I have a problem which I encounter again and again in a similar way.
For example:
I have an abstract base class which acts as interface for a series of concrete classes which act as, let's say, data containers.
class DataInterface
{
public:
DataInterface();
~DataInterface();
virtual void FetchData(void) = 0;
virtual void ProcessData(void) = 0;
virtual void ClearData(void) = 0;
}
The concrete classes would look like this:
class BinaryData: public DataInterface
{
public:
BinaryData();
~ BinaryData();
virtual void FetchData(void);
virtual void ProcessData(void);
virtual void ClearData(void);
private:
bool m_boolData;
}
class IntegerData: public DataInterface
{
public:
IntegerData();
~ IntegerData();
virtual void FetchData(void);
virtual void ProcessData(void);
virtual void ClearData(void);
private:
int m_intData;
}
The subclasses implement the interface which they inherited from DataInterface. But they have different attributes to hold their data. So far so good.
I can use the classes in the main function like that:
int main()
{
int IntegerData;
bool BoolData;
DataInterface *pData1 = new BinaryData();
DataInterface *pData2 = new IntegerData();
pData1->FetchData();
pData2->FetchData();
pData1->ProcessData();
pData2->ProcessData();
// now I want to get the data of pData1 and pData2, for example to write it into a file, show in visualization, ...
IntegerData = pData2->GetData() ????
BoolData = pData1->GetData() ????
}
Now comes the problem:
How do I get the data from the concrete classes? I have only base class pointers, so I would need to define an abstract getter method in DataInterface. But the signature of the getter method wouold vary from subclass to subclass. For example one time I need to return an integer, one time I need to return a bool type.
Please give me a hint, this problem drives me nuts :/
Make a non-virtual GetData() member on each derived class. Then, if you know for certain the actual class of your objects, you can simply perform a static cast and call GetData():
int intData = static_cast<IntegerData*>(pData2)->GetData();
If you don't know the class, then you need to perform a dynamic cast and check its result:
if (IntegerData* _pData2 = dynamic_cast<IntegerData*>(pData2))
{
int intData = _pData2->GetData();
// Do stuff with the int
}
else if (BinaryData* _pData2 = dynamic_cast<BinaryData*>(pData2))
{
bool binaryData = _pData2->GetData();
// Do stuff with the bool
}
If you want to pass your data to another entity, you need an abstraction of it.
There are 2 common ways to achieve this:
1:
Use void*.
class DataInterface
{
public:
...
virtual void* GetData() = 0;
};
class BinaryData: public DataInterface
{
public:
virtual void* GetData() { return &m_boolData; }
private:
bool m_boolData;
};
In main use it like this:
int main()
{
bool BoolData;
DataInterface *pData1 = new BinaryData();
pData1->FetchData();
pData1->ProcessData();
BoolData = *(bool*))pData1->GetData());
}
Advantage of this approach is in its simplicity.
Disadvantages are direct access to internal of an object (breaking encapsulation) and also misuse of polymorphism (why do you need an interface if you eventually cast to a type related to a concrete derivative?)
2:
A more robust way is to not send the raw data to a client from out of your concrete object but to make a communication with clients an additional role of the object.
class DataInterface
{
public:
...
virtual void SendData() = 0;
};
class BinaryData: public DataInterface
{
public:
...
virtual void SendData()
{
//do your stuff here, you know the exact type of your data
}
};
int main()
{
bool BoolData;
DataInterface *pData1 = new BinaryData();
pData1->FetchData();
pData1->ProcessData();
pData1->SendData();
}
Note, this is a very stripped example but it demonstrates the idea. Normally, in a real use case you would register clients with you class and send the data to them via a defined interface.
I am not really sure this is a "good" practice but here is one way to solve this.
One advantage with this is that if you try to get the wrong type of data you can get custom error messages. And you can avoid casts (I am not a fan of them).
class DataInterface
{
public:
DataInterface();
~DataInterface();
virtual void FetchData(void) = 0;
virtual void ProcessData(void) = 0;
virtual void ClearData(void) = 0;
virtual int getIntData() { // Error message }
virtual bool getBoolData() { // Error message }
};
class BinaryData: public DataInterface
{
public:
BinaryData();
~ BinaryData();
virtual void FetchData(void);
virtual void ProcessData(void);
virtual void ClearData(void);
virtual int getIntData() { // Error message }
virtual bool getBoolData() { return m_boolData; }
private:
bool m_boolData;
}
class IntegerData: public DataInterface
{
public:
IntegerData();
~ IntegerData();
virtual void FetchData(void);
virtual void ProcessData(void);
virtual void ClearData(void);
virtual int getIntData() { return m_intData; }
virtual bool getBoolData() { // Error message }
private:
int m_intData;
}
int main()
{
int IntegerData;
bool BoolData;
DataInterface *pData1 = new BinaryData();
DataInterface *pData2 = new IntegerData();
pData1->FetchData();
pData2->FetchData();
pData1->ProcessData();
pData2->ProcessData();
// now I want to get the data of pData1 and pData2, for example to write it into a file, show in visualization, ...
IntegerData = pData2->GetIntData();
BoolData = pData1->GetBoolData();
BoolData = pData2->GetBoolData() // This will tell you that you are trying to get bool from int class.
}
Here is one way of handling it with templates.
using namespace std;
template<typename T>
class DataInterface
{
public:
DataInterface(T d) : data(d) {}
virtual T GetData() = 0;
protected:
T data;
};
class BinaryData : public DataInterface<bool>
{
public:
BinaryData(bool b) : DataInterface<bool>(b) {}
virtual bool GetData() {return data;}
};
class IntegerData: public DataInterface<int>
{
public:
IntegerData(int i) : DataInterface<int>(i) {}
virtual int GetData() {return data;}
};
int main()
{
int myint;
bool mybool;
DataInterface<bool> *pData1 = new BinaryData(true);
DataInterface<int> *pData2 = new IntegerData(1);
// now I want to get the data of pData1 and pData2, for example to write it into a file, show in visualization, ...
myint = pData2->GetData();
mybool = pData1->GetData();
cout<<myint<<" "<<mybool<<endl;
}
A very simple way of achieving this is to design your base class so that it returns a variant type. A variant is a discriminated union container, which holds an object from an heterogeneous set of types (see http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_59_0/doc/html/variant.html). Here is a complete example:
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <boost/variant.hpp>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class DataInterface
{
public:
DataInterface(){};
virtual ~DataInterface(){};
virtual void FetchData(void) = 0;
virtual void ProcessData(void) = 0;
virtual void ClearData(void) = 0;
virtual boost::variant<bool,int,double,std::string> GetData()=0;
};
class IntResult : public DataInterface{
public:
IntResult() : resultInt(0){};
~IntResult(){};
virtual void FetchData() override {resultInt = 10;};
virtual void ProcessData() override {resultInt *= 10;}
virtual void ClearData() override {resultInt = 0;};
virtual boost::variant<bool,int,double,std::string> GetData()override{
return resultInt;
};
private:
int resultInt;
};
class StringResult : public DataInterface{
public:
StringResult() : resultString(""){};
~StringResult(){};
virtual void FetchData() {
resultString= "Hello World";
}
virtual void ProcessData() override {
std::transform(resultString.begin(), resultString.end(),resultString.begin(), ::toupper);
}
virtual void ClearData() override {resultString = "";}
virtual boost::variant<bool,int,double,std::string> GetData() override {
return resultString;
};
private:
std::string resultString;
};
int main() {
DataInterface* data;
IntResult* intResult = new IntResult;
StringResult* stringResult = new StringResult;
data = intResult;
data->FetchData();
data->ProcessData();
switch(data->GetData().which()){
case 0:
std::cout << "found bool: " << boost::get<bool>(data->GetData()) << std::endl;
break;
case 1:
std::cout << "found int: " << boost::get<int>(data->GetData()) << std::endl;
break;
case 2:
std::cout << "found double: " << boost::get<double>(data->GetData()) << std::endl;
break;
case 3:
std::cout << "found string: " << boost::get<std::string>(data->GetData()) << std::endl;
break;
default:
break;
}
data = stringResult;
data->FetchData();
data->ProcessData();
switch(data->GetData().which()){
case 0:
std::cout << "found bool: " << boost::get<bool>(data->GetData()) << std::endl;
break;
case 1:
std::cout << "found int: " << boost::get<int>(data->GetData()) << std::endl;
break;
case 2:
std::cout << "found double: " << boost::get<double>(data->GetData()) << std::endl;
break;
case 3:
std::cout << "found string: " << boost::get<std::string>(data->GetData()) << std::endl;
break;
default:
break;
}
delete intResult;
delete stringResult;
return 0;
}
Note that in your case a bool is implicitly convertible to an int so you could simply return ints all the time. The variant approach would work if you need to return truly heterogeneous types. Equivalently you could return a boost any, which can also lets you manipulate a heterogeneous union of types uniformly (see http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_59_0/doc/html/any.html). Finally if you don't want any dependencies on boost, it is not terribly difficult to roll out your own variant type, which can hold discriminate set of types.
Related
I write c++ with c++11 and have a question as title.
Ex.
class Hi {
public:
Hi(){};
test() {cout << "test" << endl;};
}
void noop(){
; // noop
};
int main(){
Hi hi();
hi.test = noop; // just example, not real case
return 0;
}
Is that possible to replace test() of class Hi to a noop function in runtime!? Thanks.
You can't replace any function at runtime, whether class member or not.
However, you can achieve the desired effect by using a variable.
(This is yet another example of the "add a level of indirection" method of solving problems.)
Example:
class Hi {
public:
Hi(): test([this]() { do_test(); }) {}
std::function<void()> test;
void do_test() { cout << "test" << endl; }
};
void noop(){}
int main(){
Hi hi;
hi.test(); // Outputs 'test'
hi.test = noop;
hi.test(); // Does nothing
}
You have to think object oriented. In this case you have to elevate your function to be an object we can name it MethodClass then your function in the class Hi will be a pointer to that class. Below a simple example
#include <memory>
class BaseMethodClass
{
public:
virtual void method() = 0;
};
class MethodClass1 : public BaseMethodClass
{
public:
virtual void method()
{
// your implementation here
}
};
class MethodClass2 : public BaseMethodClass
{
public:
virtual void method()
{
// your implementation here
}
};
class Hi
{
public:
Hi() { method = nullptr; };
void setMethod(BaseMethodClass* m) { method.reset(m); }
void test() { if (method) method->method(); };
private:
std::shared_ptr<BaseMethodClass> method;
};
int main()
{
Hi hi;
hi.setMethod(new MethodClass1());
hi.test();
hi.setMethod(new MethodClass2());
hi.test();
return 0;
}
This way you can override your methos as you want not just noop
there is error here(but when i try to send non //class function its workin);
like when i try to add normal void zad1(){somethin...} its works but when i try to add function from class its not :?
//Class that send function//
class Lekcja1 : public ZadanieW {
private:
int numerZad;
public:
Lekcja1(int num) {
this->numerZad = num;
};
~Lekcja1() {};
void tab();
virtual void LekcjaChose();
};
/*void Zad12() {
cout << "dupa" << endl;
}*/
void Lekcja1::tab() {
cout << "dupa" << endl;
};
void Lekcja1::LekcjaChose() {
wyborZadania* obj = new wyborZadania(numerZad,tab);//there is a problem
delete obj;
}
//Class that takin function//
class ZadanieW {
public:
virtual void LekcjaChose() = 0;
};
class wyborZadania{
public:
int _chose;
public:
wyborZadania(int num,void (*tab)()) {
this->_chose = num;
switch (_chose)
{
case 1:
(*tab)();
break;
default:
break;
}
}
~wyborZadania() {}
};
tab is a method of Lekcja1, which is different from a regular function because it needs access to all the data members of Lekcja1.
You can either make Lekcja1::tab a static method, which hides access to data member and makes it a normal function:
class Lekcja1 : public ZadanieW {
//...
public:
static void tab();
//...
};
Or if you need tab to access data members of Lekcja1, then the wyborZadania constructor should take a pointer-to-member of Lekcja1 and an instance of Lekcja1, instead of a function pointer:
wyborZadania(int num,void (Lekcja1::*tab)(), Lekcja1& instance) {
// ...
(instance.*tab)();
// ...
}
If you need that to be more flexible or accept different kinds of classes, then wyborZadania should take an std::function, which is a rich wrapper around a function that will let you bind arguments and data.
wyborZadania(int num,std::function<void()> tab) {
// ...
tab();
// ...
}
And then in LekcjaChose() pass a lambda to call tab():
wyborZadania* obj = new wyborZadania(numerZad,[this](){ tab(); };
demo: https://godbolt.org/z/XfwpSJ
Pointer to member functions are passed differently. You need to pass it like this:
template<class T>
wyborZadania(int num,void (T::*&tab)()) {
this->_chose = num;
switch (_chose)
{
case 1:
(*tab)();
break;
default:
break;
}
}
For this to work Lekcja1::tab() should be declared static, otherwise you also have to pass an object, too. See the live example.
a non-static method cannot be sent as an argument without specifying the object of the class.
Below code uses std::function() to acheive this in simple code.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#include <functional>
//class wyborZadania;
//Class that takin function//
class ZadanieW {
public:
virtual void LekcjaChose() = 0;
};
//Class that send function//
class Lekcja1 : public ZadanieW {
private:
int numerZad;
public:
Lekcja1(int num) {
this->numerZad = num;
};
~Lekcja1() {};
void tab();
virtual void LekcjaChose();
};
void Zad12() {
cout << "dupa" << endl;
}
class wyborZadania {
public:
int _chose;
private:
wyborZadania() {};
public:
wyborZadania(int num, std::function<void()> tab) {
this->_chose = num;
switch (_chose)
{
case 1:
tab();
break;
default:
break;
}
}
~wyborZadania() {}
};
void Lekcja1::tab() {
cout << "dupa1" << endl;
};
void Lekcja1::LekcjaChose() {
wyborZadania* obj = new wyborZadania(numerZad, std::bind(&Lekcja1::tab, this));//there is a problem
//wyborZadania* obj = new wyborZadania(numerZad, Zad12);//there is a problem
delete obj;
}
int main()
{
Lekcja1 obj(1);
obj.LekcjaChose();
}
Related question: link.
In one of the answers to the question above, I was recommended to use the visitor pattern to resolve some of the issues with my class inheritance structure. However, I am not sure if it is possible to use it in my context because my derived classes can be non-type templates.
To showcase the problem I used a modified code from this source: http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/visitor/cpp/2.
The example below does not compile because it is not possible to define a virtual template method. However, I believe, the code demonstrates what I am trying to achieve. Are there any alternatives solutions to the problem?
// 1. Add an accept(Visitor) method to the "element" hierarchy
class Element
{
public:
virtual void accept(class Visitor &v) = 0;
};
template <unsigned int N>
class This: public Element
{
public:
/*virtual*/void accept(Visitor &v);
string thiss()
{
return "This";
}
};
class That: public Element
{
public:
/*virtual*/void accept(Visitor &v);
string that()
{
return "That";
}
};
// 2. Create a "visitor" base class w/ a visit() method for every "element" type
class Visitor
{
public:
template<unsigned int N>
virtual void visit(This<N> *e) = 0;
virtual void visit(That *e) = 0;
};
template<unsigned int N>
/*virtual*/void This<N>::accept(Visitor &v)
{
v.visit(this);
}
/*virtual*/void That::accept(Visitor &v)
{
v.visit(this);
}
// 3. Create a "visitor" derived class for each "operation" to do on "elements"
class UpVisitor: public Visitor
{
/*virtual*/void visit(This *e)
{
cout << "do Up on " + e->thiss() << '\n';
}
/*virtual*/void visit(That *e)
{
cout << "do Up on " + e->that() << '\n';
}
};
class DownVisitor: public Visitor
{
/*virtual*/void visit(This *e)
{
cout << "do Down on " + e->thiss() << '\n';
}
/*virtual*/void visit(That *e)
{
cout << "do Down on " + e->that() << '\n';
}
};
int main()
{
Element *list[] =
{
new This<3>(), new That()
};
UpVisitor up; // 4. Client creates
DownVisitor down; // "visitor" objects
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) list[i]->accept(up);
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) list[i]->accept(down);
}
The problem is your Visitor class is tightly coupled with classes that derive from Element. As you expand your design this is going to get in the way more than it already is. You can reduce/eliminate the right coupling by providing a "destination" class that defines all the requirements of a visitable object. Since the name of a derived classes is a common attribute you can place the storage and access to it into the destination class as well.
// 1. Define out visitor and destination interfaces
struct Destination
{
Destination(const std::string& name) : name_(name) {}
virtual std::string ident() const { return name_; }
const std::string name_;
};
struct Visitor
{
virtual void visit(Destination *e) = 0;
};
This keeps the requirements of the visitor separate from the Element class which seems to be your intention. Then your This and That classes inherit from Destination and provide the necessary implementations.
// 2. Define our element and it's derived classes
class Element
{
public:
virtual void accept(class Visitor &v) = 0;
};
template <unsigned int N>
class This: public Element, public Destination
{
public:
This() : Destination("This") {}
virtual void accept(Visitor &v)
{
v.visit(this);
}
};
class That: public Element, public Destination
{
public:
That() : Destination("That") {}
virtual void accept(Visitor &v)
{
v.visit(this);
}
};
Now your up and down visitors are simplified into something like the following
// 3. Create a "visitor" derived class for each "operation" to do on "elements"
class UpVisitor: public Visitor
{
void visit(Destination *e) {
cout << "do Up on " + e->ident() << '\n';
}
};
class DownVisitor: public Visitor
{
void visit(Destination *e) {
cout << "do Down on " + e->ident() << '\n';
}
};
Although I did not change it in the solution above I recommend changing visit to take a reference instead of a pointer. Since C++ has no notion of a null reference this indicates that Destination is required where as a pointer could be considered optional.
I have an object presented as a reference/pointer to an interface. I would like to call a method on the concrete object if that method is present, without changing the interface, breaking encapsulation, or writing any horrible hacks. How can it be done?
Here's an example.
I have an interface:
class IChatty
{
public:
virtual ~IChatty() {};
virtual std::string Speak() const = 0;
};
And multiple concrete implementation of this interface:
class SimpleChatty : public IChatty
{
public:
~SimpleChatty() {};
virtual std::string Speak() const override
{
return "hello";
}
};
class SuperChatty : public IChatty
{
public:
void AddToDictionary(const std::string& word)
{
words_.insert(word);
}
virtual std::string Speak() const override
{
std::string ret;
for(auto w = words_.begin(); w != words_.end(); ++w )
{
ret += *w;
ret += " ";
}
return ret;
}
private:
std::set<std::string> words_;
};
The SuperChatty::AddToDictionary method is not present in the abstract IChatty interface, although it could be included in another, new interface.
In the real world, these objects are constructed through factories, themselves concrete instantiations of an abstract interface. However for our purposes that's orthogonal to the problem at hand:
int main()
{
IChatty* chatty = new SuperChatty;
chatty->AddToDictionary("foo");
std::cout << chatty->Speak() << std::endl;
}
Since AddToDictionary isn't part of the IChatty interface (and can't be part of it), I can's call it.
How can I call AddToDictionary on the chatty pointer without breaking encapsulation, writing some horrible hack, or taking any other design shortcuts?
NOTE: In the real world, the dictionary is part of the SuperChatty object itself, and cannot be separate from it.
NOTE2: I do not want to downcast to the concrete type.
Have dictionary be an object which can be updated and referenced by SuperChatty:
class Dictionary {
public:
void add(const std::string& word);
const std::set<std::string>>& words() const;
//..
};
class SuperChatty : public IChatty
{
public:
SuperChatty(Dictionary& dictionary) :
dictionary(dictionary) {
}
virtual std::string Speak() const override
{
auto words = dictionary.words();
ostringstream oss;
copy(words.begin(), words.end(),
ostream_iterator<string>(oss, " "));
return oss.str();
}
};
Usage:
int main()
{
Dictionary dictionary;
IChatty* chatty = new SuperChatty(dictionary);
dictionary.add("foo");
std::cout << chatty->Speak() << std::endl;
}
edit
Okay, the question changed.
If you're doing this properly, you need to isolate yourself from the bad underlying system:
struct Dictionary {
virtual ~Dictionary () {}
virtual void add(const std::string& word) = 0;
};
struct Instrumenter {
virtual ~Instrumenter () {}
virtual void addDictionary(Dictionary& dictionary) = 0;
};
struct Chatter {
virtual ~Chatter() {}
virtual string speak() const = 0;
virtual void instrument(Instrumenter& instrumenter) = 0;
};
These are implemented as:
class BasicChatter : public Chatter {
virtual string speak() const {
return chatty.Speak();
}
virtual void instrument(Instrumenter& instrumenter) {
// do nothing
}
private:
SimpleChatty chatty;
};
class SuperChatter : public Chatter {
SuperChatter () : dictionary(chatty);
virtual void instrument(Instrumenter& instrumenter) {
instrumenter.addDictionary(dictionary);
}
virtual string speak() const {
return chatty.Speak();
}
private:
SuperChatty chatty;
DictionaryImpl dictionary;
};
Make it derive from another interface and simply check, whether you can cast the object to that interface or not.
class IDictionary
{
public:
virtual ~IDictionary() {};
virtual void AddToDictionary(const std::string& word) = 0;
};
class SuperChatty : public IChatty, public IDictionary
{
... as before ...
};
int main()
{
IChatty* chatty = new SuperChatty;
IDictionary *dict = dynamic_cast<IDictionary*>(chatty);
if (dict) dict->AddToDictionary("foo");
std::cout << chatty->Speak() << std::endl;
}
The main problem is that you're trowing away information that you need.
So the main solution is to not throw away information, but there's not enough code presented to flesh out the details of that.
Secondly, a tehcnical kludge solution is to just downcast, using dynamic_cast:
IChatty* newThingy();
int main()
{
IChatty* chatty = newThingy();
if( SuperChatty* p_super_chatty = dynamic_cast<SuperChatty*>( chatty ) )
{
p_super_chatty->AddToDictionary("foo");
}
std::cout << chatty->Speak() << std::endl;
}
You can downcast safely because the know static type IChatty is polymorphic.
For this particular example, there's no reason to not create the object as this:
SuperChatty* chatty = new SuperChatty;
chatty->AddToDictionary("foo");
You can still pass chatty in the above segment as IChatty pointer or reference, e.g.
void Talk(IChatty *ch)
{
ch->Speak();
}
[Likewise for storing the chatty in a vector<IChatty*> or something like that].
My point here is that if you are going to use the "new" interface functions, then you probably also want to create the class that has the new interface.
Adding code to "try to cast it", etc, gets very messy very quickly, and is error prone.
I have a hirerchy of Message class and Processor class. Each processor can recieve one or more messages on the fly. As each message can have some differnt attributes, I've to downcast that message to the concrect message class, to actually process that.
As there are a no. of message classes and process classes, I don't want to use dynamic_cast.
I tried to use following code, but this is giving compile time error.
Also, I have the flexibility to attach a processor pointer with a message (if needed), but not the other way round.
class Message
{
public:
virtual const Message* const getMessage() const = 0;
};
class MA : public Message
{
public:
const MA* const getMessage() const {return this;}
void printMA() const{std::cout<<"I am MA"<<std::endl;}
};
class MB : public Message
{
public:
const MB* const getMessage() const {return this;}
void printMB() const{std::cout<<"I am MB"<<std::endl;}
};
class Processor
{
public:
virtual void process(const Message* m) = 0;
};
class PA : public Processor
{
public:
void process(const Message* m) {processM(m->getMessage());}
void processM(const MA* m) {m->printMA();}
void processM(const MB* m) {m->printMB();}
};
int main()
{
Message* m1 = new MA();
Message* m2 = new MB();
Processor* p1 = new PA();
p1->process(m1);
p1->process(m2);
return 0;
}
I used 'double dispatch' finally to get around this. Now, the only thing is that I need to add a function in MessageProcessor' class, whenever i add a new message type., but i think that is fine.
class MessageProcessor
{
public:
virtual void process(const MA*) const{std::cout<<"unhandled:MA"<<std::endl;}
virtual void process(const MB*) const{std::cout<<"unhandled:MB"<<std::endl;}
virtual void process(const MC*) const{std::cout<<"unhandled:MC"<<std::endl;}
};
class Message
{
public:
virtual void process(const MessageProcessor*) const = 0;
};
class MA : public Message
{
public:
void printMA() const{std::cout<<"I am MA"<<std::endl;}
virtual void process(const MessageProcessor* p) const {p->process(this);}
};
class MB : public Message
{
public:
void printMB() const{std::cout<<"I am MB"<<std::endl;}
virtual void process(const MessageProcessor* p) const {p->process(this);}
};
class MC : public Message
{
public:
void printMC() const{std::cout<<"I am MC"<<std::endl;}
virtual void process(const MessageProcessor* p) const {p->process(this);}
};
class Processor : public MessageProcessor
{
public:
void processM(const Message* m){m->process(this);}
};
class PA : public Processor
{
public:
void process(const MA* m) const {m->printMA();}
void process(const MB* m) const {m->printMB();}
};
class PB : public Processor
{
public:
void process(const MA* m) const {m->printMA();}
void process(const MC* m) const {m->printMC();}
};
int main()
{
const Message* m1 = new MA();
const Message* m2 = new MB();
const Message* m3 = new MC();
Processor* p1 = new PA();
p1->processM(m1);
p1->processM(m2);
p1->processM(m3);
Processor* p2 = new PB();
p2->processM(m1);
p2->processM(m2);
p2->processM(m3);
return 0;
}
The most general solution to your problem is probably the Visitor pattern.
The simplest thing to do is eliminate the getMessage() method, and make the print() pure virtual in Message and override this in MA and MB. Furthermore, you can make process() a pure virtual method in Process and override this in PA. See code below:
#include <iostream>
class Message
{
public:
const std::string _id;
Message(std::string id):_id(id) {}
virtual void print() const = 0;
virtual void other_fun() const = 0;
};
class MA : public Message
{
private: double d_;
public:
MA():Message("MA"), d_(0.0) {}
virtual void print() const
{
std::cout<<"I am MA"<<std::endl;
std::cout << "I also have a double" << std::endl;
}
virtual void other_fun() const { std::cout << "I am MA specific" << std::endl; }
void do_hoops () const { std::cout << "Hoop!"<<std::endl;}
};
class MB : public Message
{
private: int i_;
public:
MB():Message("MB"), i_(0) {}
virtual void print() const
{
std::cout<<"I am MB"<<std::endl;
std::cout << "I also have an int"<<std::endl;
}
virtual void other_fun() const { std::cout << "I am MB specific" << std::endl; }
void do_twist() const { std::cout << "Twist!"<<std::endl; }
};
class Processor
{
public:
const std::string _id;
Processor(std::string id) : _id(id){}
virtual void process(const Message* m) = 0;
};
class PA : public Processor
{
public:
PA():Processor("PA") {}
virtual void process(const Message* m)
{
m->print();
m->other_fun();
}
};
int main()
{
Message* m1 = new MA();
Message* m2 = new MB();
// generic handling of message
Processor* p1 = new PA();
p1->process(m1);
p1->process(m2);
// message specific stuff
dynamic_cast<MA*>(m1)->do_hoops();
dynamic_cast<MB*>(m2)->do_twist();
return 0;
}
Output on Ideone.
No casts are required, the virtual functions will be selected at runtime through dynamic dispatch (virtual table lookup etc.). Message and Process are abstract base classes ("interfaces") and MA, MB and PA are concrete classes implementing these interfaces. Ideally, you also would factor the std::string state out of the Message interface, but that's left as an exercise.
Casting would be required if you would call functions that are specific to a derived class, and if you know at runtime that you are in fact calling such a class. This is done through a dynamic_cast to the particular derived class your base class pointer is currently pointing to.
You have a design flaw. Signature of Processor::process suggests it takes a Message, then it should not break this promise by trying to access something that is not a public interface of Message.
You can make Process a template class (host) that inherits from user supplied policies. Policies here are the concrete Message classes. Something like this:
#include <iostream>
struct MA
{
void print ()
{
std::cout << "MA: I'm the interface" << std::endl;
}
void printMA ()
{
std::cout << "MA: I'm special" << std::endl;
}
};
struct MB
{
void print ()
{
std::cout << "MB: I'm the interface" << std::endl;
}
void printMB ()
{
std::cout << "MB: I'm special" << std::endl;
}
};
template <typename M>
struct Process :
public M
{
void process()
{
M::print();
}
};
int main ()
{
Process<MA> p1;
Process<MB> p2;
p1.print(); // MA: I'm the interface
p1.printMA(); // MA: I'm special
p2.print(); // MB: I'm the interface
p2.printMB(); // MB: I'm special
}
Policies have print method that defines its interface. They also have some special methods like printMA and printMB. Host class (here Process) acts as user's interface to the policies. It can use the interface methods from policy classes. Special policy methods can be invoked by the user through host class.
You've run into a limitation of C++. What you really want is for the polymorphism to work on the arguments to a method, not just the method that the arguments are called on. It's generally referred to as double dispatch. Unfortunately, while there are some kind-of work-arounds, I haven't seen any perfect ones. That Wikipedia article shows the generally accepted workaround (using the Visitor pattern).