A way to enforce use of interface in C++ - c++

Question

In C++, let's say I have a class Derived that implements an interface class BaseInterface, where BaseInterface has only pure virtual functions and a virtual destructor:
class BaseInterface
{
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
~BaseInterface(){}
};
class Derived : public BaseInterface
{
public:
Derived() {}
~Derived(){}
protected:
virtual void doSomething();
private:
int x;
};
No classes outside the Derived class hierarchy should call Derived::doSomething() directly, i.e., it should only be accessed polymorphically through the BaseInterface class. To enforce this rule, I have made Derived::doSomething() protected. This works well, but I'm looking for opinions pro/con regarding this approach.
Thanks!
Ken

Answer 1

I think you're looking for the non-virtual interface (NVI) pattern: a public non-virtual interface that calls a protected or private virtual implementation:
class BaseInterface
{
public:
virtual ~BaseInterface(){}
void doSomething() { doSomethingImpl(); }
protected:
virtual void doSomethingImpl() = 0;
};
class Derived : public BaseInterface
{
public:
Derived() {}
virtual ~Derived(){}
protected:
virtual void doSomethingImpl();
private:
int x;
};

Answer 2

If it is part of the interface, why would you not want users to call it? Note that as it is, they can call it: static_cast<BaseInterface&>(o).doSomething() is just an awkward way of saying o.doSomething(). What is the point of using the interface... if the object fulfills the interface, then you should be able to use it, or am I missing something?
Since you are not actually blocking anyone from calling the methods, I don't see a point in making the code more complex (both the class and users of the class) for no particular reason. Note that this is completely different from the Non-Virtual Interface in that in this idiom virtual functions are not accessible publicly (at any level) while in your case, the intention is allowing access, and making it cumbersome.

Answer 3

What you are doing is also mentioned in standard ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) 11.6.1 and believe you are correct. Other than the fact, the member function isn't pure virtual in the given example. It should hold for pure virtual functions too, AFAIK.
The access rules (clause 11) for a virtual function are determined by its declaration and are not affected by the rules for a function that later overrides it.
[Example:
class B
{
public:
virtual int f();
};
class D : public B
{
private:
int f();
};
void f()
{
D d;
B* pb = &d;
D* pd = &d;
pb->f(); // OK: B::f() is public,
// D::f() is invoked
pd->f(); // error: D::f() is private
}
—end example]
Access is checked at the call point using the type of the expression used to denote the
object for which the member function is called (B* in the example above). The access of the member function in the class in which it was defined (D in the example above) is in general not known.

Answer 4

The key is the rest of your code. Only accept a BaseInterface* as an argument to any methods that require the doSomething() call. The client programmer is forced to derive from the interface to make his code compile.

Answer 5

This makes no sense to me. Regardless of which pointer you call doSomething(), you would still wind up with the method defined in most derived class. Consider the following scenario:
class BaseInterface
{
public:
virtual void doSomething() = 0;
~BaseInterface(){}
};
class Derived : public BaseInterface
{
public:
Derived() {}
~Derived(){}
virtual void doSomething(){}
private:
int x;
};
class SecondDerived : public Derived
{
public:
SecondDerived() {}
~SecondDerived(){}
private:
int x;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
SecondDerived derived;
derived.doSomething(); //Derived::doSomething is called
BaseInterface* pInt = &derived;
pInt->doSomething(); //Derived::doSomething is called
return 0;
}