Just a really quick question here. I'm using virtual functions to read in from a text file. Now, it's virtual because in one aspect I want the values to be normalised, and, in the other respect I don't want them to be normalised. I have tried to do this:
bool readwav(string theFile, 'native');
So in theory, if the 'native' is used, this method should be called, however, if 'double' is called then a different version of the method is called. Same for if the value is empty, it should just perform the native option.
First question, why doesn't the declaration above work? Also, is this the best route to go down? Or, would it be better to have just one class method that switches between the options.
Thanks :)
Update:
Where am I going wrong?
bool Wav::readwav(string theFile, ReadType type = NATIVE)
{
// Attempt to open the .wav file
ifstream file (theFile.c_str());
if(!this->readHeader(file))
{
cerr << "Cannot read header file";
return 0;
}
for(unsigned i=0; (i < this->dataSize); i++)
{
float c = (unsigned)(unsigned char)data[i];
this->rawData.push_back(c);
}
return true;
}
bool Wav::readwav(string theFile, ReadType type = DOUBLE)
{
// Attempt to open the .wav file
ifstream file (theFile.c_str());
cout << "This is the double information";
return true;
}
Because 'native' is a multi-char character, not a string. I'd go with multiple versions of the function though:
bool readwavNative(string theFile);
bool readwavDouble(string theFile);
or at least an enum as the second parameter:
enum ReadType
{
ReadNative,
ReadDouble
};
//...
bool readwav(string theFile, ReadType type);
Sounds like what you want is an enumeration with a default parameter.
enum FileType
{
NATIVE=0,
DOUBLE
};
bool readwav(string theFile, FileType type = NATIVE);
Default parameters are present in the function declaration, do not put them in the definition.
bool readwav(string theFile, FileType type)
{
switch(type)
{
case NATIVE: { ... } break;
case DOUBLE: { ... } break;
default: { ... } break;
}
}
This way, calling readwav without a parameter will use the NATIVE type by default.
readwav("myfile.wav"); // Uses NATIVE type
readwav("myfile.wav", NATIVE); // Also uses NATIVE
readwav("myfile.wav", DOUBLE); // Uses DOUBLE type
The question has oop in it so I would assume an oop answer is wanted. I think a strategy patter would suit your purpose.
class WavReader
{
public:
WavReader(const std::string fileName)
{
//open file and prepare to read
}
virtual ~WavReader()
{
//close file
}
virtual bool read()=0;
};
class NativeWavReader: public WavReader
{
public:
NativeWavReader(const std::string fileName): WavReader(fileName){}
virtual bool read()
{
//native reading method
std::cout<<"reading\n";
return true;
}
};
NativeWavReader implements the read method from the strategy WavReader, if you want another method you create a class OtherWavReader reading the file differently.
Related
Background:
I come from a C background and just started using C++ for embedded projects.
I have written a single firmware that is able to handle multiple devices, depending on how it is configured via a graphical interface before the end user gets the device.
Each device type is represented by a class.
Many parameters are shared across multiple (but not all) types of devices (i.e. battery level), and some functions as well (i.e. read something from EEPROM which is device-type specific).
Goal:
To be able to access functions and variables through a pointer without having to cast the void pointer constantly.
Shouldn't I know what type of device I am using before calling a function?
Well yes I do, but let's consider the following.
void * _type;
uint8_t deviceType = getDeviceTypeFromEEPROM();
//somewhere at the beginning
switch(deviceType)
{
case DEVICE_A:
_type = new DeviceA();
break;
case DEVICE_B:
_type = new DeviceB();
break;
}
//somewhere during execution.
//I want to avoid having to do something like this. 2 types in example, in reality I have over 10.
//I would prefer not to put a switch and cast every time I need flexibility.
switch(deviceType)
{
case DEVICE_A:
static_cast<DeviceA*>(_type)->readEEPROM();
break;
case DEVICE_B:
static_cast<DeviceB*>(_type)->readEEPROM();
break;
}
Contemplated Solution:
Have a base class and using virtual functions. What about variables? Would I need to have virtual functions to access the variables that reside in the different classes?
Other Solutions:
Open to any alternative solutions.
Here's a sketch of how I might implement an OOP-style solution; nothing fancy, just an enumeration of the different types of parameter your program supports, and an IDevice interface that represents any device that knows how to set or get values of those types. Then you can implement subclasses as necessary for devices with parameters that are specific to that device type:
enum class ParameterType {
BatteryLevel,
Uptime,
SerialNumber,
DeviceAProprietarySetting,
DeviceBProprietarySetting,
// [... add more values here as necessary...]
};
typedef std::variant<int, float, std::string> ParameterValue;
// Abstract interface to any device
// (so you can pass around IDevice* pointers instead of void* pointers)
class IDevice
{
public:
IDevice() {}
virtual ~IDevice() {}
/** Subclass should implement this to write the specified parameter-value
* into (retValue) and return true... or if it cannot (e.g. because it
* doesn't support that particular parameter-value), it should return
* false to indicate failure.
*/
virtual bool GetValue(ParameterType pt, ParameterValue & retValue) const = 0;
/** Subclass should implement this to accept the specified parameter-value
* from (newValue) and return true... or if it cannot (e.g. because it
* doesn't support that particular parameter-value), it should return
* false to indicate failure to set anything.
*/
virtual bool SetValue(ParameterType pt, const ParameterValue & newValue) = 0;
// more virtual methods could be added here, if there are other actions
// that most of your devices support
};
// Since most devices have these parameters, we'll move them up into a shared
// base class to avoid having to reimplement that functionality for every device
class TypicalDevice : public IDevice
{
TypicalDevice() {}
virtual bool GetValue(ParameterType pt, ParameterValue & retValue) const
{
switch(pt)
{
case ParameterType::BatteryLevel: retValue = _batteryLevel; return true;
case ParameterType::Uptime: retValue = _uptime; return true;
case ParameterType::SerialNumber: retValue = _serialNumber; return true;
default: return false; // ParameterType not found!
}
}
virtual bool SetValue(ParameterType pt, const ParameterValue & newValue)
{
switch(pt)
{
case ParameterType::BatteryLevel: _batteryLevel = std::get<float>(newValue); return true;
case ParameterType::Uptime: _uptime; = std::get<int>(newValue) return true;
case ParameterType::SerialNumber: _serialNumber = std::get<std::string>(newValue); return true;
default: return false; // ParameterType not found!
}
}
private:
float _batteryLevel;
int _uptime; // in seconds?
std::string _serialNumber;
};
// Implementation for some specific device-type
class DeviceA : public TypicalDevice
{
DeviceA() {}
virtual bool GetValue(ParameterType pt, std::variant & retValue) const
{
switch(pt)
{
case ParameterType::DeviceAProprietarySetting: retValue = _deviceAProprietarySetting; return true;
default:
return TypicalDevice::GetValue(pt, retValue);
}
}
virtual bool SetValue(ParameterType pt, const std::variant & newValue)
{
switch(pt)
{
case ParameterType::DeviceAProprietarySetting: _deviceAProprietarySetting = std::get<float>(newValue); return true;
default:
return TypicalDevice::GetValue(pt, retValue);
}
}
private:
float _deviceAProprietarySetting;
};
I have currently a function
int myfun(const int a) {
...
return rval;
}
that performs several actions.
I mean to adapt it to write debug information on its behaviour or not according to some parameter that I can pass.
In the cases I want to write that info, I also want to pass the ofstream to use.
And I want applications that were using myfun to still work with no modifications.
So I would ideally change to
int myfun(const int a, ofstream & ofs) {
...
if (!(ofs == NULL)) {
ofs << ...
}
...
if (!(ofs == NULL)) {
ofs << ...
}
return rval;
}
with a default value similar to &ofs=NULL. I know NULL is not appropriate.
What is an appropriate way of handling this?
Note 1:
I could pass an optional parameter with the output file name, but that is less flexible.
Note 2:
I could also change to
int myfun(const int a, const bool debug_info, ofstream & ofs) {
...
if (debug_info) {
ofs << ...
}
with a default value debug_info=false.
I guess this still requires a default value for ofs as above.
Note 3:
The accepted answer in Default ofstream class argument in function proposes an overload without the ofs parameter.
In my case that may not work, as I mean to not write anything when "ofs=NULL".
Note 4:
This other answer apparently works, but it seems somewhat contrived to me, and I am not sure it provides all the same functionality as with passing an ofs.
Related:
Is there a null std::ostream implementation in C++ or libraries?
I want applications that were using myfun to still work with no modifications.
If so, use an ofs with default nullptr
int myfun(const int a, ofstream *ofs = nullptr)
{
if (ofs != nullptr)
{
// (*ofs) << ... ;
}
// ...
}
You can't use a reference parameter ofstream& ofs for such function because a reference cannot be null.
Make an abstract Logger class. It has a method for logging a message. In derived classes you can add logging to file (ofstream) or simply do nothing. You can use any logger, the implementation of myfun() stays the same.
#include <fstream>
class Logger {
public:
virtual void log(const char*) = 0;
};
class NullLogger: public Logger {
public:
void log(const char*) override {};
};
class FileLogger: public Logger {
public:
FileLogger(std::ofstream& s): ofs(s){}
void log(const char* msg) override {
ofs << msg;
}
private:
std::ofstream& ofs;
};
static NullLogger defaultLogger;
int myfun(const int a, Logger& logger=defaultLogger)
{
logger.log("hello");
// ...
logger.log("asdf");
}
int main(){
std::ofstream ofs;
FileLogger fileLogger(ofs);
NullLogger nullLogger;
myfun(10,fileLogger); // logs to file
myfun(10,nullLogger); // logs nothing
myfun(10); // also logs nothing
return 0;
}
In C++17 there is a solution involving std::optional but since it requires default constructible types, std::reference_wrapper has to be used too.
#include <fstream>
#include <optional>
#include <functional>
int myfun(const int a, std::optional<std::reference_wrapper<std::ofstream>> ofs)
{
if (ofs) {
ofs->get() << "...";
return 1;
}
else{
return 0;
}
}
#include <iostream>
int main(){
std::ofstream file;
//Calling is quite nice.
std::cout<<myfun(10,{file})<<'\n'; //Prints 1
std::cout<<myfun(10,{})<<'\n'; //Prints 0
}
The downside of this solution, although idiomatic, is being verbose and heavy on the syntax in some cases.
I have a (parent) class named Alma with the (virtual) function Getwidth() and two derived class of Alma, named Birs (with the special function Getheight()) and Citrom (with the special function Getdepth()). I want to declare an object - named Attila - which type is Birs or Citrom depending on a bool. Later, I want to use the common function Getwidth() and also the special functions (depending the bool mentioned).
My (not working) code:
/*...*/
/*Classes*/
class Alma{
public: virtual int Getwidth() = 0;
/*ect...*/
}
class Birs: public Alma{
int Getwidth(){return 1;}
public: int Getheight(){return 2;}
/*ect...*/
}
class Citrom: public Alma{
int Getwidth(){return 3;}
public: int Getdepth(){return 4;}
/*ect...*/
}
/*...*/
/*Using them*/
void Useobjects(){
/*Create object depending on bool*/
if(b00lvar){
Birs Andor();
std::cout<<Andor.Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor.Getheight()<<std::endl;
}else{
Citrom Andor();
std::cout<<Andor.Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor.Getdepth()<<std::endl;
}
/*Using the common part of object*/
std::cout<<Andor.Getwidth()<<std::endl;
/*Using the special part of object*/
if(b00lvar){
std::cout<<Andor.Getheight()<<std::endl;
}else{
std::cout<<Andor.Getdepth()<<std::endl;
}
/*ect...*/
}
This is a classic case of polymorphic object handling. Just make sure you are familiar with that concept as well with pointers and references.
What you need is something looking like:
Alma* Andor;
if(b00lvar){
Andor = new Birs();
std::cout<<Andor->Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor->Getheight()<<std::endl;
}else{
Andor = new Citrom();
std::cout<<Andor->Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor->Getdepth()<<std::endl;
}
Next use dynamic_cast to get back to the derived types and finally of course do not forget to delete the object. But first read about those concepts.
You cannot define a single object whose type is this or that, depending on something else. C++ doesn't work this way. C++ is a statically-typed language. This means that the type of every object is determined at compile time. Other languages, like Perl, or Javascript, are dynamically-typed, where the type of an object is determined at runtime, and a single object can be one thing, at one point, and something else at a different point.
But C++ does not work this way.
To do something like what you're trying to do, you have to refactor the code, and work with the virtual superclass. Something like this:
void UseObject(Alma &andor)
{
/*Using the common part of object*/
std::cout<<andor.Getwidth()<<std::endl;
/*Using the special part of object*/
/* This part is your homework assignment */
}
void Useobjects(){
/*Create object depending on bool*/
if(b00lvar){
Birs andor;
std::cout<<Andor.Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor.Getheight()<<std::endl;
UseObject(andor);
}else{
Citrom andor;
std::cout<<Andor.Getwidth()<<" "<<Andor.Getdepth()<<std::endl;
UseObject(andor);
}
}
Another approach would be to use two pointers, in this case passing two pointers to UseObject(). One of the two pointers will always be a nullptr, and the other one a pointer to the instantiated object, with UseObject() coded to deal with whatever object is passed in.
That's also possible, but will result in ugly code, and if I was an instructor teaching C++, I would mark down anyone who handed in code that did that.
If the type of the object (Alma or Citrom) is decided at the startup, then it's a classic polymorphism, as other answers described:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/36218884/185881
What're you missing from your design is, to name the common ancestor with common behaviors (e.g. Gyumolcs).
If the object should once act as Alma and other times as Citrom, you should implement a single class, which have a flag or enum (ACT_AS_CITROM, ACT_AS_ALMA), or, if the behavior is limited to one method, then it should have a parameter, which tells which action to perform (alma-like or citrom-like).
You can do this with pointer semantic and type introspection with dynamic_cast. I extended your example to show how I would approach it.
Here is the Demo
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class Alma{
public:
virtual int Getwidth() = 0;
};
class Birs: public Alma{
public:
int Getwidth() { return 1; }
int Getheight() { return 2; }
};
class Citrom: public Alma{
public:
int Getwidth() { return 3; }
int Getdepth() { return 4; }
};
shared_ptr<Alma> make_attila(bool birs)
{
if (birs)
return make_shared<Birs>();
else
return make_shared<Citrom>();
}
void test_attila(shared_ptr<Alma> attila)
{
cout << "width: " << attila->Getwidth() << "\n";
if (auto as_birs = dynamic_pointer_cast<Birs>(attila))
cout << "height: " << as_birs->Getheight() << "\n";
else if (auto as_citrom = dynamic_pointer_cast<Citrom>(attila))
cout << "depth: " << as_citrom->Getdepth() << "\n";
}
int main() {
shared_ptr<Alma> attila = make_attila(true);
test_attila(attila);
attila = make_attila(false);
test_attila(attila);
return 0;
}
Next step would be to make make_attila a template function taking the Derived class as a template parameter instead of a bool.
template <class Derived>
shared_ptr<Alma> make_attila()
{
return make_shared<Derived>();
}
Two things:
If you want to use it outside the if, you will have to declare it outside the if.
You need references or pointers for this kind of polymorphism.
unique_ptr<Alma> Andor;
if (b00lvar) {
Andor = make_unique<Birs>();
} else {
Andor = make_unique<Citrom>();
}
std::cout << Andor->Getwidth() << std::endl;
Some other answer suggested using shared_ptr but that's overkill here. 99% of the time unique_ptr is sufficient.
Polymorphism isn't always the way to go if an object is known to be either a B or a C. In this case, a boost::variant is often more succinct.
Having said this, if you want to go down the polymorphic route it's important to remember something that will guide the design.
Polymorphic means runtime polymorphic. I.e. the program cannot know the real type of the object. It also cannot know the full set of possible types the object could be, since another developer could manufacture a type that your module's code knows nothing about. Furthermore, when using the Alma interface, the code should not need to know anything more. Invoking magic such as "I know it'll be a Citrom because the bool is true" is laying the foundations for a code maintenance nightmare a few weeks or months down the line. When done in commercial, production code, it results in expensive and embarrassing bug-hunts. Don't do that.
This argues that all relevant information about any object of type Alma must be available in the Alma interface.
In our case, the relevant information is whether it has the concept of height and/or depth.
In this case, we should probably include these properties in the base interface plus provide functions so that the program can query whether the property is valid before using it.
Here is something like your example written this way:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <typeinfo>
#include <string>
#include <exception>
#include <stdexcept>
// separating out these optional properties will help me to reduce clutter in Alma
struct HeightProperty
{
bool hasHeight() const { return impl_hasHeight(); }
int getHeight() const { return impl_getHeight(); }
private:
// provide default implementations
virtual bool impl_hasHeight() const { return false; }
virtual int impl_getHeight() const { throw std::logic_error("getHeight not implemented for this object"); }
};
struct DepthProperty
{
bool hasDepth() const { return impl_hasDepth(); }
int getDepth() const { return impl_getDepth(); }
private:
virtual bool impl_hasDepth() const { return false; }
virtual int impl_getDepth() const { throw std::logic_error("getDepth not implemented for this object"); }
};
class Alma : public HeightProperty, public DepthProperty
{
public:
Alma() = default;
virtual ~Alma() = default;
// note: nonvirtual interface defers to private virtual implementation
// this is industry best practice
int getWidth() const { return impl_getWidth(); }
const std::string& type() const {
return impl_getType();
}
private:
virtual int impl_getWidth() const = 0;
virtual const std::string& impl_getType() const = 0;
};
class Birs: public Alma
{
private:
// implement the mandatory interface
int impl_getWidth() const override { return 1; }
const std::string& impl_getType() const override {
static const std::string type("Birs");
return type;
}
// implement the HeightProperty optional interface
bool impl_hasHeight() const override { return true; }
int impl_getHeight() const override { return 2; }
};
class Citrom: public Alma
{
private:
// implement the mandatory interface
int impl_getWidth() const override { return 3; }
const std::string& impl_getType() const override {
static const std::string type("Citrom");
return type;
}
// implement the DepthProperty optional interface
bool impl_hasDepth() const override { return true; }
int impl_getDepth() const override { return 4; }
};
/*...*/
/*Using them*/
// generate either a Birs or a Citrom, but return the Alma interface
std::unique_ptr<Alma> make_alma(bool borc)
{
if (borc) {
return std::make_unique<Birs>();
}
else {
return std::make_unique<Citrom>();
}
}
void Useobjects()
{
for (bool b : { true, false })
{
std::unique_ptr<Alma> pa = make_alma(b);
std::cout << "this object's typeid name is " << pa->type() << std::endl;
std::cout << "it's width is : " << pa->getWidth() << std::endl;
if(pa->hasHeight()) {
std::cout << "it's height is: " << pa->getHeight() << std::endl;
}
if(pa->hasDepth()) {
std::cout << "it's depth is: " << pa->getDepth() << std::endl;
}
}
}
int main()
{
Useobjects();
return 0;
}
expected output:
this object's typeid name is Birs
it's width is : 1
it's height is: 2
this object's typeid name is Citrom
it's width is : 3
it's depth is: 4
Is it possible to get a list of functions in a certain namespace or all functions in a program at runtime?
I have a function pointer map and I need to add commands on my own to it, but I thought: why not create a namespace and let the program do the work at runtime?
something like(pseudocode):
typedef bool (*command)(void);
namespace Commands
{
bool Start(void)
{
return true;
}
bool End(void)
{
return true;
}
};
std::map<std::string,command> CommandMap;
main()
{
for(each function in namespace Commands)
{
CommandMap[std::string(function_name)] = function;
}
CommandMap["Start"]();
CommandMap["End"]();
return 0;
}
instead of
std::map<std::string,command> CommandMap;
main()
{
CommandMap["Start"] = Commands::Start;
CommandMap["End"] = Commands::End;
//list of thousands of other commands......
CommandMap["Start"]();
CommandMap["End"]();
return 0;
}
Is this possible to achieve in C++ or C++11? Or any alternatives to my goal?
No (it has to be 30 characters).
EDIT: This goes along with my comment about how much control you have. You could redefine all of your functions as functors, and have the constructor register itself with some array. Your base class would look like this:
EDIT2: read the comment about all functions having same arguments and return types, makes it a little cleaner.
class myFunctorBaseClass
{
public:
myFunctorClass () : {//register myself, no duplicates}
virtual int operator () (int);//Whatever types you want
};
class myFunctor: public myFunctorBaseClass //Define as many of these as you need
{
public:
int operator() (int y) { return y; } // Define this as whatever you want
}
This obviously would depend on the objects being constucted, but assuming they all were as an initialization step, this would get you what you want.
NOTE: This may be incomplete/not compile. I just kinda wrote this off the top of my head, but it should be close. The reference you want is "functors" if you have questions about how this works.
Consider something like:
class CommandCollection
{
...
void register_command(Command*, string);
map<string, Command*> m_command_map;
}
class Command
{
...
virtual do_command(...) = 0;
}
class EachCommand : public Command
{
EachCommand() { CommandCollection::instance().register_command(this, my_name); }
...
virtual do_command(...);
}
EachCommand each_command_inst;
The Command base class has a virtual to do a command. Each derived type implements the command (you could try overloading the () operator to make them look more like functions).
Each derived Command registers itself with the CommandCollection, so it can be known in a central location. If you want to associate the commands by string (seems good if a user is typing them in), then that would be the key in the map.
As mentioned elsewhere, names (in C and C++, other languages may/do differ on this point) only really exist as part of the source-code. Once compiled, the names cease to have any meaning in C and C++.
One could, however, consider some sort of structure like this:
class CommandBase
{
virtual bool doCommand() = 0;
virtual std::string name() = 0;
virtual ~CommandBase() {}
};
class StartCommand : public CommandBase
{
bool doCommand() { ...; return true }
std::string name() { return "Start"; }
};
void RegisterCommand(CommandBase *cmd)
{
CommandMap[cmd->name] = cmd;
}
...
StartCommand start;
...
void someFunction()
{
RegisterCommand(&start);
}
I'll probably get a downvote for mentioning macros, because these are evil - don't use this if you are a purist that don't like macros.
#define CMD(x) CommandMap[#x] = Command::x
CMD(start);
CMD(end);
There are certainly other variants, and someone who knows templates may well come up with something that does this using templates.
I'm writing an xml parser and I need to add objects to a class generically, switching on the actual type of the object. Problem is, I'd like to keep to an interface which is simply addElement(BaseClass*) then place the object correctly.
void E_TableType::addElement(Element *e)
{
QString label = e->getName();
if (label == "state") {
state = qobject_cast<E_TableEvent*>(e);
}
else if (label == "showPaytable") {
showPaytable = qobject_cast<E_VisibleType*>(e);
}
else if (label == "sessionTip") {
sessionTip = qobject_cast<E_SessionTip*>(e);
}
else if (label == "logoffmedia") {
logoffMedia = qobject_cast<E_UrlType*>(e);
}
else {
this->errorMessage(e);
}
}
This is the calling class, an object factory. myElement is an instance of E_TableType.
F_TableTypeFactory::F_TableTypeFactory()
{
this->myElement = myTable = 0;
}
void F_TableTypeFactory::start(QString qname)
{
this->myElement = myTable = new E_TableType(qname);
}
void F_TableTypeFactory::fill(const QString& string)
{
// don't fill complex types.
}
void F_TableTypeFactory::addChild(Element* child)
{
myTable->addElement(child);
}
Element* F_TableTypeFactory::finish()
{
return myElement;
}
void F_TableTypeFactory::addAttributes(const QXmlAttributes &attribs) {
QString tName = attribs.value(QString("id"));
myTable->setTableName(tName);
}
Have you considered using polymorphism here? If a common interface can be implemented by each of your concrete classes then all of this code goes away and things become simple and easy to change in the future. For example:
class Camera {
public:
virtual void Init() = 0;
virtual void TakeSnapshot() = 0;
}
class KodakCamera : Camera {
public:
void Init() { /* initialize a Kodak camera */ };
void TakeSnapshot() { std::cout << "Kodak snapshot"; }
}
class SonyCamera : Camera {
public:
void Init() { /* initialize a Sony camera */ };
void TakeSnapshot() { std::cout << "Sony snapshot"; }
}
So, let's assume we have a system which contains a hardware device, in this case, a camera. Each device requires different logic to take a picture, but the code has to support a system with any supported camera, so we don't want switch statements littered throughout our code. So, we have created an abstract class Camera.
Each concrete class (i.e., SonyCamera, KodakCamera) implementation will incluse different headers, link to different libraries, etc., but they all share a common interface; we just have to decide which one to create up front. So...
std::unique_ptr<Camera> InitCamera(CameraType type) {
std::unique_ptr<Camera> ret;
Camera *cam;
switch(type) {
case Kodak:
cam = new KodakCamera();
break;
case Sony:
cam = new SonyCamera();
break;
default:
// throw an error, whatever
return;
}
ret.reset(cam);
ret->Init();
return ret;
}
int main(...) {
// get system camera type
std::unique_ptr<Camera> cam = InitCamera(cameraType);
// now we can call cam->TakeSnapshot
// and know that the correct version will be called.
}
So now we have a concrete instance that implements Camera. We can call TakeSnapshot without checking for the correct type anywhere in code because it doesn't matter; we know the correct version for the correct hardware will be called. Hope this helped.
Per your comment below:
I've been trying to use polymorphism, but I think the elements differ too much. For example, E_SessionTip has an amount and status element where E_Url just has a url. I could unify this under a property system but then I lose all the nice typing entirely. If you know of a way this can work though, I'm open to suggestions.
I would propose passing the responsibility for writing the XML data to your types which share a common interface. For example, instead of something like this:
void WriteXml(Entity *entity) {
switch(/* type of entity */) {
// get data from entity depending
// on its type and format
}
// write data to XML
}
Do something like this:
class SomeEntity : EntityBase {
public:
void WriteToXml(XmlStream &stream) {
// write xml to the data stream.
// the entity knows how to do this,
// you don't have to worry about what data
// there is to be written from the outside
}
private:
// your internal data
}
void WriteXml(Entity *entity) {
XmlStream str = GetStream();
entity->WriteToXml(stream);
}
Does that work for you? I've done exactly this before and it worked for me. Let me know.
Double-dispatch may be of interest. The table (in your case) would call a virtual method of the base element, which in turns calls back into the table. This second call is made with the dynamic type of the object, so the appropriate overloaded method is found in the Table class.
#include <iostream>
class Table; //forward declare
class BaseElement
{
public:
virtual void addTo(Table* t);
};
class DerivedElement1 : public BaseElement
{
virtual void addTo(Table* t);
};
class DerivedElement2 : public BaseElement
{
virtual void addTo(Table* t);
};
class Table
{
public:
void addElement(BaseElement* e){ e->addTo(this); }
void addSpecific(DerivedElement1* e){ std::cout<<"D1"; }
void addSpecific(DerivedElement2* e){ std::cout<<"D2"; }
void addSpecific(BaseElement* e){ std::cout<<"B"; }
};
void BaseElement::addTo(Table* t){ t->addSpecific(this); }
void DerivedElement1::addTo(Table* t){ t->addSpecific(this); }
void DerivedElement2::addTo(Table* t){ t->addSpecific(this); }
int main()
{
Table t;
DerivedElement1 d1;
DerivedElement2 d2;
BaseElement b;
t.addElement(&d1);
t.addElement(&d2);
t.addElement(&b);
}
output: D1D2B
Have a Look at the Visitor Pattern, it might help you