Suppose I have a class called Poem.
class Poem{
virtual void recite() = 0;
}
And I have hundreds of .cpp and .hpp files which describe a subclass, like the following
class TheRaven : public Poem{
void recite() { std::cout << "NEVERMORE!" << endl; }
}
And the likes. And in the main function, I'd like to be able to just iterate through every single possible Poem subclasses and call their recite() function. So I made a class:
class PoemRegistry{
std::map<std::string, Poem*> poems;
PoemRegistry& getGlobal(); // returns a static global registry
void register(const std::string& poemname, Poem * thepoem);
};
And then for each poem subclass .cpp file, I put the following.
class TheRavenRegistor{
TheRavenRegistor(){
PoemRegistry::getGlobal().register("theraven", new TheRaven());
}
}
TheRavenRegistor registor();
ninja edit: I put the global class there, forgot about it
Making it easy, I make a shortcut with #define and templates.
Now, the question is, I just heard about the static class initialization fiasco. I suppose this will be immune against it, or is there something I am definitely missing here? Or is there something more elegant that can be used for this purpose?
This is an example for the Singleton design pattern. Don't use a static global, since the initialisation order is undefined across compilation units.
Instead use something like this:
PoemRegistry& PoemRegistry::getGlobal()
{
static PoemRegistry theRegistry; // construction guaranteed when first call
return theRegistry;
}
Make the getGlobal() method static:
class PoemRegistry
{
public:
static PoemRegistry& getGlobal();
...
Related
Usually for singleton classes, one has to write all the time something like this:
SomeSingleton::GetInstance().someVariable
And I'm looking for a simplification that can be seen everywhere, so should be put in the (header and source) files of the class itself.
So, the (non-working) stuff should look something like this:
SomeSingleton.hpp:
class SomeSingleton {
//...
static SomeSingleton& GetInstance();
};
SomeSingleton& (*INSTANCE)();
SomeSingleton.cpp:
SomeSingleton& (* INSTANCE)() = SomeSingleton::GetInstance;
But this is misinterpreted as a redefinition, so doesn't work. If the declaration and the definition was in the same row, that would work, but then it would not work in a header used from everywhere. Assigning the pointer to the already declared INSTANCE variable wouldn't be simpler than simply defining the INSTANCE every file it is used in.
A workaround is to put a line
static SomeSingleton& (*INSTANCE)() = SomeSingleton::GetInstance;
into every file I use this and replace every SomeSingleton::GetInstance to INSTANCE which works but not ideal plus I'm not sure that from a design aspect it is clever to assign a singleton to a static variable (in a sense a static stuff to another static stuff).
Any ideas on this?
I think the only thing you are missing is extern in your header
extern SomeSingleton& (*INSTANCE)();
I usually try to make designs without singletons (and use dependency injection), which is better for unit testability.
But when really needed I use this pattern. You should also read up on Meyer's singleton pattern.
// header file
struct SomeSingleton
{
int value{ 42 };
};
SomeSingleton& GetGlobalInstance();
// cpp file
SomeSingleton& GetGlobalInstance()
{
static SomeSingleton data;
return data;
}
// some other cpp file
int main()
{
return GetGlobalInstance().value;
}
I am working with a project that is largely not of my creation, but am tasked with adding in some functionality to it. Currently, there is a device class that has a member variable that is responsible for storing information about a storage location, setup like this:
device.hpp
class device {
public:
// Stuff
private:
// Stuff
StorageInfo storage_info_;
// Even more stuff
}
StorageInfo.hpp
class StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
I am tasked with implementing a different storage option so that the two can be switched between. The information functions that this new storage option has would be the same as the initial storage option, but the implementation in retrieving that information is vastly different. In order to keep things clean and make it easier to maintain this application for years to come, they really need to be defined in two different files. However, this creates an issue inside of device.cpp, and in every single other file that calls the StorageInfo class. If I create two separate member variables, one for each type of storage, then not only will I need to insert a million different ifelse statements, but I have the potential to run into initialization issues in the constructors. What I would instead like to do is have one member variable that has the potential to hold either storage option class. Something like this:
StorageInfoA.hpp
class StorageInfoA: StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
StorageInfoB.hpp
class StorageInfoB: StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
device.hpp
class device {
public:
// Stuff
private:
// Stuff
StorageInfo storage_info_;
// Even more stuff
}
device.cpp
//Somewhere in the constructor of device.cpp
if(save_to_cache){
storage_info_ = StorageInfoA();
} else {
storage_info_ = StorageInfoB();
}
// Then, these types of calls would return the correct implementation without further ifelse calls
storage_info_.updateStorageInfo();
However, I know that cpp absolutely hates anything with dynamic typing, so I don't really know how to implement this. Is this kind of thing even possible? If not, does anyone know of a similar way to implement this that does work with cpp's typing rules?
You are on the right track, but you have to learn how to use polymorphism. In your example, you need the following fixes:
In the base class, make all functions virtual, and add a virtual
destructor:
class StorageInfo {
public:
virtual ~StorageInfo(){}
virtual void initializeStorage();
//...
};
Make your inheritance public:
class StorageInfoA: public StorageInfo {
Instead of holding StorageInfo by value, hold it in a smart pointer:
class device {
private:
std::unique_ptr<StorageInfo> storage_info_;
};
device constructor will look like
//Somewhere in the constructor of device.cpp
if(save_to_cache){
storage_info_ = std::make_unique<StorageInfoA>();
} else {
storage_info_ = std::make_unique<StorageInfoB>();
}
Finally, you will use it like an ordinary pointer:
storage_info_->updateStorageInfo();
I have written a library (doesn't matter what it does), which obviously has its header file. Now, I want to hide private elements of that header file, so if I provide my library to somebody, he/she should only see public members (preferably no class definition, nothing other than function definitions). One way would be creating C-style header, which will contain some kind of "init" method which will be used to create an instance of the actual class of library and the user will have to pass a pointer of that object to every function to do the job.
Is it a good practice?
Are there any other publicly accepted ways of doing something like that?
Thanks in advance.
In addition to the Factory pattern (which, in my opinion, can become unwieldy), you can also hide your private members behind a PIMPL (Pointer to IMPLementation):
// Interface.hpp
class Implementation;
class Interface {
public:
Interface() : pimpl(new Implementation()) {}
void publicMethod();
private:
std::unique_ptr<Implementation> pimpl;
};
// Interface.cpp
class Implementation {
public:
void PrivateMember();
};
void Interface::publicMethod() { pimpl->PrivateMember(); }
This has the advantage of hiding implementation, at the cost of a single pointer indirection, not much different from the typical inheritance-based Factory pattern.
This can also be ABI stable. Changes to your implementation won't affect linkage, since no changes will ever be visible to the rest of the program. This is a good pattern to use when implementing shared objects, for example.
It's also a common C++ idiom, so other C++ programmers will recognize it without question.
In the case of a class which will follow the Singleton pattern, you can avoid exposing the PIMPL at all, and simply write the entire implementation in an anonymous namespace in your .cpp file, where you can put as much state and private functions as you wish, without even hinting at it in your interface.
You can create a publicly-visible interface. Create an abstract class with the functions you want to expose, then have your implementation extend it.
For example, an interface:
class Interface {
public:
virtual void publicMethod() = 0;
...
};
And the implementation:
class Implementation : Interface {
public:
virtual void publicMethod();
private:
int hiddenMethod();
};
Then you only export the symbols for Interface. Now, in order for the user of the library to get instances of Interface which are actually Implementations, you need to provide a factory:
class Factory {
public:
//can create and return an Implementation pointer, but caller will get an Interface pointer
std::shared_ptr<Interface> getImplementationInstance();
}
Base on Eric Finn's answer, you can just declare an interface class to hold all your public methods which considered to be your API, and hide all implementations and private members/methods in implementation class which inherits interface class, here's the example:
Your header file: my_api.h
// your API in header file
// my_api.h
class interface {
public:
static interface* CreateInstance();
virtual void draw() = 0;
virtual void set(int) = 0;
};
your implementation(shared library): my_api.cpp (users won't see this when you make it a shared library)
So you can hide all your implementation and private methods/members here
#include "my_api.h"
// implementation -> in .cc file
class implementation : public interface {
int private_int_;
void ReportValue_();
public:
implementation();
void draw();
void set(int new_int);
};
implementation::implementation() {
// your actual constructor goes here
}
void implementation::draw() {
cout << "Implementation class draws something" << endl;
ReportValue_();
}
void implementation::ReportValue_() {
cout << "Private value is: " << private_int_ << endl;
}
void implementation::set(int new_int) {
private_int_ = new_int;
}
interface* interface::CreateInstance() {
return new implementation;
}
How user uses your API:
#include <iostream>
#include "my_api.h"
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
using namespace std;
interface* a; interface* b;
a = interface::CreateInstance();
a->set(1);
b = interface::CreateInstance();
b->set(2);
b->draw();
a->draw();
return 0;
}
Output:
Implementation class draws
Private int is: 2
Implementation class draws
Private int is: 1
In this pattern, your api is just an abstract class which works like a factory, you can also implement the virtual method in different classes and specify which instance you would like to call.
I think you need to create Dynamic Link Library (dll).
Please take a quick look at this link:
You might want to take a look at the envelope/letter idiom, bridge design pattern, or proxy pattern. Basically, you would create an outer (public) class that would just forward your public method calls to the inner (private) class. Your InnerClass.h header only needs to be visible/known to your OuterClass.cpp and InnerClass.cpp source files.
Each of these patterns provides a mechanism of separating the implementation from the interface so that the caller is not coupled to the implementation. Sometimes this is desired to reduce compiler dependencies on large C++ projects. Another common reason for wanting to do this is just when you want to hide the implementation details so that the caller only sees a single opaque pointer.
======= OuterClass.h =====
class InnerClass; // forward declaration is all that's needed
class OuterClass {
private:
InnerClass *pInner;
public:
InnerClass();
bool doSomething();
};
======= OuterClass.cpp ======
#include "OuterClass.h"
#include "InnerClass.h"
OuterClass::OuterClass() :
pInner(new InnerClass())
{
}
bool OuterClass::doSomething()
{
return pInner->doSomething();
}
There actually is a way to do this without having to use classes. I had the same issue and here is a very simple solution:
Just put your private things into the .cpp file. Your header file will look something like this:
// These will be visible to everyone using this library
void function();
int someNumber = 2;
and your .cpp file:
void function() {
// whatever this function does
}
// This will be only visible to the library itself
static void secretFunction() {
doSomeSecretStuff;
}
static int PIN = 1234;
// Okay, if you write this Number into your library and expect it to be safe,
// then screw you, but at least no one will be able to access it with code
When calling the "public" functions from outside you now don't need any instance of that class anymore: Just place the library in the correct directory and include it, but you probably have already taken care of that) and call the functions by their names in the Lib.h file. In the instance of this example it would look something like this:
#include "Lib.h"
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
function();
return 0;
}
Thanks to Edgar Bonet for helping me find this solution on the Arduino Stackexchange!
I have a class with a complex construction process with many parameters. Multiple clients share objects of this class, and the union of these clients parameters are used to instantiate the class. Therefore I have a factory class that stores these requirements, checks consistency of the various clients' requests, and instantiates the class.
Additionally, there are a common set of use models (or sets of parameters) which multiple clients use for multiple factories.
For instance, consider an example. (Note that the actual code is C++, but my experience is in Python so I'll pseudo-code in Python. Yes, I know that this example wouldn't actually work as-is.)
class Classroom:
def __init__(self, room_size=None, n_desks=None, n_boards=None,
n_books=None, has_globe=False, ... ):
...
class ClassroomFactory:
def __init__(self):
self._requirements = dict()
def addRequirement(self, name, value):
if name.startswith("n_"):
self._requirements[name] = max(value, self._requirements.get(name, 0))
...
def createClassroom(self):
return Classroom(**self._requirements)
# instantiate the factory
factory = ClassroomFactory()
# "client 1" is a geography teaacher
factory.addRequirement("n_desks", 10)
factory.addRequirement("n_boards", 1)
factory.addRequirement("has_globe", True)
# "client 2" is a math teacher
factory.addRequirement("n_desks", 10)
factory.addRequirement("n_boards", 1)
# "client 3" is a after-school day-care
factory.addRequirement("room_size", (20,20))
factory.addRequirement("has_carpet", True)
room = factory.createClassroom()
The common use model is as a teacher, we need 10 desks and a board. I think this is best served by a non-member function/decorator, something like:
def makeTeacherRoom(factory):
factory.addRequirement("n_desks", 10)
factory.addRequirement("n_boards", 1)
return factory
This seems like a great example of the "prefer non-member/non-friend to member" paradigm.
The thing that I'm struggling with is, within the framework of a much bigger OO code, where should these types of non-member functions/decorators live, both in terms of namespace and in terms of actual file?
Should they live in the factory's file/namespace? They are closely related to the factory, but they're limitations on the general factory, and need not be used to use the factory.
Should they live in the client's file/namespace? The client understands these use models, but this would limit re-use amongst multiple clients.
Should they live with a common base class of the clients (for instance, one could imagine a "teacher" class/namespace which would also provide the non-member function makeTeacherRoom(), which would be inherited by MathTeacher and GeographyTeacher.
Should they live somewhere else completely, in a "utils" file? And if so in which namespace?
This is primarily a personal decision. Most of your options have no technical negative effects. For example:
They could, because of locality of use, but it's not necessary.
They could, because of locality of data, but again...
They could, although this one does seem like it could make things a bit messier. Making utility classes, you may have to end up inheriting them, or making parts virtual to override later, which will get ugly pretty quick.
This is my personal favorite, or a variant of this.
I typically make a relevantly-named util file (or class with static methods) and put it in the same namespace as the classes it utilates (the more helpful version of mutilate). For a Education::Teacher class, you could have a Education::TeacherUtils file or class containing the functions that operate on Teacher. This keeps a pretty obvious naming tie-in, but also puts the util functions in their own area, so they can be included from whatever needs them (in the Teacher.cpp or similar would prevent that). In the case of a class, you can make the util and base classes friends, which is occasionally helpful (but something to use rarely, as it may be a smell).
I've seen a naming variation, Education::Utils::Teacher, but that's somewhat harder to translate to files (unless you put things into a utils dir) and can also cause name resolution oddness (in some contexts, the compiler may try to use Education::Utils::Teacher instead of Education::Teacher when you didn't mean to). Because of this, I prefer to keep utils as a suffix.
You may want to handle non-member functions in a singleton class for your application. A factory maybe executed from the program, or another object.
C++ supports global functions (non member functions), but, using a single object for the application, "does the trick".
Additionally, since the "Classroom" object may be instantiated with many optional parameters, you may want to assign it, after calling the constructor ( "init" in python ).
// filename: "classrooms.cpp"
class ClassroomClass
{
protected:
int _Room_Size;
int _N_Desks;
int _N_Boards;
int _N_Books;
bool _Has_Globe;
public:
// constructor without parameters,
// but, can be declared with them
ClassroomClass()
{
_Room_Size = 0;
_N_Desks = 0;
_N_Boards = 0;
_N_Books = 0;
_Has_Globe = false;
} // ClassroomClass()
public int get_Room_Size()
{
return _Room_Size;
}
public void set_Room_Size(int Value)
{
_Room_Size = Value;
}
// other "getters" & "setters" functions
// ...
} // class ClassroomClass
class ClassroomFactoryClass
{
public:
void addRequirement(char[] AKey, char[] AValue);
} // class ClassroomFactoryClass
class MyProgramClass
{
public:
ClassroomFactoryClass Factory;
public:
void makeTeacherRoom();
void doSomething();
} // class MyProgramClass
void MyProgramClass::addRequirement(char[] AKey, char[] AValue)
{
...
} // void MyProgramClass::addRequirement(...)
void MyProgramClass::makeTeacherRoom()
{
Factory.addRequirement("n_desks", "10")
Factory.addRequirement("n_boards", "1")
} // void MyProgramClass::makeTeacherRoom(...)
void MyProgramClass::doSomething()
{
...
} // void MyProgramClass::doSomething(...)
int main(char[][] args)
{
MyProgramClass MyProgram = new MyProgramClass();
MyProgram->doSomething();
delete MyProgram();
return 0;
} // main(...)
Cheers
Personally I would make them static members of the class.
class File
{
public:
static bool load( File & file, std::string const & fileName );
private:
std::vector< char > data;
};
int main( void )
{
std::string fileName = "foo.txt";
File myFile;
File::load( myFile, fileName );
}
With static methods they have access to the private data of the class while not belonging to a specific instance of the class. It also means the methods aren't separated from the data they act on, as would be the case if you put them in a utility header somewhere.
I have a situation where I have an interface that defines how a certain class behaves in order to fill a certain role in my program, but at this point in time I'm not 100% sure how many classes I will write to fill that role. However, at the same time, I know that I want the user to be able to select, from a GUI combo/list box, which concrete class implementing the interface that they want to use to fill a certain role. I want the GUI to be able to enumerate all available classes, but I would prefer not to have to go back and change old code whenever I decide to implement a new class to fill that role (which may be months from now)
Some things I've considered:
using an enumeration
Pros:
I know how to do it
Cons
I will have to update update the enumeration when I add a new class
ugly to iterate through
using some kind of static list object in the interface, and adding a new element from within the definition file of the implementing class
Pros:
Wont have to change old code
Cons:
Not even sure if this is possible
Not sure what kind of information to store so that a factory method can choose the proper constructor ( maybe a map between a string and a function pointer that returns a pointer to an object of the interface )
I'm guessing this is a problem (or similar to a problem) that more experienced programmers have probably come across before (and often), and there is probably a common solution to this kind of problem, which is almost certainly better than anything I'm capable of coming up with. So, how do I do it?
(P.S. I searched, but all I found was this, and it's not the same: How do I enumerate all items that implement a generic interface?. It appears he already knows how to solve the problem I'm trying to figure out.)
Edit: I renamed the title to "How can I keep track of... " rather than just "How can I enumerate..." because the original question sounded like I was more interested in examining the runtime environment, where as what I'm really interested in is compile-time book-keeping.
Create a singleton where you can register your classes with a pointer to a creator function.
In the cpp files of the concrete classes you register each class.
Something like this:
class Interface;
typedef boost::function<Interface* ()> Creator;
class InterfaceRegistration
{
typedef map<string, Creator> CreatorMap;
public:
InterfaceRegistration& instance() {
static InterfaceRegistration interfaceRegistration;
return interfaceRegistration;
}
bool registerInterface( const string& name, Creator creator )
{
return (m_interfaces[name] = creator);
}
list<string> names() const
{
list<string> nameList;
transform(
m_interfaces.begin(), m_interfaces.end(),
back_inserter(nameList)
select1st<CreatorMap>::value_type>() );
}
Interface* create(cosnt string& name ) const
{
const CreatorMap::const_iterator it
= m_interfaces.find(name);
if( it!=m_interfaces.end() && (*it) )
{
return (*it)();
}
// throw exception ...
return 0;
}
private:
CreatorMap m_interfaces;
};
// in your concrete classes cpp files
namespace {
bool registerClassX = InterfaceRegistration::instance("ClassX", boost::lambda::new_ptr<ClassX>() );
}
ClassX::ClassX() : Interface()
{
//....
}
// in your concrete class Y cpp files
namespace {
bool registerClassY = InterfaceRegistration::instance("ClassY", boost::lambda::new_ptr<ClassY>() );
}
ClassY::ClassY() : Interface()
{
//....
}
I vaguely remember doing something similar to this many years ago. Your option (2) is pretty much what I did. In that case it was a std::map of std::string to std::typeinfo. In each, .cpp file I registered the class like this:
static dummy = registerClass (typeid (MyNewClass));
registerClass takes a type_info object and simply returns true. You have to initialize a variable to ensure that registerClass is called during startup time. Simply calling registerClass in the global namespace is an error. And making dummy static allow you to reuse the name across compilation units without a name collision.
I referred to this article to implement a self-registering class factory similar to the one described in TimW's answer, but it has the nice trick of using a templated factory proxy class to handle the object registration. Well worth a look :)
Self-Registering Objects in C++ -> http://www.ddj.com/184410633
Edit
Here's the test app I did (tidied up a little ;):
object_factory.h
#include <string>
#include <vector>
// Forward declare the base object class
class Object;
// Interface that the factory uses to communicate with the object proxies
class IObjectProxy {
public:
virtual Object* CreateObject() = 0;
virtual std::string GetObjectInfo() = 0;
};
// Object factory, retrieves object info from the global proxy objects
class ObjectFactory {
public:
static ObjectFactory& Instance() {
static ObjectFactory instance;
return instance;
}
// proxies add themselves to the factory here
void AddObject(IObjectProxy* object) {
objects_.push_back(object);
}
size_t NumberOfObjects() {
return objects_.size();
}
Object* CreateObject(size_t index) {
return objects_[index]->CreateObject();
}
std::string GetObjectInfo(size_t index) {
return objects_[index]->GetObjectInfo();
}
private:
std::vector<IObjectProxy*> objects_;
};
// This is the factory proxy template class
template<typename T>
class ObjectProxy : public IObjectProxy {
public:
ObjectProxy() {
ObjectFactory::Instance().AddObject(this);
}
Object* CreateObject() {
return new T;
}
virtual std::string GetObjectInfo() {
return T::TalkToMe();
};
};
objects.h
#include <iostream>
#include "object_factory.h"
// Base object class
class Object {
public:
virtual ~Object() {}
};
class ClassA : public Object {
public:
ClassA() { std::cout << "ClassA Constructor" << std::endl; }
~ClassA() { std::cout << "ClassA Destructor" << std::endl; }
static std::string TalkToMe() { return "This is ClassA"; }
};
class ClassB : public Object {
public:
ClassB() { std::cout << "ClassB Constructor" << std::endl; }
~ClassB() { std::cout << "ClassB Destructor" << std::endl; }
static std::string TalkToMe() { return "This is ClassB"; }
};
objects.cpp
#include "objects.h"
// Objects get registered here
ObjectProxy<ClassA> gClassAProxy;
ObjectProxy<ClassB> gClassBProxy;
main.cpp
#include "objects.h"
int main (int argc, char * const argv[]) {
ObjectFactory& factory = ObjectFactory::Instance();
for (int i = 0; i < factory.NumberOfObjects(); ++i) {
std::cout << factory.GetObjectInfo(i) << std::endl;
Object* object = factory.CreateObject(i);
delete object;
}
return 0;
}
output:
This is ClassA
ClassA Constructor
ClassA Destructor
This is ClassB
ClassB Constructor
ClassB Destructor
If you're on Windows, and using C++/CLI, this becomes fairly easy. The .NET framework provides this capability via reflection, and it works very cleanly in managed code.
In native C++, this gets a little bit trickier, as there's no simple way to query the library or application for runtime information. There are many frameworks that provide this (just look for IoC, DI, or plugin frameworks), but the simplest means of doing it yourself is to have some form of configuration which a factory method can use to register themselves, and return an implementation of your specific base class. You'd just need to implement loading a DLL, and registering the factory method - once you have that, it's fairly easy.
Something you can consider is an object counter. This way you don't need to change every place you allocate but just implementation definition. It's an alternative to the factory solution. Consider pros/cons.
An elegant way to do that is to use the CRTP : Curiously recurring template pattern.
The main example is such a counter :)
This way you just have to add in your concrete class implementation :
class X; // your interface
class MyConcreteX : public counter<X>
{
// whatever
};
Of course, it is not applicable if you use external implementations you do not master.
EDIT:
To handle the exact problem you need to have a counter that count only the first instance.
my 2 cents
There is no way to query the subclasses of a class in (native) C++.
How do you create the instances? Consider using a Factory Method allowing you to iterate over all subclasses you are working with. When you create an instance like this, it won't be possible to forget adding a new subclass later.