Edit: Thanks folks, now I see my mistake.
If I'm not wrong, because of its nature in factory method there is cyclic dependency:
Base class needs to know subclasses because it creates them, and subclasses need to know base class. Having cyclic dependency is bad programming practice, is not it?
Practically I implemented a factory, I have problem above, even I added
#ifndef MYCLASS_H
#define MYCLASS_H
#endif
I'm still getting
Compiler Error C2504 'class' : base class undefined
And this error disappers when I remove subclass include from base class header.
Solution 1: don't #include the derived class headers in the base class header, only in the base class cpp. The declaration of the factory method should not use the type of concrete classes returned, only the base type.
Solution 2: use a separate factory class (or a factory method within a separate class) to create your objects. Then the cyclic dependency is totally eliminated. This is the preferred way.
The factory shouldn't be a base class of the products.
Base classes never need to know about derived classes.
You need to revisit your pattern description, because I think you might be mixing a couple of different patterns together: if you're using it to create derived classes, then the factory shouldn't be part of the base class. If you're just using it to create various instances of a single class, then it could be a static member of that class.
In the error message you're getting above, the derived classes always need to know the full implementation of the base class. As a design matter, base classes should never know anything about derived classes.
struct Base {
Base * Create(int param);
};
struct Derived0 : public Base {
};
struct Derived1 : public Base {
};
Base * Base::Create(int param) {
switch (param) {
case 0: return new Derived0();
case 1: return new Derived1();
}
You should not try to implement the factory function within the Base class definition. Simply declare it there, and define it after the derived classes definitions.
Related
I was going through one of my local libraries and noticed the follwowing:
class Derived : public Base
{
friend class Base; // serves as a factory
protected:
pthread_spinlock_t allocLock;
bool isSafe{ true };
Derived();
char *funcA() override;
public:
void funcB( bool _in ) override;
virtual ~Derived();
};
I am not able to understand if Base has been inherited then why it has been made a friend of Derived. Also how the comment serves as a factory make sense here?
If it were to access Base function, :: operator would have been sufficient.
Is it more related to Design approach?
Making the base class a friend gives the base class access to the private members of the derived class. It is hard to tell what the reason for this is here without seeing the definition of class Base. The comment seems to indicate that the base class has member functions to create objects of the derived classes.
Generally, this is bad design. It is a bad thing when the base class knows about its derived classes at all, and it is even worse when it has access to the derived classes' private members. The dependencies should only go one way: derived classes depend on the base class, not the other way around. In other words, a change in the derived class should not break the base class.
If you need a factory, the right way to do this is to put the creation logic into a separate factory class, not into the base class.
I've a question regarding a concept. First, I'm a mechanical engineer and not a programmer, thus I have some C++ knowledge but not much experience. I use the finite element method (FEM) to solve partial differential equations.
I have a base class Solver and two child linSolver, for linear FEM, and nlinSolver for non-linear FEM. The members and methods that both children share are in the base class. The base class members are all protected. Thus using inheritance makes the child classes "easy to use", like there weren't any inheritance or other boundaries. The base class itself, Solver, is incomplete, meaning only the children are of any use to me.
The concept works actually pretty good - but I think that having an unusable class is a bad design. In addition I read that protected inheritance is not preferred and should be avoided if possible. I think the last point don't really apply to my specific use, since I will never use it allow and any attempt to do so will fail (since it is incomplete).
The questions are:
Is it common to use inheritance to reduce double code even if the base class will be unusable?
What are alternatives or better solutions to such a problem?
Is protected inheritance really bad?
Thank you for your time.
Dnaiel
Having "unusable" base classes is actually very common. You can have the base class to define a common interface usable by the classes that inherits the base-class. And if you declare those interface-functions virtual you can use e.g. references or pointers to the base-class and the correct function in the inherited class object will be called.
Like this:
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() {}
virtual void someFunction() = 0; // Declares an abstract function
};
class ChildA : public Base
{
public:
void someFunction() { /* implementation here */ }
};
class ChildB : public Base
{
public:
void someFunction() { /* other implementation here */ }
};
With the above classes, you can do
Base* ptr1 = new ChildA;
Base* ptr2 = new ChildB;
ptr1->someFunction(); // Calls `ChildA::someFunction`
ptr2->someFunction(); // Calls `ChildB::someFunction`
However this will not work:
Base baseObject; // Compilation error! Base class is "unusable" by itself
While the (working) example above is simple, think about what you could do when passing the pointers to a function. Instead of having two overloaded functions each taking the actual class, you can have a single function which takes a pointer to the base class, and the compiler and runtime-system will make sure that the correct (virtual) functions are called:
void aGlobalFunction(Base* ptr)
{
// Will call either `ChildA::someFunction` or `ChildB::someFunction`
// depending on which pointer is passed as argument
ptr->someFunction();
}
...
aGlobalFunction(ptr1);
aGlobalFunction(ptr2);
Even though the base-class is "unusable" directly, it still provides some functionality that is part of the core of how C++ can be (and is) used.
Of course, the base class doesn't have to be all interface, it can contain other common (protected) helper or utility functions that can be used from all classes that inherits the base class. Remember that inheritance is a "is-a" relationship between classes. If you have two different classes that both "is-a" something, then using inheritance is probably a very good solution.
You should check the concept of Abstract class.
It's designed to provide base class that cannot be instantiated.
To do so you provide at least one method in the base class like this
virtual void f()=0;
Each child have to override the f function (or any pure virtual function from the base class) in order to be instantiable.
Don't think of the BaseClass as a class in its own right, but as an interface contract and some implementation help. Therefore, it should be abstract, if neccessary by declaring the dtor pure virtual but providing an implementation anyway. Some OO purists may frown upon any non-private element, but purity is not a good target.
I am a relatively new C++ programmer.
In writing some code I've created something similar in concept to the code below. When a friend pointed out this is in fact a factory pattern I read about the pattern and saw it is in similar.
In all of the examples I've found the factory pattern is always implemented using a separate class such as class BaseFactory{...}; and not as I've implemented it using a static create() member function.
My questions are:
(1) Is this in fact a factory pattern?
(2) The code seems to work. Is there something incorrect in the way I've implemented it?
(3) If my implementation is correct, what are the pros/cons of implementing the static create() function as opposed to the separate BaseFactory class.
Thanks!
class Base {
...
virtual ~Base() {}
static Base* create(bool type);
}
class Derived0 : public Base {
...
};
class Derived1 : public Base {
...
};
Base* Base::create(bool type) {
if(type == 0) {
return new Derived0();
}
else {
return new Derived1();
}
}
void foo(bool type) {
Base* pBase = Base::create(type);
pBase->doSomething();
}
This is not a typical way to implement the factory pattern, the main reason being that the factory class isn't typically a base of the classes it creates. A common guideline for when to use inheritance is "Make sure public inheritance models "is-a"". In your case this means that objects of type Derived0 or Derived1 should also be of type Base, and the derived classes should represent a more specialised concept than the Base.
However, the factory pattern pretty much always involves inheritance as the factory will return a pointer to a base type (yous does this too). This means the client code doesn't need to know what type of object the factory created, only that it matches the base class's interface.
With regard to having a static create functions, it depends on the situation. One advantage, as your example shows, is that you won't need to create an instance of the factory in order to use it.
Your factory is ok, except for the fact that you merged the factory and the interface, breaking the SRP principle.
Instead of making the create static method in the base class, create it in another (factory) class.
I would like to ask a question about programming style in this case of derived class:
class A
{
public:
virtual foo1()=0;
}
class B: public A
{
public:
virtual foo1();
virtual foo2();
}
class C: public A
{
public:
virtual foo1();
}
int main() {
B mB();
C mC();
mB.foo2() //OK!
mC.foo2() // obviously, it is not correct
return 0;}
Therefore, should a derived class have less or equal public methods than the abstract base class?
If the derived classes require more methods, should these be private?
Derived classes will almost always have more public functions than base classes. This is the point of inheritance: you can define an abstract base class which only outlines the basic behavior of a variable, then derived classes can expand upon this basic behavior for specific cases.
An inherited class is always a specialization of the base class. It implements more specific functions (and usually more functions all together). In you're example, you're expecting two different specializations to behave the same way outside of the behavior defined by the base class. (foo2 is not defined in A). That's where the problem lies. If you need to define common behavior outside of A, the solution would be to create an intermediate class.
class Intermediate : public A
{
public:
virtual foo1()=0;
virtual foo2()=0;
}
class B: public Intermediate
{
public:
virtual foo1();
virtual foo2();
}
Now any class which can implement foo2 should extend Intermediate, and any function which requires functionality foo2 should ask for a variable with at least type Intermediate.
There is nothing wrong with this class structure. There is nothing wrong with a derived class having more methods than the parent class-- it's quite commonplace. The line mC.foo2(); is just wrong, and that is not the fault of the classes.
A derived class must at least implement ALL abstract methods from the base class. This is the minimum. If you do add other methods, members or whatever is up to you.
But it would be not very smart to derive from the class and add nothing, because this is not what inheritance is for (at least IS-A-relationships). If you go for private inheritance it might be different.
In nearly ALL projects I've worked on, we have had baseclasses that have less functionality than the derived class - in extreme cases, the baseclass may even just have nearly no functionality, but the derived class has dozens of functions and a half a dozen member variables.
This is exactly what derived classes are meant to do.
Obviously, you need to KNOW what kind of derived class you have, and only use the derived classes "extra" functions when they are available.
Last year I saw some source code (C++) where its author declares static function in base class, but leaves its definition to derived class. I remember there was constraint that only one derived class was permitted to define aforementioned static function.
I know that it is impossible to override static methods, but this trick is exactly what I need. I just can't make it work in my code :) Does anyone know about this feature?
Lets look why this would be useful. Suppose we have some base class (Shape), and its derived classes (Circle, Triangle...). Suppose Shape is part of my core architecture, and derived classes are treated as plugins. I don't want to change my core architecture in future. So we have:
class Shape
{
//other stuff here
static Shape* Factory();
}
class Circle:Shape
{
//other stuff here
static Shape* Factory();
}
Shape is sort of abstract class, and it will not implement Factory method. Method is implemented by one (and only one) of the derived classes. In implementation derived class will return new instance of itself, so it is just a factory method. This trick allowed its author to use this static method in client class in following way:
class Client
{
public Shape* shape;
public Client();
//other stuff here
}
In implementation of constructor he had something like:
Client::Client()
:shape(Shape::Factory())
{
}
This way he was able to instantiate "right" shape derivation without changing core classes in engine. When he wanted some other shape to be used in core classes he just had to define static Factory method in that derived class (and to remove the existing one in other derived class).
This way we have some sort of "static polymorphism". I can't find anything about this technique on the web. Does it even have a name? I am especially interested if something like this could be achieved in C# language? :)
Thanks in advance, and sorry for my bad English.
What it sounds like you are trying to do is a bit messy in my opinion. It feels like a combination of a Factory class, a Singleton and then trying to squish them all back into your result class hierarchy.
The simplest (not necessarily the best) solution I can think of is forget about having either Circle::Factory() or Shape::Factory() and just have a free function called get_default_shape().
class Shape
{
};
class Circle: public Shape
{
};
Shape * get_default_shape()
{
return new Circle;
}
Client::Client()
:shape(get_default_shape())
{
}
The nice bit about this is that its only the implementation of get_default_shape that needs to include Circle.h, all the definition needs is a forward declaration of the Shape class.
Hmm. I have not seen exactly what you describe. It could be that the piece of code you refer to defined the base class static function in the cpp file containing your derived class.
// definition of Circle class
.....
Shape* Shape::Factory()
{
return new Circle();
}
This is not useful in this example but it could be a useful trick if you want to hide the implementation of a class and only publish an abstract base class (to reduce compile time dependencies). It won't work if the base and derived classes are not in the same dll/exe.
Similar things can be achieved in C# by using an IOC framework, with generics, or by registring a factory delegate in your base class. I tend to prefer generics and delegates.