Private method in a C++ interface? - c++

Question

Why would I want to define a C++ interface that contains private methods?
Even in the case where the methods in the public scope will technically suppose to act like template methods that use the private methods upon the interface implementation, even so, we're telling the technical specs. right from the interface.
Isn't this a deviation from the original usage of an interface, ie a public contract between the outside and the interior?
You could also define a friend class, which will make use of some private methods from our class, and so force implementation through the interface. This could be an argument.
What other arguments are for defining a private methods within an interface in C++?

Answer 1

The common OO view is that an interface establishes a single contract that defines how objects that conform to that interface are used and how they behave. The NVI idiom or pattern, I never know when one becomes the other, proposes a change in that mentality by dividing the interface into two separate contracts:
how the interface is to be used
what deriving classes must offer
This is in some sense particular to C++ (in fact to any language with multiple inheritance), where the interface can in fact contain code that adapts from the outer interface --how users see me-- and the inner interface --how I am implemented.
This can be useful in different cases, first when the behavior is common but can be parametrized in only specific ways, with a common algorithm skeleton. Then the algorithm can be implemented in the base class and the extension points in derived elements. In languages without multiple inheritance this has to be implemented by splitting into a class that implements the algorithm based in some parameters that comply with a different 'private' interface. I am using here 'private' in the sense that only your class will use that interface.
The second common usage is that by using the NVI idiom, it is simple to instrument the code by only modifying at the base level:
class Base {
public:
void foo() {
foo_impl();
}
private:
virtual void foo_impl() = 0;
};
The extra cost of having to write the dispatcher foo() { foo_impl(); } is rather small and it allows you to later add a locking mechanism if you convert the code into a multithreaded application, add logging to each call, or a timer to verify how much different implementations take in each function... Since the actual method that is implemented in derived classes is private at this level, you are guaranteed that all polymorphic calls can be instrumented at a single point: the base (this does not block extending classes from making foo_impl public thought)
void Base::foo() {
scoped_log log( "calling foo" ); // we can add traces
lock l(mutex); // thread safety
foo_impl();
}
If the virtual methods were public, then you could not intercept all calls to the methods and would have to add that logging and thread safety to all the derived classes that implement the interface.

Answer 2

You can declare a private virtual method whose purpose is to be derivated. Example :
class CharacterDrawer {
public:
virtual ~CharacterDrawer() = 0;
// draws the character after calling getPosition(), getAnimation(), etc.
void draw(GraphicsContext&);
// other methods
void setLightPosition(const Vector&);
enum Animation {
...
};
private:
virtual Vector getPosition() = 0;
virtual Quaternion getRotation() = 0;
virtual Animation getAnimation() = 0;
virtual float getAnimationPercent() = 0;
};
This object can provide drawing utility for a character, but has to be derivated by an object which provides movement, animation handling, etc.
The advantage of doing like this instead of provinding "setPosition", "setAnimation", etc. is that you don't have to "push" the value at each frame, instead you "pull" it.
I think this can be considered as an interface since these methods have nothing to do with actual implementation of all the drawing-related stuff.

Answer 3

Why would I want to define a C++
interface that contains private
methods?
The question is a bit ambiguous/contradictory: if you define (purely) an interface, that means you define the public access of anything that connects to it. In that sense, you do not define an interface that contains private methods.
I think your question comes from confusing an abstract base class with an interface (please correct me if I'm wrong).
An abstract base class can be a partial (or even complete) functionality implementation, that has at least an abstract member. In this case, it makes as much sense to have private members as it makes for any other class.
In practice it is rarely needed to have pure virtual base classes with no implementation at all (i.e. base classes that only define a list of pure virtual functions and nothing else). One case where that is required is COM/DCOM/XPCOM programming (and there are others). In most cases though it makes sense to add some private implementation to your abstract base class.

Answer 4

In a template method implementation, it can be used to add a specialization constraint: you can't call the virtual method of the base class from the derived class (otherwise, the method would be declared as protected in the base class):
class Base
{
private:
virtual void V() { /*some logic here, not accessible directly from Derived*/}
};
class Derived: public Base
{
private:
virtual void V()
{
Base::V(); // Not allowed: Base::V is not visible from Derived
}
};