Say for example I have the following two classes:
class ChessBoard
{
std::vector <ChessPiece> pieceList;
}
class ChessSquare
{
std::vector <ChessPiece> pieceList;
}
What I want to do is allow both classes to have access to the exact same ChessPiece vector, so that both of them have read/write access to the EXACT SAME ChessPiece data. So say for example when ChessSquare updates the pieceList vector, the corresponding pieceList vector in ChessBoard will get updated as well, and vice-versa. How would I go about implementing this?
Use a pointer. Give them each a copy of the same pointer to the vector.
If you give them each a std::shared_ptr you get the added benefit of reference counting and cleanup handled once neither of the classes are left using it.
Use pointer or reference to the pieceList.
Create object ChessPiece and send pointer of this object to ChessBoard and ChessSquare. I hope you access to ChessPiece only from one thread, instead you have to protect your ChessPiece using mutex or something like that.
Pointer is the obvious choice. BUT if you are feeling crazy and want to over-engineer your project you could encapsulate the vector within its own class and make that class a globally visible singleton
Use pointer maybe a good way, but i think you should achieve your point like this:
class ChessBase
{
static std::vector <ChessPiece> pieceList;
}
class ChessBoard : ChessBase
{
//to do what you want.
}
class ChessSquare : ChessBase
{
//to do what your want.
}
You can access the vector in each class as their member.
Seeing as a chessboard is composed of chess squares, I might suggest having the vector in the chessboard class and a reference to it in the chess square class, maybe like so:
typedef std::vector<ChessPiece> PIECES
class ChessBoard
{
public:
ChessBoard()
{
// NOTE! your app might have more squares than this:
m_pSquare = new ChessSquare( pieceList );
}
private:
PIECES pieceList;
ChessSquare* m_Square;
}
class ChessSquare
{
public:
ChessSquare( const PIECES& pieces )
: refPieceList(pieces)
{
}
private:
const PIECES& refPieceList;
}
Related
I have the following class hierarchy:
Crocodile Class extends from Oviparous which extends from Animal
I need to store objects of type Crocodile, Goose, Pelican, Bat, Whale and SeaLion inside a vector, so:
1- I create the global vector:
vector<Animal*> animals;
2- I add objects (Crocodile, Goose, Pelican, Bat, Whale, SeaLion) to the vector:
animals.push_back(new Crocodile(name, code, numberofEggs));
3- I loop through the vector to print each object on a table
for (size_t i = 0; i < animals.size(); ++i){
/* now the problem is here, each animal[i] is of type = "Animal", not Crocodile, or Goose, etc..
/* so when I try to do something like the line below it doesn't work because it can't find the method because that method is not on the Animal Class of course */
cout << animals[i]->GetName(); // THIS WORK
cout << animals[i]->GetNumberofEggs(); //THIS DOESN'T WORK
/* when I debug using the line below, every object on the vector is returning "P6Animal" */
cout << typeid(animals[i]).name(); // P6Animal instead of Crocodile
}
I think it is related with this post std::vector for parent and child class and I think the problem is object slicing, so I tried creating the vector like this:
vector<unique_ptr<Animal>> animals;
//and adding the objects like this
animals.push_back(unique_ptr<Animal>(new Crocodile(name, code, numberofEggs)));
But nothing 🙁
Any help would be great! Thank you!
Your problem is that you try to access to specific child's method, that not defined in the parent class, from an object that has a parent type.
You should store an object as a type you want to work with, so if you store an array of Animal implies that you will work with objects using only the Animal interface, regardless of the initial object type. Otherwise, if you need to access methods from Opivarous class you should think about store your objects as Opivarous (or Crocodile, etc).
Also, you can use dynamic_cast for this purpose:
if(Crocodile* crocodile = dynamic_cast<Crocodile*>(animals[i]))
{
cout << crocodile->GetNumberofEggs();
}
It is the simplest way to solve a problem, but it shows that there are problems with architecture in your code.
I got it working with having a virtual "Print" method on the Animal class, then override this method from the child classes. Thank you everyone!
I'm trying to represent a 2 dimensional map of objects. So I have a two-dimensional array of "MapItems":
MapItem* world_map[10][10];
In my specific situation, these MapItems are going to be used to represent Drones, Static Objects (like trees or any obstruction that doesn't move), or empty positions (these objects will be subclasses of MapItem):
class Drone : public MapItem {
int droneId;
...
}
class StaticObject : public MapItem {
...
}
class EmptyPosition : public MapItem {
int amount_of_time_unoccupied;
...
}
Is it a good idea to have an instance variable on the MapItem class that tells what specific type of item it is, and then cast it the proper type based on that? For example:
enum ItemType = {DRONE, STATIC_OBSTRUCTION, EMPTY};
class MapItem {
ItemType type;
...
}
And then when I want to know what is at a position in the map, I do:
MapItem *item = world_map[3][3];
if (item->type == DRONE) {
Drone *drone = dynamic_cast<Drone*>(item);
// Now do drone specific things with drone
...
} else if (item->type == STATIC_OBSTRUCTION) {
StaticObject *object = dynamic_case<StaticObject*>(item);
// Static object specific stuff
...
} else {
...
}
I have not actually tried this, but I assume it's possible. What I'm really asking is this a good design pattern? Or is there a better way to do this?
A "switch on type" indicates a design problem much more often than not.
What you usually want to do is define and implement some virtual functions for the behaviors you care about. For example, you might care about flying into one of the spaces. If so, you might have a function to see if it allows entry. That will return true if a drone is trying fly into open air, or false if it's trying to fly into a tree.
As an aside, if you're going to have derived objects, you need to define the array as container pointers, not actual objects of the base class. Otherwise, when you try to put a derived object into the array, it'll get "sliced" to become an object of the base class.
I'm having trouble implementing an ImageManager into my program. I had success using this method with references:
//definition in Brick.h
ImageManager &imgr;
//constructor taking &imgr as a reference upon creation of object
Brick::Brick(ImageManager &im) : imgr(im){
//imgr is now a reference in my class, so it points to the same object that imgr in another class would point to
//this essentially makes one "static" instance of imgr, so all my graphic objects are dealing with the same instance of my ImageManager
imgr.doStuff()
}
This method of passing around my imgr used to work, until I started trying to remove obejcts from vectors. For instance, in my Level class I try to remove elements from a vector of Brick objects,
void Level::RemoveLine(int line){
//loop through every piece, loop through given piece's rects, if the rect falls on the removed line, then remove the piece
for(int i = 0; i < gamePieces_.size(); i++){
//crt new iterator per each gamepiece
auto write = gamePieces_[i].GetPieceRectangles().begin();
int j = 0;
for(auto read = write; read != gamePieces_[i].GetPieceRectangles().end(); read++){
if(gamePieces_[i].GetPieceRectangles()[j].GetActiveLine() != line){
if(read != write){
write = std::move(read);
}
write++;
}
}
gamePieces_[i].GetPieceRectangles().erase(write, gamePieces_[i].GetPieceRectangles().end());
}
}
but this doesn't work because ImageManager &imgr declared in Brick.h doesn't have a copy constructor, so it can't be copied in vectors when I try to .erase() the element. My goal is to implement one static ImageManager object to be used throughout all my classes. How would I go about doing this?
"My goal is to implement one static ImageManager object to be used throughout all my classes"
You can implement ImageManager as Singleton class. But I have learnt to use singleton only if there's no other option.
You can also use static data members in your class. In this way only one copy of your class's data members would be in circulation.
Generally speaking this kind of code isn't what you want. Take a look at the Singleton design pattern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern
I have 3 classes. DrawGameComp' and 'GameComp' where 'GameComp' is the base class of 'DrawGameComp'. I have an array of pointers in Game class which is the controlling class. '
GameComp * components[]; From the main I have to create a dynamic instance of Game and store add new objects of GameComp and DrawGameComp to the array of pointers of type GameComp.
Game Game1(2);
Game1.Add(new GameComponent);
Game1.Add(new DrawableGameComponent);
I'v done this part in the main. Because from the main I have to invoke Add passing object as the parameter. When i store these objects I also want assign an id of 1 to the first object and an id of 2 to the second object. How can i include that too.
The Add() function of my Game class is as follows
void Game::Add(GameComponent*)
{
components[0]=GameComp;
componentCount++;
}
but it give me error. I have tried so hard. But I couldn't. Also how do I invoke the Display() member function of these objects in the Array? is it this way?
components[0]->Display();
The Add method should look like:
void Game::Add(GameComponent* comp)
{
components[componentCount++] = comp;
}
Make sure you zero out componentCount in the constructor.
Using the array:
components[i]->DoSomething();
1) You probably meant to write the following:
void Game::Add(GameComponent* comp)
{
components[componentCount++] = comp;
}
2) components[0]->Display() will work, if display is a member function of GameComponent class.
I was recently in a job interview and my interviewer gave me a modeling question that involved serialization of different shapes into a file.
The task was to implements shapes like circle or rectangles by first defining an abstract class named Shape and then implements the various shapes (circle, rectangle..) by inheriting from the base class (Shape).
The two abstract methods for each shape were: read_to_file (which was supposed to read the shape from a file) and write_to_file which supposed to write the shape into a file.
All was done by the implementation of that virtual function in the inherited shape (Example: For Circle I was writing the radius, for square I saved the side of the square....).
class Shape {
public:
string Shape_type;
virtual void write_into_file()=0;
virtual void read_into_files()=0;
Shape() {
}
virtual ~Shape() {
}};
class Square: public Shape {
public:
int size;
Square(int size) {
this->size = size;
}
void write_into_file() {
//write this Square into a file
}
void read_into_files() {
//read this Square into a file
}
};
That was done in order to see if I know polymorphism.
But, then I was asked to implement two functions that take a vector of *shape and write/read it into a file.
The writing part was easy and goes something like that:
for (Shape sh : Shapes) {
s.write_into_file();
}
as for the reading part I thought about reading the first word in the text (I implemented the serializable file like a text file that have this line: Shape_type: Circle, Radius: 12; Shape_type:Square...., so the first words said the shape type). and saving it to a string such as:
string shape_type;
shape_type="Circle";
Then I needed to create a new instance of that specific shape and I thought about something like a big switch
<pre><code>
switch(shape_type):
{
case Circle: return new circle;
case Square: return new square
......
}
</pre></code>
And then, the interviewer told me that there is a problem with this implementation
which I thought was the fact that every new shape the we will add in the future we should also update int that big swicht. he try to direct me into a design pattern, I told him that maybe the factory design pattern will help but I couldn't find a way to get rid of that switch. even if I will move the switch from the function into a FactoryClass I will still have to use the switch in order to check the type of the shape (according to the string content i got from the text file).
I had a string that I read from the file, that say the current type of the shape. I wanted to do something like:
string shape_type;
shape_type="Circle";
Shape s = new shape_type; //which will be like: Shape s = new Circle
But I can't do it in c++.
Any idea on what I should have done?
In you factory you could map a std::string to a function<Shape*()>. At startup you register factory methods will the factory:
shapeFactory.add("circle", []{new Circle;});
shapeFactory.add("square", []{new Square;});
shapeFactory.add("triangle", []{new Triangle;});
In your deserialization code you read the name of the type and get its factory method from the factory:
std::string className = // read string from serialization stream
auto factory = shapeFactory.get(className);
Shape *shape = factory();
You've now got a pointer to the concrete shape instance which can be used to deserialize the object.
EDIT: Added more code as requested:
class ShapeFactory
{
private:
std::map<std::string, std::function<Shape*()> > m_Functions;
public:
void add(const std::string &name, std::function<Share*()> creator)
{
m_Functions.insert(name, creator)
}
std::function<Shape*()> get(const std::string &name) const
{
return m_Functions.at(name);
}
};
NOTE: I've left out error checking.
In C++, with
for (Shape sh : Shapes) {
s.write_into_file();
}
you have object slicing. The object sh is a Shape and nothing else, it looses all inheritance information.
You either need to store references (not possible to store in a standard collection) or pointers, and use that when looping.
In C++ you would to read and write some kind of type tag into the file to remember the concrete type.
A virtual method like ShapeType get_type_tag() would do it, where the return type is an enumeration corresponding to one of the concrete classes.
Thinking about it, though, the question was probably just getting at wanting you to add read and write functions to the interface.
You could create a dictionary of factory functions keyed by a shape name or shape id (shape_type).
// prefer std::shared_ptr or std::unique_ptr of course
std::map<std::string, std::function<Shape *()>> Shape_Factory_Map;
// some kind of type registration is now needed
// to build the map of functions
RegisterShape(std::string, std::function<Shape *()>);
// or some kind of
BuildShapeFactoryMap();
// then instead of your switch you would simply
//call the appropriate function in the map
Shape * myShape = Shape_Factory_Map[shape_type]();
In this case though you still have to update the creation of the map with any new shapes you come up with later, so I can't say for sure that it buys you all that much.
All the answers so far still appear to have to use a switch or map somewhere to know which class to use to create the different types of shapes. If you need to add another type, you would have to modify the code and recompile.
Perhaps using the Chain of Responsibility Pattern is a better approach. This way you can dynamically add new creation techniques or add them at compile time without modifying any already existing code:
Your chain will keep a linked list of all the creation types and will traverse the list until it finds the instance that can make the specified type.
class Creator{
Creator*next; // 1. "next" pointer in the base class
public:
Creator()
{
next = 0;
}
void setNext(Creator*n)
{
next = n;
}
void add(Creator*n)
{
if (next)
next->add(n);
else
next = n;
}
// 2. The "chain" method in the Creator class always delegates to the next obj
virtual Shape handle(string type)
{
next->handle(i);
}
);
Each subclass of Creator will check if it can make the type and return it if it can, or delegate to the next in the chain.
I did create a Factory in C++ some time ago in which a class automatically registers itself at compile time when it extends a given template.
Available here: https://gist.github.com/sacko87/3359911.
I am not too sure how people react to links outside of SO but it is a couple of files worth. However once the work is done, using the example within that link, all that you need to do to have a new object included into the factory would be to extend the BaseImpl class and have a static string "Name" field (see main.cpp). The template then registers the string and type into the map automatically. Allowing you to call:
Base *base = BaseFactory::Create("Circle");
You can of course replace Base for Shape.