Let's say I have a class box, and a user can create boxes. How to do it? I understand I create objects by className objectName(args); but how to do it dynamically, depending on the user input?
The correct answer depends on the number of different classes of which you want to create the instances.
If the number is huge (the application should be able to create an instance of any class in your application), you should use the reflection functionality of .Net. But, to be honest, I'm not a big fan of using reflection in business logic, so I would advise not to do this.
I think that in reality you have a limited number on classes for which you want to create instances. And all the other answers make this assumption. What you actually need is a factory pattern. In the next code I also assume that the classes of which you want to create instances, all derive from the same base class, let's say Animal, like this:
class Animal {...};
class Dog : public Animal {...}
class Cat : public Animal {...}
Then create an abstract factory which is an interface that creates an animal:
class IFactory
{
public:
Animal *create() = 0;
};
Then create subclasses for each of the different kinds of animals. E.g. for the Dog class this will become this:
class DogFactory : public IFactory
{
public:
Dog *create() {return new Dog();}
};
And the same for the cat.
The DogFactory::create method overrules the IFactory::create method, even if their return type is different. This is what is called co-variant return types. This is allowed as long as the return type of the subclass's method is a subclass of the return type of the base class.
What you can now do is put instances of all these factories in a map, like this:
typedef std::map<char *,IFactory *> AnimalFactories
AnimalFactories animalFactories;
animalFactories["Dog"] = new DogFactory();
animalFactories["Cat"] = new CatFactory();
After the user input, you have to find the correct factory, and ask it to create the instance of the animal:
AnimalFactories::const_iterator it=animalFactories.find(userinput);
if (it!=animalFactories.end())
{
IFactory *factory = *it;
Animal *animal = factory->create();
...
}
This is the typical abstract factory approach.
There are other approaches as well. When teaching myself C++ I wrote a small CodeProject article about it. You can find it here: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/architecture/all_kinds_of_factories.aspx.
Good luck.
The following factory method creates Box instances dynamically based on user input:
class BoxFactory
{
public:
static Box *newBox(const std::string &description)
{
if (description == "pretty big box")
return new PrettyBigBox;
if (description == "small box")
return new SmallBox;
return 0;
}
};
Of course, PrettyBigBox and SmallBox both derive from Box. Have a look at the creational patterns in the C++ design patterns wikibook, as one of them probably applies to your problem.
In C++, it is possible to allocate objects using automatic (stack) and dynamic (heap) storage.
Type variable_name; // variable_name has "automatic" storage.
// it is a local variable and is created on the stack.
Type* pointer_name = NULL; // pointer_name is a "pointer". The pointer, itself,
// is a local variable just like variable_name
// and is also created on the stack. Currently it
// points to NULL.
pointer_name = new DerivedType; // (where DerivedType inherits from Type). Now
// pointer_name points to an object with
// "dynamic" storage that exists on the heap.
delete pointer_name; // The object pointed-to is deallocated.
pointer_name = NULL; // Resetting to NULL prevents dangling-pointer errors.
You can use pointers and heap-allocation to dynamically construct objects as in:
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
class Base {
public:
virtual ~Base(){}
virtual void printMe() const = 0;
protected:
Base(){}
};
class Alpha : public Base {
public:
Alpha() {}
virtual ~Alpha() {}
virtual void printMe() const { std::cout << "Alpha" << std::endl; }
};
class Bravo : public Base {
public:
Bravo() {}
virtual ~Bravo() {}
virtual void printMe() const { std::cout << "Bravo" << std::endl; }
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
std::auto_ptr<Base> pointer; // it is generally better to use boost::unique_ptr,
// but I'll use this in case you aren't familiar
// with Boost so you can get up and running.
std::string which;
std::cout << "Alpha or bravo?" << std::endl;
std::cin >> which;
if (which == "alpha") {
pointer.reset(new Alpha);
} else if (which == "bravo") {
pointer.reset(new Bravo);
} else {
std::cerr << "Must specify \"alpha\" or \"bravo\"" << std::endl;
std::exit(1);
}
pointer->printMe();
return 0;
}
Related: the "Factory" object-oriented design pattern
Related
I recently started with c++ development. I've come to a problem of which I am not able to solve, given that I am unaware if the following is possible.
I want to create a mapping between a number and class, which are derived from an abstract class.
Essentially what I would like to be able to do is create a factory method that can create a new instance of a class based on a given number associated with that class.
I know that I could do the following...
Vehicle *Vehicle::from_type(byte type)
{
switch(type)
{
case 0x00: return new Bicyle();
case 0x01: return new Car();
...
case 0x10: return new Truck();
}
return null;
}
..., but I'd rather not as I want to keep it DRY.
It there a way where one can do something along the lines of this:
// I know this is incorrect syntax
const map<byte, class extends Vehicle> VEHICLE_MAPPING = {{0x00, Bicyle}, {0x01, Car}, ..., {0x10, Truck}};
Vehicle *Vehicle::from_type(byte type)
{
return new VEHICLE_MAPPING[type]();
}
I can see how your approach could work with usage of std::map<uint8_t, std::unique_ptr<Vehicle>>, but there is a problem - you wouldn't be able to initialise that map with initializer_list, since it copies the elements and, as we all know, std::unique_ptr cannot be copied. You would have to create an init() function to initialise the map that would use similar logic to your Vehicle *Vehicle::from_type(byte type), which would simply be pointless given you already have your function.
Furthermore, I disagree that your first solution violates DRY. It is actually correct in a sense that you won't be forced to use switch or ifs elsewhere in the code. I'd definitely stick with it.
The final note - you could use std::map<uint8_t, std::shared_ptr<Vehicle>> instead of std::map<uint8_t, std::unique_ptr<Vehicle>> and initialise it with initializer_list, since std::shared_ptr can be copied, but I wouldn't advise that since it wrongly indicates the usage of shared_ptr. If you somehow feel forced to do so, here is an example:
class Base{ public: virtual ~Base() = default; };
class Derived1 : public Base{};
class Derived2 : public Base{};
class derived_factory{
private:
derived_factory();
static inline std::map<uint8_t, std::shared_ptr<Base>> base_map = {
{0x00, std::make_shared<Derived1>()},
{0x01, std::make_shared<Derived2>()}
};
public:
static std::unique_ptr<Base> from_type(uint8_t type)
{
return std::make_unique<Base>(*base_map[type]);
}
};
int main()
{
auto ptr = derived_factory::from_type(0x00);
// ptr is of a type std::unique_ptr<Base> and points to Derived1 object
}
Additional note that should be a final discouragement of using this solution is that it's quite slow. It constructs the objects in a map and does nothing with them except for keeping them as 'templated' copy examples.
If they're all derived from a base class, you can use the factory pattern, e.g., from Loki's implementation (see Modern C++ Design for the details, though that book is pre-C++11).
The following creates some concrete vehicles and puts them in a vector and then calls the drive() method on each of them:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
#include "factory.h"
struct Vehicle
{
virtual ~Vehicle() = default;
virtual void drive() = 0;
};
struct Car : Vehicle
{
static constexpr auto ID = 1;
void drive() override { std::cout << "Car\n"; }
};
struct Truck : Vehicle
{
static constexpr auto ID = 2;
void drive() override { std::cout << "Truck\n"; }
};
// Create the factory object
auto g_factory = MyUtil::Factory<std::unique_ptr<Vehicle>, int>{};
void RegisterTypesWithFactory()
{
// We pass in creator functions for each type. Note that these
// could be lambdas or some other freestanding function and they
// could accept parameters.
g_factory.Register( Car::ID, &std::make_unique<Car> );
g_factory.Register( Truck::ID, &std::make_unique<Truck> );
}
int main()
{
// Configure the factory
// Note: Registration can be done any time, e.g., later based on input
// from a file. I do them all at once here for convenience of illustration.
RegisterTypesWithFactory();
// Create some objects with the factory
auto vehicles = std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Vehicle>>{};
vehicles.emplace_back( g_factory.Create( Car::ID ) );
vehicles.emplace_back( g_factory.Create( Truck::ID ) );
// Do something with the objects
for( const auto& v : vehicles )
{
v->drive();
}
}
Which prints:
Car
Truck
See it run live on Wandbox.
We know that, derived class members functions can be accessed through a base class pointer in C++ , provided that these member functions have to be virtual. Is there a means to access derived class member functions which are NOT virtual or pure virtual from base class pointer.
i.e. I want to call derived class member functions which are present only in derived class & not in base class through base class pointer. How would I achieve this?
For example, if I design a factory design pattern,
class Vehicle {
public:
virtual void printVehicle() = 0;
static Vehicle* Create(VehicleType type);
};
class TwoWheeler : public Vehicle {
public:
void printVehicle() {
cout << "I am two wheeler" << endl;
}
void Some2WheelerONLYSpecificOPeration()
{
}
};
class ThreeWheeler : public Vehicle {
public:
void printVehicle() {
cout << "I am three wheeler" << endl;
}
void Some3WheelerONLYSpecificOPeration()
{
}
};
class FourWheeler : public Vehicle {
public:
void printVehicle() {
cout << "I am four wheeler" << endl;
}
void Some4WheelerONLYSpecificOPeration()
{
}
};
// Factory method to create objects of different types.
// Change is required only in this function to create a new object type
Vehicle* Vehicle::Create(VehicleType type) {
if (type == VT_TwoWheeler)
return new TwoWheeler();
else if (type == VT_ThreeWheeler)
return new ThreeWheeler();
else if (type == VT_FourWheeler)
return new FourWheeler();
else return NULL;
}
int main()
{
Vehicle* basePtr = Vehicle::Create(VT_TwoWheeler);
basePtr->Some2WheelerONLYSpecificOPeration(); //HOW TO ACHIEVE THIS CALL
basePtr = Vehicle::Create(VT_ThreeWheeler);
basePtr->Some3WheelerONLYSpecificOPeration(); //HOW TO ACHIEVE THIS CALL
basePtr = Vehicle::Create(VT_FourWheeler);
basePtr->Some4WheelerONLYSpecificOPeration(); // //HOW TO ACHIEVE THIS CALL
}
I want to call derived class member functions which are present only in derived class & not in base class through base class pointer. How would I achieve this ?
You cannot call a non-virtual member function of the derived class with a pointer to the base class.
You'll need a pointer to the derived class. The simplest method is to use dynamic_cast to get a pointer to the derived class, check whether the cast was successful, then call the derived class member function using a derived class pointer.
A better method would be to provide a virtual member function in the base class and implement it in the derived class.
You can do what you want with dynamic_cast, but this will lead to disappointing results at a code review. Instead, I pitch you go the same route you did with printVehicle
class Vehicle
{
public:
// without a virtual destructor you are walking into
// a very bad bug. The wrong destructor may be called.
virtual ~Vehicle()
{
}
virtual void printVehicle() = 0;
// Specific stuff that all children must provide
virtual void doTypeSpecificStuff() = 0;
// this is actually a bit of a ideological weird. I'm not sure I can call
// it a flaw. By making this factory function a member of Vehicle, Vehicle
// must now know its children. If this is the case, the VehicleType enum
// should probably be a member of Vehicle, but personally I think this
// factory should be a totally free function.
static Vehicle* Create(VehicleType type);
};
class TwoWheeler: public Vehicle
{
public:
void printVehicle()
{
cout << "I am two wheeler" << endl;
}
void doTypeSpecificStuff()
{
cout << "Doing two wheeler stuff" << endl;
}
};
Leaving out the other two classes and Vehicle::Create to save space.
int main()
{
Vehicle* basePtr = Vehicle::Create(VT_TwoWheeler);
basePtr->doTypeSpecificStuff(); //HOW TO ACHIEVE THIS CALL
// leaking memory here, so
delete basePtr;
// but also look into std::unique_ptr. Much better suited to this behaviour
}
In fact, let's act on on that final comment about std::unique_ptr right now. A unique_ptr manages your dynamic allocations for you so you don't have to clutter up your code with deletes and run the risk of missing one or deleteing too soon. The unique_ptr's pointer is valid for as long as the unique_ptr is in scope. If you can compile, the pointer is good unless you done something silly like never point it at anything or manually remove the pointer.
And while we're at it, let's eliminate my earlier concerns about vehicle::Create.
First we define a free function to replace Create and return a unique_ptr. Since I hate to have to have if (ptr != NULL) checks all through my code to make sure an object really was created, let's also make a big stink about it when we can't match the provided vehicle type with class by throwing an exception.
And rather than a chain of if-else ifs we'll use a somewhat more elegant switch statement.
std::unique_ptr<Vehicle> SmarterVehicleFactory(VehicleType type)
{
switch (type)
{
case VT_TwoWheeler:
return std::make_unique<TwoWheeler>();
case VT_ThreeWheeler:
return std::make_unique<ThreeWheeler>();
case VT_FourWheeler:
return std::make_unique<FourWheeler>();
default:
throw std::runtime_error("Invalid Vehicle type");
}
}
And then we'll use this new function
int main()
{
try
{
std::unique_ptr<Vehicle> basePtr = SmarterVehicleFactory(VT_TwoWheeler);
basePtr->doTypeSpecificStuff();
basePtr = SmarterVehicleFactory(VT_ThreeWheeler);
// unique_ptr freed the TwoWheeler for us.
basePtr->doTypeSpecificStuff();
basePtr = SmarterVehicleFactory(VT_FourWheeler);
basePtr->doTypeSpecificStuff();
// just for laughs we will ask for a FiveWheeler, which we have not yet
// fully implemented
basePtr = SmarterVehicleFactory(VT_FiveWheeler); // will throw exception
basePtr->doTypeSpecificStuff(); // will not be executed
}
catch (const std::exception & exc)
{
cerr << "Rats! Something bad happened: " << exc.what();
// basePtr will be unmodified and still pointing to a FourWheeler
}
} // basePtr will go out of scope here and clean up our memory for us.
The beauty of this approach is no class knows anything about any other class. You can put Vehicle in a header with the SmarterVehicleFactory prototype and the list of vehicle types and hide everything else. The user sees nothing. Everybody is kept in the dark.
Why is that good? Because now you can change any of the above classes, except the Vehicle interface class, without having any effect on any of the other classes. This makes your code easier to maintain and debug.
I'm trying to find the best way to use polymorphism without using inheritance, because I want to avoid virtual calls. I was looking for a way to improve what I currently have (with no avail) and I stumbled on this question. This is the best I can do so far:
template<class VehicleDetails>
class Vehicle {
VehicleDetails details;
public:
VehicleDetails& getDetails() {
return details;
}
const VehicleDetails& getDetails() const {
return details;
}
void printDetails() const {
details.printDetails();
}
}
class TwoWheeler {
public:
void printDetails() const {
cout << "I am two wheeler" << endl;
}
void specificTwoWheelerMethod() const {
cout << "I am specific functionality" << endl;
}
}
Then you use it as such:
Vehicle<TwoWheeler> vehicle;
vehicle.printDetails(); // prints "I am two wheeler"
Unfortunately this complicates things. Now every class/struct or function that takes a vehicle must be templated, unless you know the type of vehicle.
template<class VehicleDetails>
void doGeneralVehicleThings(const Vehicle<VehicleDetails>& vehicle) {
// ...
}
On the plus side when you do know the type you can access specific functionality via the getDetails() method without any casting or runtime overhead involved:
void doTwoWheelerThings(const Vehicle<TwoWheeler>& twoWheelerVehicle) {
twoWheelerVehicle.getDetails().specificTwoWheelerMethod(); // prints "I am specific functionality"
}
This question already has answers here:
Polymorphism in C++
(7 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
From past few weeks I am learning and experimenting inheritance and Polymorphism in C++.
Few syntax always confusing me to understand, mainly object calling from main function.
for eg:
#include <iostream.h>
using namespace std;
class Base
{
public:
Base(){ cout<<"Constructing Base";}
virtual ~Base(){ cout<<"Destroying Base";}
};
class Derive: public Base
{
public:
Derive(){ cout<<"Constructing Derive";}
~Derive(){ cout<<"Destroying Derive";}
};
void main()
{
Base *basePtr = new Derive();
delete basePtr;
}
Here is my question:
What actually happens when Base *basePtr = new Derive(); this syntax is called? and what are the advantages?
As per my knowledge I understood it calls derive class object and stores it in a pointer to base class object. Am I correct? If I am, why are we storing it in base class?
To clear my doubts I went through memory layout of class objects and disassembling, but it confuses me more.
Could anyone tell me how to understand this kind of syntax?
Public inheritance means that every object of the derived class IS at the same time an object of the base class (it provides all the interfaces the base class has). So, when you write:
Base *basePtr = new Derive();
new object of class Derive is created, than the pointer to it is assigned to basePtr and through basePtr you can access all the functionality Base class provides.
And if you then call any of Base class virtual functions like:
basePtr->callSomeVirtualFunction();
the function from the actual object class will be invoked, as it happens with the destructor in the end of your main function.
When you are using pointer to a base class object instead of pointer to a derived one, you are saying that you need only BASIC properties of this derived class.
Hmmm... Pointers are confusing at the beginning.
When you call Base *basePtr = new Derive();, you are creating a Derive object instance and just keeping a "bookmark" of where this object is, but with a Base pointer.
When you do that, the only accessible properties (without a cast) will be from Base class.
Why this is used? To abstract things. Imagine that you are coding something related to mugs, cups, glasses and jugs. Basically all types of those objects are make to store some kind of liquid. So I'll call the base class of LiquidContainer:
class LiquidContainer
{
//...
};
class Mug : public LiquidContainer
{
//...
};
class Glass : public LiquidContainer
{
//...
};
class Cup : public LiquidContainer
{
//...
};
class Jug : public LiquidContainer
{
//...
};
All the others are inherited from LiquidContainer, although the Jug, the Cup and the Mug could be created in a little more sophisticated inheritance tree.
Anyway, the intent of having a base class and using polymorphism is to avoid code replication and to abstract thins, allowing that all the LiquidContainer family be treated almost the same way.
Take by example a more complete class definition.
class LiquidContainer
{
public:
LiquidContainer(unsigned int capacity, unsigned int color) :
mCapacity(capacity),
mColor(color)
{
}
unsigned int getCapacity() { return mCapacity; }
unsigned int getColor() { return mColor; }
virtual char* name() = 0;
protected:
unsigned int mCapacity;
unsigned int mColor;
};
class Mug : public LiquidContainer
{
public:
Mug() :
LiquidContainer( 250, 0xFFFF0000 ) // 250 ml yellow mug!
{
}
virtual char* name() { return "Mug"; }
};
class Glass : public LiquidContainer
{
public:
Glass() :
LiquidContainer( 200, 0x000000FF ) // 200 ml transparent glass!
{
}
virtual char* name() { return "Glass"; }
};
class Cup : public LiquidContainer
{
public:
Cup() :
LiquidContainer( 50, 0xFFFFFF00 ) // 50 ml white cup!
{
}
virtual char* name() { return "Cup"; }
};
class Jug : public LiquidContainer
{
public:
Jug() :
LiquidContainer( 1500, 0x0000FF00 ) // 1.5 l blue Jug!
{
}
virtual char* name() { return "Jug"; }
};
With those class definitions you could do the following test:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int main( int argc, char* argv[] )
{
std::vector< LiquidContainer* > things;
things.push_back( new Mug() );
things.push_back( new Cup() );
things.push_back( new Glass() );
things.push_back( new Jug() );
for ( auto container : things )
{
std::cout << "This is a '" << container->name() << "' with capacity of " << container->getCapacity() << "ml and color " << container->getColor() << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
This little program outputs
This is a 'Mug' with capacity of 250ml and color 4294901760
This is a 'Cup' with capacity of 50ml and color 4294967040
This is a 'Glass' with capacity of 200ml and color 255
This is a 'Jug' with capacity of 1500ml and color 65280
I hope that this little exercise are enough to show you why the polymorphism is used.
That's called Polymorphism. It means that the object is a Derive as well as Base and can be used as both. For eg. If Dog is the subclass of Animal. Object of dog can be treated as Animal too. All dogs are animal, but not all animals are dog.
So you can call a dog an animal, that's why you can give the address of subclass object(Derive) to superclass pointer(Base). But it'll remain an object of subclass and will function like one. This is just to fool compiler into understanding that it's an object of Base.
Now the benefit is you can have a method which can accept object(or pointer in precise sense) of Base class, but can be passed any of it's subclass. The con here is you can only call methods which are in the base class and may or may not overridden in derive class.
I got a good answer to the technical part of my question as to why my current approach to this is not working (assigning derived** to base** is type-unsafe, see also Converting Derived** to Base** and Derived* to Base*). However, I still don't have a good idea of how to implement what I'm thinking of in a C++ manner. I'm starting a new question, since the last title was too specific.
Here's perhaps a clearer explanation of what I am trying to do:
Create a number of objects which are all instances of classes derived from one single class.
Store these objects in some type of master container along with a compile-time human-readable identifier (probably a string?).
Get a list of identifiers from other components, search through the master container, and pass them back (pointers/references to) the corresponding objects so they can read/modify them. I think I need to break type-safety at this point and assume that the components know the derived type that they are asking for by identifier.
I thought this would be relatively simple and elegant to do with maps, vectors, and pointers to objects (I give a simplified example in my my previous question), but it seems I'm going to have to be doing a lot of C-style type casting to allow the components to pass pointers to the locations to store the value from the master container. This indicates to me that I'm not following a C++ paradigm, but what "should" I do?
[Edit] Here's some hypothetical sample code for how I envisioned this, hope this clarifies my thinking:
#include <map>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class BaseObj {};
class Der1Obj: public BaseObj {};
class Der2Obj: public BaseObj {};
typedef map<string, BaseObj**> ObjPtrDict;
typedef map<string, BaseObj*> ObjDict;
class BaseComp
{
public:
ObjPtrDict objs;
};
class DervComp
{
DervComp(){objs["d1"] = &d1; objs["d2"] = &d2; } // This wouldn't compile
Der1Obj* d1;
Der2Obj* d2;
}
typedef vector<BaseComp*> CompList;
void assign_objs(CompList comps, ObjDict objs)
{
for (auto c = comps.begin(); c != comps.end(); c++)
for (auto o = c.objs.begin(); o != c.objs.end(); o++)
*(o->second) = objs[o->first];
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
Der1Obj d, d1;
Der2Obj d2;
ObjDict objs;
objs["d"] = &d;
objs["d1"] = &d1;
objs["d2"] = &d2;
DervComp c;
vector<DervComp*> comps;
comps.push_back(&c);
assign_objs(comps, objs);
return 0;
}
If I got what you want right, you can do it like this:
#include <vector>
class Base
{
public:
enum eDerived
{
//name these whatever you like
DER1,//for first derived class
DER2,//for second derived class
DER3//for third derived class
};
virtual eDerived type() = 0;//this will return the class type.
};
class Derived1: public Base
{
public:
virtual eDerived type() { return DER1; }
};
class Derived2: public Base
{
public:
virtual eDerived type() { return DER2; }
};
class Derived3: public Base
{
public:
virtual eDerived type() { return DER3; }
};
int main()
{
std::vector<Base*> myList;//container for all elements
//You can store a pointer to any of the derived classes here like this:
Base * a = new Derived1();
Base * b = new Derived2();
Base * c = new Derived3();
myList.push_back(a);
myList.push_back(b);
myList.push_back(c);
//Iterating through the container
for( Base * tmp: myList)
{
//You can check the type of the item like this:
if( tmp->type() == Base::DER1 )
{
//and cast to a corresponding type.
//In this case you are sure that you are casting to the right type, since
//you've already checked it.
Derived1 * pointerToDerived1 = static_cast<Derived1 *>(tmp);
}
}
}
Ofc you can choose any type of container. If you want to give them an ID, you could either use map, or add it into the class itself.
I read your other post, but I think I donĀ“t understand why you would use double pointers. In my understanding you would just use a normal pointer.
E.g.
class Base
{
};
class Deriv : public Base
{
};
std::map< std::string, Base* > ObjectStore;
function Component1( ... )
{
Base* b = ObjectStore[ "MyObject" ];
b->DoSomeFancyStuff();
}
function ModifyObjectStore( )
{
delete ObjectStore[ "MyObject" ];
ObjectStore[ "MyObject" ] = new Derived();
}
I hope this helps.
You says, "pass them back the corresponding object". For this why do you want to pass back the base**? You can simply give back the a map from string to pointer back. Please see the code below for explanation.
class Container
{
void add(const string& aKey_in, Base* b)
{
myObjects[aKey_in] = b;
}
void getObjs(list<string> aKeys_in, map<string,Base*>& anObjMap_out)
{
for(all string s in the aKeys_in)
anObjMap_out[s] = myObjects[s];
}
private:
map<string, base*> myObjects;
};
You conditions meet here:
Create a number of objects which are all instances of classes derived from one single class.
You could extend the class to have creation logic, factory logic etc.
Store these objects in some type of master container along with a compile-time human-readable identifier (probably a string?).
Achieved with the map
Get a list of identifiers from other components, search through the master container, and pass them back (pointers/references to) the corresponding objects so they can read/modify them. I think I need to break type-safety at this point and assume that the components know the derived type that they are asking for by identifier.
You don't need to pass back the pointer to pointer to the client. Just pass back the object pointers.
Additional note:
You could implement the pointers with shared_ptr instead of raw pointers.
If your client code (whoever is using the getObjs() method) is written properly then you won't need a dynamic cast from base pointer to derived pointer. They should be able to work with the base pointer.
Anyway, that is a different question which you haven't asked yet.
What are the ways in C++ to handle a class that has ownership of an instance of another class, where that instance could potentially be of a number of classes all of which inherit from a common class?
Example:
class Item { //the common ancestor, which is never used directly
public:
int size;
}
class ItemWidget: public Item { //possible class 1
public:
int height;
int width;
}
class ItemText: public Item { //possible class 2
std::string text;
}
Let's say there is also a class Container, each of which contains a single Item, and the only time anyone is ever interested in an Item is when they are getting it out of the Container. Let's also say Items are only created at the same time the Container is created, for the purpose of putting them in the Container.
What are the different ways to structure this? We could make a pointer in Container for the contained Item, and then pass arguments to the constructor of Container for what sort of Item to call new on, and this will stick the Items all in the heap. Is there a way to store the Item in the stack with the Container, and would this have any advantages?
Does it make a difference if the Container and Items are immutable, and we know everything about them at the moment of creation, and will never change them?
A correct solution looks like:
class Container {
public:
/* ctor, accessors */
private:
std::unique_ptr<Item> item;
};
If you have an old compiler, you can use std::auto_ptr instead.
The smart pointer ensures strict ownership of the item by the container. (You could as well make it a plain pointer and roll up your own destructor/assignment op/copy ctor/move ctor/ move assignment op/ etc, but unique_ptr has it all already done, so...)
Why do you need to use a pointer here, not just a plain composition?
Because if you compose, then you must know the exact class which is going to be composed. You can't introduce polymorphism. Also the size of all Container objects must be the same, and the size of Item's derived classes may vary.
And if you desperately need to compose?
Then you need as many variants of Container as there are the items stored, since every such Container will be of different size, so it's a different class. Your best shot is:
struct IContainer {
virtual Item& getItem() = 0;
};
template<typename ItemType>
struct Container : IContainer {
virtual Item& getItem() {
return m_item;
}
private:
ItemType m_item;
};
OK, crazy idea. Don't use this:
class AutoContainer
{
char buf[CRAZY_VALUE];
Base * p;
public:
template <typename T> AutoContainer(const T & x)
: p(::new (buf) T(x))
{
static_assert(std::is_base_of<Base, T>::value, "Invalid use of AutoContainer");
static_assert(sizeof(T) <= CRAZY_VAL, "Not enough memory for derived class.");
#ifdef __GNUC__
static_assert(__has_virtual_destructor(Base), "Base must have virtual destructor!");
#endif
}
~AutoContainer() { p->~Base(); }
Base & get() { return *p; }
const Base & get() const { return *p; }
};
The container requires no dynamic allocation itself, you must only ensure that CRAZY_VALUE is big enough to hold any derived class.
the example code below compiles and shows how to do something similar to what you want to do. this is what in java would be called interfaces. see that you need at least some similarity in the classes (a common function name in this case). The virtual keyword means that all subclasses need to implement this function and whenever that function is called the function of the real class is actually called.
whether the classes are const or not doesn't harm here. but in general you should be as const correct as possible. because the compiler can generate better code if it knows what will not be changed.
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class outputter {
public:
virtual void print() = 0;
};
class foo : public outputter {
public:
virtual void print() { std::cout << "foo\n"; }
};
class bar : public outputter {
public:
virtual void print() { std::cout << "bar\n"; }
};
int main(){
std::vector<outputter *> vec;
foo *f = new foo;
vec.push_back(f);
bar *b = new bar ;
vec.push_back(b);
for ( std::vector<outputter *>::iterator i =
vec.begin(); i != vec.end(); ++i )
{
(*i)->print();
}
return 0;
}
Output:
foo
bar
Hold a pointer (preferably a smart one) in the container class, and call a pure virtual clone() member function on the Item class that is implemented by the derived classes when you need to copy. You can do this in a completely generic way, thus:
class Item {
// ...
private:
virtual Item* clone() const = 0;
friend Container; // Or make clone() public.
};
template <class I>
class ItemCloneMixin : public Item {
private:
I* clone() const { return new I(static_cast<const I&>(*this); }
};
class ItemWidget : public ItemCloneMixin<ItemWidget> { /* ... */ };
class ItemText : public ItemCloneMixin<ItemText> { /* ... */ };
Regarding stack storage, you can use an overloaded new that calls alloca(), but do so at your peril. It will only work if the compiler inlines your special new operator, which you can't force it to do (except with non-portable compiler pragmas). My advice is that it just isn't worth the aggravation; runtime polymorphism belongs on the heap.