I'd like to write a simple ostream which wraps an argument ostream and changes the stream in some way before passing it on to the argument stream. The transformation is something simple like changing a letter or erasing a word
What would a simple class inheriting from ostream look like? What methods should I override?
std::ostream is not the best place to implement filtering. It doesn't have the appropriate virtual functions to let you do this.
You probably want to write a class derived from std::streambuf containing a wrapped std::ostream (or a wrapped std::streambuf) and then create a std::ostream using this std::streambuf.
std::streambuf has a virtual function overflow which you can override and use to alter the bytes before passing them to the wrapped output class.
Consider using Boost.Iostreams
I've always thought that writing specialised streams is the wrong approach to almost any problem. The output stream is typically an end-point in your program - any data processing should be done long before you get to the stream itself. Similarly for input streams - putting the intelligence needed to (say) parse input in the stream is putting it in the wrong place. Just my 2 cents, of course.
Related
I need some guidance or pointers understanding how to implement a custom ostream. My requirements are:
A class with a '<<' operator for several data types.
The intention is to send output to database. Each "line" should go to a separate record.
Each record most important field would be the text (or blob), but some other fields such as time, etc. can be mostly deduced automatically
buffering is important, as I don't want to go to database for every record.
First, does it worth deriving from ostream? What do I get by deriving from ostream? What if my class simply implements few operator<< methods (including some custom data types). Which functionality do I get from ostream?
Assuming what I want is a class derived from ostream, I need some guidance understanding the relationship between the ostream and the streambuf classes. Which one do I need to implement? Looking at some samples, it appears that I don't need to derive from ostream at all, and just give the ostream constructor a custom streambuf. Is that true? is that the canonical approach?
Which virtual functions at the custom streambuf do i need to implement? I've seen some samples (including this site: here and here, and few more), some override the sync method, and other override the overflow method. Which one should I override? Also, looking at the stringbuf and filebuf sources (Visual Studio or GCC) both those buffer classes implement many methods of the streambuf.
If a custom class derived from streambuf is required, would there be any benefit deriving from stringbuf (or any other class) instead of directly from streambuf?
As for "lines". I would like at least when my users of the class using the 'endl' manipulator to be a new line (i.e. record in database). Maybe - depends on effort - every '\n' character should be considered as a new record as well. Who do my custom ostream and/or streambuf get notified for each?
A custom destination for ostream means implementing your own ostreambuf. If you want your streambuf to actually buffer (i.e. don't connect to the database after each character), the easiest way to do that is by creating a class inheriting from std::stringbuf. The only function that you'll need to override is the sync() method, which is being called whenever the stream is flushed.
class MyBuf : public std::stringbuf
{
public:
virtual int sync() {
// add this->str() to database here
// (optionally clear buffer afterwards)
}
};
You can then create a std::ostream using your buffer:
MyBuf buff;
std::ostream stream(&buf)
Most people advised against redirecting the stream to a database, but they ignored my description that the database basically has a single blob field where all text is going to.
In rare cases, I might send data to a different field. This can be facilitated with custom attributes understood by my stream. For example:
MyStream << "Some text " << process_id(1234) << "more text" << std::flush
The code above will create a record in the database with:
blob: 'Some text more text'
process_id: 1234
process_id() is a method returning a structure ProcessID. Then, in the implementation of my ostream, I have an operator<<(ProcessID const& pid), which stores the process ID until it gets written. Works great!
The simplest way is to inherit std::streambuf and override just two methods:
std::streamsize xsputn(const char_type* s, std::streamsize n) – to append a given buffer with size provided to your internal buffer, std::string for example;
int_type overflow(int_type c) – to append a single char to your internal buffer.
Your streambuf can be constructed from whatever you want (DB connection for example). After append something into the internal buffer you may try to split it into lines and push something into DB (or just buffer an SQL statements to execute later).
To use it: just attach your streambuf to any std::ostream using constructor.
Simple! I've done something like this to output strings to syslog – everything works fine with any custom operator<< for user defined classes.
my2c - I think you are tackling this the wrong way. A stream may sound like a nice idea, but you'll need a way to indicate the end of the row too (and then what if someone forgets?) I would suggest something along the lines of how the java PreparedStatements and batches work, as in provide a set of methods which accept the types and a column index, then a "batch" method which explicitly makes it clear that you are indeed batching that row and then an execute to push the batch in.
Any stream based operation will rely on type (typically) to indicate which column to fill - but what if you have two ints? IMO, as a user, it doesn't feel like a natural way of inserting records into a database...
To add a new source or destination of character input/output to the iostreams mechanism, you should create a new streambuf class. The task of the stream buffer classes is to communicate with the 'external device' that will store the characters and to provide buffering facilities.
The problem with using iostreams to communicate with your database is that a database table does not match with the concept of a character sequence. A bit like pushing a round peg in a square hole. A streambuf only operates on characters. That is the only thing ever presented to it. This means the streambuf has to parse the character stream presented to it to find the field and record separators.
If you decide to go this route, I predict you will end up writing a CSV-to-SQL converter in your streambuf, just to get it working.
You will probably be better of with just adding a few operator<< overloads to your class(es). You could look at the Qt framework for ideas here. They also have the possibility to use operator<< to add items to a collections and such.
I have code which dumps a representation of complex objects to a stream. The representation uses open and close curly brackets to denote the start and end of nested objects. Rather than pretty print the representation format, I feel it's better to leave all whitespace out of the raw output and implement pretty printing, if desired, as a decorator pattern.
The pretty print algorithm is simply: examine next char to output, if it is a close brace, output newline + close brace + newline. Else just output the char.
I could implement this decorator as a class derived from ostream_iterator or as a class derived from ostream. Which is more commonly done? Are there any downsides to creating an ostream wrapper?
The only reason where it is advisable to derive from std::ostream is when using the derived class to construct an std::streambuf and initialize the the base std::ostream with it. I don't think there is ever a reason to derive from std::ostream_iterator<...> at all.
Instead you'd derive from std::streambuf and override overflow() to do whatever filter operation you want to do. For convenience you might then derive from std::ostream to construct a convenience stream.
I've read about custom streams for C++ but it seems that generally people inherit from std::streambuf, std::istream, and std::ostream. By inspecting those type's declarations it becomes clear that these are meant for characters:
typedef basic_streambuf<char> streambuf;
The docs confirm this:
Input stream objects can read and interpret input from sequences of
characters.
Obviously, that makes sense. I'm wondering what would be the correct way of implementing a stream for other types. I do not want to allow text but other forms of binary input/output (I have specific formats). The obvious step seems to be to inherit the basic variants of the above (basic_streambuf, basic_istream, and basic_ostream) and use whatever type I see fit as the template parameter. I failed to find confirmation that this would be the right procedure. So, is it?
Edit for clarification: I have a class called Segment. These streams will send/receive segments and only segments over a WiFi connection as these are used in the communication protocol. Sending anything else would break the protocol. This means that the stream cannot support other types.
This is not an answer to your question in terms of inheriting from std::basic_* with non-char types. But following the comments and given your application, I am questioning the need to reimplement the whole standard stream machinery for your Segment type, when you can simply define a class with a stream operator:
class SegmentStream
{
public:
SegmentStream& operator<< ( const Segment& s );
}
Better yet you could clarify your code by defining methods send and recv instead of >>, <<.
Or perhaps you could explain why this would not be sufficient and why you specifically want to use standard streams?
I am working on an application the will need to sequentially encode/decode a series of bytes, and put them to a stream once they have been processed.
My plan was to subclass ostream and provide a constructor MyEncodeStream(istream) using istream.
I must admit though I am at a loss as to what to do next, which methods should be overridden?
What is the standard facility for doing this.
Please provide example code for a this simple case:
A char is pulled from the input buffer
The char is manipulated by char manipulationFunc(char in)
The char is put to a buffer
MyEncodeStream stops blocking so the char can be read
Does ostream provide a read function that should be overridden which operator << calls, or is operator<< the function that should be overridden?
I figured it out, I was confused. What I wanted to do was to subclass an input stream with an input stream as an argument for the constructor, that way when the custom input stream is read it can read from the standard input mechanism. I was looking up subclassing output streams, which is why google wasn't turning up many results.
Some days ago, I decided that it would be fun to write a streambuf subclass that would use mmap and read-ahead.
I looked at how my STL (SGI) implemented filebuf and realized that basic_filebuf contains a FILE*. So inheriting from basic_filebuf is out of the question.
So I inherited from basic_streambuf. Then i wanted to bind my mmapbuf to a fstream.
I thought the only thing that I would have to do would be to copy the implicit interface of filebuf... but that was a clear mistake. In the SGI, basic_fstream owns a basic_filebuf. No matter if I call basic_filestream.std::::ios::rdbuf( streambuf* ), the filestream completely ignores it and uses its own filebuf.
So now I'm a bit confused... sure, I can create my own mmfstream, that would be the exact copy/paste of the fstream but that sounds really not DRY-oriented.
What I can't understand, is: why does fstream is so tightly coupled with filebuf, so that it is not possible to use anything else than a filebuf? The whole point of separating streams and bufs is that one can use a stream with a different buffer.
Solutions:
=> filestream should rely on the implicit interface of filebuf. That is, fstream should be templated by a streambuf class. That would allow everyone to provide its own streambuf subclass to a fstream as long as it implements filebuf's implicit interface. Problem: we cannot add a template parameter to fstream since it would break template selectors while using fstream as template template parameter.
=> filebuf should be a pure virtual class without any additional attributes. So that one can inherit from it without carrying all its FILE* garbage.
Your ideas on the subject ?
In the IO streams' design, most of the actual streams' functionality (as opposed to the stream buffers' functionality) is implemented in std::basic_istream, std::basic_ostream, and their base classes. The string and file stream classes are more or less just convenience wrappers which make sure a stream with the right type of buffer is instantiated.
If you want to extend the streams, you almost always want to provide your own stream buffer class, and you almost never need to provide your own stream class. .
Once you have your own stream buffer type, you can then make it the buffer for any stream object you happen to have around. Or you derive your own classes from std::basic_istream, std::basic_ostream, and std::basic_iostream which instantiates your stream buffer and pass it to their base classes.
The latter is more convenient for users, but requires you to write some boiler-plate code for the buffer's instantiation (namely constructors for the stream class).
To answer your question: File streams and file buffer are coupled so tightly because the former only exists to ease the creation of the latter. Using a file stream makes it easy to set it all up.
Using your own stream class to wrap construction of your own stream buffer shouldn't be a problem, since you shouldn't be passing around file streams anyway, but only (references) to the base classes.
Check out mapped_file in the Boost.Iostreams library. I've never used used it myself, but it seems like it might already do what you need.
EDIT: Oops, reread your questions and I see you're doing this for fun. Perhaps you can draw inspiration from Boost.Iostreams?
fstream in itself is not a big class. It inherits from basic_stream to provide support for all the << and >> operations, contains a specialized steambuf that have to be initialized, and the corresponding constructors to pass the parameters to the streambuf constructor.
In a sense, what you wrote about your templated solution is OK. But basic_stream can also be derived into a tcp_stream for example. In that case, the constructors of fstream are a bit useless. Thus you need to provide a new tcpstream class, inheriting from basic_stream with the correct parameters for the constructors to be able to create the tcp_stream. In the end, you wouldn't use anything from fstream. Creating this new tcpstream is a matter of writing 3 or 4 functions only.
In the end, you would derive from the fstream class without any real reason to. This would add more coupling in the class hierarchy, unneeded coupling.
The whole point of std::fstream is that it is a _F_ile based std::stream. If you want an ordinary std::stream backed by your mmstreambuf, then you should create a mmstreambuf and pass it to std::stream::stream(std::streambuf*)