I would like to implement a data access object pattern in C++, but preferably without using multiple inheritance and/or boost (which my client does not like).
Do you have any suggestions?
OTL (otl.sourceforge.net) is an excellent C++ database library. It's a single include file so doesn't have all the complexity associated (rightly or wrongly!) with Boost.
In terms of the DAO itself, you have many options. The simplest that hides the database implementation is just to use C++ style interfaces and implement the data access layer in a particular implementation.
class MyDAO {
// Pure virtual functions to access the data itself
}
class MyDAOImpl : public MyDAO {
// Implementations to get the data from the database
}
A quick google search on data access object design patterns will return at least 10 results on the first page that will be useful. The most common of these is the abstract interface design as already shown by Jeff Foster. The only thing you may wish to add to this is a data access object factory to create your objects.
Most of the examples I could find with decent code are in Java, it's a common design pattern in Java, but they're still very relevant to C++ and you could use them quite easily.
This is a good link, it describes the abstract factory very well.
My preferred data access abstraction is the Repository Pattern.
Related
Following my reading of the article Programmers Are People Too by Ken Arnold, I have been trying to implement the idea of progressive disclosure in a minimal C++ API, to understand how it could be done at a larger scale.
Progressive disclosure refers to the idea of "splitting" an API into categories that will be disclosed to the user of an API only upon request. For example, an API can be split into two categories: a base category what is (accessible to the user by default) for methods which are often needed and easy to use and a extended category for expert level services.
I have found only one example on the web of such an implementation: the db4o library (in Java), but I do not really understand their strategy. For example, if we take a look at ObjectServer, it is declared as an interface, just like its extended class ExtObjectServer. Then an implementing ObjectServerImpl class, inheriting from both these interfaces is defined and all methods from both interfaces are implemented there.
This supposedly allows code such as:
public void test() throws IOException {
final String user = "hohohi";
final String password = "hohoho";
ObjectServer server = clientServerFixture().server();
server.grantAccess(user, password);
ObjectContainer con = openClient(user, password);
Assert.isNotNull(con);
con.close();
server.ext().revokeAccess(user); // How does this limit the scope to
// expert level methods only since it
// inherits from ObjectServer?
// ...
});
My knowledge of Java is not that good, but it seems my misunderstanding of how this work is at an higher level.
Thanks for your help!
Java and C++ are both statically typed, so what you can do with an object depends not so much on its actual dynamic type, but on the type through which you're accessing it.
In the example you've shown, you'll notice that the variable server is of type ObjectServer. This means that when going through server, you can only access ObjectServer methods. Even if the object happens to be of a type which has other methods (which is the case in your case and its ObjectServerImpl type), you have no way of directly accessing methods other than ObjectServer ones.
To access other methods, you need to get hold of the object through different type. This could be done with a cast, or with an explicit accessor such as your ext(). a.ext() returns a, but as a different type (ExtObjectServer), giving you access to different methods of a.
Your question also asks how is server.ext() limited to expert methods when ExtObjectServer extends ObjectServer. The answer is: it is not, but that is correct. It should not be limited like this. The goal is not to provide only the expert functions. If that was the case, then client code which needs to use both normal and expert functions would need to take two references to the object, just differently typed. There's no advantage to be gained from this.
The goal of progressive disclosure is to hide the expert stuff until it's explicitly requested. Once you ask for it, you've already seen the basic stuff, so why hide it from you?
I'm creating a C++ object serialization library. This is more towards self-learning and enhancements & I don't want to use off-the-shelf library like boost or google protocol buf.
Please share your experience or comments on good ways to go about it (like creating some encoding with tag-value etc).
I would like to start by supporting PODs followed by support to non-linear DSs.
Thanks
PS: HNY2012
If you need serialization for inter process communication, then I suggest to use some interface language (IDL or ASN.1) for defining interfaces.
So it will be easier to make support for other languages (than C++) too. And also, it will be easier to implement code/stub generator.
I have been working on something similar for the last few months. I couldn't use Boost because the task was to serialize a bunch of existing classes (huge existing codebase) and it was inappropriate to have the classes inherit from the interface which had the serialize() virtual function (we did not want multiple inheritance).
The approach taken had the following salient features:
Create a helper class for each existing class, designated with the task of serializing that particular class, and make the helper class a friend of the class being serialized. This avoids introduction of inheritance in the class being serialized, and also allows the helper class access to private variables.
Have each of the helper classes (let's call them 'serializers') register themselves into a global map. Each serializer class implements a clone() virtual function ('prototype' pattern), which allows one to retrieve a pointer to a serializer, given the name of the class, from this map. The name is obtained by using compiler-specific RTTI information. The registration into the global map is taken care of by instantiating static pointers and 'new'ing them, since static variables get created before the program starts.
A special stream object was created (derived from std::fstream), that contained template functions to serialize non-pointer, pointer, and STL data types. The stream object could only be opened in read-only or write-only modes (by design), so the same serialize() function could be used to either read from the file or write into the file, depending on the mode in which the stream was opened. Thus, there is no chance of any mismatch in the order of reading versus writing of the class members.
For every object being saved or restored, a unique tag (integer) was created based on the address of the variable and stored in a map. If the same address occurred again, only the tag was saved, not the deep-copied object itself. Thus, each object was deep copied only once into the file.
A page on the web captures some of these ideas shared above: http://www.cs.sjsu.edu/~pearce/modules/lectures/cpp/Serialization.htm. Hope that helps.
I wrote an article some years ago. Code and tools can be obsolete, but concepts can remain the same.
May be this can help you.
I am using bada and refer to the tutorial here, which begins:
class MainForm:
public Osp::Ui::Controls::Form,
public Osp::Ui::IActionEventListener,
public Osp::Ui::ITouchEventListener
{
I am running code where I recently removed the public specifier to cut down on my public API. You'll see that the functions implementing those interfaces where all also declared publicly, for which I saw no need and made private. I would do this without hesitation when implementing my own interfaces when those interfaces may provide more access than I would wish regular clients of my concrete class to receive.
What is the reason for making them public, what am I missing?
I guess it is advocated to aid extensibility, but for a dev making apps not libraries I would challenge this wisdom.
If Form, IActionEventListener and ITouchEventListener already support many usable methods, in most cases why hide them? On the contrary: if you hide them and in the future someone will need them, it will be harder for you to maintain the class because you'll need to provide them again.
If you need to hide the parent's methods, there's another way to do this: instead of inheriting, enclose the "parent" as a field in your new class.
In some languages such as C#, public inheritance is the only option.
For me private inheritance of "interfaces" is a non sens.
The interface of an object is its set of public methods. As llya said, if you want to use the functionalities provided by a class internally, use object composition. If you want to provide a subset of the interface, then either compose or simply declare a more restrictive interface.
If the "interface" and the functions taking object from this interface are in a third party library then its means that the developers wanted to force you to implement every methods, so you have to provide them.
I am developing a parser library where i parse data and store it in different data structures. The design of the library is such that it will have a DataProvider, Parser and DataStore class. The DataStore is a memebr of DataProvider class. The consumer needs to call the functions in the DataProvider to parse the file and to retrieve the data from the library.
Now if i expose the DataProvider class then i need to expose the DataStore class also which gives the implementation details to the consumer. What is the alternative way of exposing the functions of the DataProvider class? Should i expose functions like LoadFile, GetRecords and create the DataProvider object globally inside the cpp?
If the user doesn't have to use the DataStore directly, it should better not be exposed. You can achieve that by creating an "interface" - abstract DataProvider with only public pure virtual functions. Internally, have a DataProviderImp which will inherit from DataProvider, and contain all the required definitions and members that are part of the actual implementation.
Let the user work only with the abstract class. This way, you drag only the minimal dependencies into your API.
Firstly minimize the information that needs to be disclosed in the headers, so use forward declarations, references and pointers where possible (so only a forward declaration is needed), and try to use a PIMPL idiom to hide the implementation.
Next you could build another class that is a facade to the system, which wraps up the entry points to the functions, and use indirect methods to access contained elements (such as data elements accessible externally), such as handles and indexes.
If the concern is that external users might create their own DataStore objects, use them outside the context of a DataProvider, and them complain that your library doesn't work, there is an easy solution and some not so easy solutions.
The easy solution: Document that DataProvider is the external interface to your library. This is the solution employed in the C++ standard library, and in Boost. The interface to std::map is the header file <map>. The implementation files that that header #includes, and the underlying data types that <map> and its subsidiary headers create are none of your business. You should only use the std::map public interfaces. Use internal data types and you're off into the world of undefined behavior. Comments like // The class DataStore is for internal use only. Use it and you will be fired. can be quite a powerful deterrent.
A solution that does not rely on the above: Wall off those subsidiary classes by defining them inside DataProvider (e.g., you will have class DataProvider::DataStore) and making those class definitions private/protected to DataProvider. Another approach is to make everything in DataStore private/protected, and make DataProvider a friend class.
Since you are delivering a static library and headers, there will always be some nasty hackish means to get at your underlying data and methods no matter how hard you try to wall them off. At some point, the "This is for internal use only. Keep your dirty mitts off!" approach has quite a bit of merit.
I am working on a collection of classes used for video playback and recording. I have one main class which acts like the public interface, with methods like play(), stop(), pause(), record() etc... Then I have workhorse classes which do the video decoding and video encoding.
I just learned about the existence of nested classes in C++, and I'm curious to know what programmers think about using them. I am a little wary and not really sure what the benefits/drawbacks are, but they seem (according to the book I'm reading) to be used in cases such as mine.
The book suggests that in a scenario like mine, a good solution would be to nest the workhorse classes inside the interface class, so there are no separate files for classes the client is not meant to use, and to avoid any possible naming conflicts? I don't know about these justifications. Nested classes are a new concept to me. Just want to see what programmers think about the issue.
I would be a bit reluctant to use nested classes here. What if you created an abstract base class for a "multimedia driver" to handle the back-end stuff (workhorse), and a separate class for the front-end work? The front-end class could take a pointer/reference to an implemented driver class (for the appropriate media type and situation) and perform the abstract operations on the workhorse structure.
My philosophy would be to go ahead and make both structures accessible to the client in a polished way, just under the assumption they would be used in tandem.
I would reference something like a QTextDocument in Qt. You provide a direct interface to the bare metal data handling, but pass the authority along to an object like a QTextEdit to do the manipulation.
You would use a nested class to create a (small) helper class that's required to implement the main class. Or for example, to define an interface (a class with abstract methods).
In this case, the main disadvantage of nested classes is that this makes it harder to re-use them. Perhaps you'd like to use your VideoDecoder class in another project. If you make it a nested class of VideoPlayer, you can't do this in an elegant way.
Instead, put the other classes in separate .h/.cpp files, which you can then use in your VideoPlayer class. The client of VideoPlayer now only needs to include the file that declares VideoPlayer, and still doesn't need to know about how you implemented it.
One way of deciding whether or not to use nested classes is to think whether or not this class plays a supporting role or it's own part.
If it exists solely for the purpose of helping another class then I generally make it a nested class. There are a whole load of caveats to that, some of which seem contradictory but it all comes down to experience and gut-feeling.
sounds like a case where you could use the strategy pattern
Sometimes it's appropriate to hide the implementation classes from the user -- in these cases it's better to put them in an foo_internal.h than inside the public class definition. That way, readers of your foo.h will not see what you'd prefer they not be troubled with, but you can still write tests against each of the concrete implementations of your interface.
We hit an issue with a semi-old Sun C++ compiler and visibility of nested classes which behavior changed in the standard. This is not a reason to not do your nested class, of course, just something to be aware of if you plan on compiling your software on lots of platforms including old compilers.
Well, if you use pointers to your workhorse classes in your Interface class and don't expose them as parameters or return types in your interface methods, you will not need to include the definitions for those work horses in your interface header file (you just forward declare them instead). That way, users of your interface will not need to know about the classes in the background.
You definitely don't need to nest classes for this. In fact, separate class files will actually make your code a lot more readable and easier to manage as your project grows. it will also help you later on if you need to subclass (say for different content/codec types).
Here's more information on the PIMPL pattern (section 3.1.1).
You should use an inner class only when you cannot implement it as a separate class using the would-be outer class' public interface. Inner classes increase the size, complexity, and responsibility of a class so they should be used sparingly.
Your encoder/decoder class sounds like it better fits the Strategy Pattern
One reason to avoid nested classes is if you ever intend to wrap the code with swig (http://www.swig.org) for use with other languages. Swig currently has problems with nested classes, so interfacing with libraries that expose any nested classes becomes a real pain.
Another thing to keep in mind is whether you ever envision different implementations of your work functions (such as decoding and encoding). In that case, you would definitely want an abstract base class with different concrete classes which implement the functions. It would not really be appropriate to nest a separate subclass for each type of implementation.