Let's say I have a list of objects, objA. Now objA can create more objA, and they will be completely unrelated to one another - they do not care to know about other objA existence in the slightest. How could I get the objA created by another objA without storing objA inside of it's spawner? I don't want to use a singleton to represent the list of objA.
Example:
class Container
{
list<Monster*> listOfMonsters;
void UpdateAllMonsters()
{
foreach(Monster monster in listOfMonsters)
{
monster.Update();
}
}
};
class Monster
{
void Update()
{
new Monster();
}
};
How could I get the Monster created in the Update() method and stick it in the Containers listOfMonsters? I only want one instance of the Container object floating around, and the monsters shouldn't be able to do anything with the container object.
One solution I have thought of is creating an intermediate object between the Container and the Monster, so that there would only be one instance of the Container object, and the monster could essentially only access one method of the Container object(which would be adding to the listOfMonsters).
IE;
class Container
{
list<Monster*> listOfMonsters;
void UpdateAllMonsters()
{
foreach(Monster monster in listOfMonsters)
{
monster.Update();
}
}
void AddToList(Monster* monster)
{
listOfMonsters.add(monster);
}
};
class ContainerLiason
{
private __Container*;
AddToContainer(Monster* monster)
{
__Container.AddToList(monster);
}
};
class Monster
{
private ContainerLiason* __liason;
void Update()
{
__liason.AddToContainer(new Monster());
}
};
Are there any other ideas or design patterns?
One other thing, would the above example be a type of design pattern and what would it be called if so? I just ask because I've used singletons before I knew what they were called or even what they were.
The factory pattern should do what you need. Let the container (aka the factory) not only hold the list of created objects but also take care of the object creation itself:
class Factory {
list<shared_ptr<Monster>> listOfMonsters;
public:
void UpdateAllMonsters() {
for(auto pMonster : listOfMonsters) {
monster->Update();
}
}
shared_ptr<Monster> createMonster() {
auto newMonster = make_shared<Monster>();
listOfMonsters.push_back(newMonster);
return newMonster;
}
};
class Monster {
shared_ptr<Factory> theFactory;
public:
void Update() {
auto newMonster = theFactory->createMonster();
// ...
}
};
Note also that you asked under the C++ tag - your code does not really look like it
Your solution seems to be the one, you just need to be sure that all monster have the same pointer on ContainerLiaison, you can use a reference if you want.
Another solution is to have a reference on the Containter in each monster, but I think your ContainerLiason is better.
A last solution is static element and function, but I don't like it.
I suggest that you keep your solution
Okay, so you definitely do not need to use a singleton here. The simplest option is simply to Update a reference to a MonsterContainer as a parameter.
class Container
{
using MonsterList = list<Monster*>; // you should use a shared container or shared_ptrs here instead I think.
MonsterList listOfMonsters;
void UpdateAllMonsters()
{
foreach(Monster monster in listOfMonsters)
{
monster.Update(listOfMonsters);
}
}
};
class Monster
{
// You should change the name of your function here. Update does not imply
// creation to me. I would call it "CreateMonsterInList"
void Update(MonsterList& monsterContainer)
{
monsterContainer.add( new Monster() );
}
}
Related
I have 2 sets of header+source files. One with the Main GUI class and the other with a Derived GUI class (Main window that opens a second window).
In the Main class I have a vector of strings. I can pass that vector by reference by calling a function in the Derived class and pass it by reference. I can use and update that vector in this function and the changes will be available in the Main class/file. So far so good.
The next thing I would like to do is use this passed by reference vector in all functions in the Derived class.
Up to now, I created and 'extern' vector in a "common" set of header+source.
This make it a global vector, and although its working, it is not the most elegant way.
Is there an alternative way to make the vector available to all functions in the Derived GUI class/file (and add/edit elements that are available in the Main GUI class/file later on)?
MainFrame.h
class wxMainFrame: public GUIFrame
{
public:
wxMainFrame(wxFrame *frame);
~wxMainFrame();
DerivedFrame *m_DerivedFrame;
private:
std::vector<wxString> vwsM3;
....etc
}
DerivedFrame.h
class DerivedFrame: public OtherFrane
{
public:
DerivedFrame( wxWindow* parent );
~DerivedFrame();
private:
std::vector<wxString> vwsM4;
void PassVector(std::vector<wxString> &vwsM);
void USEvwsM();
....etc
}
MainFrame.cpp
wxMainFrame::wxMainFrame(wxFrame *frame) : GUIFrame(frame)
{
m_DerivedFrame = new DerivedFrame(this);
m_DerivedFrame->PassVector(&vwsM3);
}
DerivedFrame.cpp
DerivedFrame::DerivedFrame ( wxWindow* parent ) : OtherFrame( parent )
{
//
}
void DerivedFrame::PassVector(std::vector<wxString> &vwsM)
{
vwsM.push_back("Something");
}
void USEvwsM()
{
// ??
}
OnInit() (The vector vwsM3 is not known here because its in a seperate header+source file)
IMPLEMENT_APP(wxMainApp);
bool wxMainApp::OnInit()
{
wxMainFrame* frame = new wxMainFrame(0L);
frame->SetIcon(wxICON(aaaa)); // To Set App Icon
frame->Show();
return true;
}
To derived class add one more pointer field:
class DerivedFrame: public OtherFrame {
.......
private:
std::vector<wxString> * pvwsM3 = nullptr;
.......
};
Modify PassVector() method to fill pointer:
void DerivedFrame::PassVector(std::vector<wxString> & vwsM) {
pvwsM3 = &vwsM;
}
Use pointer now:
void DerivedFrame::USEvwsM() {
assert(pvwsM3); // Check that we don't have null pointer, you may throw exception instead.
pvwsM3->push_back("Something");
}
Remaining code is same as you have. Alternatively you may pass vector to constructor of DerivedFrame, which is more reliable than calling PassVector() separately (which you may forget to call, while constructor you always call):
DerivedFrame::DerivedFrame(wxWindow* parent, std::vector<wxString> & vwsM)
: OtherFrame( parent ) {
this->PassVector(vwsM);
}
If you pass vector of strings to constructor only then you don't need a pointer, but reference in derived class, so instead of pointer field
class DerivedFrame: public OtherFrame {
std::vector<wxString> * pvwsM3 = nullptr;
.......
};
make reference field
class DerivedFrame: public OtherFrame {
std::vector<wxString> & rvwsM3;
.......
};
then remove PassVector() method and add reference initialization in constructor:
DerivedFrame::DerivedFrame(wxWindow* parent, std::vector<wxString> & vwsM)
: OtherFrame( parent ), rvwsM3(vwsM) {}
and use it as a reference (unlike pointer reference doesn't need to be checked for null):
void DerivedFrame::USEvwsM() {
rvwsM3.push_back("Something");
}
Reference compared to pointer has two advantages - it can't be forgotten to be initialized, because with reference you don't need to call PassVector(), and you don't need to check if it is null unlike checking pointer (reference is never null). But reference can be initialized only in constructor, while pointer can be initialized later, far later after object was constructed.
Having a global vector is bad practice, but anyhow typical for a settings like vector.
When I understand right, the vector you want to share, is known in the base like this
struct base {
std::vector<std::string>& data;
base(std::vector<std::string>& init) : data(init) {}
};
struct derived : base {
derived(std::vector<std::string>& init) : base(init) {}
void have_fun_with_VectorOfStrings();
};
it can be directly accessed in derived class, or any entity having access to one of the derived class.
Not sure if you might be looking for a different approach like the singleton pattern instead:
class coolStuff {
public:
std::vector<std::string> data;
static coolStuff& get() {
static coolStuff instance;
return instance;
}
private:
coolStuff () {
// constructor called once using "get", so can be used for initialization
}
};
This would be simply called anywhere you need it. Since only 1 instance exists, it might be a better approach to achieve the same.
coolStuff::get().data.push_back("add a new string");
You have shared a code example meanwhile, so your example would look like this applying approach 1 above.
class wxMainFrame: public GUIFrame {
public:
wxMainFrame(wxFrame *frame, std::vector<wxString>& vwsM3);
private:
std::vector<wxString>& vwsM3;
};
wxServerFrame::wxServerFrame(wxFrame *frame, std::vector<wxString>& _vwsM3) : GUIFrame(frame)
, vwsM3(_vwsM3)
{
m_DerivedFrame = new DerivedFrame(this, _vwsM3);
// m_DerivedFrame->PassVector(&vwsM3); // not needed anymore
}
// same for further inherited classes
If I may add a side note: It looks like you are doing some graphic-like stuff, so performance should be considered aswell: Try to avoid dynamic allocations like new, mallcoc, etc, since this is a very slow operation. An optimization might be to use a member in the class, instead of allocating to a member pointer at runtime.
I've got a weird quality of life problem:
Entity* Bob = new Camera where Entity (abstract) is a type of object that I want in an vector array. And Camera is the specific object.
I have no problems with getting Camera to inherit and implement the functions of Entity into camera. the Camera runs fine. The problem arises when I create another object with Entity* Joe = new Cube;
Now I want to be able to group together Joe and Bob, but Bob, being a moving object, I want him to inherit the ProcessKeyboard(); function, so I can use it when using Bob. But Joe doesn't move, so I'd rather Joe not even have access to the ProcessKeyboard(); function.
Now, I could make Joe's ProcessKeyboard function do nothing, but I'd rather the compiler not allow me to to present it as an option for Joe to do.
I think my main question is what should I be looking up to solve this?
I believe the most logical solution would be:
class Entity
{
virtual void Update() = 0;
}
class Camera : public Entity
{
void Update() override {
// ...
}
void ProcessKeyboard() {
// ...
}
}
class Cube : public Entity
{
void Update() override {
// ...
}
}
Then you store entities and cameras separately:
vector<Entity*> entities; // pointers to all your entities are here
vector<Camera*> cameras; // additionally track Camera objects
for(auto entity : entities) {
entity->Update();
}
for(auto camera : cameras) {
camera->ProcessKeyboard();
}
...I want him to inherit the ProcessKeyboard(); function, so I can use
it when using Bob.
As you see, in order to use ProcessKeyboard() you don't need to inherit it; Also I must say, that because ProcessKeyboard() is not virtual there are no additional vtables involved (only for Entity) and no vtable lookup occur on ProcessKeyboard() call. And it is good.
However, if there are a lot of different "movable" objects and you don't care about performance so much... The OOP-style solution is obvious: just create an "interface" for movable objects.
class IMovable
{
virtual void ProcessKeyboard() = 0;
}
class Camera : public Entity, public IMovable
{
void Update() override {
// ...
}
void ProcessKeyboard() override {
// ...
}
}
Usage:
vector<Entity*> entities; // the same approach
vector<IMovable*> movable; // additionally track all movable objects
for(auto entity : entities) {
entity->Update();
}
for(auto object : movable) {
object ->ProcessKeyboard();
}
Besides of everything was said, there is also a dynamic_cast but in this particular case, it sounds like last-minute decision making...
Hello guys a have a problem, that i can't access field tablica[i]->help, in generuj function, its saying that this field is not existing in class Task.
How can i achieve it ?
class Task
{
protected:
string contents;
int id_pyt;
int nr_pyt;
};
class Task4Answ : public Task
{
private:
int help;
public:
Task4Answ(string contents1, int id,int nr,int help1)
{
contents=contents1;
id_pyt=id;
nr_pyt=nr;
help=help1;
}
};
class TaskCollection
{
protected:
Task *collection[60];
public:
friend class Generator;
TaskCollection()
{
collection[0] = new Task4Answ("Ile jest por roku w Polsce? \na) 1 \nb) 2 \nc) 3 \nd) 4",1,0);
collection[1] = new Task4Answ("Kto wygral tegoroczny Roland Garros? \na) Federer \nb) Djokovic \nc) Nadal \nd) Thiem",1,1);
class Generator
{
protected:
Task *tablica[10];
TaskCollection T1;
public:
Generator(){}
void Generuj()
{
if(T1.collection[x]->id_pyt==1)
{
tablica[i]=new Task4Answ("0",0,0);
tablica[i]->contents=T1.collection[x]->contents;
tablica[i]->id_pyt=T1.collection[x]->id_pyt;
tablica[i]->nr_pyt=T1.collection[x]->nr_pyt;
tablica[i]->help=T1.collection[x]->help; //here is the problem
}
}
}
Or maybe there is some other solution of the project im doing now.
Thanks for any help.
The problem is in this line:
tablica[i]=new Task4Answ("0",0,0);
Although you have called the Task4Answ constructor, you are also assigning the memory address returned by new to a Task pointer. Effectively, you have casted the Task4Answ pointer to a Task pointer. On the lines that follow, C++ only sees tablica[i] as a reference to a Task pointer. You need to change:
protected:
Task *tablica[10];
TaskCollection T1;
...to this:
protected:
Task4Answ *tablica[10]; // Task was changed to Task4Answ
TaskCollection T1;
That should allow C++ to see tablica as an array of Task4Answ pointers instead of Task pointers.
Edit: it looks like help is also private. You will have to change help to public or add TaskCollection::TaskCollection() as a friend. Otherwise, C++ will not let you get or set help.
Edit: the OP added that tablica[i] might contain instances of other classes that inherit from Task. In that case, you could do something like this:
void Generuj()
{
if(T1.collection[x]->id_pyt==1)
{
Task4Answ* newTask = new Task4Answ("0",0,0);
newTask->contents=T1.collection[x]->contents;
newTask->id_pyt=T1.collection[x]->id_pyt;
newTask->nr_pyt=T1.collection[x]->nr_pyt;
newTask->help=T1.collection[x]->help; // You will still have to change this from being private.
tablica[i] = newTask;
}
}
}
Later on, in order to access help, you will need to implement some sort of way of checking whether tablica[i] is a Task4Answ and not an instance of some other class that inherits from Task, perhaps by implementing a method in Task named IsTask4Answ that returns false in Task but is overridden to return True in Task4Answ. You can then cast the pointer back to Task4Answ with something like the static_cast operator. In other words:
// Add these functions to the class definitions:
virtual bool Task::IsTask4Answ() const {
return false;
}
bool Task4Answ::IsTask4Answ() const override {
return true;
}
// Later, you can do this:
if(tablica[i].IsTask4Answ()){
Task4Answ* t = static_cast<Task4Answ*>(tablica[i]);
t->help; // Again, you'll have to change this from being private.
}
Although I suggest figuring out a different data structure where you do not need to do any casting, this will allow you to access help.
Do note the virtual keyword in the first function above; it allows the function to be dynamically bound, which means that the code will check whether to call Task::IsTask4Answ() or Task4Answ::IsTask4Answ() at runtime instead of at compile time.
For a class, which is only defined in a header, I need a special behavior of one method for all instance of the class. It should be depending on a default value, which can be changed any time during runtime. As I do not want a factory class nor a central management class I came up with that idea:
class MyClass
{
public:
void DoAnything() // Methode which should be act depending on default set.
{
// Do some stuff
if(getDefaultBehaviour())
{
// Do it this way...
}
else
{
// Do it that way...
}
}
static bool getDefaultBehaviour(bool bSetIt=false,bool bDefaultValue=false)
{
static bool bDefault=false;
if(bSetIt)
bDefault=bDefaultValue;
return bDefault;
}
};
It works, but it looks a little awkward. I wonder if there is a better way following the same intention.
In the case where I want to use it the software already created instances of that class during startup and delivered them to different parts of the code. Eventually the program gets the information how to treat the instances (for e.g. how or where to make themselves persistent). This decision should not only affect new created instances, it should affect the instances already created.
I'd advise to use a simple method to simulate a static data member, so the usage becomes more natural:
class MyClass
{
public:
// get a reference (!) to a static variable
static bool& DefaultBehaviour()
{
static bool b = false;
return b;
}
void DoAnything() // Methode which should be act depending on default set.
{
// Do some stuff
if(DefaultBehaviour())
{
// Do it this way...
}
else
{
// Do it that way...
}
}
};
where the user can change the default at any time with
MyClass::DefaultBehaviour() = true;
My thanks to Daniel Frey with his answer which I already marked as the best. I wanted to add my final solution which is based on the answer from Frey. The class is used by some c++ beginners. As I told them to use always getter and setter methods, the way described by Frey looks very complex to beginners ("uuuh, I can give a function a value?!?!"). So I wrote the class like followed:
class MyClass
{
public:
// get a reference (!) to a static variable
static bool& getDefaultBehaviour()
{
static bool b = false;
return b;
}
static void setDefaultBehaviour(bool value)
{
getDefaultBehaviour()=value;
}
void DoAnything() // Methode which should be act depending on default set.
{
// Do some stuff
if(getDefaultBehaviour())
{
// Do it this way...
}
else
{
// Do it that way...
}
}
};
for the user, I looks now like a usual getter and setter.
I have a situation where I have an interface that defines how a certain class behaves in order to fill a certain role in my program, but at this point in time I'm not 100% sure how many classes I will write to fill that role. However, at the same time, I know that I want the user to be able to select, from a GUI combo/list box, which concrete class implementing the interface that they want to use to fill a certain role. I want the GUI to be able to enumerate all available classes, but I would prefer not to have to go back and change old code whenever I decide to implement a new class to fill that role (which may be months from now)
Some things I've considered:
using an enumeration
Pros:
I know how to do it
Cons
I will have to update update the enumeration when I add a new class
ugly to iterate through
using some kind of static list object in the interface, and adding a new element from within the definition file of the implementing class
Pros:
Wont have to change old code
Cons:
Not even sure if this is possible
Not sure what kind of information to store so that a factory method can choose the proper constructor ( maybe a map between a string and a function pointer that returns a pointer to an object of the interface )
I'm guessing this is a problem (or similar to a problem) that more experienced programmers have probably come across before (and often), and there is probably a common solution to this kind of problem, which is almost certainly better than anything I'm capable of coming up with. So, how do I do it?
(P.S. I searched, but all I found was this, and it's not the same: How do I enumerate all items that implement a generic interface?. It appears he already knows how to solve the problem I'm trying to figure out.)
Edit: I renamed the title to "How can I keep track of... " rather than just "How can I enumerate..." because the original question sounded like I was more interested in examining the runtime environment, where as what I'm really interested in is compile-time book-keeping.
Create a singleton where you can register your classes with a pointer to a creator function.
In the cpp files of the concrete classes you register each class.
Something like this:
class Interface;
typedef boost::function<Interface* ()> Creator;
class InterfaceRegistration
{
typedef map<string, Creator> CreatorMap;
public:
InterfaceRegistration& instance() {
static InterfaceRegistration interfaceRegistration;
return interfaceRegistration;
}
bool registerInterface( const string& name, Creator creator )
{
return (m_interfaces[name] = creator);
}
list<string> names() const
{
list<string> nameList;
transform(
m_interfaces.begin(), m_interfaces.end(),
back_inserter(nameList)
select1st<CreatorMap>::value_type>() );
}
Interface* create(cosnt string& name ) const
{
const CreatorMap::const_iterator it
= m_interfaces.find(name);
if( it!=m_interfaces.end() && (*it) )
{
return (*it)();
}
// throw exception ...
return 0;
}
private:
CreatorMap m_interfaces;
};
// in your concrete classes cpp files
namespace {
bool registerClassX = InterfaceRegistration::instance("ClassX", boost::lambda::new_ptr<ClassX>() );
}
ClassX::ClassX() : Interface()
{
//....
}
// in your concrete class Y cpp files
namespace {
bool registerClassY = InterfaceRegistration::instance("ClassY", boost::lambda::new_ptr<ClassY>() );
}
ClassY::ClassY() : Interface()
{
//....
}
I vaguely remember doing something similar to this many years ago. Your option (2) is pretty much what I did. In that case it was a std::map of std::string to std::typeinfo. In each, .cpp file I registered the class like this:
static dummy = registerClass (typeid (MyNewClass));
registerClass takes a type_info object and simply returns true. You have to initialize a variable to ensure that registerClass is called during startup time. Simply calling registerClass in the global namespace is an error. And making dummy static allow you to reuse the name across compilation units without a name collision.
I referred to this article to implement a self-registering class factory similar to the one described in TimW's answer, but it has the nice trick of using a templated factory proxy class to handle the object registration. Well worth a look :)
Self-Registering Objects in C++ -> http://www.ddj.com/184410633
Edit
Here's the test app I did (tidied up a little ;):
object_factory.h
#include <string>
#include <vector>
// Forward declare the base object class
class Object;
// Interface that the factory uses to communicate with the object proxies
class IObjectProxy {
public:
virtual Object* CreateObject() = 0;
virtual std::string GetObjectInfo() = 0;
};
// Object factory, retrieves object info from the global proxy objects
class ObjectFactory {
public:
static ObjectFactory& Instance() {
static ObjectFactory instance;
return instance;
}
// proxies add themselves to the factory here
void AddObject(IObjectProxy* object) {
objects_.push_back(object);
}
size_t NumberOfObjects() {
return objects_.size();
}
Object* CreateObject(size_t index) {
return objects_[index]->CreateObject();
}
std::string GetObjectInfo(size_t index) {
return objects_[index]->GetObjectInfo();
}
private:
std::vector<IObjectProxy*> objects_;
};
// This is the factory proxy template class
template<typename T>
class ObjectProxy : public IObjectProxy {
public:
ObjectProxy() {
ObjectFactory::Instance().AddObject(this);
}
Object* CreateObject() {
return new T;
}
virtual std::string GetObjectInfo() {
return T::TalkToMe();
};
};
objects.h
#include <iostream>
#include "object_factory.h"
// Base object class
class Object {
public:
virtual ~Object() {}
};
class ClassA : public Object {
public:
ClassA() { std::cout << "ClassA Constructor" << std::endl; }
~ClassA() { std::cout << "ClassA Destructor" << std::endl; }
static std::string TalkToMe() { return "This is ClassA"; }
};
class ClassB : public Object {
public:
ClassB() { std::cout << "ClassB Constructor" << std::endl; }
~ClassB() { std::cout << "ClassB Destructor" << std::endl; }
static std::string TalkToMe() { return "This is ClassB"; }
};
objects.cpp
#include "objects.h"
// Objects get registered here
ObjectProxy<ClassA> gClassAProxy;
ObjectProxy<ClassB> gClassBProxy;
main.cpp
#include "objects.h"
int main (int argc, char * const argv[]) {
ObjectFactory& factory = ObjectFactory::Instance();
for (int i = 0; i < factory.NumberOfObjects(); ++i) {
std::cout << factory.GetObjectInfo(i) << std::endl;
Object* object = factory.CreateObject(i);
delete object;
}
return 0;
}
output:
This is ClassA
ClassA Constructor
ClassA Destructor
This is ClassB
ClassB Constructor
ClassB Destructor
If you're on Windows, and using C++/CLI, this becomes fairly easy. The .NET framework provides this capability via reflection, and it works very cleanly in managed code.
In native C++, this gets a little bit trickier, as there's no simple way to query the library or application for runtime information. There are many frameworks that provide this (just look for IoC, DI, or plugin frameworks), but the simplest means of doing it yourself is to have some form of configuration which a factory method can use to register themselves, and return an implementation of your specific base class. You'd just need to implement loading a DLL, and registering the factory method - once you have that, it's fairly easy.
Something you can consider is an object counter. This way you don't need to change every place you allocate but just implementation definition. It's an alternative to the factory solution. Consider pros/cons.
An elegant way to do that is to use the CRTP : Curiously recurring template pattern.
The main example is such a counter :)
This way you just have to add in your concrete class implementation :
class X; // your interface
class MyConcreteX : public counter<X>
{
// whatever
};
Of course, it is not applicable if you use external implementations you do not master.
EDIT:
To handle the exact problem you need to have a counter that count only the first instance.
my 2 cents
There is no way to query the subclasses of a class in (native) C++.
How do you create the instances? Consider using a Factory Method allowing you to iterate over all subclasses you are working with. When you create an instance like this, it won't be possible to forget adding a new subclass later.