Allowing a "friend" class to access only some private members - c++

Question

Suppose I have three C++ classes FooA, FooB and FooC.
FooA has an member function named Hello, I want to call this function in class FooB, but I don't want class FooC be able to call it. The best way I can figure out to realize this is to declare FooB as a friend class of FooA. But as long as I do this, all FooA's private and protected members will be exposed which is quite unacceptable to me.
So, I wanna know if there is any mechanism in C++(03 or 11) better than friend class which can solve this dilemma.
And I assume it will be nice if the following syntax is possible:
class FooA
{
private friend class FooB:
void Hello();
void Hello2();
private:
void Hello3();
int m_iData;
};
class FooB
{
void fun()
{
FooA objA;
objA.Hello() // right
objA.Hello2() // right
objA.Hello3() // compile error
ojbA.m_iData = 0; // compile error
}
};
class FooC
{
void fun()
{
FooA objA;
objA.Hello() // compile error
objA.Hello2() // compile error
objA.Hello3() // compile error
ojbA.m_iData = 0; // compile error
}
};

Answer 1

I think you can use Attorney-Client here.
In your case example should be like this
class FooA
{
private:
void Hello();
void Hello2();
void Hello3();
int m_iData;
friend class Client;
};
class Client
{
private:
static void Hello(FooA& obj)
{
obj.Hello();
}
static void Hello2(FooA& obj)
{
obj.Hello2();
}
friend class FooB;
};
class FooB
{
void fun()
{
FooA objA;
Client::Hello(objA); // right
Client::Hello2(objA); // right
//objA.Hello3() // compile error
//ojbA.m_iData = 0; // compile error
}
};
class FooC
{
void fun()
{
/*FooA objA;
objA.Hello() // compile error
objA.Hello2() // compile error
objA.Hello3() // compile error
ojbA.m_iData = 0; // compile error*/
}
};

Answer 2

There's nothing to make a class a friend of one specific function, but you can make FooB a friend of a "key" class with private constructor, and then have FooA::Hello take that class as an ignored parameter. FooC will be unable to provide the parameter and hence can't call Hello:
Is this key-oriented access-protection pattern a known idiom?

Answer 3

You can partially expose a class's interfaces to a specified client by inherit it from an interface class.
class FooA_for_FooB
{
public:
virtual void Hello() = 0;
virtual void Hello2() = 0;
};
class FooA : public FooA_for_FooB
{
private: /* make them private */
void Hello() override;
void Hello2() override;
private:
void Hello3();
int m_iData;
};
class FooB
{
void fun()
{
FooA objA;
FooA_for_FooB &r = objA;
r.Hello() // right
r.Hello2() // right
objA.Hello3() // compile error
objA.m_iData = 0; // compile error
}
};
class FooC
{
void fun()
{
FooA objA;
objA.Hello() // compile error
objA.Hello2() // compile error
objA.Hello3() // compile error
objA.m_iData = 0; // compile error
}
};
Here access control is enhanced by the base class FooA_for_FooB. By a reference of type FooA_for_FooB, FooB can access the members defined within FooA_for_FooB. However, FooC cannot access those members since they have been override as private members in FooA. Your purpose can be achieved by not using the type FooA_for_FooB within FooC, or any other places except FooB, which can be kept without paying much attention.
This approach needs no friend, making things simple.
A similar thing can be done by making everything private in a base class, and selectively wrap-and-expose some of the members as public in the derived class. This approach may sometimes require ugly downcast, though. (Because the base class will become the "currency" among the whole program.)

Answer 4

No, and this is not really a limitation. To my mind, the limitation is that friend — a blunt weapon for hacking around design flaws — exists in the first place.
Your class FooA has no business knowing about FooB and FooC and "which one should be able to use it". It should have a public interface, and not care who can use it. That's the point of the interface! Calling functions within that interface should always leave the FooA in a nice, safe, happy, consistent state.
And if your concern is that you might accidentally use the FooA interface from somewhere you didn't mean to, well, simply don't do that; C++ is not a language suited to protecting against these kinds of user errors. Your test coverage should suffice in this case.
Strictly speaking, I'm sure you can obtain the functionality you're after with some ghastly complicated "design pattern" but, honestly, I wouldn't bother.
If this is a problem for the semantics of your program's design, then I politely suggest that your design has a flaw.

Answer 5

The safest solution is to use another class as the "go-between" for your two classes, rather than make one of them a friend. One way to do this is suggested in the answer by #ForEveR, but you can also do some searching about proxy classes and other design patterns that can apply.

Answer 6

You'll need inheritance. Try this:
// _ClassA.h
class _ClassA
{
friend class ClassA;
private:
//all your private methods here, accessible only from ClassA and _ClassA.
}
// ClassA.h
class ClassA: _ClassA
{
friend class ClassB;
private:
//all_your_methods
}
This way you have:
ClassB is the only one to be able to use ClassA.
ClassB cannot access _ClassA methods, that are private.

Answer 7

The whole idea of friend is to expose your class to a friend.
There are 2 ways you could be more specific about what you expose:
Inherit from FooA, that way only protected and public methods are exposed.
Only befriend a certain method, that way only that method will have access:
.
friend void FooB::fun();

Answer 8

You can hide private members in a base class, and then make FooA a child and friend of that base class (very touching).
// allows us to hide private members from friends of FooA,
// but still allows FooA itself to access them.
class PrivateFooA
{
private:
friend class FooA;
// only allow FooA to derive from this class
PrivateFooA() {};
// hidden from friends of FooA
void Hello3();
int m_iData;
};
// this class hides some of its private members from friend classes
class FooA : public PrivateFooA
{
private:
// give FooB access to private methods
friend class FooB;
void Hello();
void Hello2();
};
class FooB
{
void fun()
{
FooA objA;
objA.Hello(); // right
objA.Hello2(); // right
objA.Hello3(); // compile error
ojbA.m_iData = 0; // compile error
}
};
class FooC
{
void fun()
{
FooA objA;
objA.Hello(); // compile error
objA.Hello2(); // compile error
objA.Hello3(); // compile error
ojbA.m_iData = 0; // compile error
}
};
Anything you want to hide from FooB can be put into PrivateFooA (must be a private member), and everything else can be put directly into FooA. FooA will be able to access everything in PrivateFooA just like its own members.
This is more of an expansion of user3737631's answer, but I think it's worth posting because it includes the classes from the OP, the private constructor in PrivateFooA, and some additional comments that I thought would be helpful.

Answer 9

I had to do this recently and I didn't like the way these solutions leave a class type dangling around in the current namespace with essentially no purpose. If you REALLY do just want this functionality available to a single class then I would use a different pattern than those mentioned.
class Safety {
protected:
std::string _Text="";
public:
Safety(const std::string& initial_text) {
_Text=initial_text;
}
void Print(const std::string& test) {
std::cout<<test<<" Value: "<<_Text<<std::endl;
}
};
class SafetyManager {
protected:
// Use a nested class to provide any additional functionality to
// Safety that you want with protected level access. By declaring
// it here this code only belongs to this class. Also, this method
// doesn't require Safety to inherit from anything so you're only
// adding weight for the functionality you need when you need it.
// You need to be careful about how this class handles this object
// since it is really a Safety cast to a _Safety. You can't really
// add member data to this class but static data is ok.
class _Safety : Safety {
public:
void SetSafetyText(const std::string& new_text) {
_Text=std::string(new_text);
}
};
public:
static void SetSafetyText(Safety* obj, const std::string& new_text) {
if(obj==nullptr) throw "Bad pointer.";
_Safety& iobj=*(_Safety*)obj;
iobj.SetSafetyText(new_text);
}
};
Then in main (or anywhere else) you can't modify _Text through Safety but you can through SafetyManager (or it's descendants).
#include "Safety.h"
int main() {
Safety t("Hello World!");
t.Print("Initial");
SafetyManager::SetSafetyText(&t, "Brave New World!");
t.Print("Modified");
/*
t._Text; // not accessible
Safety::SetSafetyText(&t, "ERR");// doesn't exist
t.SetSafetyText(&t, "ERR"); // doesn't exist
_Safety _safety; // not accessible
SafetyManager::_Safety _safety; // not accessible
*/
}
Some would say that this follows better OOP practices than a friend class because it encapsulates the messy parts a little better and doesn't pass anything down the Safety chain of inheritance. You also don't need to modify the Safety class at all for this technique making it much more modular. These are probably the reasons why many newer languages allow for nested classes but almost nothing else has borrowed the friend concept even though this just adds functionality that is available only to a single class (and doesn't work if Safety is marked final or marked vital parts of it's code as private).