Someone can give me a good hint about how to perform serialization without using extra libraries other than the standard ones ?
I would question whether you have a good reason for not using libraries. There is a lot of data that shows that the code you write yourself is most likely to blow up in your face down the line and the reason for that is because its the code with the least testing behind it.
If you do have a good reason and you still need to serialize, then you have to write your own. Basically, you're looking at overloading the usual ostream and istream operators so that they support the types you need.
Again, you run the risk of Re-inventing the square wheel. Keep in mind that the best libraries (like boost) are themselves written using standard C++ and the licensing requirements on bost do not require you to release your source or any such thing. In other words, your IP is safe even after you use them.
Your options are: don't serialize, or, write your own serializer code. Its not built into the language or standard libraries.
Also, you might want to look at some similar questions:
Serialize Strings, ints and floats to character arrays for networking WITHOUT LIBRARIES
You can use something called binary serialisation using streams ,as demonstrated in
http://www.functionx.com/cpp/articles/serialization.htm
Related
Basis: i have very big parallel Fortran90/MPI program which represent complex physical model. I want to add new functionality to it: for example, i need to organize queue of messages, introduce mergesort somewhere and use hash tables.
Problem: i know how write hash table, create queue and code mergesort by my self, but i don't think it is a good idea to invent a bicycle.
Question: what Fortran guru should do in such situation? Should i build binds to C++ classes from Fortran and realize logic there using STL or you can suggest some Fortran STL-like libraries? Thank you.
There are no templates in Fortran and hence no STL. You can try FLIBS for some generic libraries. It generally uses transfer() tricks to achieve generic programming.
There is a preprocessor which adds some templates to Fortran and comes with some small STL, you can try that too named PyF95++. If you have access to academic papers through some library, you can read about it here.
I would avoid mixing it with C++ in this specific case although it can be done. You must instantiate each case separately and interface it to Fortran using a wrapper (bind(C) and iso_c_binding). Only if you have a very limited number of types you want to use the algorithms for it could be worth it.
You can also try to implement some poor-man's templates using the C-preprocessors in Fortran, For smaller libraries it works, but can become too difficult to maintain or ugly for complex things. As an example you can see my implementation of a linked list https://github.com/LadaF/fortran-list .
Generally, there is no clearly right approach or answer, you always have to choose from more possibilities.
In addition to everything that Vladimir F already mentioned, there is now also the Fortran Template Library (FTL). Much of the FTL is a reimplementation of C++'s STL in Fortran, where the C preprocessor is abused for template instantiation. You have to instatiate your templates manually, but otherwise it should be quite convenient from the end user perspective. The documentation can be found here.
The library is still fairly new and while it comes with a lot of unit tests, it hasn't seen much use in the wild yet. You'll also need a very recent Fortran compiler to use it.
Disclaimer: I am the author of this library.
I'm considering Google protocol buffers as a solution to my problem of communication between C++ and C# using named pipes. But I have one concern: all I've been able to find on protobuf is how to create a message from a prototype using protobuf compiler. This is neat, but I would also need to be able to serialize existing structs. I can't seem to find any info (but maybe I'm overlooking it). Do you know if it is possible to serialize a struct in C++ using protobufs, so it can be read in .NET, without modifying said existing struct?
Yes and no.
It's possible. In fact, I have done it. Not the .NET loading part, but the serialization to protobuf and the generation of a prototype from a C++ class. However, doing so requires a number of things and is not that easy.
First of all, protobufs are quite limited in their ability to represent data. They are basically only capable of representing POD-types (in the C++ sense), and very little else. I personally had to add a few basic things to the format to make it into a proper full-featured serialization format. But if you restrict yourself to POD-types, then the plain protobuf format will work fine.
The second thing is that you'll need a serialization library of some kind, and that will require that you add some code for each struct / class to perform the serialization / de-serialization (not necessarily "intrusively", meaning that you might not have to change the classes, just add some code on the side). You can look at Boost.Serialization, that's the basic template for how to create a serialization library in C++. Boost.Serialization is not particularly flexible for this purpose, and so, you might have to change a few things (like I had to do).
The third thing is that you will need quite a bit of wizardry under-the-hood to make this happen. In particular, you are going to need a reliable and feature-rich run-time type identification system (RTTI) in order to able to have useful type names, and you might need to clever meta-programming or some intrusive class hierarchy to be able to detect user-defined types for which you need to generate a prototype.
So, that's why my answer is "yes and no" because it is possible, but not without quite a bit of work and a good framework to rely on.
N.B.: Writing code to encode/decode data into the proto-buf format (with those small-ints, and all that) is really the easy part, proto-buf format is so simple, it's almost laughable. Writing the serialization framework that will allow you to do fancy things like generating prototypes, that's the hard part.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
To STL or !STL, that is the question
Are there cases where one should avoid the use of the C++ STL in his / her project?
When you choose to use a framework like Qt you might consider using lists, vectors, etc from Qt rather that the STL. Not using STL in this case saves you from having to convert from STL to the Qt equivalents when you need to use them in your GUI.
This is debatable and not everyone wants to use everything from Qt
from http://doc.qt.nokia.com/latest/containers.html
These container classes are designed to be lighter, safer, and easier to use than the STL containers. If you are unfamiliar with the STL, or prefer to do things the "Qt way", you can use these classes instead of the STL classes.
If you cannot use RTTI and/or exceptions, you might experience that parts of STL won't work. This is the case e.g. for native Android apps. So if it doesn't give you what you need, it's a reason not to use it!
Not really. There's no excuse to ban the use of an entire library- unless that lib only serves one function, which is not the case with the Standard library. The provided facilities should be evaluated on a per-function basis- for example, you may well argue that you need a container that performs a more specific purpose than vector, but that is no excuse to ban the use of deque, iostream or for_each too.
More importantly, code generated via template will not be more bloated than the equivalent code written by hand. You won't save code bloat by refusing to use std::vector and then writing your equivalent vector for float and double. Especially in 2011, the size of an executable is pretty meaningless compared to the sizes of other things like media in the vast, vast majority of situations.
If you care a lot about executable size, then you might want to avoid using STL in your program.
For example, uTorrent doesn't use STL and that is one reason why it's so small.
Since STL does rely on templates a lot (it is Standard TEMPLATE Library, after all), many times you use templates, the compiler has to generate extra code for every type you use when dealing with STL.
This is compile time polymorphism and will increase your executable size the more you use it.
If you exclude STL from your project (and use templates sparingly or not at all), your code size will get smaller. Note that it won't necessarily be faster.
Also note that I'm not talking about a program's memory usage during execution, since that will depend on how many objects your allocating during your app's lifetime.
I'm talking about your binary's executable.
If you want an example, note that a simple Hello world program, when compiled, might be bigger than a cleverly code demo which can include an entire 3D engine (run time generated) in a very small executable.
Some info regarding uTorrent's size:
Official FAQ (from 2008), this question doesn't appear in recent FAQ.
How was uTorrent programmed to be so efficient?
Second post regarding this.
Third post regarding this.
Note that, even though uTorrent is >300kb and is compressed with UPX, it is still really small when you take into account what it's capable of doing.
I would say that there may be occasions where you do not use a particular feature of STL in your project for a given circumstance because you can custom write it better for your needs. STL collections are generic by nature.
You might want in your code:
Lock-free containers that are thread-safe. (STL ones are not).
A string class that is immutable by nature and copies the actual data "by reference" (with some mechanism).
An efficient string-building class that is not ostringstream (not part of STL anyway but you may mean all the standard library)
algorithms that use Map and Reduce (not to be confused with std::map. Map and Reduce is a way to iterate over a collection using multiple threads or processes, possibly even distributed on different machines).
Hey, look, so much of boost was written because what the Standard Library provided at the time did not really address the needs of the programmer and thus provided alternatives.
I am not sure if this is what you meant or if you particular meant STL should be "banned" at all times (eg device driver programming where templates are considered bloaty even though that is not always the case).
If you are working to particular standards that forbid it.
For example, the MISRA C/C++ guidelines are aimed at automotive and embedded systems and forbid using dynamic memory allocation, so you might choose to avoid STL containers altogether.
Note: The MISRA guideline is just an example of a standard that might influence your choice to use STL. That particular guideline doesn't rule out using all of the STL. But (I believe) it rules out using STL containers as they rely on runtime allocation of memory.
It can increase executable size. if you're running on an embedded platform you may wish to exclude the STL.
When you use something like the Qt library that implements identical functionality you may not need the STL. May depend on other needs, like performance.
The only reason is if you are working on embedded systems with low memory, or if your project coding guidelines explicitly forbid STL.
I can't other reasonable reason to manually roll your own incompatible, bug ridden implementation of some of the features on STL.
TR18015 deals with some of the limitation of the STL. It looks at it from a different angle - what compilers could do better - but still is an interesting (if in-depth) read.
I'd be careful in general with microprocessors and small embedded systems. First, compiler optimizations are not up to what you know from desktops, and you run into hardware limits much sooner.
Having said that, it depends a lot on the libraries you use. I/O streams are notoriously slow (and require a careful implementation to not be), whereas std::vector is merely a thin wrapper.
Edit: What I'm really thinking of is a C++ equivalent to the Contrib libraries other languages enjoy, like CPAN/PyPI/Ruby Gems
Suppose I want a collection type that isn't really supported by anything in the STL or by BOOST, like a spacial index or a fibonacci tree (if i think that might be useful on my really big dataset). Is there a good place to find these kinds of less common tools?
Sometimes Vault has useful things. maybe you can find something there.
As it is said, google is your friend :-)
It appears that here (http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/jmpc/fib.html) is an implementation of Fibonacci heap in C. Check it out, and if you like it, may be you can translate/modify/improve to a C++.
Well, I don't know if there are any actual 'collections of libraries', but i'll start a list of useful libraries. (C++ libs only, please)
There's Boost, obviously, but also Boost Vault, which appears to contain libraries that aren't quite ready for inclusion in Boost proper. (thanks aaa carp for pointing this out)
GMP, an arbitrary precision number library, has C++ bindings
Qt, which is about as old as the moon, but also modern enough to still be useful. This of course is a heavy handed application library, but there's no real reason not to use whatever parts could be useful. I'm not too sure how esoteric that really is, though. Outside of the GUI portions, most functionality would already be duplicated by boost.
libCurl has c++ bindings, for http access (and other things)
I have a library written in C++/CLI and I want to open it up. I want it to be as cross-platform as possible and be able to write bindings to it for other languages to use (Java, Python, etc, etc). To do this, the library needs to be in plain C++ for maximum flexibility. I figure that the logical structures are already there, I just need to replace the .NET libraries it uses with the standard C++ ones. Is this a misguided notion? What should I watch out for when making this transition?
It might be more trouble than it's worth. Here is what you might come across:
There is no garbage collection in C++. This is the big one. This may require a significant redesign of your library just to convert. If you are using at least C++ tr1, or the boost library, you can sort of get there by using shared_ptr, but there are important fundamental differences. For example, you must be wary of circular dependencies. Also, they make debugging difficult without specific support for them in the debugger.
Functions in .Net classes which have no equivalent in C++ stl or the standard library. Probably the biggest hurtle will be any string manipulation code you have written since there are lot of differences there.
Class libraries/assemblies are not built-in to C++ - every platform has its own method of creating dynamic or shared libraries, and there isn't much support for C++ shared libraries - only C libraries in many cases. Be prepared to make everything a static library.
You must manage all your resources yourself.
Never done a port of C++/Cli to C++, but this comes to my mind:
Make sure that you dont have memory leaks. Use smart-pointers instead of gcnew, if possible (if not, make sure your code is exception safe nontheless).
Make sure your libraries interface only consists of builtin types (builtin does not include types of the STL! however this is not coercively necessary if you go open source)