Suppose that I have a heirarchy of several classes:
class A {
public:
virtual void DoStuff() = 0;
};
class B : public A {
public:
// Does some work
void DoStuff() override;
};
class C : public B {
public:
// Calls B::DoStuff and does other work
void DoStuff() override;
};
It can naively be implemented:
void Derived::DoStuff() {
Base::DoStuff();
...
}
This implementation has a serious problem, I believe: one always has to remember to call base implementation when overrides.
Alternative:
class A {
public:
void DoStuff() {
for (auto& func: callbacks_) {
func(this);
}
}
virtual ~A() = default;
protected:
template <class T>
void AddDoStuff(T&& func) {
callbacks_.emplace_back(std::forward<T>(func));
}
private:
template <class... Args>
using CallbackHolder = std::vector<std::function<void(Args...)>>;
CallbackHolder<A*> callbacks_;
};
Usage:
class Derived : public Base {
public:
Derived() {
AddDoStuff([](A* this_ptr){
static_cast<Derived*>(this_ptr)->DoStuffImpl();
});
}
private:
void DoStuffImpl();
};
However, I believe that it has a good amount of overhead when actually calling DoStuff(), as compared to the first implementation. In the use cases which I saw, possibly long costruction of objects is not a problem (one might also try to implement something like "short vector optimization" if he wants).
Also, I believe that 3 definitions for each DoStuff method is a little too much boilerplate.
I know that it can be very effectively solved by using inheritance pattern simular to CRTP, and one can hide the template-based solution behind interface class (A in the example), but I keep wondering -- shouldn't there be an easier solution?
I'm interested in a good implementation of call DERIVED implementation FROM BASE, if and only if derived class exists and it has an overriding method for long inheritance chains (or something equivalent).
Thanks!
Edit:
I am aware of an idea described in #Jarod42's answer, and I don't find it appropriate because I believe that it is ugly for long inheritance chains -- one has to use a different method name for each level of hierarchy.
You might change your class B to something like:
class A {
public:
virtual ~A() = default;
virtual void DoStuff() = 0;
};
class B : public A {
public:
void DoStuff() final { /*..*/ DoExtraStuff(); }
virtual void DoExtraStuff() {}
};
class C : public B {
public:
void DoExtraStuff() override;
};
I am not sure if I understood correctly but this seems to be addressed pretty good by the "Make public interface non-virtual, virtualize private functions instead" advice.
I think it's orignated in the Open-Closed principle. The technique is as-follows:
#include <iostream>
class B {
public:
void f() {
before_f();
f_();
};
private:
void before_f() {
std::cout << "will always be before f";
}
virtual void f_() = 0;
};
class D : public B{
private:
void f_() override {
std::cout << "derived stuff\n";
}
};
int main() {
D d;
d.f();
return 0;
}
You essentially deprive descendant class of overriding public interface, only customize exposed parts. The base class B strictly enforces that required method is called before actual implementation in derived might want to do. As a bonus you don't have to remember to call base class.
Of course you could make f virtual as well and let D decide.
I have a class structure like this:
class MyImportantClass {};
class BaseA
{
public:
virtual void myFunction();
};
class CustomA : public BaseA
{
public:
virtual void myFunction();
};
class CustomB : public CustomA
{
public:
virtual void myFunction();
};
class CustomC : public CustomB
{
public:
virtual void myFunction();
};
So the classes derived from CustomB need to create object of classes derived from MyImportantClass. Additionally CustomC needs to create object of classes derived from CustomB.
At the moment I derive from the Custom-classes and override the virtual functions. But nearly all of the code is the same except the creating of the new object.
Now I decided to use templates. My Classes now look like this:
class BaseA
{
public:
virtual void myFunction();
};
class CustomA : public BaseA
{
public:
virtual void myFunction();
};
template <class T>
class CustomB : public CustomA
{
public:
virtual void myFunction();
};
template <class T, class ...temps>
class CustomC : public CustomB<T>
{
public:
virtual void myFunction();
};
But now I have the problem if I want to create a list of CustomB derived class objects I can not use QList<CustomB> (yeah, I use Qt so QList) I have to use QList<CustomB<SomeMyImportantClassDerivedClass>. So I need some way without passing a templateparameter to CustomB. If I would use QList<CustomA*> it would be logical incorret in my application. I want to keep it logical correct so other developers can read and understand my code easier.
I hope someone read this whole post and can help me.
You can create a QList<CustomA*> list. This way you can add pointers to all subclasses of CustomA including CustomC<whateverClass>.
To add:
list.append( new CustomC<whateverClass> );
But remember, since you call new you also have to delete your object, but since you're using QT, you could just give your new object a parent and have it deleted when it's parent is deleted.
template <class CollectionItem>
class Collection
{
void A();
// Many other utility functions
}
class ICollection
{
virtual void B() = 0;
}
class Base : public Collection<BaseItem>, public IBase
{
virtual void B();
}
Is there any way of offering Collection functions via ICollection interface without wrapping all the functions in Base class? ICollection : public Collection<CollectionItem> is not an option.
Bounty Update:
OK, so the original idea was to have Interface to all Collection classes. Before we continue, every CollectionItem also has Interface, let's call it ICollectionItem and ICollection only knows about ICollectionItem.
So what I did was create another template class as Interface to Collection template class - ICollection (pure virtual) accepting ICollectionItem(s). Collection class inherits this interface.
Every Collection class (inheriting Collection<CollectionItem> class) would also inherit it's Interface Collection class. That Interface then virtual inherits ICollection<ICollectionItem>. I'll just post the code :)
Here is the code:
template <class ICollectionItem>
class ICollection
{
public:
virtual const ICollectionItem* At(const int idx) = 0;
};
template <class CollectionItem, class ICollectionItem>
class Collection
: public ICollection,
public virtual ICollection<ICollectionItem> // Weak point
{
private:
List<CollectionItem*> fContainer;
public:
Collection(void) {}
virtual ~Collection() {}
virtual const ICollectionItem* At(const int idx); // Casting GetAt result
virtual const TCollectionItem& GetAt(const int idx) const
virtual ListIterator<TCollectionItem> >* GetIterator(void) const;
virtual ListIterator<ICollectionItem> >* Iterator(void) const; // Weak point
}
Example usage:
class IBaseItem
{
public:
virtual int Number() = 0;
{
class BaseItem
: public IBaseItem
{
public:
virtual int Number();
void SetNumber(int value);
}
class IBase
: public virtual ICollection<IBaseItem>
{
public:
virtual IBaseItem* ItemByName(String name) = 0;
virtual ~IBase() {}
}
class Base
: public Collection<BaseItem, IBaseItem>,
public IBase
{
public:
BaseItem* GetItemByName(String name);
virtual IBaseItem* ItemByName(String name);
}
Weak points:
First is at using virtual inheritance ... lots written about it, not much to talk about, or is it?
Unable to access Iterator using ICollection interface. See ListIterator function, only first one can be implemented, the second one would require some kind of new List of IBaseItem. I decided to live with that and just use for loop.
Even tho I somehow managed to get what I wanted (With wrapping and casting), I would still like to hear an second opinion. I don't like using virtual inheritance, specially in such delicate situations - using Collections for application Base creation.
I can not see any other solution than calling some Collection method in Base implementation of IBase virtual methods.
class Base : public Collection<BaseItem>, public IBase
{
virtual void B()
{
A();
}
}
You say, and I quote:
I want to call Collection functions using IBase pointer
I really don't see what is to be done here besides dynamic_cast. It does exactly what you want it to do.
void fun(IBase * base) {
auto * coll = dynamic_cast<Collection<BaseItem>*>(base);
if (coll) {
coll->A();
}
}
Your Collection class must have a virtual destructor.
You can, of course, offer a templated version, if you'd need different baseitems in different, scenarios for some reasons. This has bad code smell and I think your architecture is bad at this point, but oh well.
template <typename T> void fun(IBase * base) {
auto * coll = dynamic_cast<Collection<T>*>(base);
if (coll) {
coll->A();
}
}
void test(IBase * p) {
fun<BaseItem5>(p);
}
If you have some other specific scenario in mind, please edit your question to say what you mean.
Hmm...So you wanna to reuse the Collection class's utility functions, and you want to design a class which will implement an interface defined by IBase. As you mentioned above,"wrapping all the functions in Base class" is a way to offer Collection functions.
(1) Via inheritance,derived class has a good knowledge of Collection
class Derived：public Collection<DerivedType>,public IBase{};
or
template <typename T>
class Derived：public Collection<T>,public IBase{};
(2) Via inheritance,derived class knows little about Collection,but through IBase
class IBase : public Collection<BaseItem>{};
class Derived：public IBase{};
By (1),If you want to call Collection functions using IBase pointer,you have to wrap the functions.
By (2), any Derived instance is " a kind of " IBase which is "a kind of " Collection. So you can use IBase pointer to call Collection functions.
So,the key point is that the objects pointed by the IBase pointer should have the method you want to call.Wrap it or inherit it. I can not see any other solution than these two ways.
Edit: the idea is refined based on your example:
Here is an idea:
//generic interface can be kept as it is
template <class ICollectionItem>
class ICollection
{
public:
virtual const ICollectionItem* At(const int idx) = 0;
};
class Empty
{
};
template <class CollectionItem , class BaseClass = Empty>
class GenericCollection
: public BaseClass
{
public:
const CollectionItem* At(const int idx);
// At and ItemByName are standard functions for a collection
CollectionItem* ItemByName(String name);
//note that here nothing has to be declared as virtual
};
//example usage:
class IBase
: public virtual ICollection<IBaseItem>
{
public:
virtual IBaseItem* ItemByName(String name) = 0;
virtual ~IBase() {}
};
class Base
: public GenericCollection<BaseItem, IBase >
{
public:
//nothing to be implemented here, all functions are implemented in GenericCollection and defined as virtual in IBase
//The definition of the functions has to be the same:
};
In collection you can implement whatever and in the interface you can define what ever you want to be virtual from your collection. The only thing is that you need to have some standard in naming convention for functions.
Hope this helps,
Raxvan.
From your comments in another answer, it seems you want a collection of interfaces, and an implementation of this interface. The simplest I can advise you is the following:
template<typename T>
class ICollection
{
public:
virtual iterator<T>* begin() const = 0;
};
template<typename T, typename TBase>
class Collection : public ICollection<TBase>
{
public:
iterator_impl<T>* begin() const { return whatever; }
};
Example:
class IItem {};
class Item : public IItem {};
class Base : public Collection<Item, IItem> {};
old answer:
Is there any way of offering Collection functions via IBase interface without wrapping all the functions in Base class ?
If I understood your problem, you want to use it like this:
void myfunc()
{
// ...
IBase* obj = ...;
obj->A();
obj->B();
}
I think here is a misunderstanding here: if you want A() to be callable from an IBase, then you have to add it to Ibase declaration.
If you want to use the Collection functions on an object, then you should cast this object to a Collection, via dynamic_cast for example.
Furthermore, if you have such a funcion:
void fun(IBase* base) { /* ... */ }
you cannot cast to a Collection*, since there are no relationship between these two classes, unless you have another way to be sure base is a Collection:
void fun(IBase* base)
{
if(base && base->isABaseItemCollection())
{
// Valid, since the real type was checked before
Collection* collection = (Collection*)base;
// ...
}
}
On a side note: you can generate bases almost automatically:
template
class Base : public Collection, public U {};
typedef Base BaseCollection;
According to comment/chat:
You have something like:
class IAnimal { /*...*/ };
class Cat : public IAnimal { /*...*/ };
class Dog : public IAnimal { /*...*/ };
class Cats
{
std::vector<Cat*> cats;
public:
Cat* at(size_t index) { return cats[index]; }
/*...*/
};
class Dogs
{
std::vector<Dog*> dogs;
public:
Dog* at(size_t index) { return dogs[index]; }
/*...*/
};
And you want to factorize some code using something like
class IAnimals
{
public:
std::vector<IAnimals*> animals; // or getter/setter which works with IAnimals.
/* some common factorized code */
};
// And so
class Cats : public IAnimals { /**/ };
class Dogs : public IAnimals { /**/ };
I propose, instead of creating class IAnimals, to use template functions as:
template <typename TAnimals>
void foo(TAnimals& animals)
{
Ianimals* animal = animals.at(42);
// ...
animal->eat(food);
// ...
}
You have to give compatible "interface" (names) to the type used in template.
Maybe you could have an operator() in IBase that would be delegated to Base?
class CollectionBase {};
template <class Item> class Collection: public CollectionBase {};
class IBase
{
public:
virtual CollectionBase* operator()() = 0;
};
class Base : public Collection<BaseItem>, public IBase
{
public:
virtual Collection<BaseItem>* operator()() { return this; }
};
trying to understand methods and virtual function lets say i have 3 classes (the ones below)
class abstruct {void go()};
class animal:public abstruct {
public:
char* name;
void go(){}
};
class bird:public abstruct {
public:
char* name;
void fly(){}
};
class animalbird:public animal,public bird {
void go(){}
};
my question is how can go function from animal be accessed in the class animalbird?? i tried just to write void go(){} but it seems im wrong.what am i doing wrong?
void animalbird::go() {
animal::go();
}
I want to make a class A friend class of class B. I want to do this as these interact very much and A needs to change internals of class B (which I dont want to expose using public). But I want to make sure it has access to only a few selected functions not all the functions.
Example:
class A
{
};
class B
{
private:
void setState();
void setFlags();
friend class A
};
I want A to be able to access setState but not setFlags... Is there a design pattern or a nice way of doing this or am I left with giving full access or no access at all in this case.
Thanks
It depends on what you mean by "a nice way" :) At comp.lang.c++.moderated we had the same question a while ago. You may see the discussion it generated there.
IIRC, we ended up using the "friend of a nested key" approach. Applied to your example, this would yield:
class A
{
};
class B
{
public:
class Key{
friend class A;
Key();
};
void setFlags(Key){setFlags();}
private:
void setState();
void setFlags();
};
The idea is that the public setFlags() must be called with a "Key", and only friends of Key can create one, as its ctor is private.
One approach is through explicit interfaces, because the implementor of an interface can select who they give them to:
class NearlyPrivateInterface {
public:
virtual void setState() = 0;
virtual void setFlags() = 0;
};
class A {
public:
void attach(NearlyPrivateInterface* instanceOfB);
};
class B: private NearlyPrivateInterface {
public:
void attach(A& a) { a.attach(this); }
};
You can do following thing..
class A{
};
class B{
private:
void setFlags();
protected:
void setState();
};
class RestrictedB :public B{
friend class A;
};