First, some background:
(Note: Though I'm in non-.NET Win32 land, this is really a C++ question)
I'm using a 3rd party API which requires you to register a callback function in order to know when an async operation is complete. Gotta use the callback, no way around it.
A non-OOP implementation would be something like this:
void __stdcall MyCbFcn(int value)
{
do something with 'value'...
}
API_RegisterCallback(MyCbFcn);
Pretty standard stuff.
BUT...
My code is OOP, with multiple instances rx'ing the callback, thus the callback needs to be routed to the object that registered it.
Knowing that folks do this, callbacks typically include a user var, something like:
void __stdcall MyCbFcn(int value, U32 user)
{
do something with 'value'...
}
API_RegisterCallback(MyCbFcn, someUserValue);
and more specifically, when combined with OOP, this user arg allows you to get back into context:
(written inline for brevity):
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass()
{
API_RegisterCallback(MyClass::StaticCbFcn, (U32)this);
}
private:
static void __stdcall StaticCbFcn(int value, U32 user)
{
MyClass* pThis = (MyClass*)user;
pThis->InstanceCbFcn(value);
}
void InstanceCbFcn(int value)
{
... do some work in context ...
}
}
BUT, my API doesn't feature a user arg :(
So now my question:
How I can get back into context?
I've considered kinda sketchy things like defining a "pool" of 100 distinct callbacks and assigning them as objects are created, but that seems like a real hack.
An obvious solution ... if I were in e.g. JavaScript :) ... would be to use an anonymous function, but AFAIK C++ doesn't have anything like that.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
"100 distinct callbacks" is really the only thing you can do, thus you use the function address as identifying parameter. It might help to implement the different functions as template with a constant parameter:
template < unsinged N >
void StaticCbFcn( int value )
{
map[ N ].InstanceCbFcn( value );
}
You can do this with boost bind:
boost::bind(&my::function_to_call_cb, this, _1, context));
void my_impl::function_to_call_cb(int result, std::string context)
Related
This is a bit of a doozy and needs some explanation. I'm sorry in advance if I mess up the semantics or if I misunderstand something- I'm no beginner to C++ but some of its more advanced features I have yet to fully wrap my head around.
I'm writing language bindings from a library in C++ (although I am using the C API for this library since it's compiled with MSVC and I'm using MinGW) and I need to write up a binding for callbacks using function pointers. Even if I was using the C++ API, this would be a problem.
Luckily for me, the language I am writing bindings for Ruby (it doesn't really matter, I'm pretty sure other languages have similar C API bindings and this is language agnostic anyway) allows me to get an anonymous function useful for callbacks, in the form of a VALUE.
It's easy enough for me to wrap up these callbacks in a lambda which I can get a function pointer to, like so:
/* This is just a function that is bound to Ruby. It doesn't really matter much. */
VALUE set_some_callback(VALUE callback)
{
/* The types here don't really matter */
/* Create the lambda */
auto lambda = [callback](){
/* Run the callback, the semantics don't matter a lot here */
rb_funcall(callback, rb_intern("call"), 0);
}
/* Takes a function pointer (something like (void*)()) */
library_set_some_callback(fn);
return Qnil; // Return nil
}
This works just fine, in fact I've written bindings for other libraries that do something like this. However, this won't work for the particular library I'm writing bindings for since it exposes callbacks you've set in a struct.
/* Again, semantics don't matter here, this is for sake of example */
typedef struct Foo
{
int data;
(void*)() callback;
} Foo;
This is where the problem lies.
I can bind data (or whatever equivalent) just fine, but I can't bind the callback since it's a function pointer wrapping the actual callback. To bind the callback, I'd somehow need to extract that, and I don't know how...
I've come up with something along the lines of overloading operator() in a custom struct to wrap a callback, but I'm not sure if that's the right approach, or if it would even work.
struct BoundCallback
{
/* Store the callback */
VALUE callback;
/* Overload () */
void operator() const
{
rb_funcall(callback, rb_intern("call"), 0);
}
};
VALUE get_callback_from_foo(VALUE self)
{
/* Implementation of this doesn't matter. */
Foo foo = get_data_from(self);
/* Would this work...? */
BoundCallback callback = static_cast<BoundCallback>(foo.callback);
/* Would this work too? */
return callback.callback;
}
What's the best way to go about solving this problem?
EDIT:
I have modified the example API so it better reflects the real API I am dealing with. The way the API get's the message argument passed to it is by user input so the message argument cannot be used to pass additional data.
I am dealing with a very frustrating API that uses callback routines that don't take "void* userarg" pointers.
Assuming the function that uses the callback routine as defined by the API expects a string argument (that will be assigned by user input), is there ANY possible way to get more data into my callback routine without using global variables?
Here is a simplified example of what the API might look like:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// ASSUME EVERYTHING IN THIS SECTION IS PART OF AN API AND IS NOT MY OWN CODE...
// I DO NOT HAVE THE SOURCE AND IT CANNOT BE MODIFIED
typedef void (*CALLBACK)(string message);
void call_callback(CALLBACK cb) {
// Gets a message from user input
string message = "hello"; // pretend this is user input
cb(message);
}
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
int data = 42;
void callback_function(string message) {
// I want to access "data" here WITHOUT it being global
cout << message << ' ' << data << endl;
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
call_callback(&callback_function);
}
Typically an API that uses callbacks would also pass a "void* userarg" argument into the callback routine so you could pass additional data of any type, but that is not the case here.
This API is used extensively throughout our whole codebase and it is 100% necessary to pass a lot more data in every case where it is used. The current way we get more data in *prepare to cringe* is by storing practically all of our data in singletons so nearly everything is global and can be accessed from literally anywhere in the program.
This whole concept seems EVIL to me, but without a better API I can't figure out any better way to get the data into the callback. I have already contacted the vendor and asked that they fix their API to make it accept a "void* userarg" argument, but it doesn't look like it will be fixed anytime in the near future...
All I am hoping for is ANY better way of doing things than we are now.
If it is really an std::string which is an argument to the callback (and not something else) and you really have access to the argument (as in your sample code which invokes call_callback with supplied string) you can put an entity-serialized pointer to your allocated object into std::string (which is allowed to have arbitrary data in it) and invoke call_callback with it.
One challenge here would be the fact that you'd than have to manually manage this pointer.
My most straightforward idea would be to provide unique strings in place of the void* you would normally expect. You'd then have one map singleton that maps the strings to your callbacks.
So something like this:
class Dispatcher
{
public:
// TODO: Thread safety etc.
std::string makeCallback(std::function<void()> callback)
{
std::string uid = std::to_string(_index);
_callbacks[uid] = std::move(callback);
_index++;
return uid;
}
void runCallback(std::string uid)
{
_callbacks[uid]();
}
private:
size_t _index = 0;
std::map<std::string, std::function<void()>> _callbacks;
};
void leaveAPI(std::string uid)
{
getSingleton<Dispatcher>()->runCallback(uid);
}
void enterAPI(std::function<void()> userCallback)
{
std::string uid = getSingleton<Dispatcher>()->makeCallback(userCallback);
call_callback(leaveAPI, uid);
}
Demo
You just count up a number every time you call the API and use its string version as the callback parameter. The class also maps each of those strings to the callback you wanted called. You could remove the map entries or do any number of performance optimizations, but this is the gist of it.
(This would work just as well with const char* if you figure out the ownership/lifetime questions that it opens.)
You should really petition the writers of the API to use std::function instead of raw pointers to functions.
Then you can easily use e.g. std::bind or lambda expressions to be able to call functions taking more arguments than the callback takes.
For example:
// The callback is a function taking one string argument, and return nothing
using CALLBACK = std::function<void(std::string)>;
// Do some processing and then call the callback function
void call_callback(CALLBACK cb, std::string message)
{
// ...
cb(message);
}
// Our callback takes a string *and* an integer argument
void callback_function(std::string message, int data)
{
std::cout << message << ' ' << data << '\n';
}
int main()
{
int local_data = 42;
// Using std::bind...
using namespace std::placeholders; // for _1, _2, _3...
call_callback(std::bind(&callback_function, _1, local_data), "Foobar");
// Using lambdas...
call_callback([local_data](std::string message)
{
callback_function(message, local_data);
}, "Foobar");
}
Using std::function also makes it easy to use member functions as callbacks as well, not only non-member functions (or static member functions).
However, if you can't modify the API, or the creator of it won't change it and it have to use C-style plain pointers to non-member functions, you can still solve it with lambdas, but you can't have any captures for the lambda:
call_callback([/*empty!*/](std::string message)
{
// Call the function as defined in the previous snippet
callback_function(message, 42); // Pass the value directly
}, "Foobar");
I need to register functions like the following in a list of functions with arguments.
void func1( int a , char* b ) {}
void func2( vec3f a , std::vector<float> b , double c) {}
...
And call them back when I receive data over network with proper arguments. I imagined va_list would solve, but it doesnt work :
void func1(int a, char* b)
{
printf("%d %s",a,b);
}
void prepare(...)
{
va_list argList;
int args = 2;
va_start(argList, args);
((void (*)(va_list))func1)(argList);
va_end(argList);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
prepare(1, "huhu");
return 0;
}
What is the most elegant way to solve this ?
I know std::bind / std::function has similar abilities, but the internal data is hidden deep in std I assume. I just need a few basic data types, doesnt have to be for arbitrary types. If preprocessor tricks with ##VA_ARGS or using templates would solve, I am also OK with that. Priority is that it is most simple to use.
Edit1 : I found that assembly can solve ( How do I pass arguments to C++ functions when I call them from inline assembly ) - but I would prefer a more platform independent solution.
If your goal is to create your own, small and ad-hoc "rpc" solution, possibly one of the major drivers for making decisions should be: 1. Minimal amount of code 2. Easy as possible.
Keeping that in mind, it is paying off to ponder, what the difference is between the following 2 scenarios:
"Real" RPC: The handlers shall be as you wrote with rpc-method-specific signature.
"Message passing": The handlers receive messages of either "end point-determined type" or simply of a unified message type.
Now, what has to be done to get a solution of type 1?
Incoming byte streams/network packets need to get parsed to some sort of message with regards to some chosen protocol. Then, using some meta-info (contract), according to { serviceContract, serviceMethod }, a specific set of data items needs to be confirmed in the packet and if present, the respective, registered handler function needs to be called. Somewhere within that infrastructure you typically have a (likely code generated) function which does something like that:
void CallHandlerForRpcXYCallFoo( const RpcMessage*message )
{
uint32_t arg0 = message->getAsUint32(0);
// ...
float argN = message->getAsFloat(N);
Foo( arg0, arg1, ... argN );
}
All that can, of course also be packed into classes and virtual methods with the classes being generated from the service contract meta data. Maybe, there is also a way by means of some excessive template voodoo to avoid generating code and having a more generic meta-implementation. But, all that is work, real work. Way too much work to do it just for fun. Instead of doing that, it would be easier to use one of the dozens technologies which do that already.
Worth noting so far is: Somewhere within that piece of art, there is likely a (code generated) function which looks like the one given above.
Now, what has to be done to get a solution of type 2?
Less than for case 1. Why? Because you simply stop your implementation at calling those handler methods, which all take the RpcMessage as their single argument. As such, you can get away without generating the "make-it-look-like-a-function-call" layer above those methods.
Not only is it less work, it is also more robust in the presence of some scenarios where the contract changes. If one more data item is being added to the "rpc solution", the signature of the "rpc function" MUST change. Code re-generated, application code adapted. And that, whether or not the application needs that new data item. On the other hand, in approach 2, there are no breaking changes in the code. Of course, depending on your choices and the kind of changes in the contract, it still would break.
So, the most elegant solution is: Don't do RPC, do message passing. Preferably in a REST-ful way.
Also, if you prefer a "unified" rpc message over a number of rpc-contract specific message types, you remove another reason for code bloat.
Just in case, what I say seems a bit too abstract, here some mock-up dummy code, sketching solution 2:
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstdint>
#include <map>
#include <vector>
#include <deque>
#include <functional>
// "rpc" infrastructure (could be an API for a dll or a lib or so:
// Just one way to do it. Somehow, your various data types need
// to be handled/represented.
class RpcVariant
{
public:
enum class VariantType
{
RVT_EMPTY,
RVT_UINT,
RVT_SINT,
RVT_FLOAT32,
RVT_BYTES
};
private:
VariantType m_type;
uint64_t m_uintValue;
int64_t m_intValue;
float m_floatValue;
std::vector<uint8_t> m_bytesValue;
explicit RpcVariant(VariantType type)
: m_type(type)
{
}
public:
static RpcVariant MakeEmpty()
{
RpcVariant result(VariantType::RVT_EMPTY);
return result;
}
static RpcVariant MakeUint(uint64_t value)
{
RpcVariant result(VariantType::RVT_UINT);
result.m_uintValue = value;
return result;
}
// ... More make-functions
uint64_t AsUint() const
{
// TODO: check if correct type...
return m_uintValue;
}
// ... More AsXXX() functions
// ... Some ToWire()/FromWire() functions...
};
typedef std::map<uint32_t, RpcVariant> RpcMessage_t;
typedef std::function<void(const RpcMessage_t *)> RpcHandler_t;
void RpcInit();
void RpcUninit();
// application writes handlers and registers them with the infrastructure.
// rpc_context_id can be anything opportune - chose uint32_t, here.
// could as well be a string or a pair of values (service,method) or whatever.
void RpcRegisterHandler(uint32_t rpc_context_id, RpcHandler_t handler);
// Then according to taste/style preferences some receive function which uses the registered information and dispatches to the handlers...
void RpcReceive();
void RpcBeginReceive();
void RpcEndReceive();
// maybe some sending, too...
void RpcSend(uint32_t rpc_context_id, const RpcMessage_t * message);
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
RpcInit();
RpcRegisterHandler(42, [](const RpcMessage_t *message) { puts("message type 42 received."); });
RpcRegisterHandler(43, [](const RpcMessage_t *message) { puts("message type 43 received."); });
while (true)
{
RpcReceive();
}
RpcUninit();
return 0;
}
And if RpcMessage then is traded, while packed in a std::shared_ptr, you can even have multiple handlers or do some forwarding (to other threads) of the same message instance. This is one particularly annoying thing, which needs yet another "serializing" in the rpc approach. Here, you simply forward the message.
Say that you define a callback function as such:
typedef std::function<void(float)> Callback;
And you have a function as such:
void ImAFunction(float a)
{
//Do something with a
}
Is there a way to be able to store a function without an argument then pass one to it at a later time?
Such as this:
//Define the Callback storage
Callback storage;
storage = std::bind(ImAFunction, this);
//Do some things
storage(5);
This wont work which I explain with some of my real code below.
I can get close to what I wan't if I bind the value in with the std::bind function. Such as:
//Change
//storage = std::bind(ImAFunction, this);
storage = std::bind(ImAFunction, this, 5.0); //5.0 is a float passed
This works but when I go to pass a value through the function the outcome is whatever I set it to before:
storage(100); //Output is still 5
I am basing the fact that I think this is possible on this article.
http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/function-pointers.html
It doesn't use the function or bind functions but it does pass pointer arguments and performs exactly what I need. The reason I don't just skip the bind function is because I am trying to store the function in a class (private) and I can't store it if it's a template because it's created with the class.
The error produced above comes from this code:
struct BindInfo {
Callback keyCallback;
int bindType;
bool isDown;
bool held;
std::string name;
};
template <class T1>
void bindEvent(int bindType, T1* keydownObj, void(T1::*keydownF)(float), std::string name)
{
BindInfo newKeyInfo = { std::bind(keydownF, keydownObj), bindType, false, false, name };
inputBindings.insert(std::pair<int, BindInfo>(BIND_NULL, newKeyInfo));
};
The error is:
No viable conversion from '__bind<void(Main::*&)(float), Main *&>' to 'Callback' (aka 'function<void (float)>'
Is this possible? Thanks in advance.
You can include a placeholder for an unbound argument:
std::bind(&Main::ImAFunction, this, std::placeholders::_1);
If you find that a bit of a mouthful, a lambda might be more readable:
[this](float a){ImAFunction(a);}
It sounds like what you're looking for is a function pointer. While I don't have a lot of experience using them in C++ I have used them in C so: Yes, it is possible. Perhaps something like this:
void (*IAmAFunctionPointer)(float) = &IAmAFunction;
The best way to think about that line is, that IAmAFunctionPointer is a pointer (hence the *), it returns a void, and takes a float. Then later:
float a = 5;
IAmAFunctionPointer(a);
You could even design it so that the callback function is passed into the method (I assume this is what you're looking for).
void DoStuffThenCallback(float a, void (*callback)(float))
{
//DoStuff
callback(a);
}
further reading: http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/function-pointers.html
I'm creating a 2D RPG game engine in C++ with Allegro. I've reached the point in which i need to implement a scripting system. So, my poblem is this one:
I have a struct called Event. Inside this struct there is a function pointer, which points to the function that i want to execute when the event is fired. So, here's an example:
struct Event {
//...
void (*func)(Player*, void*);
//...
}
Now, to create an event i have this function:
Event* Events::register_event_source(int x, int y, std::string name, Player* player, void (*func)(Player*, void*));
So, to use it i just need to create a function with this signature:
void test_event(Player* p, void* data)
{
//Do something cool here
}
and then register an event source, giving the address to that function:
//...
Player* player = new Player(0, 0);
//...
Event* evt = Events::register_event_source(10, 10, "test event", player, &test_event);
//Eventually set some data for the event
evt->set_data(new std::string("Just some test data"));
In this way, when the player goes over the assigned spot (in this case x = 10, y = 10) the event will fire, executing any code in the test_event function.
Now, my question is: is it possible to do, or at least to get close to, this process at runtime?? ...i would need to create the function (in this case "test_event") at runtime, but i did some research, and i think what i understood is that it is not really possible to create functions at runtime.
So, which approach should i go for?? ...I know it is an abstract question...but i really don't know how to approach this problem.
Thanks in advice for any help! and sorry for my bad explaining abilities...English is not my language!
If I understand correctly what you are trying to express, you are writing a scripting engine that interprets some logics built at run-time into a string, and this should determine what to do on Player and data. If so, I can imagine you should have a function like
void InterpretScriptCode(Player* p, void* data, string const& code)
or something equivalent that interprets and execute the logics described in code on p and data.
Then, you can use std::bind and std::function to encapsulate a call to your scripting engine:
// Header <functional> needs to be included, and a proper "using namespace"
// directive must be present for bringing placeholders _1 and _2 into scope
std::function<void(Player*, void*)> fxn = std::bind(
&InterpretScriptCode,
_1,
_2,
"int x = 0; ... blah blah" // this should be your run-time generated script
);
And pass fxn in input to your register_event_source() function.
Btw, you might be interested in using Boost.Signals/Boost.Signals2 for realizing event registration/handling.
If you are not using C++11, you can use boost::bind and boost::function instead of std::bind and std::function.