countryside;
std::unique_ptr<Farm> f(new Farm);
std::vector<int> legs = { 2,4,5,2,10 };
for (auto& numLegs : legs) {
if (numLegs == 2) {
std::unique_ptr<Biped> biped(new Biped);
biped->setNumLegs(numLegs);
f->animals.push_back(std::move(biped));
}
else if (numLegs > 2) {
std::unique_ptr<Multiped> multiped(new Multiped);
multiped->setNumLegs(numLegs);
f->animals.push_back(std::move(multiped));
}
}
countryside.farms.push_back(std::move(f)); //THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS I THINK
for (auto& animal : f->animals) {
animal-> run();
}
return 0;
}
void Animal::run()
{
useLegs();
}
void Biped::useLegs()
{
std::cout << "Running with: "<< getLegs() <<"legs\n";
}
void Multiped::useLegs()
{
std::cout << "Running with many legs:" << getLegs() << "!!! legs\n";
payForShoes();
}
void Multiped::payForShoes()
{
std::cout << "Paying for shoes...\n";
becomeDestitute();
}
void Multiped::becomeDestitute()
{
std::cout << "I have no money left.\n";
}
DEBUGGER ERROR OUTPUT:
_Mypair <struct at NULL> std::_Compressed_pair<std::allocator<std::unique_ptr<Animal,std::default_delete<Animal>>>,std::_Vector_val<std::_Simple_types<std::unique_ptr<Animal,std::default_delete<Animal>>>>,1>
_Mypair._Myval2 <struct at NULL> std::_Vector_val<std::_Simple_types<std::unique_ptr<Animal,std::default_delete<Animal>>>>
this 0x00000000 <NULL> std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Animal,std::default_delete<Animal>>,std::allocator<std::unique_ptr<Animal,std::default_delete<Animal>>>> *
Hi the problem is you are deferencing a null pointer in the for loop (f is set to nullptr).
The move operation moves the ownership of the item pointed to and the pointer f is set to nullptr (move semantics)
After a move the object can no longer be used
I am trying to create a DI container in C++ (for studying purposes). I know about boost DI container option, but I just want to have fun writing one by myself.
I would like that the created container only had one instance per object "registered", so I should apply the Singleton design pattern.
But, what would be the best (idiomatic) way to implement the Singleton Pattern as an in C++20 or, at least, in modern C++ and why?
Do you mean something like this, using meyer's singleton.
(https://www.modernescpp.com/index.php/thread-safe-initialization-of-a-singleton)
I never use singletons that need to be created with new, since their destructor never gets called. With this pattern the destructors do get called when the program terminates.
#include <iostream>
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// create an abstract baseclass (closest thing C++ has to an interface)
struct data_itf
{
virtual int get_value1() const = 0;
virtual ~data_itf() = default;
protected:
data_itf() = default;
};
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// two injectable instance types
struct test_data_container :
public data_itf
{
int get_value1() const override
{
return 0;
}
~test_data_container()
{
std::cout << "test_data_container deleted";
}
};
struct production_data_container :
public data_itf
{
int get_value1() const override
{
return 42;
}
~production_data_container()
{
std::cout << "production_data_container deleted";
}
};
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// meyers threadsafe singleton to get to instances implementing
// interface to be injected.
//
data_itf& get_test_data()
{
static test_data_container test_data;
return test_data;
}
data_itf& get_production_data()
{
static production_data_container production_data;
return production_data;
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// object that needs data
class my_object_t
{
public:
explicit my_object_t(const data_itf& data) :
m_data{ data }
{
}
~my_object_t()
{
std::cout << "my_object deleted";
}
void function()
{
std::cout << m_data.get_value1() << "\n";
}
private:
const data_itf& m_data;
};
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
int main()
{
auto& data = get_production_data();
my_object_t object{ data };
object.function();
return 0;
}
I am trying to study static polymophism and I implemented the following code. Thanks to the comments from StackOverflow members, I came to understand that what I just wrote is not static polymophism, but actually template-based policy-pattern.
Can anyone give any insight about how to turn this piece of code into static polymophism?
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
class Interface {
T ex;
public:
double getData() {
return ex.getData(0);
}
};
class Extractor1 {
public:
double getData(const int a) {
return 1;
}
};
class Extractor2 {
public:
double getData(const int a) {
return 2;
}
};
int main() {
// here is the problem: the following 2 variables belong to different types. Therefore, I cannot create an array of pointers which point to the base class
Interface<Extractor1> e1;
Interface<Extractor2> e2;
std::cout<<"FE1 "<< e1.getData() <<" FE2 "<< e2.getData()<<std::endl;
return 0;
}
You can change your code like this to achieve static polymorphism:
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
class Interface {
public:
double getData(int a) {
return static_cast<T *>(this)->getData(a);
}
};
class Extractor1 : public Interface<Extractor1> {
public:
double getData(int a) {
return 1;
}
};
class Extractor2 : public Interface<Extractor2> {
public:
double getData(int a) {
return 2;
}
};
int main() {
Interface<Extractor1> e1;
Interface<Extractor2> e2;
std::cout << e1.getData(1) << " " << e2.getData(2) << std::endl;
}
The advantage of using static polymorphism is you avoid paying the runtime cost of a vtable lookup like you would when using virtual functions. The drawback though, as I see you are running into based on your 'array' comment, is that you cannot place these different Extractor classes into an array or any other container, because they are both inheriting different base types. The only way around this, aside from using something like a tuple or a container filled with boost::any types, is creating a common base class for your Extractor classes.
I have a (parent) class named Alma with the (virtual) function Getwidth() and two derived class of Alma, named Birs (with the special function Getheight()) and Citrom (with the special function Getdepth()). I want to declare an object - named Attila - which type is Birs or Citrom depending on a bool. Later, I want to use the common function Getwidth() and also the special functions (depending the bool mentioned).
My (not working) code:
/*...*/
/*Classes*/
class Alma{
public: virtual int Getwidth() = 0;
/*ect...*/
}
class Birs: public Alma{
int Getwidth(){return 1;}
public: int Getheight(){return 2;}
/*ect...*/
}
class Citrom: public Alma{
int Getwidth(){return 3;}
public: int Getdepth(){return 4;}
/*ect...*/
}
/*...*/
/*Using them*/
void Useobjects(){
/*Create object depending on bool*/
if(b00lvar){
Birs Andor();
std::cout<<Andor.Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor.Getheight()<<std::endl;
}else{
Citrom Andor();
std::cout<<Andor.Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor.Getdepth()<<std::endl;
}
/*Using the common part of object*/
std::cout<<Andor.Getwidth()<<std::endl;
/*Using the special part of object*/
if(b00lvar){
std::cout<<Andor.Getheight()<<std::endl;
}else{
std::cout<<Andor.Getdepth()<<std::endl;
}
/*ect...*/
}
This is a classic case of polymorphic object handling. Just make sure you are familiar with that concept as well with pointers and references.
What you need is something looking like:
Alma* Andor;
if(b00lvar){
Andor = new Birs();
std::cout<<Andor->Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor->Getheight()<<std::endl;
}else{
Andor = new Citrom();
std::cout<<Andor->Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor->Getdepth()<<std::endl;
}
Next use dynamic_cast to get back to the derived types and finally of course do not forget to delete the object. But first read about those concepts.
You cannot define a single object whose type is this or that, depending on something else. C++ doesn't work this way. C++ is a statically-typed language. This means that the type of every object is determined at compile time. Other languages, like Perl, or Javascript, are dynamically-typed, where the type of an object is determined at runtime, and a single object can be one thing, at one point, and something else at a different point.
But C++ does not work this way.
To do something like what you're trying to do, you have to refactor the code, and work with the virtual superclass. Something like this:
void UseObject(Alma &andor)
{
/*Using the common part of object*/
std::cout<<andor.Getwidth()<<std::endl;
/*Using the special part of object*/
/* This part is your homework assignment */
}
void Useobjects(){
/*Create object depending on bool*/
if(b00lvar){
Birs andor;
std::cout<<Andor.Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor.Getheight()<<std::endl;
UseObject(andor);
}else{
Citrom andor;
std::cout<<Andor.Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor.Getdepth()<<std::endl;
UseObject(andor);
}
}
Another approach would be to use two pointers, in this case passing two pointers to UseObject(). One of the two pointers will always be a nullptr, and the other one a pointer to the instantiated object, with UseObject() coded to deal with whatever object is passed in.
That's also possible, but will result in ugly code, and if I was an instructor teaching C++, I would mark down anyone who handed in code that did that.
If the type of the object (Alma or Citrom) is decided at the startup, then it's a classic polymorphism, as other answers described:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/36218884/185881
What're you missing from your design is, to name the common ancestor with common behaviors (e.g. Gyumolcs).
If the object should once act as Alma and other times as Citrom, you should implement a single class, which have a flag or enum (ACT_AS_CITROM, ACT_AS_ALMA), or, if the behavior is limited to one method, then it should have a parameter, which tells which action to perform (alma-like or citrom-like).
You can do this with pointer semantic and type introspection with dynamic_cast. I extended your example to show how I would approach it.
Here is the Demo
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class Alma{
public:
virtual int Getwidth() = 0;
};
class Birs: public Alma{
public:
int Getwidth() { return 1; }
int Getheight() { return 2; }
};
class Citrom: public Alma{
public:
int Getwidth() { return 3; }
int Getdepth() { return 4; }
};
shared_ptr<Alma> make_attila(bool birs)
{
if (birs)
return make_shared<Birs>();
else
return make_shared<Citrom>();
}
void test_attila(shared_ptr<Alma> attila)
{
cout << "width: " << attila->Getwidth() << "\n";
if (auto as_birs = dynamic_pointer_cast<Birs>(attila))
cout << "height: " << as_birs->Getheight() << "\n";
else if (auto as_citrom = dynamic_pointer_cast<Citrom>(attila))
cout << "depth: " << as_citrom->Getdepth() << "\n";
}
int main() {
shared_ptr<Alma> attila = make_attila(true);
test_attila(attila);
attila = make_attila(false);
test_attila(attila);
return 0;
}
Next step would be to make make_attila a template function taking the Derived class as a template parameter instead of a bool.
template <class Derived>
shared_ptr<Alma> make_attila()
{
return make_shared<Derived>();
}
Two things:
If you want to use it outside the if, you will have to declare it outside the if.
You need references or pointers for this kind of polymorphism.
unique_ptr<Alma> Andor;
if (b00lvar) {
Andor = make_unique<Birs>();
} else {
Andor = make_unique<Citrom>();
}
std::cout << Andor->Getwidth() << std::endl;
Some other answer suggested using shared_ptr but that's overkill here. 99% of the time unique_ptr is sufficient.
Polymorphism isn't always the way to go if an object is known to be either a B or a C. In this case, a boost::variant is often more succinct.
Having said this, if you want to go down the polymorphic route it's important to remember something that will guide the design.
Polymorphic means runtime polymorphic. I.e. the program cannot know the real type of the object. It also cannot know the full set of possible types the object could be, since another developer could manufacture a type that your module's code knows nothing about. Furthermore, when using the Alma interface, the code should not need to know anything more. Invoking magic such as "I know it'll be a Citrom because the bool is true" is laying the foundations for a code maintenance nightmare a few weeks or months down the line. When done in commercial, production code, it results in expensive and embarrassing bug-hunts. Don't do that.
This argues that all relevant information about any object of type Alma must be available in the Alma interface.
In our case, the relevant information is whether it has the concept of height and/or depth.
In this case, we should probably include these properties in the base interface plus provide functions so that the program can query whether the property is valid before using it.
Here is something like your example written this way:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <typeinfo>
#include <string>
#include <exception>
#include <stdexcept>
// separating out these optional properties will help me to reduce clutter in Alma
struct HeightProperty
{
bool hasHeight() const { return impl_hasHeight(); }
int getHeight() const { return impl_getHeight(); }
private:
// provide default implementations
virtual bool impl_hasHeight() const { return false; }
virtual int impl_getHeight() const { throw std::logic_error("getHeight not implemented for this object"); }
};
struct DepthProperty
{
bool hasDepth() const { return impl_hasDepth(); }
int getDepth() const { return impl_getDepth(); }
private:
virtual bool impl_hasDepth() const { return false; }
virtual int impl_getDepth() const { throw std::logic_error("getDepth not implemented for this object"); }
};
class Alma : public HeightProperty, public DepthProperty
{
public:
Alma() = default;
virtual ~Alma() = default;
// note: nonvirtual interface defers to private virtual implementation
// this is industry best practice
int getWidth() const { return impl_getWidth(); }
const std::string& type() const {
return impl_getType();
}
private:
virtual int impl_getWidth() const = 0;
virtual const std::string& impl_getType() const = 0;
};
class Birs: public Alma
{
private:
// implement the mandatory interface
int impl_getWidth() const override { return 1; }
const std::string& impl_getType() const override {
static const std::string type("Birs");
return type;
}
// implement the HeightProperty optional interface
bool impl_hasHeight() const override { return true; }
int impl_getHeight() const override { return 2; }
};
class Citrom: public Alma
{
private:
// implement the mandatory interface
int impl_getWidth() const override { return 3; }
const std::string& impl_getType() const override {
static const std::string type("Citrom");
return type;
}
// implement the DepthProperty optional interface
bool impl_hasDepth() const override { return true; }
int impl_getDepth() const override { return 4; }
};
/*...*/
/*Using them*/
// generate either a Birs or a Citrom, but return the Alma interface
std::unique_ptr<Alma> make_alma(bool borc)
{
if (borc) {
return std::make_unique<Birs>();
}
else {
return std::make_unique<Citrom>();
}
}
void Useobjects()
{
for (bool b : { true, false })
{
std::unique_ptr<Alma> pa = make_alma(b);
std::cout << "this object's typeid name is " << pa->type() << std::endl;
std::cout << "it's width is : " << pa->getWidth() << std::endl;
if(pa->hasHeight()) {
std::cout << "it's height is: " << pa->getHeight() << std::endl;
}
if(pa->hasDepth()) {
std::cout << "it's depth is: " << pa->getDepth() << std::endl;
}
}
}
int main()
{
Useobjects();
return 0;
}
expected output:
this object's typeid name is Birs
it's width is : 1
it's height is: 2
this object's typeid name is Citrom
it's width is : 3
it's depth is: 4
I have a problem in hand which requires to make a very modular design for different algorithms. For example population based optimization algorithms like genetic algorithm, particle swarm algorithm etc. There are several variants of these algorithms, therefore I planned to make the smaller building blocks as an abstract class and let the specific building block to be plugged in.
For example lets say we have algo1 which can be divided in the following subroutines
algo1
loop
{
sub1 ()
sub2 ()
sub3 ()
}
For this I can create three interfaces which the implementation will override as per their implementation. Therefore
//Sub1Class, Sub2Class, Sub3Class are interfaces/abstract classes
class algo1
{
sub1Class *sub1Obj;
sub2Class *sub2Obj;
sub3Class *sub3Obj;
}
// constructor or setter method to set the implementation
algo1 (Sub1Class *myAlgo1Obj, Sub2Class myAlgo1Obj, Sub3Class myAlgo1Obj)
{
sub1Obj = myAlgo1Obj;
sub2Obj = myAlgo2Obj;
sub3Obj = myAlgo3Obj;
}
doAlgo1
{
loop
{
sub1Obj->algo ();
sub2Obj->algo ();
sub3Obj->algo ();
}
}
This can be done, but all the algorithms uses the attributes of the algo class and there are intermediate variables shared by the algorithms which I do not want to give a getter/setter.
My question is what are the techniques which can be used to manage the shared intermediate variables between the algorithms. I can pass it as the algo method implementation argument, but the number of intermediates and the types may change from one implementation to another. In that case will it be a good idea to create a separate class of temporary variable or make something like friend in cpp? Note that the intermediate results can be large vectors and matrices.
Please let me know if you need more information or clarification.
NOTE: I can possibly omit the variables shared between the algorithms by introducing locals and re-computation, but the algorithms are iterative and computation intensive involving large matrices therefore I want to make object creation and destruction as minimum as possible.
I can propose to use Inverse of Control container to solve your problem.
First you should create several abstract classes to keep it in the container:
class ISubroutineState {
public:
ISubroutineState() = default;
virtual int getVar1() const = 0;
virtual void setVar1(int v1) = 0;
};
class ISubroutineState1 : public ISubroutineState {
public:
virtual std::string getVar2() const = 0;
virtual void setVar2(std::string& v2) = 0;
};
The example of the subroutine state class implementation:
class SubState1 : public ISubroutineState1 {
int var1;
std::string var2;
public:
int getVar1() const {
return var1;
}
std::string getVar2() const {
return var2;
}
void setVar1(int v1) { var1 = v1; }
void setVar2(std::string& v) { var2 = v; }
};
The the IoC container (please note it can be accessed in any way allowed - i used just static pointer for simplicity):
class StateBroker
{
std::map<const char*, ISubroutineState*> *storage;
public:
StateBroker();
template <class S>
void StateBroker::bind(S* state) {
storage->emplace(typeid(S).name(), state);
}
template <class S>
S* StateBroker::get() const {
auto found = storage->find(typeid(S).name());
if (found == storage->end()) return NULL;
return (S*)found->second;
}
~StateBroker();
};
StateBroker* stateBroker;
Now you can implement any type of the subroutines:
class ISubroutine {
public:
virtual void Execute() = 0;
};
class Sub1Class : public ISubroutine {
public:
void Execute()
{
if (stateBroker == NULL)
{
std::cout << "Sub1 called" << std::endl;
}
else {
ISubroutineState1* ss1 = stateBroker->get<ISubroutineState1>();
std::cout << "Sub1 with state called" << std::endl;
ss1->setVar1(1);
ss1->setVar2(std::string("State is changed by Sub1Class"));
std::cout << *static_cast<SubState1*>(ss1) << std::endl;
}
}
};
class Sub2Class : public ISubroutine {
public:
void Execute()
{
if (stateBroker == NULL)
{
std::cout << "Sub2 called" << std::endl;
}
else {
ISubroutineState* ss1 = stateBroker->get<ISubroutineState>();
std::cout << "Sub2 with state called" << std::endl;
ss1->setVar1(2);
std::cout << *static_cast<SubState1*>(ss1) << std::endl;
}
}
};
class Sub3Class : public ISubroutine {
public:
void Execute()
{
if (stateBroker == NULL)
{
std::cout << "Sub3 called" << std::endl;
}
else {
ISubroutineState1* ss1 = stateBroker->get<ISubroutineState1>();
std::cout << "Sub3 with state called" << std::endl;
ss1->setVar1(3);
ss1->setVar2(std::string("State is changed by Sub3Class"));
std::cout << *static_cast<SubState1*>(ss1) << std::endl;
}
}
};
Also please note that subroutine' Execute() can request any type of subroutine state it requires to perform their tasks. It can even create additional state instances (to use in later stage of the algorithm, for example).
Now the main algorithm would look like this:
class Algo {
private:
Sub1Class* sub1;
Sub2Class* sub2;
Sub3Class* sub3;
public:
Algo(Sub1Class* s1, Sub2Class* s2, Sub3Class* s3) : sub1(s1), sub2(s2), sub3(s3){}
void Execute()
{
sub1->Execute();
sub2->Execute();
sub3->Execute();
}
};
... and it's usage (please note it can be used as stateless and as statefull depending on the fact the StateBroker is initialized or not)
Sub1Class s1;
Sub2Class s2;
Sub3Class s3;
std::cout << "Stateless algorithm" << std::endl;
Algo mainAlgo(&s1, &s2, &s3);
mainAlgo.Execute();
stateBroker = new StateBroker();
SubState1* state = new SubState1();
stateBroker->bind<ISubroutineState>(state);
stateBroker->bind<ISubroutineState1>(state);
std::cout << "Statefull algorithm" << std::endl;
Algo statefulAlgo(&s1, &s2, &s3);
statefulAlgo.Execute();
Please note that Algo class doesn't know anything about subroutine states, state broker, etc.; Sub2Class doesn't know about ISubroutineState1; and StateBroker doesn't care about state and subroutine implementation.
BTW, you can review the example project at https://github.com/ohnefuenfter/cppRestudy (VS2015)