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.
Related
Why would you have an abstract base class defining an interface for a library where there is only one (always and forever) derived class?
You may want to swap out the implementation for something like Unit Testing
One reason why you would do this is for testability. It is much simpler to test dependent objects when their dependencies are defined as interfaces. This give the easy ability to mock or stub.
To violate the reused abstraction principle.
In short, don't do this.
Those who say "for testing" are overlooking that you can just replace
Base < - > Derived
Base < - > DerivedForMockingAndTesting
with
Derived < - > DerivedForMockingAndTesting
That is, let your existing implementation Derived serve as the "abstraction" to be mocked out and tested in unit testing.
If you can be 100% certain that there will always be only one and exactly one derived class? Not much reason. BUT: In reality you hardly will be 100% certain of anything and surely not the future of your code.
You may find the need for different versions of that class to be binary compatible. You may also find that for other reasons, you wish to encapsulate the definition of the class- for example, because the definition requires a header which has poor macros, and that kind of thing, or the header containing what's necessary to define the class has a very long compile time.
For example, I wrote a class to encapsulate the features offered by my operating system- for now, things like dynamic loading and creating a window. Even though there'll only ever be one implementation for one compile target (Windows, etc), I chose to use a run-time abstraction, because I wanted to guarantee that the rest of my code never saw a platform-specific header, and the Windows header is full of so many macros and stuff, that I didn't want them leaking out.
The most obvious reason would be to be able to put the class'
implementation in a source file, and not in a header. All that is
exposed in the header is the abstract base class (and a factory function
necessary to construct it, but this could be a static member). This
avoids having to include the header files for any member data; the pimpl
idiom is more idiomatic in C++ for this, but using abstract classes like
this is far from unknown, and works fairly well as well.
Since a few years, common sense seems to dictate that it's better to program against interfaces rather than against implementations. For high-level code this indeed seems logical, e.g. if I have a complex solver in my application, it seems better to have something like this:
ISolver *solver = solverFactory.getSolver();
solver->solve(inputdata);
Rather than
Solver solver;
solver.solve(inputdata);
In the first code it is also easier to mock the solver, and thus, to unit test.
But my question is: at which level doesn't it make sense anymore to use interface. E.g. if I have a ComplexNumber class (or String class, or whatever) in my application, then writing this:
IComplexNumber *complexNumber = complexNumberFactory.create(1,2); // 1+2i
Seems much more complex (especially regarding performance) than writing:
ComplexNumber complexNumber(1,2); // 1+2i
So, which elements are important in deciding whether something should be put behind an interface and when it shouldn't be put behind an interface?
Reasons to move to an interface are when it makes things simpler or reduces coupling. (Thats what an interface is for).
Reasons to move away from an interface are if it makes things more complicated or kills performance (but profile that to be sure). I'd argue that your IComplexNumber class actually makes the class heirarchy more complex unless you're introducing a MockComplexNumber, but I doubt such a class would be usefull... and it will probably make make things slower, but I'd measure that.
But don't think you need to do everything one way, or that your decisions are fixed in stone. It's pretty easy to convert to/from using an interface.
If you divide your classes into "service" and "value" classes, depending on the roles they play, then the answer is simple. Only use interfaces on service classes. In your question, "solver" is a service and "complex number" is a value.
Value classes should be easy to create using new() because they only accept basic types and other value classes in the constructor. Value classes are not useful to mock because you can use the real thing.
It may be useful to mock service classes and you may want multiple implementations. Your solverFactory could return a naiveSolver, a lookupSolver, a geneticSolver, a mockSolver etc. Here an interface is uesful.
With C++ it does not matter so as c++ has multiple inheritance and so an interface is an abstract class which you can add implemetation to. Where I have found interfaces most used is Java and C# which have single inheritance and if you wan a class to implement several things only one can be an abstract class the others must be interfaces
I need to finish others developer work but problem is that he started in different way...
So now I found in situation to use existing code where he chooses to inherit a non-abstract class (very big class, without any virtual functions) that already implements bunch of interfaces or to dismiss that code (which shouldn't be to much work) and to write another class that implements interfaces I need.
What are the pros and cons that would help me to choose the better approach.
p.s. please note that I don't have to much experience
Many Thanks
Although it is very tempting to say write it from scratch again, don't do it! The existing code may be ugly, but it looks like it does work. Since the class is big, I assume there is fair bit of history behind it as well. It might have solutions for some very obscure cases which you might not have imagined till now. What I suggest is, if possible first talk to the person who developed that class, understand how it works, then derive from it (after making its destructor virtual of course) and complete your work. Then as and when time permits slowly refactor the parts of the class into smaller more manageable classes. Also, don't forget to write a good unit-tester before you start so that you can validate the new behavior against the existing class's behavior. One more thing, there is nothing wrong in inheriting from a non-abstract base class as long as it makes sense and the base class destructor is virtual.
If the other developer has written a base-class with no virtual functions, then those functions do not need to be overridden, and it is correct to define them in a non-abstract base class.
If those functions define functionality that all the child-classes require then it would be a mistake to get rid of the base class, as you would then need to implement those functions individually in each of the child classes.
I've seen a lot of developers go 'interface-mad' in the last couple of years, but base classes still serve a function over interfaces - to provide a concrete implementation that is common to all child classes. It would be a mistake to get rid of the base class and have seperate implementations of these functions in each of the child classes.
HOWEVER, if the child classes are inheriting functionality that they do not require, or require a separate implementation of, then the Base class is a mistake and interfaces would seem like the better option to divide the functionality between the child classes.
Despite this, I would agree with Naveen that its probably not worth the extra work this will give you, it may seem simple, but if this is a big class with a lot of inheritors then it could turn out to be a nightmare. Quite often in Software Engineering you have to deal with another developer's code that you might have implemented differently. If you re-implemented it ever time you will be a very unproductive developer. I say work with what you've got and get the project finished on time.
Is there anything at all you want to use from the base class or would you end up overriding everything?
Does it define some sort of type that you want to use for an "is-a" relationship?
(for example, base class is "animal" and you want to make "cat", but if it doesn't add any behavior to its interface, that doesn't seem likely)
Is the base class used in other interfaces you need to use? (like if someone is passing objects through a reference/pointer to the base class)
If not, I'd say there's no advantage in inheriting from that class over implementing the interface(s) yourself.
What are the pros and cons that would help me to choose the better approach.
It's legal to derive from a class with no virtual functions, but that doesn't make it a good idea. When you derive from a class with virtual functions, you often use that class through pointers (eg., a class Derived that inherits from Base is often manipulated through Base*s). That doesn't work when you don't use virtual functions. Also, if you have a pointer to the base class, delete-ing it can lead to a memory leak.
However, it sounds more like these classes aren't being used through pointers-to-the-base. Instead the base class is simply used to get a lot of built in functionality, although the classes aren't related in the normal sense. Inversion of control (and has-a relationships) is a more common way to do that nowadays (split the functionality of the base class into a number of interfaces -- pure virtual base classes -- and then have the objects that currently derive from the base class instead have member variables of those interfaces).
At the very least, you'll want to split the big base class into well-defined smaller classes and use those (like mixins), which sounds like your second option.
However, that doesn't mean rewrite all the other code that uses the blob base class all in one go. That's a big undertaking and you're likely to make small typos and similar mistakes. Instead, buy yourself copies of Working Effectively With Legacy Code and Large-Scale C++ Software Design, and do the work piecemeal.
From you question it is not too clear what the problem is - looking at the title (Using non-abstract class as base) I can tell you that using an abstract class (non pure virtual - when you talk about interfaces in C++ I am assuming pure virtual abstract classes) as base makes sense only if there is common functionality you can share between subclasses - meaning that a number of classes extend the same abstract class inheriting the common implementation. If that's not the case (and you're pretty confident it's never gonna happen) then it doesn't make sense to use an abstract class.
If you can extract out some of the functionality in you big class in such a way that leads to (even potential) code reuse then it could make sense - otherwise I wouldn't see the point.
As I understand, the pimpl idiom is exists only because C++ forces you to place all the private class members in the header. If the header were to contain only the public interface, theoretically, any change in class implementation would not have necessitated a recompile for the rest of the program.
What I want to know is why C++ is not designed to allow such a convenience. Why does it demand at all for the private parts of a class to be openly displayed in the header (no pun intended)?
This has to do with the size of the object. The h file is used, among other things, to determine the size of the object. If the private members are not given in it, then you would not know how large an object to new.
You can simulate, however, your desired behavior by the following:
class MyClass
{
public:
// public stuff
private:
#include "MyClassPrivate.h"
};
This does not enforce the behavior, but it gets the private stuff out of the .h file.
On the down side, this adds another file to maintain.
Also, in visual studio, the intellisense does not work for the private members - this could be a plus or a minus.
I think there is a confusion here. The problem is not about headers. Headers don't do anything (they are just ways to include common bits of source text among several source-code files).
The problem, as much as there is one, is that class declarations in C++ have to define everything, public and private, that an instance needs to have in order to work. (The same is true of Java, but the way reference to externally-compiled classes works makes the use of anything like shared headers unnecessary.)
It is in the nature of common Object-Oriented Technologies (not just the C++ one) that someone needs to know the concrete class that is used and how to use its constructor to deliver an implementation, even if you are using only the public parts. The device in (3, below) hides it. The practice in (1, below) separates the concerns, whether you do (3) or not.
Use abstract classes that define only the public parts, mainly methods, and let the implementation class inherit from that abstract class. So, using the usual convention for headers, there is an abstract.hpp that is shared around. There is also an implementation.hpp that declares the inherited class and that is only passed around to the modules that implement methods of the implementation. The implementation.hpp file will #include "abstract.hpp" for use in the class declaration it makes, so that there is a single maintenance point for the declaration of the abstracted interface.
Now, if you want to enforce hiding of the implementation class declaration, you need to have some way of requesting construction of a concrete instance without possessing the specific, complete class declaration: you can't use new and you can't use local instances. (You can delete though.) Introduction of helper functions (including methods on other classes that deliver references to class instances) is the substitute.
Along with or as part of the header file that is used as the shared definition for the abstract class/interface, include function signatures for external helper functions. These function should be implemented in modules that are part of the specific class implementations (so they see the full class declaration and can exercise the constructor). The signature of the helper function is probably much like that of the constructor, but it returns an instance reference as a result (This constructor proxy can return a NULL pointer and it can even throw exceptions if you like that sort of thing). The helper function constructs a particular implementation instance and returns it cast as a reference to an instance of the abstract class.
Mission accomplished.
Oh, and recompilation and relinking should work the way you want, avoiding recompilation of calling modules when only the implementation changes (since the calling module no longer does any storage allocations for the implementations).
You're all ignoring the point of the question -
Why must the developer type out the PIMPL code?
For me, the best answer I can come up with is that we don't have a good way to express C++ code that allows you to operate on it. For instance, compile-time (or pre-processor, or whatever) reflection or a code DOM.
C++ badly needs one or both of these to be available to a developer to do meta-programming.
Then you could write something like this in your public MyClass.h:
#pragma pimpl(MyClass_private.hpp)
And then write your own, really quite trivial wrapper generator.
Someone will have a much more verbose answer than I, but the quick response is two-fold: the compiler needs to know all the members of a struct to determine the storage space requirements, and the compiler needs to know the ordering of those members to generate offsets in a deterministic way.
The language is already fairly complicated; I think a mechanism to split the definitions of structured data across the code would be a bit of a calamity.
Typically, I've always seen policy classes used to define implementation behavior in a Pimpl-manner. I think there are some added benefits of using a policy pattern -- easier to interchange implementations, can easily combine multiple partial implementations into a single unit which allow you to break up the implementation code into functional, reusable units, etc.
May be because the size of the class is required when passing its instance by values, aggregating it in other classes, etc ?
If C++ did not support value semantics, it would have been fine, but it does.
Yes, but...
You need to read Stroustrup's "Design and Evolution of C++" book. It would have inhibited the uptake of C++.
I'm writing in second-person just because its easy, for you.
You are working with a game engine and really wish a particular engine class had a new method that does 'bla'. But you'd rather not spread your 'game' code into the 'engine' code.
So you could derive a new class from it with your one new method and put that code in your 'game' source directory, but maybe there's another option?
So this is probably completely illegal in the C++ language, but you thought at first, "perhaps I can add a new method to an existing class via my own header that includes the 'parent' header and some special syntax. This is possible when working with a namespace, for example..."
Assuming you can't declare methods of a class across multiple headers (and you are pretty darn sure you can't), what are the other options that support a clean divide between 'middleware/engine/library' and 'application', you wonder?
My only question to you is, "does your added functionality need to be a member function, or can it be a free function?" If what you want to do can be solved using the class's existing interface, then the only difference is the syntax, and you should use a free function (if you think that's "ugly", then... suck it up and move on, C++ wasn't designed for monkeypatching).
If you're trying to get at the internal guts of the class, it may be a sign that the original class is lacking in flexibility (it doesn't expose enough information for you to do what you want from the public interface). If that's the case, maybe the original class can be "completed", and you're back to putting a free function on top of it.
If absolutely none of that will work, and you just must have a member function (e.g. original class provided protected members you want to get at, and you don't have the freedom to modify the original interface)... only then resort to inheritance and member-function implementation.
For an in-depth discussion (and deconstruction of std::string'), check out this Guru of the Week "Monolith" class article.
Sounds like a 'acts upon' relationship, which would not fit in an inheritance (use sparingly!).
One option would be a composition utility class that acts upon a certain instance of the 'Engine' by being instantiated with a pointer to it.
Inheritance (as you pointed out), or
Use a function instead of a method, or
Alter the engine code itself, but isolate and manage the changes using a patch-manager like quilt or Mercurial/MQ
I don't see what's wrong with inheritance in this context though.
If the new method will be implemented using the existing public interface, then arguably it's more object oriented for it to be a separate function rather than a method. At least, Scott Meyers argues that it is.
Why? Because it gives better encapsulation. IIRC the argument goes that the class interface should define things that the object does. Helper-style functions are things that can be done with/to the object, not things that the object must do itself. So they don't belong in the class. If they are in the class, they can unnecessarily access private members and hence widen the hiding of that member and hence the number of lines of code that need to be touched if the private member changes in any way.
Of course if you want to access protected members then you must inherit. If your desired method requires per-instance state, but not access to protected members, then you can either inherit or composite according to taste - the former is usually more concise, but has certain disadvantages if the relationship isn't really "is a".
Sounds like you want Ruby mixins. Not sure there's anything close in C++. I think you have to do the inheritance.
Edit: You might be able to put a friend method in and use it like a mixin, but I think you'd start to break your encapsulation in a bad way.
You could do something COM-like, where the base class supports a QueryInterface() method which lets you ask for an interface that has that method on it. This is fairly trivial to implement in C++, you don't need COM per se.
You could also "pretend" to be a more dynamic language and have an array of callbacks as "methods" and gin up a way to call them using templates or macros and pushing 'this' onto the stack before the rest of the parameters. But it would be insane :)
Or Categories in Objective C.
There are conceptual approaches to extending class architectures (not single classes) in C++, but it's not a casual act, and requires planning ahead of time. Sorry.
Sounds like a classic inheritance problem to me. Except I would drop the code in an "Engine Enhancements" directory & include that concept in your architecture.