Executing base function before continuing in derived function - c++

I'm trying to solve a problem where I have some classes in which I need to do some common work and then a bunch of problem specific work and when this is finished do some more processing common to all these classes.
I have a Base and Derived class that both have a function called Execute. When I call the derived version of this function, I'd like to be able to do some processing common to all my derived classes in the Base and then continue executing in my Derived::Execute and going back to Base::Execute to finish off with some common work.
Is this possible in C++ and how would one best go about doing that?
This is the idea, however it's probably not very workable like this:
class Base
{
public:
virtual void Execute();
};
Base::Execute() {
// do some pre work
Derived::Execute(); //Possible????
// do some more common work...
}
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void Execute();
};
void Derived::Execute()
{
Base::Execute();
//Do some derived specific work...
}
int main()
{
Base * b = new Derived();
b.Execute(); //Call derived, to call into base and back into derived then back into base
}

Use a pure virtual function from base..
class Base
{
public:
void Execute();
private:
virtual void _exec() = 0;
};
Base::Execute() {
// do some common pre work
// do derived specific work
_exec();
// do some more common work...
}
class Derived : public Base
{
private:
void _exec() {
// do stuff
}
};
int main()
{
Base * b = new Derived();
b.Execute();
}
EDIT: changed the flow slightly after reading the question some more.. :) The above mechanism should match exactly what you require now -
i.e.
Base Common Stuff
Derived specific stuff
Base Common stuff again

This is called the NVI (Non-Virtual Interface, from Herb Sutter here) idiom in C++, and basically says that you should not have public virtual functions, but rather protected/private virtual functions. User code will have to call your public non-virtual function in the base class, and that will dispatch through to the protected/private virtual method.
From a design perspective the rationale is that a base class has two different interfaces, on one side the user interface, determined by the public subset of the class, and on the other end the extensibility interface or how the class can be extended. By using NVI you are decoupling both interfaces and allowing greater control in the base class.
class base {
virtual void _foo(); // interface to extensions
public:
void foo() { // interface to users
// do some ops
_foo();
}
};

Turn the problem from its head to its feet. What you actually want to have is a base class algorithm that derived classes can plug into:
class Base {
public:
void Execute()
{
// do something
execute();
// do some more things
}
private:
virtual void execute() = 0;
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
// whatever
private:
virtual void execute()
{
//do some fancy stuff
}
};
Letting derived classes plug into base class algorithms is often called "template method" pattern (which has nothing to do with template. Having no public virtual functions in the base class interface is often called "non-virtual interface" pattern.
I'm sure google can find you a lot on those two.

Move that Base::Execute internally in two functions and then use RAII to implement that easily.
class Base{
protected:
void PreExecute(){
// stuff before Derived::Execute
}
void PostExecute(){
// stuff after Derived::Execute
}
public:
virtual void Execute() = 0;
};
struct ScopedBaseExecute{
typedef void(Base::*base_func)();
ScopedBaseExecute(Base* p)
: ptr_(p)
{ ptr_->PreExecute() }
~ScopedBaseExecute()
{ ptr_->PostExecute(); }
Base* ptr_;
};
class Derived : public Base{
public:
void Execute{
ScopedBaseExecute exec(this);
// do whatever you want...
}
};

Related

Are empty methods in an abstract class/interface considered a good practice?

Let's assume you have an base class for the different states of a State Machine that has methods for different inputs like mouse, keyboard, joystick, etc. Now not every derived state is going to use all possible types of inputs. If the base class methods are pure virtual every derived state class needs to always implement every single one of them. To avoid this i declared them with an empty body in the base class and just override the ones that are used by the particular derived class. In case the class doesn't use a certain input type the empty base class method get's called. I am storing the currentState in a base class pointer and just feed it with the input without having to know which particular derived state it actually is to avoid unnessecary casts.
class Base
{
public:
virtual void keyboardInput() {}
virtual void mouseInput() {}
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void keyboardInput()
{
// do something
}
// Derived doesnt use mouseInput so it doesn't implement it
};
void foo(Base& base)
{
base.keyboardInput();
base.mouseInput();
}
int main()
{
Derived der;
foo(der);
}
Is this considered a good practice?
Your question is opinion based, but I'd rather follow this approach to use an interface:
struct IBase {
virtual void keyboardInput() = 0;
virtual void mouseInput() = 0;
virtual ~IBase() {}
};
class Base : public IBase {
public:
virtual void keyboardInput() override {}
virtual void mouseInput() override {}
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
void keyboardInput() override {
// do something
}
// Derived doesnt use mouseInput so it doesn't implement it
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<IBase> foo = new Derived();
foo->keyboardInput();
foo->mouseInput();
return 0;
}
Some arguments why that's better practice added from the comments:
The idea is that interface should contain as little assertions as possible, making it less likely to change, making it more dependable for those who inherit from it. Implementing the methods, albeit empty, is already an assertion, however small.
It would be less pain for refactorings coming later, which introduce more interfaces with multiple inheritance.
It really depends on what you want from the methods. When declaring an interface, usually the methods are left pure virtual because they are required to be implemented for the class to work at all. Marking them pure virtual signals "You have to implement this.".
However, sometimes there are methods that may do nothing and it's valid for all possible implementations for them to do nothing. It is not very common, but it is possible.
I don't think that your interface is the case though, and you should follow #πάντα ῥεῖ's answer. Or do it through multiple inheritance:
class MouseInput {
public:
virtual void mouseInput() = 0;
}
class KeyboardInput {
public:
virtual void keyboardInput() = 0;
}
class Derived : public KeyboardInput
{
public:
virtual void keyboardInput() override
{
// do something
}
};
class AllInput : public KeyboardInput, public MouseInput
{
public:
virtual void keyboardInput() override
{
// do something
}
virtual void mouseInput() override
{
// do something
}
};
That has the benefit that you can have methods that explicitly say that they work with one kind of input:
void doSomethingMouseIsh(MouseInput* input);
The disadvantage is that methods that combine mouse and keyboard input get weird unless you have InterfaceAllInput as interface and use it for all "all input methods"
Final note: as long as you try to write clean code, considering each use case is more important than some best practices.
If you going to be strict about it this does violate ISP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_segregation_principle) as your forcing a subclass to depend on a method it doesn't use - but generally its not too bad in practice if the alternative adds more complexity.

How to make the inherited function to call the derived class function without virtual functions

Let's assume I have class A and B as follows:
class A
{
public:
void function_1(){ /*other codes*/; function_2();};
void function_2();
};
class B:public A
{
public:
void function_2(); // this function is reimplementation of A::function_2()
};
Now assume in the main code I have
B objB;
objB.function_1();
From my test if I leave the code as above, it will still call A::function_2() internally when objB.function_1() is called.
I want objB.function_1() will internally call the B::function_2(), not A::function_2(). Is it possible to do it provided that I cannot change the code of A class?
Is it possible to do it provided that I cannot change the code of A class?
As others already pointed out in comments, that's not possible without making function A::function_2() a virtual function.
So if you can't change class A that's not possible.
One option is to reimplement A::function_1() in your derived class B.
Though you could provide a wrapper class for A that provides virtual functions which can be overridden in derived classes and makes that easier for future inheritors:
class AWrap {
protected:
A wrappedA;
public:
virtual void function_1() {
// Reimplement A::function_1() "other codes"
function_2();
}
virtual void function_2() {
wrappedA.function_2();
}
};
class B : public AWrap {
public:
void function_2() override {
// Implement the B specific stuff
}
};

How to make an inherited virtual function not usable?

I have an abstract base class which declares a pure virtual function (virtual method() = 0;). Some of the inherited classes specialize and use this method but there's one of those inherited classes in which I don't want to make this method usable. How do I do it? Is making it private the only choice?
Well, you could throw that will make tacking where it is called easier.
void method() override { throw /* whatever */ ; }
Dynamic polymorphism is a runtime property. Hence a runtime error. If you look after something that will trigger at compile time, you need static polymorphism.
template<typename Child>
struct Parent {
void callMe() {
static_cast<Child*>(this)->callMeImpl();
}
};
struct SomeChild : Parent<SomeChild> {
};
Now, if you try to call callMe form the parent that is extended by SomeChild, it will be a compile time error.
You can also hold pointer to the parent just like dynamic polymorphism, as the parent will call the child function
Is making it private the only choice?
No, that's not a choice at all since you can still access the method if it's public or protected in the base classes.
Other than implementing the method in the class and resorting to run-time failures, there's not a lot you can do. You could port the whole thing to templates and use static polymorphism which, with further trickey, you could contrive a compile-time failure in certain instances, but that could be design overkill.
I guess you could make it a normal virtual function instead of a pure virtual function like this:
virtual void method() { /* code */ }
If this function is not being used in another class, you will be able to catch that. For example you could warn yourself:
virtual void method() { error = true; } //or whatever
As others have said there is no way of enforcing this at compile time. If you are referring to a pointer to a base class there is no way the compiler can know if that pointer is referring to one of the derived classes that does implement this method or one that doesn't.
So the case will have to be handled at runtime. One option is to just throw an exception. Another option is to introduce a level of indirection so that you can ask your base class if it implements a certain function before you call it.
Say you have a Base class with three methods foo, bar and doit and some derived classes do not want to implement foo then you could split up the Base class into two base classes:
class Base1 {
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
};
class Base2 {
public:
virtual void bar() = 0;
virtual void doit() = 0;
};
Then in places where you are currently using Base you instead use a BaseSource:
class BaseSource {
public:
virtual Base1* getBase1() = 0;
virtual Base2* getBase2() = 0;
};
where getBase1 and getBase2 can return nullptr if a BaseSource does not offer that interface:
class Derived : public BaseSource, public Base2 {
public:
// don't implement foo();
// Implemementation of Base2
void bar() override;
void doit() override;
Base1* getBase1() override { return nullptr; } // Doesn't implement Base1
Base2* getBase2() override { return this; }
};
int main() {
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<BaseSource>> objects;
objects.push_back(std::make_unique<Derived>());
for (auto& o : objects) {
auto b1 = o->getBase1();
if (b1)
b1->foo();
auto b2 = o->getBase2();
if (b2)
b2->bar();
}
}
Live demo.

How to easily substitute a Base class

I have the following hierarchy of classes
class classOne
{
virtual void abstractMethod() = 0;
};
class classTwo : public classOne
{
};
class classThree : public classTwo
{
};
All classOne, classTwo and classThree are abstract classes, and I have another class that is defining the pure virtual methods
class classNonAbstract : public classThree
{
void abstractMethod();
// Couple of new methods
void doIt();
void doItToo();
};
And right now I need it differently...I need it like
class classNonAbstractOne : public classOne
{
void abstractMethod();
// Couple of new methods
void doIt();
void doItToo();
};
class classNonAbstractTwo : public classTwo
{
void abstractMethod();
// Couple of new methods
void doIt();
void doItToo();
};
and
class classNonAbstractThree : public classThree
{
void abstractMethod();
// Couple of new methods
void doIt();
void doItToo();
};
But all the nonAbstract classes have the same new methods, with the same code...and I would like to avoid copying all the methods and it's code to every nonAbstract class. How could I accomplish that?
Hopefully it's understandable...
template<class Base>
struct Concrete : Base {
void abstractMethod();
void doIt() {
// example of accessing inherited members:
int n = Base::data_member; // or this->data_member
n = Base::method(); // non-virtual dispatch
n = this->method(); // virtual dispatch
// since Base is a template parameter, 'data_member' and 'method' are
// dependent names and using them unqualified will not properly find
// them
}
void doItToo();
};
typedef Concrete<classOne> classNonAbstractOne; // if desired, for convenience
Make sure to give your abstract base classes either a virtual public destructor or make the destructor protected (then it doesn't have to be virtual, but still can be).
Because the template must be parsed with names looked up without yet knowing exactly what Base will be, you need to either use Base::member or this->member to access inherited members.
I usually try to avoid inheritance if possible (except for pure abstract classes which define pure interfaces) because it creates a tight coupling. In many cases composition is the better alternative.
Also, things tend to get messy with complex inheritance structures. It's not easy to say from your description what's the best in this particular case. Just pointing this out as a rule of thumb.

How to implement an interface class using the non-virtual interface idiom in C++?

In C++ an interface can be implemented by a class whose methods are pure virtual.
Such a class could be part of a library to describe what methods an object should implement to be able to work with other classes in the library:
class Lib::IFoo
{
public:
virtual void method() = 0;
};
:
class Lib::Bar
{
public:
void stuff( Lib::IFoo & );
};
Now I want to to use class Lib::Bar, so I have to implement the IFoo interface.
For my purposes I need a whole of related classes so I would like to work with a base class that guarantees common behavior using the NVI idiom:
class FooBase : public IFoo // implement interface IFoo
{
public:
void method(); // calls methodImpl;
private:
virtual void methodImpl();
};
The non-virtual interface (NVI) idiom ought to deny derived classes the possibility of overriding the common behavior implemented in FooBase::method(), but since IFoo made it virtual it seems that all derived classes have the opportunity to override the FooBase::method().
If I want to use the NVI idiom, what are my options other than the pImpl idiom already suggested (thanks space-c0wb0y).
I think you've got your NVI pattern around the wrong way:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C%2B%2B_Idioms/Non-Virtual_Interface
Not sure if that solves your issue though.
class IFoo
{
public:
void method() { methodImpl(); }
private:
virtual void methodImpl()=0;
};
class FooBase : public IFoo // implement interface IFoo
{
private:
virtual void methodImpl();
};
Here's an example of why you might do this using a reader that reads from XML and another from DB. Note that common structure is moved into the NVI readFromSource, while non-common behaviour is moved into the private virtual getRawDatum. This way logging and error checking is only needed in the one function.
class IReader
{
public:
// NVI
Datum readFromSource()
{
Datum datum = getRawDatum();
if( ! datum.isValid() ) throw ReaderError("Unable to get valid datum");
logger::log("Datum Read");
return datum;
}
private:
// Virtual Bits
Datum getRawDatum()=0;
};
class DBReader : public IReader
{
private:
Datum getRawDatum() { ... }
};
class XmlReader : public IReader
{
private:
Datum getRawDatum() { ... }
};
Commonly, the reason for using the NVI (sometimes also called "Template Method") is that derived classes should only change a part of the base class' behavior. So what you do is this:
class base {
public:
void f()
{
// do something derived classes shouldn't interfere with
vf();
// do something derived classes shouldn't interfere with
vg();
// do something derived classes shouldn't interfere with
vh();
// do something derived classes shouldn't interfere with
}
private:
virtual void vf(); // might be pure virtual, too
virtual void vg(); // might be pure virtual, too
virtual void vh(); // might be pure virtual, too
};
Derived classes can then plug into f() at the spots they are meant to and change aspects of f()'s behavior, without messing up its fundamental algorithm.
It may be confusing that once a method is declared as virtual in a base class, it automatically becomes virtual in all derived classes, even if the virtual keywords is not used there. So in your example, both methods of FooBase are virtual.
... to deny derived classes the
possibility of overriding the common
behavior implemented in
FooBase::method()...
If you can get rid of IFoo, and just start the hierarchy with FooBase with a non-virtual method, that would do it. But it looks like you want to allow direct children of IFoo to override method(), but to prevent children of FooBase to override it. I don't think that's possible.
You could use the pimpl-idiom to achieve this:
class IFoo
{
public:
IFoo( boost::shared_ptr< IFooImpl > pImpl )
: m_pImpl( pImpl )
{}
void method() { m_pImpl->method(); }
void otherMethod() { m_pImpl->otherMethod(); }
private:
boost::shared_ptr< IFooImpl > m_pImpl;
};
class IFooImpl
{
public:
void method();
virtual void otherMethod();
};
Now others can still subclass IFooImpl and pass it to IFoo, but they cannot override the behavior of method (they can override otherMethod). You can even make IFooImpl a direct subclass of IFoo and use enable_shared_from_this to initialize IFoo correctly. This is just the gist of the method. There are many ways to tweak this approach. For instance you can use the factory-pattern to make sure IFoos are created correctly.
Hope that helps.