In C# (at least using .NET, but I think it's general), you can create events like this: Understanding events and event handlers in C#.
Is there a similar mechanism for C++?
PS: I've never liked signal/slot system, so please don't suggest it, since I'm already using it and would love to switch to something else.
The event mechanism in C# is really just a formal, language implemented version of the Observer Pattern. This pattern can be implemented in any language, including C++. There are many examples of implementations in C++.
The largest and most common implementation is probably Boost.Signals and Boost.Signals2, though you explicitly mentioned not liking the signal/slot style implementations.
Event.h can be downloaded from the link bellow, it provides a .NET like Event implemented in C++: http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/1069718/Sharp-Tools-A-NET-like-Event-in-Cplusplus
An example of its usage:
#include "Event.h" // This lib consists of only one file, just copy it and include it in your code.
// an example of an application-level component which perform part of the business logic
class Cashier
{
public:
Sharp::Event<void> ShiftStarted; // an event that pass no argument when raised
Sharp::Event<int> MoneyPaid; // will be raised whenever the cashier receives money
void Start(); // called on startup, perform business logic and eventually calls ProcessPayment()
private:
// somewhere along the logic of this class
void ProcessPayment(int amount)
{
// after some processing
MoneyPaid(amount); // this how we raise the event
}
};
// Another application-level component
class Accountant
{
public:
void OnMoneyPaid(int& amount);
};
// The main class that decide on the events flow (who handles which events)
// it is also the owner of the application-level components
class Program
{
// the utility level components(if any)
//(commented)DataStore databaseConnection;
// the application-level components
Cashier cashier1;
Accountant accountant1;
//(commented)AttendanceManager attMan(&databaseConnection) // an example of injecting a utility object
public:
Program()
{
// connect the events of the application-level components to their handlers
cashier1.MoneyPaid += Sharp::EventHandler::Bind( &Accountant::OnMoneyPaid, &accountant1);
}
~Program()
{
// it is recommended to always connect the event handlers in the constructor
// and disconnect in the destructor
cashier1.MoneyPaid -= Sharp::EventHandler::Bind( &Accountant::OnMoneyPaid, &accountant1);
}
void Start()
{
// start business logic, maybe tell all cashiers to start their shift
cashier1.Start();
}
};
void main()
{
Program theProgram;
theProgram.Start();
// as you can see the Cashier and the Accountant know nothing about each other
// You can even remove the Accountant class without affecting the system
// You can add new components (ex: AttendanceManager) without affecting the system
// all you need to change is the part where you connect/disconnect the events
}
If boost is not an option, I implemented events in c++ here. The semantics is almost the same as in .NET . It's a compact implementation but uses quite advanced C++ features: a modern C++11 compiler is required.
Related
I've got an assignment to create sort of a multi-platform C++ GUI library. It wraps different GUI frameworks on different platforms. The library itself provides an interface via which the user communicates uniformly (using the same code) regardless of the platform he's using - typically it's MFC on Windows and Qt elsewhere.
Currently, I'm stuck on messages/events. So far, I've been using MFC messages and Qt signals to get notified of the user's interaction and had no problems with that. The user creates a list box (which contains p_lb - pointer subclassed QListWidget on Qt or CListBox on MFC) and then he ties his own DoSomething() handler with an event.
User's code:
ListBox lb;
lb.AddDoubleClickHandler([](int i) { DoSomething(i); });
This is what it looks like in the library:
// p_lb represents platform list box - QListWidget/CListBox
// handler's int parameter represents the index of the item, that has been double-clicked
void ListBox::AddDoubleClickHandler(const std::function<void(int)>& handler) {
#ifdef _MFC_PLATFORM
// only pushes the handler into the internal list
p_lb->double_click_handlers_.push_back(handler);
#elif _QT_PLATFORM
p_lb->connect(p_lb, &QListWidget::itemDoubleClicked, p_lb,
[handler, p_lb](QListWidgetItem* item) { handler(p_lb->row(item)); });
#endif
}
In MFC I need to call the handlers stored in the list manually:
#ifdef _MFC_PLATFORM
class MyMFCListBox : public CListBox {
public:
std::list<std::function<void(int)>> double_click_handlers_;
afx_msg void OnItemDoubleClick() {
for (const auto& h : double_click_handlers_) {
h(GetCaretIndex()); // call user's stored handler when the event occurs
}
}
DECLARE_MESSAGE_MAP()
};
BEGIN_MESSAGE_MAP(MyMFCListBox, CListBox)
ON_CONTROL_REFLECT(LBN_DBLCLK, &MyMFCListBox::OnItemDoubleClick)
END_MESSAGE_MAP()
#endif // _MFC_PLATFORM
As I said, this works fine, but now I need to be able to notify UI control about some external event manually (and asynchronously) - using something like MFC's PostMessage. The use case would be something like updating progress bar based on some external computing (which is not necessarily done using this library). E.g. I'm uploading some photos, after each one of them I send a message to the ProgressBar about the current number of uploaded photos and number of all the photos, but I return immediately without waiting for the handler to execute. Also, there needs to be a way of adding new custom events by the user. I know that Qt has a similar method - postEvent, but is this the right way to implement it? Or should I implement my own signal-slot system? I cannot imagine how this would work. Any suggestions are appreciated.
Say I have two main classes, Application and ApplicationGUI. Application does lots of things and can happily run without any knowledge that ApplicationGUI exists. ApplicationGUI is linked to Application in many ways, it has maybe 50 or 100 different knobs that can change Application's behavior.
ApplicationGUI is a hierarchical structure such that it has many instances of ControlGroup, each containing an arbitrary number of Buttons and Knobs, or even another ControlGroup.
Current design: Upon instantiation of the ApplicationGUI (Application was already running with some set of default parameters), I pass pointers of Application's parameters to various components of the GUI. For example:
my_gui.sound_controlgroup.knob.link_to_param(&(my_application.volume));
If I need to do something more complex, say call a member function of Application, my_application.update_something(), how is this done?
The easy answer is to pass a pointer to my_application to my_gui.sound_controlgroup.knob, but if I only ever need to call one of my_application's functions, it seems like I am giving my knob an option to change all kinds of things that it should even know about (my_application.update_something_unrelated(), for instance). What is the cleanest thing to do in this case?
Additionally, this either requires making all subcomponents of ApplicationGUI public or having a function at each stage of the hierarchy to forward that pointer to the bottom level. This leads to quite a lot of functions. Is this a necessary consequence of a UI with a lot of knobs?
Quick Short Answer
In order to implement interaction between your non GUI related Application object and your GUIApplication object I suggest apply the "Property and Method and Event Handler" paradigm.
Extended Complex Answer
G.U.I. development is one of the most practical implementation of the O.O.P. theory.
What is the "Property and Method and Event Handler" paradigm ?
That means build, both Non GUI Classes, and GUI Classes, should have:
Properties
Methods
Event handlers
"Events" (Handlers) are also called "Signals", and are implemented with functions pointers. Not sure, but, I think your "knob" (s) are like Event Handlers.
It's a technique to apply the my_application.update_something_unrelated(), you have in your question.
Since, C++, like Java, does not have property syntax, you may use "getter" and "setter" methods, or use a "property" template.
For example, if your application has a Close method, you may declare something like the following examples.
Note: They are not full programs, just an idea:
// Applications.hpp
public class BaseApplicationClass
{
// ...
};
public class BaseApplicationClientClass
{
// ...
};
typedef
void (BaseApplicationClientClass::*CloseFunctor)
(BaseApplicationClass App);
public class ApplicationClass: public BaseApplicationClass
{
// ...
public:
Vector<BaseApplicationClientClass::CloseFunctor>
BeforeCloseEventHandlers;
Vector<BaseApplicationClientClass::CloseFunctor>
AfterCloseEventHandlers;
protected:
void ConfirmedClose();
public:
virtual void Close();
} Application;
// Applications.cpp
void ApplicationClass::ConfirmedClose()
{
// do close app. without releasing from memory yet.
} // void ApplicationClass::ConfirmedClose()
void ApplicationClass::Close()
{
// Execute all handlers in "BeforeCloseEventaHandlers"
this.ConfirmedClose();
// Execute all handlers in "AfterCloseEventaHandlers"
} // void ApplicationClass::Close()
// AppShells.cpp
public class AppShell: public BaseApplicationClientClass
{
// ...
};
void AppShell::CloseHandler(ApplicationClass App)
{
// close GUI
} // void AppShell.CloseHandler(ApplicationClass App)
void AppShell::setApp(ApplicationClass App)
{
App->BeforeCloseEventHandlers->add(&this.CloseHandler);
} // void AppShell.setApp(ApplicationClass App)
void main (...)
{
ApplicationClass* AppKernel = new ApplicationClass();
ApplicationGUIClass* AppShell = new ApplicationGUIClass();
AppShell.setApp(App);
// this executes "App->Run();"
AppShell->Run();
free AppShell();
free AppKernel();
}
UPDATE: Fixed type declaration from global function pointer (a.k.a. "global functor") to object function pointer (a.k.a. "method functor").
Cheers.
Do you know about the model-view-controller (MVC) paradigm? Think of the Application class as the model, the entire hierarchy of GUI controls as the view, and the ApplicationGUI class as the controller. You don't want Application to know about the controls, and you don't want the controls to know about Application; they should both talk only to the controller, ApplicationGUI.
Using ApplicationGUI as the conduit for communication between controls and Application means that you can test either Application or controls by replacing the other with a mock object, for example. More importantly, you can change either the controls or Application without impacting the other. Individual controls don't need to know anything about Application -- they only need to know where to send their value when it changes. And Application shouldn't care whether an input comes from a knob or a slider or a text field. Keeping those two areas separate will simplify each of them.
Additionally, this either requires making all subcomponents of
ApplicationGUI public or having a function at each stage of the
hierarchy to forward that pointer to the bottom level. This leads to
quite a lot of functions. Is this a necessary consequence of a UI with
a lot of knobs?
A given control shouldn't care what value it manages. It doesn't need to know whether the value determines the number of alien invaders on the screen or the coolant level in a nuclear reactor. It does needs to know things like the minimum and maximum values, label to display, scale to use (linear, log, etc.), and other things that directly impact the way the control works. It also needs to know who to tell when something changes, and it might need some way to identify itself.
With that in mind, ApplicationGUI doesn't need to expose accessors for every possible parameter of Application. Instead, it should have a general method that lets controls send it updates. When a control changes, it should send a message to ApplicationGUI containing the new value(s) along with its identifier, and ApplicationGUI takes care of mapping that identifier to some particular parameter of Application. A control's identifier could be some identifying number that's given to it, or it could just be a pointer to the control.
Of course, sometimes communication has to go the other way, too... a GUI usually has both inputs and outputs, so you'll want some means for ApplicationGUI to get updates from Application and update the state of the GUI. For the same reasons described above, Application should send those updates to ApplicationGUI and let the latter find the actual UI components that need to be changed.
I am designing a little game for my own fun's and training's sake. The real identity of the game being quite irrelevant for my actual question, suppose it's the Mastermind game (which it actually is :)
My real goal here is to have an interface IPlayer which will be used for any player: computer or human, console or gui, local or network. I am also intending to have a GameController, which will deal with just two IPlayers.
the IPlayer interface would look something like this:
class IPlayer
{
public:
//dtor
virtual ~IPlayer()
{
}
//call this function before the game starts. In subclasses,
//the overriders can, for example, generate and store the combination.
virtual void PrepareForNewGame() = 0;
//make the current guess
virtual Combination MakeAGuess() = 0;
//return false if lie is detected.
virtual bool ProcessResult(Combination const &, Result const &) = 0;
//Answer to opponent's guess
virtual Result AnswerToOpponentsGuess(Combination const&) = 0;
};
The GameController class would do something like this:
IPlayer* pPlayer1 = PlayerFactory::CreateHumanPlayer();
IPlayer* pPlayer1 = PlayerFactory::CreateCPUPlayer();
pPlayer1->PrepareForNewGame();
pPlayer2->PrepareForNewGame();
while(no_winner)
{
Guess g = pPlayer1->MakeAguess();
Result r = pPlayer2->AnswerToOpponentsGuess(g);
bool player2HasLied = ! pPlayer1->ProcessResult(g, r);
etc.
etc.
}
By this design, I am willing to make GameController class immutable, that is, I stuff the just game rules in it, and nothing else, so since the game itself is established, this class shouldn't change. For a console game this design would work perfectly. I would have HumanPlayer, which in its MakeAGuess method would read a Combination from the standard input, and a CPUPlayer, which would somehow randomly generate it etc.
Now here's my problem: The IPlayer interface, along with the GameController class, are synchronous in their nature. I can't imagine how I would implement the GUI variant of the game with the same GameController when the MakeAGuess method of GUIHumanPlayer would have to wait for, for example, some mouse movements and clicks. Of course, I could launch a new thread which would wait for user input, while the main thread would block, so as to imitate synchronous IO, but somehow this idea disgusts me. Or, alternatively, I could design both the controller and player to be asynchronous. In this case, for a console game, I would have to imitate asynchronousness, which seems easier than the first version.
Would you kindly comment on my design and my concerns about choosing synchronous or asynchronous design? Also, I am feeling that I put more responsibility on the player class than GameController class. Etc, etc.
Thank you very much in advance.
P.S. I don't like the title of my question. Feel free to edit it :)
Instead of using return values of the various IPlayer methods, consider introducing an observer class for IPlayer objects, like this:
class IPlayerObserver
{
public:
virtual ~IPlayerObserver() { }
virtual void guessMade( Combination c ) = 0;
// ...
};
class IPlayer
{
public:
virtual ~IPlayer() { }
virtual void setObserver( IPlayerObserver *observer ) = 0;
// ...
};
The methods of IPlayer should then call the appropriate methods of an installed IPlayerObserver instead of returning a value, as in:
void HumanPlayer::makeAGuess() {
// get input from human
Combination c;
c = ...;
m_observer->guessMade( c );
}
Your GameController class could then implement IPlayerObserver so that it gets notified whenever a player did something interesting, like - making a guess.
With this design, it's perfectly fine if all the IPlayer methods are asynchronous. In fact, it's to be expected - they all return void!. Your game controller calls makeAGuess on the active player (this might compute the result immediately, or it might do some network IO for multiplayer games, or it would wait for the GUI to do something) and whenever the player did his choice, the game controller can rest assured that the guessMade method will be called. Furthemore, the player objects still don't know anything about the game controller. They are just dealing with an opaque 'IPlayerObserver' interface.
The only thing making this different for the GUI as compared to the console is that your GUI is event driven. Those events take place on the GUI thread, and therefore, if you host the Game code on the GUI thread, you have a problem: Your call to have the player make a move blocks the GUI thread, and this means you can't get any events until that call returns. [EDIT: Inserted the following sentence.] But the call can't return until it gets the event. So you're deadlocked.
That problem would go away if you simply host the game code on another thread. You'd still need to synchronize the threads, so MakeAGuess() doesn't return until ready, but it's certainly doable.
If you want to keep everything single-threaded you may want to consider a different model. Game could notify Players it's their turn with an event but leave it to players to initiate operations on the Game.
Right now, I'm making a Gui Library for games. The Widgets have several callbacks / listeners for various events.
The thing about it is a listener can consume an event.
The issue comes here. The base class is called with event info. It calls the callbacks for the listeners. Any of them can handle the event.
This means it is up to the user to check if the event has been handled or not.
Ex:
void TextBox::MouseClick(MouseEvent &event)
{
Widget::MouseClick(event);
if(!event.isHandled())
{
//do stuff
}
}
The alternative would be to hide this and have onMouseClick(...) which is the virtual one and not called unless the condition is met. I found this to be rather messy though, and annoying for those who make more events.
Is this a good design? If not what might be better to accommodate this?
Thanks
If you want to this for many events, I'd rather go the onMouseClick way (IIUC):
void TextBox::onMouseClick(MouseEvent &event)
{
//do stuff or empty of not needed
}
in class Widget:
void Widget::MouseClick(MouseEvent &event) // nonvirtual
{
// do the listeners' stuff
if(event.isHandled()) onMouseClick(event);
}
I have asked this problem on many popular forums but no concrete response. My applciation uses serial communication to interface with external systems each having its own interface protocol. The data that is received from the systems is displayed on a GUI made in Qt 4.2.1.
Structure of application is such that
When app begins we have a login page
with a choice of four modules. This
is implemented as a maindisplay
class. Each of the four modules is a
separate class in itself. The concerned module here is of action class which is responsible of gathering and displaying data from various systems.
User authentication gets him/her
into the action screen. The
constructor of the action screen
class executes and apart from
mundane initialisation it starts the
individual systems threads which are
implemented as singleton.
Each system protocol is implemented as a singleton thread of the form:
class SensorProtocol:public QThread {
static SensorProtocol* s_instance;
SensorProtocol(){}
SensorProtocol(const SensorProtocol&);
operator=(const SensorProtocol&);
public:
static SensorProtocol* getInstance();
//miscellaneous system related data to be used for
// data acquisition and processing
};
In implementation file *.cpp:
SensorProtocol* SensorProtocol::s_instance=0;
SensorProtocol* SensorProtocol::getInstance()
{
//DOUBLE CHECKED LOCKING PATTERN I have used singletons
// without this overrated pattern also but just fyi
if(!s_instance)
{
mutex.lock();
if(!s_instance)
s_instance=new SensorProtocol();
mutex.unlock();
}
}
Structure of run function
while(!mStop)
{
mutex.lock()
while(!WaitCondition.wait(&mutex,5)
{
if(mStop)
return;
}
//code to read from port when data becomes available
// and process it and store in variables
mutex.unlock();
}
In the action screen class I have define an InputSignalHandler using sigaction and saio. This is a function pointer which is activated as soon as data arrives on any of the serial ports.
It is a global function (we cannot change it as it is specific to Linux) which is just used to compare the file descriptors of the serial port where data has arrived and the fd's of the sensor systems, if a match is found WaitCondition.wakeOne is invoked on that thread and it comes out the wait and reads and processes the data.
In the action screen class the individual threads are started as SensorProtocol::getInstance()->start().
Each system's protocol has a frame rate at which it sends data. Based on this fact, in actions screen we set up update timers to time out at refresh rate of protocols. When these timers time out the UpdateSensorProtocol() function of operation screen is called
connect(&timer, SIGNAL(timeout), this,SLOT(UpdateSensorProtocol()));
This grabs an instance of sensor singleton as
SensorProtocol* pSingleton=SensorProtocol::getInstance();
if(pSingleton->mUpdate)
{
//update data on action screen GUI
pSingleton->mUpdate=false; //NOTE : this variable is set to
// true in the singleton thread
// while one frame is processed completely
}
For all uses of singleton instance SensorProtocol::getInstance() is used. Given the above scenario, One of my protocols is hanging no matter what changes I do.
The hang occurs in the while displaying data using UpdateSensorProtocol() If I comment ShowSensorData() function in the UpdateSensorProtocol() it works fine. But otherwise it hangs and the GUI freezes. Any suggestions!
Also, Since the main thread grabs the running instance of singleton, is it really multithreading because we are essentially changing mUpdate in singleton itself albeit from action screen.
I am confused in this.
Also, Can somebody suggest an alternate design as to what I am doing now.
Thanks In Advance
First off all don't make the Systems singletons. Use some kind of Context Encapsulation
for the different system.
If you ignoe this advice and still want to create "singletons" threads at least use QApplication::instance(); as the parent of the thread and put QThread::wait() in the singleton destructors otherwise your program will crash at the program exit.
if(!s_instance){
QMutexLocker lock(&mutex);
if(!s_instance)
s_instance=new SensorProtocol( QApplication::instance());
}
But this isn't going to solve your problem ...
Qt is event driven so try to exployed this very nice event-driven architecture and create a eventloop for each system thread. Then you can create "SystemProtocols" that live in another threads and you can create timers, send events between threads, ... without using low level synchronization objects.
Have a look at the blog entry from Bradley T. Hughes Treading without the headache
Code is not compiled but should give you a good idea where to start ...
class GuiComponent : public QWidget {
//...
signals:
void start(int); // button triggerd signal
void stop(); // button triggerd singal
public slots:
// don't forget to register DataPackage at the metacompiler
// qRegisterMetaType<DataPackage>();
void dataFromProtocol( DataPackage ){
// update the gui the the new data
}
};
class ProtocolSystem : public QObject {
//...
int timerId;
signals:
void dataReady(DataPackage);
public slots:
void stop() {
killTimer(timerId);
}
void start( int interval ) {
timerId = startTimer();
}
protected:
void timerEvent(QTimerEvent * event) {
//code to read from port when data becomes available
// and process it and store in dataPackage
emit dataReady(dataPackage);
}
};
int main( int argc, char ** argv ) {
QApplication app( argc, argv );
// construct the system and glue them together
ProtocolSystem protocolSystem;
GuiComponent gui;
gui.connect(&protocolSystem, SIGNAL(dataReady(DataPackage)), SLOT(dataFromProtocol(DataPackage)));
protocolSystem.connect(&gui, SIGNAL(start(int)), SLOT(start(int)));
protocolSystem.connect(&gui, SIGNAL(stop()), SLOT(stop()));
// move communication to its thread
QThread protocolThread;
protocolSystem.moveToThread(&protocolThread);
protocolThread.start();
// repeat this for other systems ...
// start the application
gui.show();
app.exec();
// stop eventloop to before closing the application
protocolThread.quit();
protocolThread.wait();
return 0;
}
Now you have total independent systems, gui and protocols don't now each other and don't even know that the program is multithreaded. You can unit test all systems independently in a single threaded environement and just glue them together in the real application and if you need to, divided them between different threads.
That is the program architecture that I would use for this problem. Mutlithreading without a single low level synchronization element. No race conditions, no locks, ...
Problems:
Use RAII to lock/unlock your mutexes. They are currently not exception safe.
while(!mStop)
{
mutex.lock()
while(!WaitCondition.wait(&mutex,5))
{
if(mStop)
{
// PROBLEM 1: You mutex is still locked here.
// So returning here will leave the mutex locked forever.
return;
}
// PROBLEM 2: If you leave here via an exception.
// This will not fire, and again you will the mutex locked forever.
mutex.unlock();
// Problem 3: You are using the WaitCondition() incorrectly.
// You unlock the mutex here. The next thing that happens is a call
// WaitCondition.wait() where the mutex MUST be locked
}
// PROBLEM 4
// You are using the WaitCondition() incorrectly.
// On exit the mutex is always locked. So nwo the mutex is locked.
What your code should look like:
while(!mStop)
{
MutextLocker lock(mutex); // RAII lock and unlock mutex.
while(!WaitCondition.wait(&mutex,5))
{
if(mStop)
{
return;
}
//code to read from port when data becomes available
// and process it and store in variables
}
By using RAII it solves all the problems I spotted above.
On a side note.
Your double checked locking will not work correctly.
By using the static function variable suggested by 'Anders Karlsson' you solve the problem because g++ guarantees that static function variables will only be initialized once. In addition this method guaranteed that the singelton will be correctly destroyed (via destructor). Currently unless you are doing some fancy stuff via onexit() you will be leaking memory.
See here for lots of details about better implementation of singleton.
C++ Singleton design pattern
See here why your double checked locking does not work.
What are all the common undefined behaviours that a C++ programmer should know about?
I would start by using RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialization) to improve the safety of your locking code. You have code that look like this:
mutex.lock();
...logic...
mutex.unlock();
Wrap the mutex code inside a class where the mutex gets acquired in the ctor and released in the dtor. Now your code looks like this:
MyMutex mutex;
...logic...
The major improvement is that if any exceptions throw in the logic part, your mutex still gets released.
Also, don't let any exceptions leak out of your threads! Catch them even if you don't know how to handle them other than logging it somewhere.
I can't be completely sure what the problem is since I have no clue what the ShowSensorData() function (method?) is doing, but there are some multithreading issues with the code that you have included.
mUpdate should be protected by a mutex if it is accessed by more than one thread.
The run() method looks like it will lock the mutex and never release it if mStop is true.
You should consider using RAII practices to grab and release the mutex. I don't know if you are using Qt mutexes or not but you should look into using QMutexLocker to lock and unlock your mutexes.
I would consider changing your SensorProtocol class to use the condition variable and a flag or some sort of event (not sure what Qt has to offer here) to handle the update inside of a method associated with the object instance. Something like:
/*static*/ void
SensorProtocol::updateSensorProtocol() {
SensorProtocol *inst = SensorProtocol::getInstance();
inst->update();
}
Then make sure that the update() method grabs the mutex before reading or writing any of the members that are shared between the reader and display.
A more complete approach would be to separate your UI display, the sensors, and their linkage using a Model-View-Controller architecture. Refactoring the solution into an MVC architecture would probably simplify things quite a bit. Not to mention that it makes applications like this a lot less error-prone. Take a look at the QAbstractItemView and QAbstractItemDelegate classes for an idea on how this can be implemented. From what I remember, there is a tutorial about implementing MVC using Qt somewhere... it's been quite a few years since I have played with Qt though.
your getInstance method could maybe be written like this as well to avoid having the s_instance var:
SensorProtocol& getInstance()
{
static SensorProtocol instance;
return instance;
}
The double checked locking pattern is broken in C++. This is well documented all over the internet. I don't know what your problem is but clearly you will need to resolve this in your code.
Take a look at QextSerialPort:
QextSerialPort is a cross-platform
serial port class. This class
encapsulates a serial port on both
POSIX and Windows systems.
QextSerialPort inherits from QIODevice and makes serial port communications integrate more smoothly with the rest of the Qt API.
Also, you could use a message passing scheme for communications between the I/O and GUI threads instead of shared memory. This is often much less error prone. You can use the QApplication::postEvent function to send custom QEvent messages to a QObject to be processed in the GUI thread with the QObject::customeEvent handler. It will take care of synchronization for you and alleviate your deadlock problems..
Here is a quick and dirty example:
class IODataEvent : public QEvent
{
public:
IODataEvent() : QEvent(QEvent::User) {}
// put all of your data here
};
class IOThread : public QThread
{
public:
IOThread(QObject * parent) : QThread(parent) {}
void run()
{
for (;;) {
// do blocking I/O and protocol parsing
IODataEvent *event = new IODataEvent;
// put all of your data for the GUI into the event
qApp->postEvent(parent(), event);
// QApplication will take ownership of the event
}
}
};
class GUIObject : public QObject
{
public:
GUIObject() : QObject(), thread(new IOThread(this)) { thread->start() }
protected:
void customEvent(QEvent *event)
{
if (QEvent::User == event->type) {
IODataEvent *data = (IODataEvent *) event;
// get data and update GUI here
event->accept();
} else {
event->ignore();
}
// the event loop will release the IODataEvent memory automatically
}
private:
IOThread *thread;
};
Also, Qt 4 supports queing signals and slots across threads.
Have three sepearate threads for send, receive and display.
Raise an event whenever data is received and handle that within the display thread.
Edit in response to comment 1
I'll admit that I know nothing of qt but from what you've said it would still appear that you can create your serial port object which in turn starts up two worker threads (by use of a start method) for the input and output buffer control.
If the serial port class has a "Connect to port" method to gain use of the serial port; an "Open port" method which starts up your worker threads and opens the port; a "Close port" method to shutdown the send and receive threads and a property for setting the "On Data Received" event handler then you should be all set.
The class shouldn't need to be a singleton as you'll find that most operating systems wont allow more than one process to control a serial port at any one time, instead you'll get an exception (which you need to handle) when you try and connect if it is already in use. The worker threads ensure that the port is held under you're control.