every one, I have a question about how protocol buffer interact with existed protocol mechanism,Say code below:
class PacketBase
{
public:
PacketBase();
private:
int msgType;
int msgLen;
private:
MessageBuilder* m_pMsgBuilder; /// do Write and Read From msg stream
};
class LoginRequest : public PacketBase
{
/// here we can use proto replace the msg field defined here
/// invoke write or read method in packetbase to serialze or de-serialize
};
Can protocol buffer do the job while maintain the class hierarchy unchanged?
Well, since your msgType and msgLen fields are both private, I think your question boils down to "Can I replace LoginRequest with a protocol buffer that has a no-args constructor?" and the answer here is an unqualified "yes".
Protocol buffers take care of (de-)serializing fields while maintaining type information; there's really no reason for you to write that code yourself. If you were to create a LoginRequest protobuf, for example, you could just construct it, call setters to set its fields, and then serialize it to an ostringstream. That's probably sufficient for what you want, right?
Related
I am a C programmer and I am new in cpp.for some understandable reason i want to write my program in S.O.L.I.D way
I want to write a program in c++ in Arduino with OOP.
there are classA , classB ,ClassC and classD.
classA have to get data from serial port and give an array of bytes
to classB.
ClassB do some process and give another array of bytes to classC
classC make this array into a defined format it to propper
output. e.g json
classD take this output and send it via mqtt
my problems are
how can I program classA that if I change SerialPort to SPI or other peripheral just by changing a parameter?(Objects or entities should be open for extension, but closed for modification)
how these class communicate with each other that if in future instead of json in classC I choose xml without modifying other class I can extend classC?
sorry for bad English If I am not clear ask in comment
Embedded programming and OOP are not the best friends, especially in a very limited system like Arduino. The answer to both questions in classic OOP is polymorphism (with virtual functions). You can create an interface for classA and implement getting data in different ways in every derived class.
class DataGatherer {
public:
virtual char* getData() = 0;
virtual ~IClassA () = default;
};
class SerialPortDataGatherer: public DataGatherer {
public:
char* getData() override {
//any code here
}
};
For less resource-expensive solution you can pretty easily do mapping of parameter to a function (e.g. with a simple switch-case statement), if the functions will have common format (like they return array of data or whatever you actually need)
enum DataSources {
SerialPort,
SPI
}
char* getDataFromSerialPort() {
// logic here
}
char* getDataFromSPI() {
// logic here
}
char* getData(DataSources source) {
switch(source) {
case SerialPort:
return getDataFromSerialPort();
case SPI:
return getDataFromSPI();
}
Note that the first version will likely require a switch-case at some point as well (where you make the decision which input type you should use).
I have a question about hierarchy, references and pointers... The question comes to my mind when I had tried to do the following stuff:
class packet {
public:
int address;
int command; /**< Command select the type of Payload that I must decode */
Payload p; /**< Generic payload, first question:
Payload p or Payload * p or Payload &p ?
I have a background in C, for this reason I prefer
Payload p but I know that this is not recommended for C++ */
private:
/** All getter and setter for attributes */
/** Second question: What is the best way to implement a getter
and setter for Payload?... I prefer something
similar to Java if this is possible */
}
Now imagine that I have a lot of types of Payload, all these payloads are children of the super class (generic) Payload.
I want to read the header and switch o the command. For example, if command is 1 I create a PayloadReset : Payload and fill in all of its attributes, then I want to set on my packet this payload (up-casting). In other part of the program I want to read my current packet and then read the command field and down-cast to the appropriate type depending on the command field.
When I tried to do this, I could do the up-casting without problems but the problem comes when I tried to do the downcasting to the specific Payload, in our example PayloadReset.
To answer the first question (which was buried inside the comments in your first code example:
Payload *p;
The first thing you need to learn as part of your transition from Java to C++ is what pointers are and how they work. What will be confusing to you, for some time, is the fact that all objects in Java are really pointers. You never needed to know that, when working with Java. But you must know that now, in order to understand C++. So, declaring a C++ class as
Payload p;
Is not the same thing as making a similar declaration in Java. There is no equivalent to this declaration in Java. In Java you really have a pointer here, and you have to instantiate it using the new keyword. That part Java originally aped from C++. This is the same process as C++, except that you have to explicitly declare it as a pointer.
Payload *p;
Then, somewhere else, using your example of a PayloadReset subclass:
class PayloadReset : public Payload { /* Class declaration */ };
PayloadReset *r = new PayloadReset( /* Constructor argument */ };
p=r;
And the second thing you need to learn as part of your transaction from Java to C++ is when, and how, to delete all instantiated objects. You don't have Java's garbage collector here. This becomes your job, now.
Tagging onto Sam's answer.
Before you go any further, learn the difference between stack and heap allocation. In the example you posted, you're allocating your Payload p; object on the stack - implying that the size of the object is known at this point and said size will be allocated on the stack. If you wanted to assign an derived object to p, it wouldn't work, because said object will likely be of different size. This is why you instead declare a pointer to the object (8 bytes on 64-bit architecture, 4 bytes on 32 bit), and then when you know which type of derived object you want to allocate, you do it using the new operator, as such:
Payload *p;
p = new PayloadReset(...);
The above method would require manually managing memory, i.e. calling delete on the new allocated pointer. As of C++11, the recommendation is to use smart pointers from the <memory> header. These are essentially reference counted pointers that automatically call delete for you.
std::shared_ptr<Payload> p;
p = std::make_shared<PayloadReset>(...);
Your question is somewhat related to Java syntax, but mostly about Object Oriented Programming.
First of all, you should take a moment to get familiar with Java naming conventions. There are commonly used recommendations that you can find all over the web. Here is one example of Java Naming Conventions. I brought this up because single variable names is generally not a good idea and having descriptive variables names pays dividends as the program grows in size and especially if there are more than one person on a team. So, instead of Payload p use Payload payload.
Secondly, in OO (Object Oriented), it is best to always keep your Class instance variables private, not public. Give access to these variables only if necessary and shield access to them by providing public methods. So, in your example of class Packet, your public/private is backwards. Your class should look more like:
public class Packet{
//private fields
private int address;
private int command;
private Payload payload;
//Maybe provide a nice constructor to take in expected
//properties on instantiation
public Packet(Payload pay){
}
//public methods - as needed
public void getPayload(){
return this.payload;
}
public void setAddress(int addy){
this.address = addy;
}
public int getCommand(){
return this.command;
}
}
Also, to answer more of your question about the naming of Payload. Like i said earlier..use descriptive names. Java does not have pointer references like C and generally handles memory management for you, so the & is not required or supported.
Your last question/topic is really again about OO and Class heirarchy.
It seems that Payload would be a generic base class and you may have multiple, specific 'Payload types', like ResetPayload. If that is the case, you would then define Payload and create the ResetPayload class that extends Payload. I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to do, but think of Classes/objects ad nouns and methods as verbs. Also think about the 'is-a' and 'has-a' concept. From what I see, maybe all Payloads 'has-acommand and an address. Also, maybe eachPayloadalso has multiplePackets, whatever. Just as an example, you would then define yourPayload` class like this:
public class Payload{
private int address;
private int command;
private List<Packet> packets = new ArrayList<>();
public Payload(int addy, int comm){
this.address = addy;
this.command = comm;
}
public void addPacket(Packet p){
packets.add(p);
}
public List<Packet> getPackets(){
return this.packets;
}
public int getCommand(){
return this.command;
}
public int getAddress(){
return this.address;
}
}
Then if you had a type of Payload that is more specific, like Reset, you would create the class, extends Payload and provide the additional properties/operations specific to this type, something this like:
public class ResetPayload extends Payload{
public ResetPayload(int addy, int comm){
super(addy, comm);
}
public void reset(){
//Do stuff here to reset the payload
}
}
Hopefully, that answers your questions and moves you along further. Good luck.
Here is my take on the general problem, it extends the tagged union idea. Advantages are 1.) no inheritance/dynamic_cast 2.) no shared ptr 3.) POD 4.) rtti is used to generate unique tags:
using cleanup_fun_t = void(*)(msg*);
class msg
{
public:
template<typename T, typename... Args>
static msg make(Args&&... args);
private:
std::type_index tag_;
mutable std::atomic<cleanup_fun_t> del_fn_; // hell is waiting for me,
uint64_t meta_;
uint64_t data_;
};
Please fill in all the nice member functions. This class is move only. You are creating messages with payload by the static member function make:
template<typename T, typename... Args>
msg msg::make(Args&&... args)
{
msg m;
m.tag_ = typeid(T);
m.del_fn_ = nullptr;
if (!(std::is_empty<T>::value))
{
auto ptr = std::make_unique<T>(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
m.data_ = (uint64_t)ptr.release();
m.del_fn_ = &details::cleanup_t<T>::fun; // deleter template not shown
}
return m;
}
// creation:
msg m = msg::make<Payload>(params passed to payload constructor);
// using
if (m.tag() == typeid(Payload))
{
Payload* ptr = (Payload*)m.data;
ptr-> ...
}
Just check the tag if it contains your expected data (type) and cast the data to a pointer type.
Disclaimer: It is not the complete class. Some access member function are missing here.
Originally, We have two applications communication with TCP/IP, and both of them are implemented by C++. The messages between them are custom message type.
Now the client program will be changed to web application based on nodejs and the communication between them will be changed to message bus such as rabbitmq
So the message type between them should be changed.
JSON comes to my mind first, however the custom messages are too complicated, which are defined by template and inheritance. It seems that convert the custom message to JSON is not a good option. Am I right?
class Address {
int network;
int addressType;
//...
};
class MsgType{
unsigned char msgSeq;
unsigned int msgLen;
//...
};
class Message{
Address destination;
Address source;
MsgType msgType;
//...
};
template <typename T, int RESPONSE_TYPE>
class ResponseMessage : public Message{
//...
}
typedef struct{
int number;
int type;
}ConfigResp;
class CfgResp : public ResponseMessage<ConfigResp, CONFIG_REQUEST>
{
//...
}
Protocol Buffers is another option for me to do that. What should I do?
redefine the custom message into protocol buffer? no no
Here is my solution: Just wrap the whole original custom message (binary type) into protocol buffer as one message in the server side, then decode the custom message(binary type) in client side. Is that possible?
It looks like you are structuring your application to become more extensible. Not using a nice message format is completely counter to that aim.
Don't embed your binary format inside a protocol buffer chunk. You'll gain nothing - you'll need to rewrite parsing and writing code for each component that wants to use the message bus. Thats wasted time and effort.
There is pain in mapping your C++ structures to JSON or protocol buffers. But it will make hooking into those messages using node.js or other things peeking into the message bus much easier later.
Personally I'd use protocol buffers - since they're more type safe. And there are differences between handling of various types in JSON libraries, because the JSON format is (intentionally) lax. In particular I've found handling of long integers problematic.
Typically I write a helper template struct for each class I need to convert - then conversion becomes a lot of boilerplate. Something like
template<typename T> class ProtocolBufferHelper {
}
template<> class ProtocolBufferHelper<Address> {
typedef address_buffer protocol_buffer_type;
void writeToProtocolBuffer( const Address &a, address_buffer & buffer) {
buffer.setNetwork(a.network);
...
}
...
}
template<> class ProtocolBufferHelper<Message> {
void writeToProtocolBuffer( const Message &m, address_buffer & buffer) {
::writeToProtocolBuffer(buffer.getDestination(), m.destination);
::writeToProtocolBuffer(buffer.getSource(), m.source);
...
}
}
template<typename T> void writeToProtocolBuffer( const T &value, ProtocolBufferHelper<T>::protocol_buffer_type & buffer ) {
ProtocolBufferHelper<T>::writeToProtocolBuffer(value, buffer);
}
You'll have to forgive me for not remembering exactly what the protocol buffer syntax is in C++ (its been a while...). but hopefully its enough to get you started.
Is there a standard way to get rid of the switch/case block in a read loop?
i.e.
enum msg_type
{
message_type_1,
//msg types
}
struct header
{
msg_type _msg_type;
uint64_t _length;
}
struct message1
{
header _header;
//fields
}
struct message2
{
header _header;
//fields
}
//socket read loop
void read(//blah)
{
//suppose we have full message here
char* buffer; //the buffer that holds data
header* h = (header*)buffer;
msg_type type = h->_msg_type;
switch(type)
{
case msg_type_1:
message1* msg1 = (message1*)buffer;
//Call handler function for this type
//rest
}
}
this means that I have to inherit from a handler container base class which is of the form:
class handler_container_base
{
public:
virtual void handle(message1* msg){}
virtual void handle(message2* msg){}
//etc
}
and pass an object of that type to where the message loop can see and ask him to call those back.
One problem is, even when I want to implement and register only one handler for a single type I have to inherit from this class.
Another is this just looks ugly.
I was wondering if there are existing libraries which handle this problem (should be free). Or is there no better way of doing this rather than like this?
Other approaches that avoid inheritance are:
For a closed set of types:
Use a variant:
variant<message1_t, message2_t> my_message;
With a visitor you can do the rest. I recommend boost.variant.
You can also use a boost::any, for an open set of types, and copy the messages around at runtime.At some point you will have to cast back to the original type, though.
Another solution goes along the lines of Poco.DynamicAny, which will try to convert, to the type on the left in an assignment, similar to a dynamic language. But you need to register converters yourself for your types.
I have, for my game, a Packet class, which represents network packet and consists basically of an array of data, and some pure virtual functions
I would then like to have classes deriving from Packet, for example: StatePacket, PauseRequestPacket, etc. Each one of these sub-classes would implement the virtual functions, Handle(), which would be called by the networking engine when one of these packets is received so that it can do it's job, several get/set functions which would read and set fields in the array of data.
So I have two problems:
The (abstract) Packet class would need to be copyable and assignable, but without slicing, keeping all the fields of the derived class. It may even be possible that the derived class will have no extra fields, only function, which would work with the array on the base class. How can I achieve that?
When serializing, I would give each sub-class an unique numeric ID, and then write it to the stream before the sub-class' own serialization. But for unserialization, how would I map the read ID to the appropriate sub-class to instanciate it?
If anyone want's any clarifications, just ask.
-- Thank you
Edit: I'm not quite happy with it, but that's what I managed:
Packet.h: http://pastebin.com/f512e52f1
Packet.cpp: http://pastebin.com/f5d535d19
PacketFactory.h: http://pastebin.com/f29b7d637
PacketFactory.cpp: http://pastebin.com/f689edd9b
PacketAcknowledge.h: http://pastebin.com/f50f13d6f
PacketAcknowledge.cpp: http://pastebin.com/f62d34eef
If someone has the time to look at it and suggest any improvements, I'd be thankful.
Yes, I'm aware of the factory pattern, but how would I code it to construct each class? A giant switch statement? That would also duplicade the ID for each class (once in the factory and one in the serializator), which I'd like to avoid.
For copying you need to write a clone function, since a constructor cannot be virtual:
virtual Packet * clone() const = 0;
Which each Packet implementation implement like this:
virtual Packet * clone() const {
return new StatePacket(*this);
}
for example for StatePacket. Packet classes should be immutable. Once a packet is received, its data can either be copied out, or thrown away. So a assignment operator is not required. Make the assignment operator private and don't define it, which will effectively forbid assigning packages.
For de-serialization, you use the factory pattern: create a class which creates the right message type given the message id. For this, you can either use a switch statement over the known message IDs, or a map like this:
struct MessageFactory {
std::map<Packet::IdType, Packet (*)()> map;
MessageFactory() {
map[StatePacket::Id] = &StatePacket::createInstance;
// ... all other
}
Packet * createInstance(Packet::IdType id) {
return map[id]();
}
} globalMessageFactory;
Indeed, you should add check like whether the id is really known and such stuff. That's only the rough idea.
You need to look up the Factory Pattern.
The factory looks at the incomming data and created an object of the correct class for you.
To have a Factory class that does not know about all the types ahead of time you need to provide a singleton where each class registers itself. I always get the syntax for defining static members of a template class wrong, so do not just cut&paste this:
class Packet { ... };
typedef Packet* (*packet_creator)();
class Factory {
public:
bool add_type(int id, packet_creator) {
map_[id] = packet_creator; return true;
}
};
template<typename T>
class register_with_factory {
public:
static Packet * create() { return new T; }
static bool registered;
};
template<typename T>
bool register_with_factory<T>::registered = Factory::add_type(T::id(), create);
class MyPacket : private register_with_factory<MyPacket>, public Packet {
//... your stuff here...
static int id() { return /* some number that you decide */; }
};
Why do we, myself included, always make such simple problems so complicated?
Perhaps I'm off base here. But I have to wonder: Is this really the best design for your needs?
By and large, function-only inheritance can be better achieved through function/method pointers, or aggregation/delegation and the passing around of data objects, than through polymorphism.
Polymorphism is a very powerful and useful tool. But it's only one of many tools available to us.
It looks like each subclass of Packet will need its own Marshalling and Unmarshalling code. Perhaps inheriting Packet's Marshalling/Unmarshalling code? Perhaps extending it? All on top of handle() and whatever else is required.
That's a lot of code.
While substantially more kludgey, it might be shorter & faster to implement Packet's data as a struct/union attribute of the Packet class.
Marshalling and Unmarshalling would then be centralized.
Depending on your architecture, it could be as simple as write(&data). Assuming there are no big/little-endian issues between your client/server systems, and no padding issues. (E.g. sizeof(data) is the same on both systems.)
Write(&data)/read(&data) is a bug-prone technique. But it's often a very fast way to write the first draft. Later on, when time permits, you can replace it with individual per-attribute type-based Marshalling/Unmarshalling code.
Also: I've taken to storing data that's being sent/received as a struct. You can bitwise copy a struct with operator=(), which at times has been VERY helpful! Though perhaps not so much in this case.
Ultimately, you are going to have a switch statement somewhere on that subclass-id type. The factory technique (which is quite powerful and useful in its own right) does this switch for you, looking up the necessary clone() or copy() method/object.
OR you could do it yourself in Packet. You could just use something as simple as:
( getHandlerPointer( id ) ) ( this )
Another advantage to an approach this kludgey (function pointers), aside from the rapid development time, is that you don't need to constantly allocate and delete a new object for each packet. You can re-use a single packet object over and over again. Or a vector of packets if you wanted to queue them. (Mind you, I'd clear the Packet object before invoking read() again! Just to be safe...)
Depending on your game's network traffic density, allocation/deallocation could get expensive. Then again, premature optimization is the root of all evil. And you could always just roll your own new/delete operators. (Yet more coding overhead...)
What you lose (with function pointers) is the clean segregation of each packet type. Specifically the ability to add new packet types without altering pre-existing code/files.
Example code:
class Packet
{
public:
enum PACKET_TYPES
{
STATE_PACKET = 0,
PAUSE_REQUEST_PACKET,
MAXIMUM_PACKET_TYPES,
FIRST_PACKET_TYPE = STATE_PACKET
};
typedef bool ( * HandlerType ) ( const Packet & );
protected:
/* Note: Initialize handlers to NULL when declared! */
static HandlerType handlers [ MAXIMUM_PACKET_TYPES ];
static HandlerType getHandler( int thePacketType )
{ // My own assert macro...
UASSERT( thePacketType, >=, FIRST_PACKET_TYPE );
UASSERT( thePacketType, <, MAXIMUM_PACKET_TYPES );
UASSERT( handlers [ thePacketType ], !=, HandlerType(NULL) );
return handlers [ thePacketType ];
}
protected:
struct Data
{
// Common data to all packets.
int number;
int type;
union
{
struct
{
int foo;
} statePacket;
struct
{
int bar;
} pauseRequestPacket;
} u;
} data;
public:
//...
bool readFromSocket() { /*read(&data); */ } // Unmarshal
bool writeToSocket() { /*write(&data);*/ } // Marshal
bool handle() { return ( getHandler( data.type ) ) ( * this ); }
}; /* class Packet */
PS: You might dig around with google and grab down cdecl/c++decl. They are very useful programs. Especially when playing around with function pointers.
E.g.:
c++decl> declare foo as function(int) returning pointer to function returning void
void (*foo(int ))()
c++decl> explain void (* getHandler( int ))( const int & );
declare getHandler as function (int) returning pointer to function (reference to const int) returning void