I have a C module which is created by the Real-time Workshop based on a Simulink Model.
This modules provides three public functions:
int init();
int calc(double *inputarray, double *outputarray);
int term();
Based on the contents of the outputarray, I can model a class called OutputThing.
I want to integrate those functions in a wrapper class called WrapperModule.
Right now I have a class that looks like this:
class WrapperModule {
public:
int initialize();
OutputThing calc(...);
int terminate();
};
My problem is, how to properly design a wrapper method for the calc() Function. I want to avoid
to create a method with an array/vector as its single argument. But identifying the correct arguments
from the vector is tricky and I dislike the idea of having a method with 6 or more arguments.
Bertrand Meyer in his OOSC book suggests the use of setter methods. Something like:
class WrapperModule {
public:
int initialize();
void set_foo(double f);
void set_bar(double b);
OutputThing calc();
int terminate();
};
Any ideas? I'm not sure which approach would be better.
If you are able to also abstract inputarray to an InputThing class I'd suggest the following. This also better encapsulates the initialisation/termination using C++ construction/destruction.
class WrapperModule {
public:
// Calls init()
WrapperModule();
// Calls term()
~WrapperModule();
// Calls calc()
OutputThing calculate(const InputThing& inputThing);
};
If necessary, InputThing could have accessor and mutator (get/set) functions to prevent it needing a constructor taking many arguments.
Related
I am working with a project that is largely not of my creation, but am tasked with adding in some functionality to it. Currently, there is a device class that has a member variable that is responsible for storing information about a storage location, setup like this:
device.hpp
class device {
public:
// Stuff
private:
// Stuff
StorageInfo storage_info_;
// Even more stuff
}
StorageInfo.hpp
class StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
I am tasked with implementing a different storage option so that the two can be switched between. The information functions that this new storage option has would be the same as the initial storage option, but the implementation in retrieving that information is vastly different. In order to keep things clean and make it easier to maintain this application for years to come, they really need to be defined in two different files. However, this creates an issue inside of device.cpp, and in every single other file that calls the StorageInfo class. If I create two separate member variables, one for each type of storage, then not only will I need to insert a million different ifelse statements, but I have the potential to run into initialization issues in the constructors. What I would instead like to do is have one member variable that has the potential to hold either storage option class. Something like this:
StorageInfoA.hpp
class StorageInfoA: StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
StorageInfoB.hpp
class StorageInfoB: StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
device.hpp
class device {
public:
// Stuff
private:
// Stuff
StorageInfo storage_info_;
// Even more stuff
}
device.cpp
//Somewhere in the constructor of device.cpp
if(save_to_cache){
storage_info_ = StorageInfoA();
} else {
storage_info_ = StorageInfoB();
}
// Then, these types of calls would return the correct implementation without further ifelse calls
storage_info_.updateStorageInfo();
However, I know that cpp absolutely hates anything with dynamic typing, so I don't really know how to implement this. Is this kind of thing even possible? If not, does anyone know of a similar way to implement this that does work with cpp's typing rules?
You are on the right track, but you have to learn how to use polymorphism. In your example, you need the following fixes:
In the base class, make all functions virtual, and add a virtual
destructor:
class StorageInfo {
public:
virtual ~StorageInfo(){}
virtual void initializeStorage();
//...
};
Make your inheritance public:
class StorageInfoA: public StorageInfo {
Instead of holding StorageInfo by value, hold it in a smart pointer:
class device {
private:
std::unique_ptr<StorageInfo> storage_info_;
};
device constructor will look like
//Somewhere in the constructor of device.cpp
if(save_to_cache){
storage_info_ = std::make_unique<StorageInfoA>();
} else {
storage_info_ = std::make_unique<StorageInfoB>();
}
Finally, you will use it like an ordinary pointer:
storage_info_->updateStorageInfo();
I have a class representing some parameter. The parameter can be number, array, enum or bitfield - this is the param type. The behavior is slightly different between these types, so they are subclasses of paramBase class. The parameter can be stored in RAM or be static (i.e. hardcoded in some way, currently saved in a file).
void read() implemented in paramBase and uses template method pattern to implement reading for any param type, but this works only for RAM storage. If parameter is static then read() must be completely different (i.e. read from file).
A straightforward solution can be further subclassing like paramArrayStatic, paramNumberStatic, etc. (it will be 8 subclasses).
The difference between paramArray and paramArrayStatic is basically only in the read() method, so a straightforward solution will lead to code duplication.
Also I can add if( m_storage==static ) to read() method and modify behavior, but this is also code smell(AFIK).
class paramBase
{
public:
virtual paramType_t type() = 0;
paramStorage_t storage();
virtual someDefaultImplementedMethod()
{
//default implementation
}
void read()
{
//template method pattern
m_prop1 = blablabla;
someDefaultImplementedMethod();
}
protected:
paramStorage_t m_storage;
int m_prop1;
int m_prop2;
};
class paramArray: public paramBase
{
public:
virtual paramType_t type()
{
return PT_ARRAY;
}
virtual someDefaultImplementedMethod()
{
//overriding default implementation of base
//i.e. modify templated read() method behavior
}
protected:
int m_additional_prop1;
int m_additional_prop2;
};
In the end, I have 4 subclasses of base and I need to modify behavior of read() by static/non_static modificator.
How do I solve this without code duplication and code smell? Is the condition if( m_storage==static ) in read() is code smell or not?
You never have to duplicate code: just only re-implement that single method read. If you need to use it from pointers to the base class, virtual does just that. If you have common code between that 8 read method (or just between some of them), put it in a common middle layer.
If you want to make it clear that the class might not use the method at the base level, you can make it abstract, the add a ninth subclass for the RAM case.
Having a huge switch calling 9 different read methods in the same class seems far worse to me.
Straightforward solution can be furhter subclassing like paramArrayStatic, paramNumberStatic..etc. i.e. totally it will be 8 subclasses. Difference between paramArray and paramArrayStatic is basically only in read() method, so straightforward solution will lead to code duplication.
I agree. Creating a class that overrides the behaviour in such a significant way would be in violation of the SOLID principles (specifically the LSP part).
Also i can add if( m_storage==static ) to read() method and modify behavior, but this is also code smell(AFIK).
Who decides that this is code smell? It seems most expressive, and sensible to me.
Stop worrying so much about code smells, and start questioning the expressiveness of your options...
SigmaN,
For your simple example I would not worry about the control coupling in the read method. It is often better to have clear and maintainable code versus code that is strictly decoupled.
The general idea of your questions seems to be about decoupling the source of a value from the business logic for that value. Oftentimes, a good strategy is creating an interface as an ABC and then taking an instance on the the ctor. Here is a very simple example.
class ReadValue
{
public:
virtual int32_t readValue(std::string & value) = 0;
};
class DatabaseReadValue::public ReadValue
{
public:
virtual int32_t readValue(std:string & value) override; // read from the database
}
class XMLReadValue::public ReadValue
{
public:
virtual int32_t readValue(std::string & value) override; // read from XML file
}
class Parameter
{
public:
Parameter(ReadValue & readValueObj): readValueObj_(readValueObj) {}
int32_t read() { return(readValueObj_.readValue(value_)); }
ReadValue & readValueObj_;
std::string value_;
}
Oftentimes, the idea will be used in a template class rather than using inheritance. The gist is the same however.
The idea is related several Design Patterns depending on the details. Bridge, Adapter, Factory, Abstract Factory, PIMPL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design_pattern
--Matt
My problem is solved in this way:
//public interface and basic functionality
class base
{
public:
virtual void arraySize() //part of interface
{
printf("base arraySize()\n");
}
//template method read
int read()
{
readImpl();
}
protected:
virtual void readImpl() = 0;
};
//only base functionality of array is here. no read implementation!
class array : public base
{
public:
virtual void arraySize()
{
printf("array arraySize()\n");
}
};
//implement static read for array
class stat_array : public array
{
public:
void readImpl()
{
printf("stat_array read() \n");
}
};
//implement non static read for array
class nostat_array : public array
{
public:
void readImpl()
{
printf("nostat_array read() \n");
}
};
//test
stat_array statAr;
nostat_array nonstatAr;
base *statArPtr = &statAr;
base *nonstatArPtr = &nonstatAr;
void main()
{
statArPtr->read();
nonstatArPtr->read();
}
I am reading through Code Complete and had a question about "Streamlining parameter passing". The author says that if you are passing a parameter among several routines, that might indicate a need to factor those routines into a class that share the parameter as class data.
Does this mean that if I have several separate class that use the same data I should create one new class that uses that data and then inherit to make new classes?
Or
Does this mean that if I have a bunch of loose routines in my program I should go ahead and put them into a class and get the benefits of encapsulation, etc.
The latter. It looks like they're talking about a case like this:
void function_1(std::string& my_data);
void function_2(std::string& my_data);
void main() {
std::string my_data = "SomeString";
function_1(my_data);
function_2(my_data);
}
Which could be changed to:
class MyClass {
std::string my_data;
public:
MyClass(const std::string& str) : my_data(str) {}
void function_1();
void function_2();
}
void main() {
MyClass obj("SomeString");
obj.function_1();
obj.function_2();
}
Where function_1 and function_2 use the my_data field, instead of having to be passed the string every time.
I have a very complicated code structure, but the important bits are:
typical setup: I have a base class and two classes that derive from this base class and each has own members, and which don't have a standard constructor
class BaseSolver{
...
};
class SolverA : BaseSolver{
public:
std::string a;
SolverA(TypeA objectA);
};
class SolverB : BaseSolver{
public:
int b;
SolverB(TypeB objectB);
};
Now I have a config xml file from which I read whether I have to use SolverA or SolverB. Therefore I have an IOService:
template<class T>
class IOService
{
BaseSolver* getSolver()
{
std::string variableThatIReadFromXML;
/* here I have to perform many actions before I can create a solver object
* to retrieve the data needed for the constructors */
TypeA variableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML;
TypeB anotherVariableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML;
if (variableThatIReadFromXML == "a")
return new SolverA(variableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML); // I know that this can leak memory
else if (variableThatIReadFromXML == "b")
return new SolverB(anotherVariableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML);
}
};
And somewhere in my application (for simplicity let's say it's the main.cpp):
int main(){
IOService ioService;
BaseSolver* mySolver = ioService.getSolver();
}
That is absolutely fine.
But now, in the main I have to access the members of the derived classes a and b respectively.
How can I do this?
I thought of retreving only the type of the Solver from the IOService:
class IOService
{
decltype getSolverType()
{
std::string variableThatIReadFromXML;
/* here I have to perform many actions before I can create a solver object
* to retrieve the data needed for the constructors */
TypeA variableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML;
TypeB anotherVariableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML;
if (variableThatIReadFromXML == "a")
return new SolverA(variableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML); // I know that this can leak memory
else if (variableThatIReadFromXML == "b")
return new SolverB(anotherVariableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML);
}
TypeA getConstructorDataForSolverA()
{
/* here I have to perform many actions before I can create a solver object
* to retrieve the data needed for the constructors */
return variableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML;
}
TypeB getConstructorDataForSolverB()
{
/* here I have to perform many actions before I can create a solver object
* to retrieve the data needed for the constructors */
return anotherVariableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML;
}
};
But of course I can't specify decltype as return value.
I'm really helpless. I would appreciate any hint into the right direction, or even a solution for this problem.
[Edit]: The derived solver classes need more than only the information from the xml file to work properly. That means, that I have to set some more properties which come from a mesh file. So I could give the meshfile to the IOService, so that the IOService could set the appropriate members this way:
class IOService
{
BaseSolver* getSolver(MeshType myMesh)
{
std::string variableThatIReadFromXML;
/* here I have to perform many actions before I can create a solver object
* to retrieve the data needed for the constructors */
TypeA variableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML;
TypeB anotherVariableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML;
if (variableThatIReadFromXML == "a")
{
auto solverA = new SolverA(variableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML); // I know that this can leak memory
solverA.a = mesh.a;
}
else if (variableThatIReadFromXML == "b")
{
auto solverB = new SolverB(anotherVariableIConstrucedWithDataFromXML);
solverB.b = mesh.b;
}
}
};
But then the IOService needs to know the class MeshType, what I want to avoid, because I think that it breaks encapsulation.
So I wanted to set the member a and b, respectively, in another part of my program (here for simplicity in the main).
Taking this into account, only the answer from Daniel Daranas seems like a solution for me. But I wanted to avoid dynamic casts.
So a reformulated question could be: How should I change my design to ensure encapsulation and avoid dynamic casts? [/Edit]
I am using clang 3.4 ob ubuntu 12.04 lts.
Use dynamic_cast to try to cast a pointer-to-base-class to pointer-to-derived-class. It will return NULL if the pointed-to object of the base class does not exist (NULL value of the base pointer), or is not actually a derived class object. If the result, instead, is not NULL, you have a valid pointer-to-derived-class.
int main(){
IOService ioService;
BaseSolver* mySolver = ioService.getSolver();
SolverB* bSolver = dynamic_cast<SolverB*>(mySolver);
if (bSolver != NULL)
{
int finallyIGotB = bSolver->b;
cout << finallyIGotB;
}
}
Note that there may be some better design solutions than using dynamic_cast. But at least this is one possibility.
The funny thing about polymorphism is that it points out to you when you are not using it.
Inheriting a base class in the way you are serves 1 purpose: to expose a uniform interface for objects with different behaviors. Basically, you want the child classes to look the same. If I have classes B and C that inherit from A, I want to say "do foo" to the class, and it'll do foob or fooc.
Essentially, you're flipping it around: I have a B and C of type A, and if it is B i want to do foob and if it is C I want to do fooc. While this may seem scary, usually the best way to solve the problem is to rephrase the question.
So to your example, you are currently saying "OK, so I have an XML file, and I will read data from it one way if I'm making an A, or another way if I'm making a B." But the polymorphic way would be "I have an XML file. It tells me to make an A or a B, and then I tell the instance to parse the XML file".
So one of the ways to solve this to change your solver interface:
class BaseSolver
{
public:
virtual void ReadXMLFile(string xml) = 0;
...
};
While this does rephrase the problem in a way that uses polymorphism, and removes the need for you to see what you've created, you probably don't like that for the same reason I don't: you'd have to supply a default constructor, which leaves the class in an unknown state.
So rather than enforce it at the interface level, you could enforce it at the constructor level, and make both SolverA and SolverB have to take in the XML string as part of the constructor.
But what if the XML string is bad? Then you'd get an error state in the constructor, which is also a no-no. So I'd deal with this using the factory pattern:
class SolverFactory;
class BaseSolver
{
public:
virtual void solve() = 0;
protected:
virtual int ReadXML(std::string xml) = 0;
friend class SolverFactory;
};
class A : public BaseSolver
{
public:
virtual void solve() {std::cout << "A" << std::endl;}
protected:
A(){}
virtual int ReadXML(std::string xml) {return 0;}
friend class SolverFactory;
};
class B : public BaseSolver
{
public:
virtual void solve() {std::cout << "B" << std::endl;}
protected:
B(){}
virtual int ReadXML(std::string xml) {return 0;}
friend class SolverFactory;
};
class SolverFactory
{
public:
static BaseSolver* MakeSolver(std::string xml)
{
BaseSolver* ret = NULL;
if (xml=="A")
{
ret = new A();
}
else if (xml=="B")
{
ret = new B();
}
else
{
return ret;
}
int err = ret->ReadXML(xml);
if (err)
{
delete ret;
ret = NULL;
}
return ret;
}
};
I didn't put any actual XML processing in here because I am lazy, but you could have the factory get the type from the main tag and then pass the rest of the node in. This method ensures great encapsulation, can catch errors in the xml file, and safely separates the behaviors you are trying to get. It also only exposes the dangerous functions (the default constructor and ReadXMLFile) to the SolverFactory, where you (supposedly) know what you are doing.
Edit: in response to the question
The problem you've stated is "I have a B and C of type A, and if is B i want to set "b" settings and if it is C i want to set "c" settings".
Taking advantage of polymorphism, you say "I have a B and C of type A. I tell them to get their settings."
There a couple of ways to do this. If you don't mind mangling your IO with the class, you can simply expose the method:
class BaseSolver
{
public:
virtual void GetSettingsFromCommandLine() = 0;
};
And then create the individual methods for each class.
If you do want to create them separate, then what you want is polymorphism in the io. So expose it that way:
class PolymorphicIO
{
public:
virtual const BaseSolver& get_base_solver() const = 0;
virtual void DoSettingIO() = 0;
};
an example implmentation
class BaseSolverBIO : PolymorphicIO
{
public:
virtual const BaseSolver& get_base_solver() const {return b;}
virtual void DoSettingIO() { char setting = get_char(); b.set_b(setting);}
private:
BaseSolverB b;
};
At first glance this seems like a lot of code (we've doubled the number of classes, and probably need to supply a factory class for both BaseSolver and the IO interface). Why do it?
It is the issue of scaleability/maintainability. Lets say you have figured out a new solver you want to add (D). If you are using dynamic cast, you have to find all the places in your top level and add a new case statement. If there is only 1 place, then this is pretty easy, but if it is 10 places, you could easily forget one and it would be hard to track down. Instead, with this method you have a separate class that has all the specific IO functionality for the solver.
Lets also think of what happens to those dynamic_cast checks as the number of solvers grows. You've been maintaining this software for years now with a large team, and lets say you've come up with solvers up to the letter Z. Each of those if-else statements are hundreds-a tousand of lines long now: if you have an error in O you have to scroll through A-M just to find the bug. Also, the overhead for using the polymorphism is constant, while reflection just grows and grows and grows.
The final benefit for doing it this way is if you have a class BB : public B. You probably have all the old settings from B, and want to keep them, just make it a little bigger. Using this model, you can extend the IO class as well for the io for BB and reuse that code.
One way to achieve this is to add an interface method into the base class:
class BaseSolver{
virtual void SolverMethodToCallFromMain() = 0;
...
};
class SolverA : BaseSolver{
public:
std::string a;
SolverA(TypeA objectA);
virtual void SolverMethodToCallFromMain() {/*SolverA stuff here*/};
};
class SolverB : BaseSolver{
public:
int b;
SolverB(TypeB objectB);
virtual void SolverMethodToCallFromMain() {/*SolverB stuff here*/};
};
And in main:
int main(){
IOService ioService;
BaseSolver* mySolver = ioService.getSolver();
mySolver->SolverMethodToCallFromMain();
}
I have written a library (doesn't matter what it does), which obviously has its header file. Now, I want to hide private elements of that header file, so if I provide my library to somebody, he/she should only see public members (preferably no class definition, nothing other than function definitions). One way would be creating C-style header, which will contain some kind of "init" method which will be used to create an instance of the actual class of library and the user will have to pass a pointer of that object to every function to do the job.
Is it a good practice?
Are there any other publicly accepted ways of doing something like that?
Thanks in advance.
In addition to the Factory pattern (which, in my opinion, can become unwieldy), you can also hide your private members behind a PIMPL (Pointer to IMPLementation):
// Interface.hpp
class Implementation;
class Interface {
public:
Interface() : pimpl(new Implementation()) {}
void publicMethod();
private:
std::unique_ptr<Implementation> pimpl;
};
// Interface.cpp
class Implementation {
public:
void PrivateMember();
};
void Interface::publicMethod() { pimpl->PrivateMember(); }
This has the advantage of hiding implementation, at the cost of a single pointer indirection, not much different from the typical inheritance-based Factory pattern.
This can also be ABI stable. Changes to your implementation won't affect linkage, since no changes will ever be visible to the rest of the program. This is a good pattern to use when implementing shared objects, for example.
It's also a common C++ idiom, so other C++ programmers will recognize it without question.
In the case of a class which will follow the Singleton pattern, you can avoid exposing the PIMPL at all, and simply write the entire implementation in an anonymous namespace in your .cpp file, where you can put as much state and private functions as you wish, without even hinting at it in your interface.
You can create a publicly-visible interface. Create an abstract class with the functions you want to expose, then have your implementation extend it.
For example, an interface:
class Interface {
public:
virtual void publicMethod() = 0;
...
};
And the implementation:
class Implementation : Interface {
public:
virtual void publicMethod();
private:
int hiddenMethod();
};
Then you only export the symbols for Interface. Now, in order for the user of the library to get instances of Interface which are actually Implementations, you need to provide a factory:
class Factory {
public:
//can create and return an Implementation pointer, but caller will get an Interface pointer
std::shared_ptr<Interface> getImplementationInstance();
}
Base on Eric Finn's answer, you can just declare an interface class to hold all your public methods which considered to be your API, and hide all implementations and private members/methods in implementation class which inherits interface class, here's the example:
Your header file: my_api.h
// your API in header file
// my_api.h
class interface {
public:
static interface* CreateInstance();
virtual void draw() = 0;
virtual void set(int) = 0;
};
your implementation(shared library): my_api.cpp (users won't see this when you make it a shared library)
So you can hide all your implementation and private methods/members here
#include "my_api.h"
// implementation -> in .cc file
class implementation : public interface {
int private_int_;
void ReportValue_();
public:
implementation();
void draw();
void set(int new_int);
};
implementation::implementation() {
// your actual constructor goes here
}
void implementation::draw() {
cout << "Implementation class draws something" << endl;
ReportValue_();
}
void implementation::ReportValue_() {
cout << "Private value is: " << private_int_ << endl;
}
void implementation::set(int new_int) {
private_int_ = new_int;
}
interface* interface::CreateInstance() {
return new implementation;
}
How user uses your API:
#include <iostream>
#include "my_api.h"
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
using namespace std;
interface* a; interface* b;
a = interface::CreateInstance();
a->set(1);
b = interface::CreateInstance();
b->set(2);
b->draw();
a->draw();
return 0;
}
Output:
Implementation class draws
Private int is: 2
Implementation class draws
Private int is: 1
In this pattern, your api is just an abstract class which works like a factory, you can also implement the virtual method in different classes and specify which instance you would like to call.
I think you need to create Dynamic Link Library (dll).
Please take a quick look at this link:
You might want to take a look at the envelope/letter idiom, bridge design pattern, or proxy pattern. Basically, you would create an outer (public) class that would just forward your public method calls to the inner (private) class. Your InnerClass.h header only needs to be visible/known to your OuterClass.cpp and InnerClass.cpp source files.
Each of these patterns provides a mechanism of separating the implementation from the interface so that the caller is not coupled to the implementation. Sometimes this is desired to reduce compiler dependencies on large C++ projects. Another common reason for wanting to do this is just when you want to hide the implementation details so that the caller only sees a single opaque pointer.
======= OuterClass.h =====
class InnerClass; // forward declaration is all that's needed
class OuterClass {
private:
InnerClass *pInner;
public:
InnerClass();
bool doSomething();
};
======= OuterClass.cpp ======
#include "OuterClass.h"
#include "InnerClass.h"
OuterClass::OuterClass() :
pInner(new InnerClass())
{
}
bool OuterClass::doSomething()
{
return pInner->doSomething();
}
There actually is a way to do this without having to use classes. I had the same issue and here is a very simple solution:
Just put your private things into the .cpp file. Your header file will look something like this:
// These will be visible to everyone using this library
void function();
int someNumber = 2;
and your .cpp file:
void function() {
// whatever this function does
}
// This will be only visible to the library itself
static void secretFunction() {
doSomeSecretStuff;
}
static int PIN = 1234;
// Okay, if you write this Number into your library and expect it to be safe,
// then screw you, but at least no one will be able to access it with code
When calling the "public" functions from outside you now don't need any instance of that class anymore: Just place the library in the correct directory and include it, but you probably have already taken care of that) and call the functions by their names in the Lib.h file. In the instance of this example it would look something like this:
#include "Lib.h"
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
function();
return 0;
}
Thanks to Edgar Bonet for helping me find this solution on the Arduino Stackexchange!