Public member not initialized - c++

I am making a client server application, with the server having a GUI. I am using Qt.
For communication I am using pipes.
I have divided the server application into a backend, and a GUI. The backend has a PipeServer class, and in the GUI, I have overriden functions like onReceiveMessage etc.
Everything worked fine until I decided to add a std::queue as a base class member.
At the start of the application, I get an exception, and upon inspection it seems that my queue does not start with 0 elements. In fact it seems like the queue is not initialized at all. There are 2 possibilites: it could be because I the GUI class inherits 2 classes, and somehow the second base class, which is my PipeServer does not properly initialize its members, or it could be because the pipeServerGUI object is moved to a different thread by QT.
Any ideas on how I could solve this?
Relevant code:
class HookServer
{
PIPEINST Pipe[INSTANCES];
HANDLE hEvents[INSTANCES];
VOID DisconnectAndReconnect(DWORD);
BOOL ConnectToNewClient(HANDLE, LPOVERLAPPED);
VOID GetAnswerToRequest(LPPIPEINST);
public:
std::queue<std::string> messages;
int init(std::string pipename);
int run();
virtual void onNewConnection() {};
virtual void onReceiveMessage(std::string message) {};
};
class HookServerGUI : public QObject, public HookServer
{
Q_OBJECT
void onReceiveMessage(std::string message);
void onNewConnection();
public slots:
void doWork() {
init("\\\\.\\pipe\\hookpipe");
run();
}
signals:
void signalGUI(QString message);
};
//GUIServerCreation
QThread *thread = new QThread;
HookServerGUI* worker = new HookServerGUI;
QObject::connect(worker,SIGNAL(signalGUI(const QString&)),this,SLOT(processMessage(const QString&)));
worker->moveToThread(thread);
thread->start();
QMetaObject::invokeMethod(worker, "doWork", Qt::QueuedConnection);
EDIT:
The exception is a access violation exception. It happens in this part of code:
VOID HookServer::GetAnswerToRequest(LPPIPEINST pipe)
{
onReceiveMessage(pipe->chRequest);
if(!messages.empty())
{
std::string s = messages.front();
messages.pop();
strcpy(pipe->chReply,s.c_str());
pipe->cbToWrite = strlen(s.c_str()+1);
}
}
Since messages.empty() return some huge number, it tries to read the first object and somehow fails.
There is also no PipeServerGUI constructor.
EDIT2:
I solved part of this problem by placing parenthesis after new HookServerGUI();
The problem is that still the function does not work, and throws a access violation exception. It happens on the front() line. When checked in a debugger, the function does have 1 element, so it is not because it is empty. Any ideas?
EDIT3:
With the second run, unfortunately the queue.size() is still incorrect. Seems like a data race to me.

The problems are in the code that you don't show, and it's a classic case of a memory bug, it looks like. Some code somewhere is writing on memory it doesn't own. Probably you have a bug in the way you use winapi. You need to create a minimal, self-contained test case.
I think you might be shooting yourself in the foot by not using QLocalSocket: on Windows, it's a named pipe - exactly what you want.
Besides, this is C++ code. There is no reason at all to put either PIPEINST or HANDLE into a raw C array. Use QVector or std::vector. Probably the rest of the code is full of C-isms like that, and something somewhere goes wrong.
I wouldn't discount a buffer overrun, since obviously you are ignoring the size of the buffer in PIPEINST from the - the strcpy can overrun the buffer. I'm also not sure that PIPEINST from the example code is using the same character type as what std::string::c_str() is returning.
Even if you wanted to implement your code using explicit pipes without QLocalSocket, you should still use C++, QString etc. and understand what's going on with your data.

Related

Qt Application Random Crashes via using callbacks and emitting signals from std::thread or boost::thread

I have an annoying issue with Qt and multi threading. Below I have created some simplified code. In my real code, the principle is exactlty the same but way too complex hence for using a simplified version.
The problem is that the application randomly crashes during different points at the run-time with different messages:
free(): invalid pointer
double free or corruption
The crash is triggered from within Qt, I will explain at the end of the post.
Here is how the code works.
So, I have classA that starts a thread:
class classA
{
public:
void start();
boost::function<void (std::string)> __ptr; // for callback
private:
boost::thread * thread;
void run();
};
void classA:start()
{
thread = new boost::thread(&classA::run, this); // start the thread
}
and here is the actual method that runs in the separate thread:
void classA::run()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 50000; i++)
{
static int count = 0;
__ptr("test123" + std::to_string(++count));
}
}
In my QDialog inherited class, I have a simple method that assigns the boot::function so I have declared another boost::function ptr. The problem is not with the ptr, it is with Qt, read on, the call back works just fine...
class myClassB : public QDialog
{
Q_OBJECT
public:
explicit myClassB (QWidget *parent);
classA ca;
private:
boost::function<void (std::string)> __ptr;
void mycallback(std::string);
};
In the constructor of myClassB, I am assigning my call back to boost::function like this (like I said, the callback works fine).
myClassB::myClassB()
{
this->__ptr = ( boost::bind( &myClassB::mycallback, this, _1 ) );
ca.__ptr = __ptr;
}
Here is where the problem starts. In my callback within my classB QDialog, I emit a Qt signal
void myClassB::mycallback(std::string txt)
{
emit sig_qt_data_received(txt);
}
This signal gets connected in my classB's constructor:
connect(this, SIGNAL(sig_qt_data_received(std::string)), this, SLOT(data_received(std::string)), Qt::DirectConnection);
and finally, the implementation of the Qt slot:
void myclassB::data_received(std::string txt)
{
ui->lbl_status->setText(txt);
}
This is where the problem is:
If you remove ui->lbl_status->setText(txt);, the program works flawlessly, it never crashes, if you leave it, it randomly crashes:
free(): invalid pointer
double free or corruption
It appears that the problem is within Qt as when I remove the setText() references, it does not crash and I have followed just about every GUI multi-threading procedure I have found and I don't know what I am doing wrong.
To connect the Qt signal, I am using Qt::DirectConnection and if I use Qt::AutoConnection it will work without a crash but sometimes the whole UI freezes (Edit: this is incorrect, see my answer).
I hope someone can help. If you need more code / real code, let me know, I will write an actual runnable code that you can run and compile but the fundamentals are the same, that's how the code works.
I don't want to be using QThread.
Resolved! Qt::DirectConnection was the culprit, now I use Qt::AutoConnection and it never crashes and according to the docs it is the default:
(Default) If the receiver lives in the thread that emits the signal,
Qt::DirectConnection is used. Otherwise, Qt::QueuedConnection is used.
The connection type is determined when the signal is emitted.
G.M's response above gave me the hint (Thanks):
the fact that explicitly specifying the connection type as
Qt::DirectConnection changes the behaviour suggests you've almost
certainly got a race condition due to threading
Also thank you jpo38 for suggesting / replying anyway.
Now I know I said sometimes it would freeze but no, that's incorrect, it never freezes, I had confused things.

How can I provide feedback from a non-Qt C++ library class to a Qt GUI?

I am developing a C++ class library for some computing-intensive tasks (machine vision).
// I am a part of a Qt-agnostic library
class Cruncher
{
/* ... */
public:
void doStuff();
};
Then there's a Qt GUI using that library. I'm creating a worker thread to call the heavy-lifting routines from the library:
// I am a part of a Qt-based GUI which utilizes the library
class Worker : public QThread
{
/* ... */
protected:
virtual void run()
{
/* ... */
Cruncher c;
for (int i = 0; i < count; ++i)
c.doStuff(); // takes some time, and while it's working
// it should communicate status changes which should
// become visible in the GUI
}
};
Now inside doStuff() a lot happens and I want to provide some feedback to the user on what is going on without waiting for doStuff() to return. For one, maybe some finer progress reporting than just increasing the meter by one step after a each call to doStuff(). Also, doStuff() may encounter non-critical failures which let it continue a part of the work, but I'd like a message to appear in the GUI when this happens as Cruncher is working (and Worker is currently busy with a call to doStuff()).
I want the library to remain Qt-independent so I'm not willing to add signals and slots to Cruncher. Any other way to enable it to provide feedback to the GUI to report on its work when it's not a Qt class?
I was considering creating a QTimer which would poll some "status" and "errorMsg" members of Cruncher at fixed intervals while Worker is running, but this seems highly sub-optimal.
I am posting my own answer because though I took #Nim's advice, I'd like the answer to be a little more verbose and hence more useful if someone should have the same problem.
I created the skeleton of a message dispatcher in the library:
// doesn't need to know about Qt
class MessagePort
{
public:
virtual void message(std::string msg) = 0;
};
Next, I added a handle to this object to Cruncher and spiced doStuff() with occasional calls to message():
// now with Super Cow powers!
class Cruncher
{
protected:
MessagePort *msgPort_;
public:
Cruncher(MessagePort *msgPort) : msgPort_(msgPort) {}
void doStuff()
{
while(...)
{
/*...*/
msgPort_->message("Foo caused an overload in Bar!");
}
}
};
Finally, I crafted an implementation of MessagePort inside the GUI using all necessary Qt goodness:
class CruncherMsgCallback : public QObject, public MessagePort
{
Q_OBJECT
public:
CruncherMsgCallback() : QObject(), MessagePort()
{
connect(this, SIGNAL(messageSignal(const QString &)),
GUI, SLOT(messageShow(const QString &)),
Qt::QueuedConnection);
}
virtual void message(std::string msg)
{
emit messageSignal(QString::fromStdString(msg));
}
signals:
void messageSignal(const QString &msg);
};
Finally when the Worker creates an instance of Cruncher, it also gives it a pointer to a working MessagePort:
class Worker
{
protected:
virtual void run()
{
CruncherMsgCallback msgC;
Cruncher c(&msgC); // &msgC works as a pointer to a
// generic MessagePort by upcasting
c.doStuff(); // Cruncher can send messages to the GUI
// from inside doStuff()
}
};
Use a callback function (class) etc, and pass that in during construction. Things you need to report, report via that callback.
You can safely emit signals from the run() method, I think that's the best way to pass information from worker thread to the main thread. Just add the signals to your QThread subclass (avoid adding slots, if you're at all unsure how QThread threading works).
Better make the connections from these signals explicitly queued, to avoid problems. Though the default, automatic connection type should also work and do Queued signal emit, but I think it's better to be explicit in cases like this. Actually also direct signals should work as such, but then you have to take care of thread safety yourself instead of letting Qt handle it for you, and you can't connect to slots which use any of the QtGui classes which only work in the main thread, so it's better to stick to queued connections.
To pass simple information to the run() method, and if immediate reaction is not needed, maybe use a few shared QAtomicInt variables or something like that as flags, which the worker thread checks when convenient. Slightly more complex method, still requiring polling, is to have shared data structure which you protect with mutex. More complex way of communicating to that direction would involve some kind of message queue (just like Qt uses in the event loop of the main thread, when you emit signal to that direction).

crash. QObject::connect in a constructor of a static object instance

I'm trying to find out why my app crashes for the whole day. A picture worth thousands of words, so take a look at this code. Header:
class SandboxedAppStat : public QObject
{
Q_OBJECT
private slots:
void pidsTimerTimeout();
public:
QTimer m_PidsTimer;
SandboxedAppStat(QObject *parent = NULL);
};
class SandboxedApp : public QObject
{
Q_OBJECT
private:
static SandboxedAppStat SandboxedAppStat1;
};
Implementation:
void SandboxedAppStat::pidsTimerTimeout()
{
qDebug() << "whatever";
}
SandboxedAppStat::SandboxedAppStat(QObject *parent)
: QObject(parent)
{
bool b = QObject::connect(&m_PidsTimer, SIGNAL(timeout()),
this, SLOT(pidsTimerTimeout()));
m_PidsTimer.start(500);
}
SandboxedAppStat SandboxedApp::SandboxedAppStat1;
Actually what I'm trying to do, is to simulate static constructor behavior in C++. I want
QObject::connect(&m_PidsTimer, SIGNAL(timeout()),
this, SLOT(pidsTimerTimeout()));
m_PidsTimer.start(500);
to be called as soon as the static member SandboxedAppStat1 initializes. That's why the code shown above is in the constructor of SandboxedAppStat.
However, my problem is that when I run the program, it crashes as soon as it reaches the line connect(&m_PidsTimer, SIGNAL(timeout()), this, SLOT(pidsTimerTimeout()));
with error code c0000005 (access violation I guess).
here's the screenshot http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3055964/Untitled.gif
If I declare SandboxedAppStat as a non static variable, then there is no crash and no errors. everything works fine.
First I thought that crash reason could be the fact that, static members are initialized too early for QObject::connect to be able to be called, that's why I updated SandboxedAppStat constructor with the following code:
auto *t = this;
QtConcurrent::run([&] () {
Sleep(3000);
bool b = QObject::connect(&(t->m_PidsTimer),
SIGNAL(timeout()), t, SLOT(pidsTimerTimeout()));
t->m_PidsTimer.start(500);
});
As you can see, QObject::connect executes after 3 seconds when static SanboxedAppStat is initialized, but this didn't help either, the program crashes after 3 seconds.
I'm really confused, I don't understand what can be the cause of this problem. Can't we use signal/slots in a static object instances?
I'm using Qt 4.8.0 with MSVC 2010. Thanks
UPDATE
Here's a simple project, consisting of only one header and one source file (as HostileFork suggested) to reproduce the crash. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3055964/untitled1.zip
Are you looking for periodic calling of your pidsTimerTimeout slot or just once during construction?
If you're looking to just receive a signal once your class has been constructed try using QTimer::singleShot or QMetaObject::invokeMethod if you don't require continuous time outs. Like all signals the single shot will only be acted upon once the window system's event queue have been processed which can have a small delay on the execution of your slot.
MyClass::MyClass()
{
// Using a zero singles shot.
QTimer::singleShot( 0, this, SLOT( initialized() ) );
// or using invoke method.
QMetaObject::invokeMethod( this, "initialized", Qt::QueuedConnection );
}
Pretty sure we use this code in the office and we have success with static objects.

How to implement the observer pattern safely?

I'm implementing a mechanism similar to the observer design pattern for a multithreaded Tetris game. There is a Game class which contains a collection of EventHandler objects. If a class wants to register itself as a listener to a Game object it must inherit the Game::EventHandler class. On state change events a corresponing method is called on the EventHandler interface of each listener. This is what the code looks like:
class Game
{
public:
class EventHandler
{
public:
EventHandler();
virtual ~EventHandler();
virtual void onGameStateChanged(Game * inGame) = 0;
virtual void onLinesCleared(Game * inGame, int inLineCount) = 0;
private:
EventHandler(const EventHandler&);
EventHandler& operator=(const EventHandler&);
};
static void RegisterEventHandler(ThreadSafe<Game> inGame, EventHandler * inEventHandler);
static void UnregisterEventHandler(ThreadSafe<Game> inGame, EventHandler * inEventHandler);
typedef std::set<EventHandler*> EventHandlers;
EventHandlers mEventHandlers;
private:
typedef std::set<Game*> Instances;
static Instances sInstances;
};
void Game::RegisterEventHandler(ThreadSafe<Game> inGame, EventHandler * inEventHandler)
{
ScopedReaderAndWriter<Game> rwgame(inGame);
Game * game(rwgame.get());
if (sInstances.find(game) == sInstances.end())
{
LogWarning("Game::RegisterEventHandler: This game object does not exist!");
return;
}
game->mEventHandlers.insert(inEventHandler);
}
void Game::UnregisterEventHandler(ThreadSafe<Game> inGame, EventHandler * inEventHandler)
{
ScopedReaderAndWriter<Game> rwgame(inGame);
Game * game(rwgame.get());
if (sInstances.find(game) == sInstances.end())
{
LogWarning("Game::UnregisterEventHandler: The game object no longer exists!");
return;
}
game->mEventHandlers.erase(inEventHandler);
}
There are two problems that I often experience with this kind of pattern:
A listener object wants to unregister itself on an already deleted object resulting in a crash.
A event is fired to a listener that no longer exists. This happens most often in multithreaded code. Here's a typical scenario:
The game state changes in a worker thread. We want the notification to occur in the main thread.
The event is wrapped in a boost::function and sent as a PostMessage to the main thread.
A short time later this function object is processed by the main thread while the Game object is already deleted. The result is a crash.
My current workaround is the one that you can see in above code sample. I made the UnregisterEventHandler a static method which checks against a list of instances. This does help, but I find it a somewhat hackish solution.
Does anyone know of a set of guidelines on how to cleanly and safely implement notifier/listener system? Any advice on how to avoid the above pitfalls?
PS: If you need more information in order to answer this question you can find the relevant code online here: Game.h, Game.cpp, SimpleGame.h, SimpleGame.cpp, MainWindow.cpp.
The rule of thumb is that delete and new for an object should be near each other. E.g. in constructor and destructor or before and after a call where you use the object. So it's a bad practice to delete an object in another object when the latter one didn't create the former one.
I don't understand how you pack the events. It seems that you have to check whether the game is still alive before processing an event. Or you can use shared_ptr in events and other places to be sure that games are deleted last.
I write a lot of C++ code and needed to create an Observer for some game components I was working on. I needed something to distribute "start of frame", "user input", etc., as events in the game to interested parties. I had the same problem to consider...the firing of an event would lead to the destruction of another observer which may also subsequently fire. I need to handle this. I did not need to handle thread safety, but the design requirement I usually shoot for is to build something simple enough (API wise) that I can put in a few mutexes in the right place and the rest should take care of itself.
I also wanted it to be straight C++, not dependent on the platform or a specific technology (such as boost, Qt, etc.) because I often build and re-use components (and the ideas behind them) across different projects.
Here is the rough sketch of what I came up with as a solution:
The Observer is a singleton with keys (enumerated values, not strings) for Subjects to register interest in. Because it is a singleton, it always exists.
Each subject is derived from a common base class. The base class has an abstract virtual function Notify(...) which must be implemented in derived classes, and a destructor that removes it from the Observer (which it can always reach) when it is deleted.
Inside the Observer itself, if Detach(...) is called while a Notify(...) is in progress, any detached Subjects end up on a list.
When Notify(...) is called on the Observer, it creates a temporary copy of the Subject list. As it iterates over it, it compare it to the recently detached. If the target is not on it, Notify(...) is called on the target. Otherwise, it is skipped.
Notify(...) in the Observer also keeps track of the depth to handle cascading calls (A notifies B, C, D, and the D.Notify(...) triggers a Notify(...) call to E, etc.)
This is what the interface ended up looking like:
/*
The Notifier is a singleton implementation of the Subject/Observer design
pattern. Any class/instance which wishes to participate as an observer
of an event can derive from the Notified base class and register itself
with the Notiifer for enumerated events.
Notifier derived classes MUST implement the notify function, which has
a prototype of:
void Notify(const NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T& event)
This is a data object passed from the Notifier class. The structure
passed has a void* in it. There is no illusion of type safety here
and it is the responsibility of the user to ensure it is cast properly.
In most cases, it will be "NULL".
Classes derived from Notified do not need to deregister (though it may
be a good idea to do so) as the base class destrctor will attempt to
remove itself from the Notifier system automatically.
The event type is an enumeration and not a string as it is in many
"generic" notification systems. In practical use, this is for a closed
application where the messages will be known at compile time. This allows
us to increase the speed of the delivery by NOT having a
dictionary keyed lookup mechanism. Some loss of generality is implied
by this.
This class/system is NOT thread safe, but could be made so with some
mutex wrappers. It is safe to call Attach/Detach as a consequence
of calling Notify(...).
*/
class Notified;
class Notifier : public SingletonDynamic<Notifier>
{
public:
typedef enum
{
NE_MIN = 0,
NE_DEBUG_BUTTON_PRESSED = NE_MIN,
NE_DEBUG_LINE_DRAW_ADD_LINE_PIXELS,
NE_DEBUG_TOGGLE_VISIBILITY,
NE_DEBUG_MESSAGE,
NE_RESET_DRAW_CYCLE,
NE_VIEWPORT_CHANGED,
NE_MAX,
} NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T;
private:
typedef vector<NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T> NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_VECTOR_T;
typedef map<Notified*,NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_VECTOR_T> NOTIFIED_MAP_T;
typedef map<Notified*,NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_VECTOR_T>::iterator NOTIFIED_MAP_ITER_T;
typedef vector<Notified*> NOTIFIED_VECTOR_T;
typedef vector<NOTIFIED_VECTOR_T> NOTIFIED_VECTOR_VECTOR_T;
NOTIFIED_MAP_T _notifiedMap;
NOTIFIED_VECTOR_VECTOR_T _notifiedVector;
NOTIFIED_MAP_ITER_T _mapIter;
// This vector keeps a temporary list of observers that have completely
// detached since the current "Notify(...)" operation began. This is
// to handle the problem where a Notified instance has called Detach(...)
// because of a Notify(...) call. The removed instance could be a dead
// pointer, so don't try to talk to it.
vector<Notified*> _detached;
int32 _notifyDepth;
void RemoveEvent(NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_VECTOR_T& orgEventTypes, NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T eventType);
void RemoveNotified(NOTIFIED_VECTOR_T& orgNotified, Notified* observer);
public:
virtual void Reset();
virtual bool Init() { Reset(); return true; }
virtual void Shutdown() { Reset(); }
void Attach(Notified* observer, NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T eventType);
// Detach for a specific event
void Detach(Notified* observer, NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T eventType);
// Detach for ALL events
void Detach(Notified* observer);
/* The design of this interface is very specific. I could
* create a class to hold all the event data and then the
* method would just have take that object. But then I would
* have to search for every place in the code that created an
* object to be used and make sure it updated the passed in
* object when a member is added to it. This way, a break
* occurs at compile time that must be addressed.
*/
void Notify(NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T, const void* eventData = NULL);
/* Used for CPPUnit. Could create a Mock...maybe...but this seems
* like it will get the job done with minimal fuss. For now.
*/
// Return all events that this object is registered for.
vector<NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T> GetEvents(Notified* observer);
// Return all objects registered for this event.
vector<Notified*> GetNotified(NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T event);
};
/* This is the base class for anything that can receive notifications.
*/
class Notified
{
public:
virtual void Notify(Notifier::NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T eventType, const void* eventData) = 0;
virtual ~Notified();
};
typedef Notifier::NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T;
NOTE: The Notified class has a single function, Notify(...) here. Because the void* is not type safe, I created other versions where notify looks like:
virtual void Notify(Notifier::NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T eventType, int value);
virtual void Notify(Notifier::NOTIFIED_EVENT_TYPE_T eventType, const string& str);
Corresponding Notify(...) methods were added to the Notifier itself. All these used a single function to get the "target list" then called the appropriate function on the targets. This works well and keeps the receiver from having to do ugly casts.
This seems to work well. The solution is posted on the web here along with the source code. This is a relatively new design, so any feedback is greatly appreciated.

C++: indirect invocation of `delete this` in event driven system (e.g. in GUI application)

I was working for a while with different C++ GUI frameworks (e.g. Qt, wxWidgets, also some proprietary) but cannot decide for myself regarding the topic described below.
As discussed in several questions/answers here, direct use of delete this is valid in C++ (as long as you don't dereference this any more), but it is in most cases not good idea.
But in some cases, object invokes its destructor indirectly. This situation specifically often arise in event drive systems (GUI applications come to mind first).
class Kernel {
public:
void Start() {
_window = new Window();
}
void OnCloseButton() {
if (_window) {
_window->Close();
delete _window;
_window = NULL;
}
private:
MyWindow * _window;
};
class MyWindow
{
public:
MyWindow(Kernel & kernel) : _kernel(&kernel) {
Connect(my_button_close_event, this, OnCloseButtonClicked);
}
OnCloseButtonClicked() {
// This call actually calls destructor of this object.
_kernel->OnCloseButton();
// If we access any fields of Window here, we're going to have problems
}
private:
Kernel * _kernel;
};
Notice: I did not try to compile the code - it may have typos or bad practices. But it should illustrate the idea.
So, the question is: Is it OK to do something like in the example above: the handler of the event calls some other function (method of its owner), which indirectly deletes this?
Or should I better make the Kernel class event aware and connect the event from the button directly to the method in the Kernel and then we do not have this situation of indirect call to delete this.
Thanks in advance.
It's possible to do so since the Window instance is created by the Start() method but it's a bad practice in Object Oriented Programming.