I'd like to use the Decorator Pattern in C++ and still be able to rely on the signature/identity of the decorated object. Is it possible to do it in C++?
That is, I'd like to decorate a component:
class Component {
public:
Component();
virtual void doSomething();
}
with a decorator:
class Decorator : public Component {
public:
Decorator(Component*);
virtual void doSomething();
private:
Component* _component;
}
such that when I do:
Component foo;
Decorator(&foo) bar;
std::cout << typeid(bar).name() << std::endl;
it prints "Component" instead of "Decorator".
(This is actually pretty simple to do in Python using the decorator module but I'm learning C++ at the moment and don't even know where to start looking for an answer to this question.)
This is useful in case I want to extend the Component class but still be able to use it in a transparent way (as if it wouldn't have been extended):
class ExtendDecorator : public Decorator {
public:
ExtendDecorator(Component*);
virtual void doSomething();
private:
void doSomethingMore();
}
void ExtendDecorator::doSomething() {
Decorator::doSomething();
doSomethingMore();
}
Since in C++ overloading operator typeid is not allowed - the only solution which I can propose is to add virtual method returning type_info for decorated type:
class Component {
public:
Component();
virtual void doSomething();
virtual const std::type_info& decorated_type() const
{ return typeid(*this); }
};
class Decorator : public Component {
public:
Decorator(Component*);
virtual void doSomething();
virtual const std::type_info& decorated_type() const
{ return typeid(*_component); }
private:
Component* _component;
};
Maybe better version for Decorator::decorated_type() const:
virtual const std::type_info& decorated_type() const
{ return _component->decorated_type(); }
Related
I am working on developing an observer pattern infrastructure and was hoping to get some advice on a design issue I have run into. The idea behind this pattern is to allow users to create "Transactions" from any primitive type they would like. Users can then develop their own custom Observers to do things like logging / build statistics / etc... Everything is then hooked up at runtime using factory methods depending on what they would like based on a configuration. This all works really well, until a user would like to provide a baseclass pointer based observer and have it work for all derived types. When observers are added I check if the types match and throw an exception if it is the wrong type.
Below is a simple example of the pattern and the use case that is breaking it.
Thanks so much in advance!
#include <cassert>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <vector>
template<typename T>
class Observerable;
template<typename T>
struct ObserverInfo {
const T& data;
const Observerable<T>& observer;
};
class IObserver {
public:
virtual ~IObserver() {}
};
template<typename T>
class Observer : public IObserver {
public:
virtual void Annouce(const ObserverInfo<T>& info);
};
class DumperBase {
public:
virtual void Dump() const = 0;
};
class MyTransaction : public DumperBase {
public:
void Dump() const override { printf("Hello\n"); }
};
class IObserverable {
public:
virtual ~IObserverable() {}
virtual void AttachObserver(IObserver* observer) = 0;
};
template<typename T>
class Observerable : public IObserverable {
public:
void AttachObserver(IObserver* observer) override {
// ?? Is there a way I can make this work for base clases?
auto casted_observer = dynamic_cast<Observer<T>*>(observer);
assert(casted_observer);
m_observers.emplace_back(casted_observer);
}
void Push(T transaction) {
Annouce({transaction, *this});
// Do something real with T
}
void Annouce(const ObserverInfo<T>& info) {
for (auto& observer : m_observers) {
observer->Annouce(info);
}
}
private:
std::vector<Observer<T>*> m_observers;
};
class MyTransactionObserver : public Observer<DumperBase*> {
void Annouce(const ObserverInfo<DumperBase*>& info) override {
info.data->Dump();
}
};
int main() {
Observerable<MyTransaction*> observerable{};
Observer<DumperBase*> observer{};
observerable.AttachObserver(&observer);
MyTransaction transaction{};
observerable.Push(&transaction);
return 0;
}
The content
The question
Example
Why do I need it
Hi.
The question
I am facing a problem. I have a class A that has a base B (is polymorphic). In B class is method Print(), wich is virtual. In A class is also Print(). virtual.
Lets say I am given an A type object (or pointer), stored in B variable
B * object = new A();
And by calling
object->Print();
It calls the method in A class, but I also want it to call method in B class.
Technically
I want to call the method for each child until i reach class that has no child
This can be done as follows:
Example
class A
{
public:
virtual void Print() const override
{
cout << "A" << endl;
}
};
class B : public A
{
public:
virtual void Print() const override
{
cout << "B" << endl;
A::Print(); // i do not want to call it here...
}
};
The problem is that I do want not to be forced to call the
A::Print();
Why
Yes, you might be asking, what is the deal...
I have very long inheritance chain. (lets say that there are like 15 - 20 classes in the inheritance chain).
In a game, each one does some little thing.
Lets say
class GameObject
{
public:
virtual void Update() const
{
//updates position, recounts it towards screen
}
};
class Character : public GameObject
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates lives, movement
}
};
class Warrior : public Character
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates armor, specific stuff
}
};
Now this example is very simplified. Problem is, that if i forget to add a call base::Update() Then I am worndering why does it not work. Looking for such a misstake is hard. I mean, if there any way around it?
Thank you very much indeed for any responses.
Have a nice day
If indeed every class must call the base function, one way to ensure the functionality is enforced is to use the template pattern.
class GameObject
{
public:
void Updater()
{
Update(); // this is a virtual call
GameObject::Update(); // now call base
}
virtual void Update() const
{
}
};
class Character : public GameObject
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates lives, movement
}
};
class Warrior : public Character
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates armor, specific stuff
}
};
class Character : public GameObject
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates lives, movement
}
};
class Warrior : public Character
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates armor, specific stuff
}
};
Then always call YourObject::Updater(); instead of YourObject::Update(). The Updater function will call your object's Update function, and then return and call the base class Update.
There was once a proposal to get all the bases of a given type (N2965) which gcc actually implemented in <tr2/type_traits>. So, if portability is not a concern and you happen to be using gcc, you can write a catch-all like so:
struct A {
virtual ~A() = default;
virtual void print() { print_all(*this); }
void print_one() { std::cout << "A\n"; }
protected:
template <class T>
void print_all(T& object) {
object.print_one();
print_all(object, typename std::tr2::bases<T>::type{});
}
template <class T, class... Bases>
void print_all(T& object, std::tr2::__reflection_typelist<Bases...> ) {
using swallow = int[];
(void)swallow{0,
(static_cast<Bases&>(object).print_one(), 0)...
};
}
};
This splits up print(), which prints everything, and print_one() which just prints the one specific type. You just have your print() call print_all() with itself:
struct B : A {
void print() override { print_all(*this); }
void print_one() { std::cout << "B\n"; }
};
struct C : B {
void print() override { print_all(*this); }
void print_one() { std::cout << "C\n"; }
};
Otherwise, you'll have to wait for one of the reflection proposals to get adopted.
My code structure is like below where multiple classes implement Interface. In Example class I store a pointer to the Interface and new() it in the constructor appropriately (depending on constructor parameters not shown here). I'm looking for ways to avoid using new() in this scenario but haven't got a solution yet. What's the best practice for something like this?
class Interface
{
virtual void Foo() = 0;
};
class A : public Interface
{
void Foo() { ... }
};
class B : public Interface
{
void Foo() { ... }
};
class Example
{
private:
Interface* m_bar;
public:
Example()
{
m_bar = new A(); // deleted in destructor
}
};
There are two ways this is typically done, each with their own merits.
If A is truely defined at compile time, than a typical way to handle this is to simply use a template type:
template <typename T>
class TemplateExample
{
T m_bar;
public:
TemplateExample() : m_bar() {};
}
This has some downsides. TemplateExample<A> becomes unrelated to TemplateExample<B>, the error messages when T doesn't follow the correct interface are pretty obtuse, ect. The upside is this may use duck typing rather than interface typing, and m_bar is a concrete instance.
The other (arguable more common) way is to do the following
class UniquePtrExample
{
std::unique_ptr<Interface> m_bar;
public:
UniquePtrExample() : m_bar(new A()){}
};
This has the benefit of being able to be run time configuratble if you follow a cloable pattern:
class Interface
{
public:
virtual void Foo() = 0;
virtual Interface* clone() const = 0;
};
template <typename T>
class CloneHelper : public Interface
{
public:
virtual Interface* clone() const { return new T(static_cast<const T&>(*this));}
};
class A : public CloneHelper<A>
{
virtual void Foo() { std::cout << 'A' << std::endl; }
};
class B : public CloneHelper<B>
{
virtual void Foo() { std::cout << 'B' << std::endl; }
};
class UniquePtrExample
{
std::unique_ptr<Interface> m_bar;
public:
UniquePtrExample() : m_bar(new A()){}
UniquePtrExample(const Interface& i) : m_bar(i.clone());
};
Note you can further extend the above to have a move variant of the clone function.
There are two base classes have same function name. I want to inherit both of them, and over ride each method differently. How can I do that with separate declaration and definition (instead of defining in the class definition)?
#include <cstdio>
class Interface1{
public:
virtual void Name() = 0;
};
class Interface2
{
public:
virtual void Name() = 0;
};
class RealClass: public Interface1, public Interface2
{
public:
virtual void Interface1::Name()
{
printf("Interface1 OK?\n");
}
virtual void Interface2::Name()
{
printf("Interface2 OK?\n");
}
};
int main()
{
Interface1 *p = new RealClass();
p->Name();
Interface2 *q = reinterpret_cast<RealClass*>(p);
q->Name();
}
I failed to move the definition out in VC8. I found the Microsoft Specific Keyword __interface can do this job successfully, code below:
#include <cstdio>
__interface Interface1{
virtual void Name() = 0;
};
__interface Interface2
{
virtual void Name() = 0;
};
class RealClass: public Interface1,
public Interface2
{
public:
virtual void Interface1::Name();
virtual void Interface2::Name();
};
void RealClass::Interface1::Name()
{
printf("Interface1 OK?\n");
}
void RealClass::Interface2::Name()
{
printf("Interface2 OK?\n");
}
int main()
{
Interface1 *p = new RealClass();
p->Name();
Interface2 *q = reinterpret_cast<RealClass*>(p);
q->Name();
}
but is there another way to do this something more general that will work in other compilers?
This problem doesn't come up very often. The solution I'm familiar with was designed by Doug McIlroy and appears in Bjarne Stroustrup's books (presented in both Design & Evolution of C++ section 12.8 and The C++ Programming Language section 25.6). According to the discussion in Design & Evolution, there was a proposal to handle this specific case elegantly, but it was rejected because "such name clashes were unlikely to become common enough to warrant a separate language feature," and "not likely to become everyday work for novices."
Not only do you need to call Name() through pointers to base classes, you need a way to say which Name() you want when operating on the derived class. The solution adds some indirection:
class Interface1{
public:
virtual void Name() = 0;
};
class Interface2{
public:
virtual void Name() = 0;
};
class Interface1_helper : public Interface1{
public:
virtual void I1_Name() = 0;
void Name() override
{
I1_Name();
}
};
class Interface2_helper : public Interface2{
public:
virtual void I2_Name() = 0;
void Name() override
{
I2_Name();
}
};
class RealClass: public Interface1_helper, public Interface2_helper{
public:
void I1_Name() override
{
printf("Interface1 OK?\n");
}
void I2_Name() override
{
printf("Interface2 OK?\n");
}
};
int main()
{
RealClass rc;
Interface1* i1 = &rc;
Interface2* i2 = &rc;
i1->Name();
i2->Name();
rc.I1_Name();
rc.I2_Name();
}
Not pretty, but the decision was it's not needed often.
You cannot override them separately, you must override both at once:
struct Interface1 {
virtual void Name() = 0;
};
struct Interface2 {
virtual void Name() = 0;
};
struct RealClass : Interface1, Interface2 {
virtual void Name();
};
// and move it out of the class definition just like any other method:
void RealClass::Name() {
printf("Interface1 OK?\n");
printf("Interface2 OK?\n");
}
You can simulate individual overriding with intermediate base classes:
struct RealClass1 : Interface1 {
virtual void Name() {
printf("Interface1 OK?\n");
}
};
struct RealClass2 : Interface2 {
virtual void Name() {
printf("Interface2 OK?\n");
}
};
struct RealClass : RealClass1, RealClass2 {
virtual void Name() {
// you must still decide what to do here, which is likely calling both:
RealClass1::Name();
RealClass2::Name();
// or doing something else entirely
// but note: this is the function which will be called in all cases
// of *virtual dispatch* (for instances of this class), as it is the
// final overrider, the above separate definition is merely
// code-organization convenience
}
};
Additionally, you're using reinterpret_cast incorrectly, you should have:
int main() {
RealClass rc; // no need for dynamic allocation in this example
Interface1& one = rc;
one.Name();
Interface2& two = dynamic_cast<Interface2&>(one);
two.Name();
return 0;
}
And here's a rewrite with CRTP that might be what you want (or not):
template<class Derived>
struct RealClass1 : Interface1 {
#define self (*static_cast<Derived*>(this))
virtual void Name() {
printf("Interface1 for %s\n", self.name.c_str());
}
#undef self
};
template<class Derived>
struct RealClass2 : Interface2 {
#define self (*static_cast<Derived*>(this))
virtual void Name() {
printf("Interface2 for %s\n", self.name.c_str());
}
#undef self
};
struct RealClass : RealClass1<RealClass>, RealClass2<RealClass> {
std::string name;
RealClass() : name("real code would have members you need to access") {}
};
But note that here you cannot call Name on a RealClass now (with virtual dispatch, e.g. rc.Name()), you must first select a base. The self macro is an easy way to clean up CRTP casts (usually member access is much more common in the CRTP base), but it can be improved. There's a brief discussion of virtual dispatch in one of my other answers, but surely a better one around if someone has a link.
I've had to do something like this in the past, though in my case I needed to inherit from one interface twice and be able to differentiate between calls made on each of them, I used a template shim to help me...
Something like this:
template<class id>
class InterfaceHelper : public MyInterface
{
public :
virtual void Name()
{
Name(id);
}
virtual void Name(
const size_t id) = 0;
}
You then derive from InterfaceHelper twice rather than from MyInterface twice and you specify a different id for each base class. You can then hand out two interfaces independently by casting to the correct InterfaceHelper.
You could do something slightly more complex;
class InterfaceHelperBase
{
public :
virtual void Name(
const size_t id) = 0;
}
class InterfaceHelper1 : public MyInterface, protected InterfaceHelperBase
{
public :
using InterfaceHelperBase::Name;
virtual void Name()
{
Name(1);
}
}
class InterfaceHelper2 : public MyInterface, protected InterfaceHelperBase
{
public :
using InterfaceHelperBase::Name;
virtual void Name()
{
Name(2);
}
}
class MyClass : public InterfaceHelper1, public InterfaceHelper2
{
public :
virtual void Name(
const size_t id)
{
if (id == 1)
{
printf("Interface 1 OK?");
}
else if (id == 2)
{
printf("Interface 2 OK?");
}
}
}
Note that the above hasn't seen a compiler...
class BaseX
{
public:
virtual void fun()
{
cout << "BaseX::fun\n";
}
};
class BaseY
{
public:
virtual void fun()
{
cout << "BaseY::fun\n";
}
};
class DerivedX : protected BaseX
{
public:
virtual void funX()
{
BaseX::fun();
}
};
class DerivedY : protected BaseY
{
public:
virtual void funY()
{
BaseY::fun();
}
};
class DerivedXY : public DerivedX, public DerivedY
{
};
There are two other related questions asking nearly (but not completely) identical things:
Picking from inherited shared method names. If you want to have rc.name() call ic1->name() or ic2->name().
Overriding shared method names from (templated) base classes. This has simpler syntax and less code that your accepted solution, but does not allow for access to the functions from the derived class. More or less, unless you need to be able to call name_i1() from an rc, you don't need to use things like InterfaceHelper.
I'm working on a plugin framework, which supports multiple variants of a base plugin class CPlugin : IPlugin. I am using a boost::shared_ptr<IPlugin> for all reference to the plugins, except when a subsystem needs the plugin type's specific interface. I also need the ability to clone a plugin into another seprate object. This must return a PluginPtr. This is why CPlugin is a template rather than a straight class. CPlugin::Clone() is where the template paramter is used. The following are the class definitions I am using:
IPlugin.h
#include "PluginMgr.h"
class IPlugin;
typedef boost::shared_ptr<IPlugin> PluginPtr;
class IPlugin
{
public:
virtual PluginPtr Clone() =0;
virtual TYPE Type() const =0;
virtual CStdString Uuid() const =0;
virtual CStdString Parent() const =0;
virtual CStdString Name() const =0;
virtual bool Disabled() const =0;
private:
friend class CPluginMgr;
virtual void Enable() =0;
virtual void Disable() =0;
};
CPlugin.h
#include "IPlugin.h"
template<typename Derived>
class CPlugin : public IPlugin
{
public:
CPlugin(const PluginProps &props);
CPlugin(const CPlugin&);
virtual ~CPlugin();
PluginPtr Clone();
TYPE Type() const { return m_type; }
CStdString Uuid() const { return m_uuid; }
CStdString Parent() const { return m_guid_parent; }
CStdString Name() const { return m_strName; }
bool Disabled() const { return m_disabled; }
private:
void Enable() { m_disabled = false; }
void Disable() { m_disabled = true; }
TYPE m_type;
CStdString m_uuid;
CStdString m_uuid_parent;
bool m_disabled;
};
template<typename Derived>
PluginPtr CPlugin<Derived>::Clone()
{
PluginPtr plugin(new Derived(dynamic_cast<Derived&>(*this)));
return plugin;
}
An example concrete class CAudioDSP.h
#include "Plugin.h"
class CAudioDSP : CPlugin<CAudioDSP>
{
CAudioDSP(const PluginProps &props);
bool DoSomethingTypeSpecific();
<..snip..>
};
My problem (finally) is that CPluginMgr needs to update m_disabled of the concrete class, however as it is passed a PluginPtr it has no way to determine the type and behave differently according to the template paramater. I can't see how to avoid declaring ::Enable() and ::Disable() as private members of IPlugin instead but this instantly means that every section of the application now needs to know about the CPluginMgr class, as it is declared as a friend in the header. Circular dependancy hell ensues. I see another option, declare the Enable/Disable functions as private members of CPlugin and use boost::dynamic_pointer_cast<CVariantName> instead.
void CPluginMgr::EnablePlugin(PluginPtr plugin)
{
if(plugin->Type == PLUGIN_DSPAUDIO)
{
boost::shared_ptr<CAudioDSP> dsp = boost::dynamic_pointer_cast<CAudioDSP>(plugin);
dsp->Enable();
}
}
This however leads to lots of duplicate code with many multiple variants of the base CPlugin template. If anyone has a better suggestion please share it!
You can easily write :
class CPluginMgr;
class IPlugIn ..
{
friend CPluginMgr;
...
};
Only a predefinition is needed for friend.
I think your get in trouble trying to return a shared_ptr in clone method. Why don't you make use of covariant return types? What you are doing is a common idiom called Virtual Constructor.
class IPlugin
{
public:
virtual IPlugin* clone() = 0;
// ...
}
class CPluginMgr;
class CPlugin : public IPlugin
{
public:
virtual CPlugin* clone() = 0;
friend CPluginMgr; // as #Christopher pointed out
void Enable(bool enable) { m_disabled = !enable; }
// ...
}
class CAudioDSP : public CPlugin
{
public:
virtual CAudioDSP* clone();
// ...
}
CAudioDSP* CAudioDSP::clone()
{
return new CAudioDSP(*this); // assume copy constructors are properly implemented
}
Returning a shared_ptr may lead you to make errors (as early destruction of temparary objects) and I think is not usually a good idea.