I am trying to understand this example code regarding Browser Helper Objects.
Inside, the author implements a single class which exposes multiple interfaces (IObjectWithSite, IDispatch).
His QueryInterface function performs the following:
if(riid == IID_IUnknown) *ppv = static_cast<BHO*>(this);
else if(riid == IID_IObjectWithSite) *ppv = static_cast<IObjectWithSite*>(this);
else if (riid == IID_IDispatch) *ppv = static_cast<IDispatch*>(this);
I have learned that from a C perspective, interface pointers are just pointers to VTables. So I take it to mean that C++ is capable of returning the VTable of any implemented interface using static_cast.
Does this mean that a class constructed in this way has a bunch of VTables in memory (IObjectWithSite, IDispatch, etc)? What does C++ do with the name collisions on the different interfaces (they each have a QueryInterface, AddRef and Release function), can I implement different methods for each of these?
Yes, there are multiple v-tables, one for each inherited interface. The static_cast<> returns it. The compiler makes sure that common methods in the inherited interfaces are shared, it fills each v-table slot with the a pointer to the same function. So you only need one implementation of AddRef, Release, QueryInterface. Just what you want. None of this is an accident.
This is only ever a problem when a coclass implements multiple interfaces with the same method that you don't want to give the same implementation. The IConnectionPoint::Advise() method is a notorious example. Or was it DAdvise()? Unfortunately, I don't remember what it clashed with and how it was solved, it was covered by ATL Internals. Very good book btw.
In multiple inheritance, multiple VTables are arranged in sequence like following format if given this pointer (which point to first byte, 01)
[01][02][03][04] [05][06][07][08] [09][10][11][12]
[Ptr of VTableA][Ptr of VTableB][Ptr of VTableC]
In C++, only 1 implementation will be generated per function prototype in multiple interface scenario.
However for normal inheritance scenario, superclass might have pre-defined implementation and children who overrides the function will have their VTables pointing to different content than the parent.
Related
i have a legacy COM components, as part of upgradation i derived from an existing interface
interface1
{
few methods
}
interface2 :public interface1
{
new methods
}
there was an old review comment not to do this..instead have inteface2 has separate one not deriving from the base, as it part of the same CoClass...there is no need to duplicate any code...
review comment :
Scripting languages are interpreted languages and are naturally polymorphic as all methods are late bound. All variables are typeless (VARIANT is typeless).
However, there is a separate problem concerning scripting languages. Scripting languages do not use the virtual function table in order to invoke methods on a COM object but instead invoke methods via the IDispatch interface. Unfortunately IDispatch can only be associated with one custom interface.
All methods accessed via IDispatch must be part of the custom interface
can anyone explain ...does he mean to say that getidsofnames will not be able to return the correct ID ? or is it something else
It is accurate enough, a coclass can implement multiple interfaces. But one is "special", it is the one that's attributed with [default] in the IDL. Scripting languages can only use that default interface, they don't have a mechanism to retrieve another interface. Or in other words, they can't call QueryInterface(). Mostly because they don't support the notion of interfaces or casting or multiple inheritance at all in their language design. Intentionally, scripting languages are supposed to be easy to use.
So if interface1 was originally the default interface then the scripting programmer can never use the added interface2 methods. You'll want to have a look at this SO post to see the consequences.
You can keep COM interfaces backwards compatible with old client programs by only ever appending new methods and never change the order or arguments of the old ones. It is risky, an updated client program that accidentally meets an old version of your component will go up in flames in a very bad way. Usually very hard to diagnose, pure DLL Hell. Only truly safe way is to assign new [uuid]s, forcing the client program to be recompiled. If you also change the name or install location of the DLL then they can live side-by-side.
We're interfacing to some 3rd party COM objects from a C++Builder 2010 application.
Currently we import the type library and generate component wrappers, and then are able to make method calls and access properties in a fairly natural way.
object->myProperty = 42;
object->doSomething(666);
However, we've been bitten by changes to the COM object's interface (which is still being extended and developed) causing our own app to fail because some method GUIDs seem to get invalidated - even if the only change to the interface has been the addition of a new method).
Late Binding has been suggested as a way of addressing this. I think this requires our code to be changed rather like this:
object.OlePropertySet("myProperty", 42);
object.OlePrcedure("doSomething", 666);
Obviously this is painful to read and write, so we'd have to write wrapper classes instead.
Is there any way of getting late binding wrappers generated automatically when we import the type library? And, if so, are they smart enough to only do the textual binding once when the object is created, rather than on every single method call?
When you import a TypeLibrary for a COM object that supports late-binding (when it implements the IDispatch interface), the importer can generate separate wrapper classes (not components) for both static-binding and late-binding.
Adding a new method to an existing interface should not invalidate your code. Methods do not have GUIDs. However, for an IDispatch-based interface, its methods do have DISPID values associated with them, and those DISPID values can be changed from one release to another. Though any respectable COM developer should never do that once an interface definition has been locked in.
After deep investigation of the code and headers generated by the TLIBIMP, this turns out to be fairly easy.
If your Type Library has a class Foo, then after importing the type library, you would typically use the auto-generated smart pointer classes IFooPtr.
{
IFooPtr f;
...
f->myMethod(1,2);
}
You should note that at this point that the bindings are static - that is, they depend not just on the GUIDs of the objects and the DISPIDs of the methods, but on the exact layout of the VTable in the DLL. Any changes that affect the vtable - for instance, adding an additional method to a base class of Foo will cause the method call to fail.
To use dynamic bindings, you can use the IFooDisp classes instead of IFooPtr. Again, these are smart wrappers, handling object lifetimes automatically. Note that with these classes you should use the . operator to access methods, not the indirection -> operator. Using the indirection operator will call the method, but via a static binding.
{
IFooDisp f;
...
f.myMethod(1,2);
}
By using these IDispatch-based wrappers, methods will be dispatched by their DISPIDs, even if the objects vtable layout is changed. I think these classes also give a way to dispatch by function name rather than DISPID, but haven't confirmed the details of that.
The typical way of implementing IUnknown::QueryInterface() is the following: use a chain of if-else-if for each supported interface id and do the following:
if( iid == __uuidof( IInterfaceN ) ) {
*ppv = static_cast<IInterfaceN>( this );
//call Addref(), return S_OK
}
Now static_cast is necessary here for proper pointer adjustment in multiple inheritance scenario.
Once in a while I see implementations that instead use dynamic_cast. IMO that's a waste of time - result will be the same, it'll just take longer and make the implementation overengineered.
Is there any case when using dynamic_cast is indeed necessary for casting this pointer before copying it into void** parameter of IUnknown::QueryInterface() implementation?
It would be necessary in those implementations of QueryInterface where the "supported interface ids" aren't known. E.g. if you decide to implement QueryInterface in a base class, and not override it for every derived class.
A case where this would happen is the situation where you have a lot of similar types, where "similar" means "implementing many of the same interfaces". I.e. you have object types Derived1... DerivedN which all implement some subset of Interface1...InterfaceM.
This could be the case for a game engine where game entities all implement a subset of IMoveable, IScriptable, IFactory, IShoots, IPlayerControlled, IStealthy, ISensor, etcetera. Of course, by COM rules you must be able to call IFactory::QueryInterface and get an IMovable* if and only if the factory also implements IMovable.
How are you going to implement all those QueryInterface methods? It's easiest to insert an GameObject base class between IUnknown and IFactory, and implement GameObject::QueryInterface using dynamic_cast checks. In this way, you need only one implementation, instead of one per interface of a concrete type.
QueryInterface() is in fact an implementation of a "dynamic cast" operator. Basing the implementation on top of another implementation that requires another variant of the same metadata (inheritance tree) makes no real sense.
A good compiler should be able to remap this into a static_cast.
I'm looking to implement a custom implementation of COM in C++ on a UNIX type platform to allow me to dynamically load and link object oriented code. I'm thinking this would be based on a similar set of functionality that POSIX provides to load and call dll's ie dlopen, dlsym and dlclose.
I understand that the general idea of COM is that you link to a few functions ie QueryInterface, AddRef and Release in a common dll (Kernel32.dll) which then allows you to access interfaces which are just a table of function pointers encapsulated with a pointer to the object for which the function pointers should be called with. These functions are exposed through IUnknown which you must inherit off of.
So how does this all work? Is there a better way to dynamically link and load to object oriented code? How does inheritance from a dll work - does every call to the base class have to be to an exposed member function i.e private/protected/public is simply ignored?
I'm quite well versed in C++ and template meta-programming and already have a fully reflective C++ system i.e member properties, member functions and global/static functions that uses boost.
A couple of things to keep in mind:
The power of COM comes largely from the IDL and the midl compiler. It allows a verry succint definition of the objects and interfaces with all the C/C++ boilerplate generated for you.
COM registration. On Windows the class IDs (CLSID) are recorded in the registry where they are associated with the executable. You must provide similar functionality in the UNIX environment.
The whole IUnknown implementation is fairly trivial, except for QueryInterface which works when implemented in C (i.e. no RTTI).
A whole another aspect of COM is IDispatch - i.e. late bound method invocation and discovery (read only reflection).
Have a look at XPCOM as it is a multi-platform COM like environment. This is really one of those things you are better off leveraging other technologies. It can suck up a lot of the time better spent elsewhere.
I'm looking to implement a custom implementation of COM in C++ on a UNIX type platform to allow me to dynamically load and link object oriented code. I'm thinking this would be based on a similar set of functionality that POSIX provides to load and call dll's ie dlopen, dlsym and dlclose.
At its simplest level, COM is implemented with interfaces. In c++, if you are comfortable with the idea of pure virtual, or abstract base classes, then you already know how to define an interface in c++
struct IMyInterface {
void Method1() =0;
void Method2() =0;
};
The COM runtime provides a lot of extra services that apply to the windows environment but arn't really needed when implementing "mini" COM in a single application as a means to dynamically link to a more OO interface than traditionally allowed by dlopen, dlsym, etc.
COM objects are implemented in .dll, .so or .dylib files depending on your platform. These files need to export at least one function that is standardized: DllGetClassObject
In your own environment you can prototype it however you want but to interop with the COM runtime on windows obviously the name and parameters need to conform to the com standard.
The basic idea is, this is passed a pointer to a GUID - 16 bytes that uniquely are assigned to a particular object, and it creates (based on the GUID) and returns the IClassFactory* of a factory object.
The factory object is then used, by the COM runtime, to create instances of the object when the IClassFactory::CreateInstance method is called.
So, so far you have
a dynamic library exporting at least one symbol, named "DllGetClassObject" (or some variant thereof)
A DllGetClassObject method that checks the passed in GUID to see if and which object is being requested, and then performs a "new CSomeObjectClassFactory"
A CSomeObjectClassFactory implementation that implements (derives from) IClassFactory, and implements the CreateInstance method to "new" instances of CSupportedObject.
CSomeSupportedObject that implements a custom, or COM defined interface that derives from IUnknown. This is important because IClassFactory::CreateInstance is passed an IID (again, a 16byte unique id defining an interface this time) that it will need to QueryInterface on the object for.
I understand that the general idea of COM is that you link to a few functions ie QueryInterface, AddRef and Release in a common dll (Kernel32.dll) which then allows you to access interfaces which are just a table of function pointers encapsulated with a pointer to the object for which the function pointers should be called with. These functions are exposed through IUnknown which you must inherit off of.
Actually, COM is implemented by OLE32.dll which exposes a "c" api called CoCreateInstance. The app passed CoCreateInstance a GUID, which it looks up in the windows registry - which has a DB of GUID -> "path to dll" mappings. OLE/COM then loads (dlopen) the dll, calls its DllGetClassObject (dlsym) method, passing in the GUID again, presuming that succeeds, OLE/COM then calls the CreateInstance and returns the resulting interface to app.
So how does this all work? Is there a better way to dynamically link and load to object oriented code? How does inheritance from a dll work - does every call to the base class have to be to an exposed member function i.e private/protected/public is simply ignored?
implicit inheritance of c++ code from a dll/so/dylib works by exporting every method in the class as a "decorated" symbol. The method name is decorated with the class, and type of every parameter. This is the same way the symbols are exported from static libraries (.a or .lib files iirc). Static or dynamic libraries, "private, protected etc." are always enforced by the compiler, parsing the header files, never the linker.
I'm quite well versed in C++ and template meta-programming and already have a fully reflective C++ system i.e member properties, member functions and global/static functions that uses boost.
c++ classes can typically only be exported from dlls with static linkage - dlls that are loaded at load, not via dlopen at runtime. COM allows c++ interfaces to be dynamically loaded by ensuring that all datatypes used in COM are either pod types, or are pure virtual interfaces. If you break this rule, by defining an interface that tries to pass a boost or any other type of object you will quickly get into a situation where the compiler/linker will need more than just the header file to figure out whats going on and your carefully prepared "com" dll will have to be statically or implicitly linked in order to function.
The other rule of COM is, never pass ownership of an object accross a dynamic library boundary. i.e. never return an interface or data from a dll, and require the app to delete it. Interfaces all need to implement IUnknown, or at least a Release() method, that allows the object to perform a delete this. Any returned data types likewise must have a well known de-allocator - if you have an interface with a method called "CreateBlob", there should probably be a buddy method called "DeleteBlob".
To really understand how COM works, I suggest reading "Essential COM" by Don Box.
Look at the CORBA documentation, at System.ComponentModel in the sscli, the XPCOM parts of the Mozilla codebase. Miguel de Icaza implemented something like OLE in GNOME called Bonobo which might be useful as well.
Depending on what you're doing with C++ though, you might want to look at plugin frameworks for C++ like Yehia. I believe Boost also has something similar.
Edit: pugg seems better maintained than Yehia at the moment. I have not tried it though.
The basic design of COM is pretty simple.
All COM objects expose their functionality through one or more interfaces
All interfaces are derived from the IUnknown interface, thus all interfaces have
QueryInterface, AddRef & Release methods as the first 3 methods of their virtual
function table in a known order
All objects implement IUnknown
Any interface that an object supports can be queried from any other interface.
Interfaces are identified by Globally Unique Identifiers, these are IIDs GUIDs or CLSIDs, but they are all really the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_Unique_Identifier
Where COM gets complex is in how it deals with allowing interfaces to be called from outside the process where the object resides. COM marshalling is a nasty, hairy, beast. Made even more so by the fact that COM supports both single threaded and multi-threaded programming models.
The Windows implementaion of COM allows objects to be registered (the original use of the Windows registry was for COM). At a minimum the COM registry contains the mapping between the unique GUID for a COM object, and the library (dll) that contains it's code.
For this to work. DLLs that implement COM objects must have a ClassFactory - an entry point in the DLL with a standard name that can be called to create one of the COM objects the DLL implements. (In practice, Windows COM gets an IClassFactory object from this entry point, and uses that to create other COM objects).
so that's the 10 cent tour, but to really understand this, you need to read Essential COM by Don Box.
You may be interested in the (not-yet)Boost.Extension library.
Application is written in delphi 2010 and the underlying dll is a C++ dll.
In ideal case, when your application is in C++; The dll makes a callback to an application when an event occurs. The callback is implemented through an interface. Application developers implements the abstract c++ class and pass the object to the dll. The dll will then make a callback to a member function of your implemented class. A classic callback pattern it is.
But how do I pass a delphi object to the dll for it to make a callback.
I wouldn't really call that ideal. It is selfish and short-sighted to make a DLL that requires its consumers to use the same compiler as the DLL used. (Class layout is implementation-defined, and since both modules need to have the same notion of what a class is, they need to use the same compiler.)
Now, that doesn't mean other consumers of the DLL can't fake it. It just won't be as easy for them as the DLL's designer intended.
When you say the callback is implemented through an interface, do you mean a COM-style interface, where the C++ class has nothing but pure virtual methods, including AddRef, Release, and QueryInterface, and they all use the stdcall calling convention? If that's the case, then you can simply write a Delphi class that implements the same interface. There are many examples of that in the Delphi source code and other literature.
If you mean you have a non-COM interface, where the C++ class has only pure virtual methods, but not the three COM functions, then you can write a Delphi class with the same layout. Duplicate the method order, and make sure all the methods are virtual. The Delphi VMT has the same layout as most C++ vtables on Windows implementations, at least as far as the function-pointer order is concerned. (The Delphi VMT has a lot of non-method data as well, but that doesn't interfere with the method addresses.) Just be sure you maintain clear ownership boundaries. The DLL must never attempt to destroy the object; it won't have a C++-callable destructor that the delete operator could invoke.
If you mean that you have an arbitrary C++ class that could include data members, constructors, or non-pure methods, then your task is considerably more difficult. Follow up if this is the case; otherwise, I'd rather not address it right now.
Overall, I'll echo Mason's advice that the DLL should use plain C-style callback functions. A good rule of thumb is that if you stick to techniques you see in the Windows API, you'll be OK. If you're not in control of how to interact with the DLL, then so be it. But if you can make the DLL's external interface more C-like, that would be best. And that doesn't mean you need to abandon the C++-style interface; you could provide two interfaces, where the C-style interface serves as a wrapper for your already-working C++style interface.
You can't pass a Delphi object to C++, at least not without a very good understanding of how the object model works at the binary level. If you need callbacks, do them using C types only and plain functions and procedures (no methods) and you should be fine.