Related
I have an application which has a data tree as a databackend. To implement the the MVVM pattern I have a logic layer of classes which encapsulate the data tree. Therefore the logic also is arranged in a tree. If the input is in a valid state the data should be copied to a second thread which works as a double buffer of the last valid state. Therefore one way would be cloning.
Another approach would be to implement the complete data backend to be immutable. This would imply to rebuild the whole data tree if something new is entered. My question is, is there a practical way to do this? I'm stuck at the point where I have to reassign the data tree efficently to the logic layer.
**UPDATE - Some Code
What we are doing is to abstract hardware devices which we use to run our experiments. Therefore we defined classes like "chassis, sequence, card, channel, step". Those build a tree structure like this:
Chassis
/ \
Sequence1 Sequence2
/ | \
Card1 Card2 Card3
/ \
Channel1 Channel2
/ \
Step1 Step2
In code it looks like this:
public class Chassis{
readonly var List<Sequence> Sequences = new List<Sequence>();
}
public class Sequence{
readonly var List<Card> Cards = new List<Card>();
}
and so on. Of course each class has some more properties but those are easy to handle. My Problem now is that List is a mutable object. I can call List.Add() and it changed. Ok there is a ReadOnlyList but I'm not sure if it implements the immutability the right way. Right as in copy by value not reference and not just blocking to write to it by blocking the set methods.
The next problem is that the amount of sequences and step can vary. For this reason I need an atomic exchange of list elements.
At the moment I don't have any more code as I'm still thinking if this way would help me and if it is possible at all to implement it in a reasonable amount of time.
Note that there are new immutable collections for .NET that could help you achieve your goal.
Be very cautious about Dave Turvey's statement (I would downvote/comment if I could):
If you are looking to implement an immutable list you could try storing the list as a private member but exposing a public IEnumerable<>
This is incorrect. The private member could still be changed by its container class. The public member could be cast to List<T>, IList<T>, or ICollection<T> without throwing an exception. Thus anything that depends on the immutability of the public IEnumerable<T> could break.
I'm not sure if I understand 100% what you're asking. It sounds like you have a tree of objects in a particular state and you want to perform some processing on a copy of that without modifying the original object state. You should look into cloning via a "Deep Copy". This question should get you started.
If you are looking to implement an immutable list you could try storing the list as a private member but exposing a public IEnumerable<>
public class Chassis
{
List<Sequence> _sequences = new List<Sequence>();
public IEnumerable<Sequence> Sequences { get { return _sequences; } }
}
18/04/13 Update in response to Brandon Bonds comments
The library linked in Brandon Bonds answer is certainly interesting and offers advantages over IEnumerable<>. In many cases it is probably a better solution. However, there are a couple of caveats that you should be aware of if you use this library.
As of 18/04/2013 This is a beta library. It is obviously still in development and may not be ready for production use. For example, The code sample for list creation in the linked article doesn't work in the current nuget package.
This is a .net 4.5 library. so it will not be suitable for programs targeting an older framework.
It does not guarantee immutability of objects contained in the collections only of the collection itself. It is possible to modify objects in an immutable list You will still need to consider a deep copy for copying collections.
This is addressed in the FAQ at the end of the article
Q: Can I only store immutable data in these immutable collections?
A: You can store all types of data in these collections. The only immutable aspect is the collections themselves, not the items they contain.
In addition the following code sample illustrates this point (using version 1.0.8-beta)
class Data
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var test = ImmutableList.Create<Data>();
test = test.Add(new Data { Value = 1 });
Console.WriteLine(test[0].Value);
test[0].Value = 2;
Console.WriteLine(test[0].Value);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
This code will allow modification of the Data object and output
1
2
Here are a couple of articles for further reading on this topic
Read only, frozen, and immutable collections
Immutability in C# Part One: Kinds of Immutability
class MyClass : public CObject
{
public:
MyClass();
private:
CStringArray m_myArray;
};
causes error c2248
What's wrong with this ?
I think it's related to the fact that CStringArray and MyClass both derive from CObject.
Legacy class derived from CObject currently uses CustomArray it just seems wrong to me so I would like to replace it by CStringArray.
Microsoft compiler error C2248 means "Members of a derived class cannot access private members of a base class."
I can only assume you're trying to directly reference MyClass::m_myArray from somewhere in your code, without using a public accessor function.
Update
The real answer is that the problem is caused by the copy-constructor for MyClass, attempting to copy m_myArray, but it can't, because CObject derived classes aren't copyable by default. The solution would be to write a copy constructor yourself, and rather than attempt to copy the array, copy the contents one at a time, from the source array to the destination array. Either that or use std::vector (which you should be doing anyway, as MFC containers are horrible).
You are trying to access some private member of CObject. Since both your MyClass and CStringArray derive from CObject, without more context it is impossible to know the exact problem.
The only idea that comes to mind, basically because I've fallen in the trap many times, is that CObject's copy constructor is private, so if you are trying to copy either the CStringArray or your own class, explicit or implicitly, you'll get the error.
UPDATE:
I've just taken a look at CObject's declaration and the assignment operator, too, is private. Everything else is either public or protected.
Error C2248 says "Members of a derived class cannot access private members of a base class."
CStringArray class dosn't expose Copy constructor and assignment operator, look in code for such places and replace the code with elemenet by elemnet copy.
Why would I want a method that needs an instance? Why wouldn't I make all my methods static?
Why would you not want any state anywhere in your program?
Can you imagine if there were no String instances, and everything on String was static? How would you represent two distinct sequences of characters? Now apply the same logic to other code.
Fundamentally, OO languages are built around the idea of objects with state: one instance of Book isn't the same an another instance of Book - each Book instance encapsulates its name, author, publication date etc. How would you model that with only static methods, and no instances?
Of course you could make all your methods static and pass in a Book as the first parameter on each call that needed to use the state. Behind the scenes, something pretty much like that is already happening... except you've then lost polymorphism, so interfaces, abstract classes etc are useless. Not good.
Because objects are state and behavior together, encapsulated into a single component.
If you have individual instances, it means they can each have private data that varies from instance to instance.
Static data and methods are shared at the class level. Individual instances cannot have different static data.
Static methods can't directly access the member variables within an object - they can only access static variables.
If you had a car class and a static data member like an integer in it, you could only ever have one car because you cant make multiple instances of cars and get multiple instances of that variable - you'd only ever have the single static one.
Every car can't have the same license plate number, thus ever car needs its own license plate variable.
The methods in the class that work with that variable need to be non-static to work on it directly then.
Using the example of a "Car" class, you might have a method called "startCar()". Obviously, you want this method to interact only with a particular "instance" of a car and not be global to ALL your cars. Example in Java:
public class Car {
public void startCar() {
// code to start car
}
}
public class MyProgram {
public static void main(String[] Args) {
Car myFord = new Car();
Car myOpel = new Car();
myCar.startCar; // starts the Car "myCar" and leaves "myOpel" alone
}
}
It's also worth noting that Static Methods may not make use of Instance Variables of the class in which they are defined.
I have problem with concept and implementation of encapsulation.
Can someone explain it to me?
Encapsulation is a moderately easy concept once you realise it (probably) comes from the same base word as capsule.
It's simply a containment of information.
Encapsulation means that a class publishes only what is needed for others to use it, and no more. This is called information hiding and it means classes can totally change their internals without having an effect on any of their users.
In other words, a dictionary class can begin life as a simple array and progress to a binary tree of words then even maybe to some database access functions, all without changing the interface to it.
In an object oriented world, objects hold both their data and the methods used to manipulate data and that is the pinnacle of encapsulation. One way this is done is to make sure each object knows which functions to call to manipulate its data, and ensure the correct ones are called.
As an example, here's a class for maintaining integer lists in my mythical, but strangely Python-like and therefore hopefully easy to understand, language:
class intlist:
private int val[10] # Slots for storing numbers.
private bool used[10] # Whether slot is used or not.
public constructor:
# Mark all slots unused.
for i in 0..9:
used[i] = false
public function add(int v) throws out-of-memory:
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If unused, store value, mark used, return.
if not used[i]:
used[i] = true
val[i] = v
return
# No free slots, so throw exception.
throw out-of-memory
public function del(int v) throws bad-value:
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If slot used and contains value.
if used[i] and val[i] == v:
# Mark unused and return.
used[i] = false
return
# Value not found in any used slot, throw exception.
throw bad-value
public function has(int v):
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If slot used and contains value.
if used[i] and val[i] == v:
return true
# Value not found in any used slot.
return false
Now the only information published here are the constructor and three functions for adding, deleting, and checking for values (including what exceptions can be thrown).
Callers need know nothing about the internal data structures being used (val and used), or the properties of the functions beyond their "signatures" (the content of the "function" lines).
Because everything else is encapsulated, it can changed it at will without breaking the code that uses it.
I could, for example, do any of the following:
make the arrays longer;
store the data sorted, or in a binary tree instead of an array to make it faster.
change the used array into a count array (initialised to zero) so that many occurrences of a single number use just the one slot, increasing the quantity of numbers that can be stored where there are duplicates.
store the numbers in a database, located on a ZX-80 retro-computer located in outback Australia, and powered by methane produced from kangaroo droppings (though you may notice a latency change).
Basically, as long as the published API doesn't change, we am free to do whatever we want. In fact, we can also add things to the API without breaking other code, I just can't delete or change anything that users already rely on.
You should note that encapsulation isn't something new with object orientation. It's been around for ages, even in C by ensuring that information is hidden within a module (usually a source file or group thereof with private headers).
In fact, the stdio.h FILE* stuff is a good example of this. You don't care what's actually behind the pointer since all the functions which use it know how to do their stuff.
link text
I always explain it to people is think of yourself as an object. Other people can see your height, they can see if your smiling, but your inner thoughts, maybe the reason while your smiling, only you know.
Encapsulation is more than just defining accessor and mutator methods for a class. It is broader concept of object-oriented programming that consists in minimizing the interdependence between classes and it is typically implemented through information hiding.
The beauty of encapsulation is the power of changing things without affecting its users.
In a object-oriented programming language like Java, you achieve encapsulation by hiding details using the accessibility modifiers (public, protected, private, plus no modifier which implies package private). With these levels of accessibility you control the level of encapsulation, the less restrictive the level, the more expensive change is when it happens and the more coupled the class is with other dependent classes (i.e. user classes, subclasses).
Therefore, the goal is not to hide the data itself, but the implementation details on how this data is manipulated.
The idea is to provide a public interface through which you gain access to this data. You can later change the internal representation of the data without compromising the public interface of the class. On the contrary, by exposing the data itself, you compromise encapsulation, and therefore, the capacity of changing the way you manipulate the data without affecting its users. You create a dependency with the data itself, and not with the public interface of the class. You would be creating a perfect cocktail for trouble when "change" finally finds you.
There are several reasons why you might want to encapsulate access to your fields. Joshua Bloch in his book Effective Java, in Item 14: Minimize the accessibility of classes and members, mentions several compelling reasons, which I quote here:
You can limit the values that can be stored in a field (i.e. gender must be F or M).
You can take actions when the field is modified (trigger event, validate, etc).
You can provide thread safety by synchronizing the method.
You can switch to a new data representation (i.e. calculated fields, different data type)
However, encapsulation is more than hiding fields. In Java you can hide entire classes, by this, hiding the implementation details of an entire API. Think, for example, in the method Arrays.asList(). It returns a List implementation, but you do no care which implementation, as long as it satisfies the List interface, right?. The implementation can be changed in the future without affecting the users of the method.
The Beauty of Encapsulation
Now, in my opinion, to really understand encapsulation, one must first understand abstraction.
Think, for example, in the level of abstraction in the concept of a car. A car is complex in its internal implementation. They have several subsystem, like a transmission system, a break system, a fuel system, etc.
However, we have simplified its abstraction, and we interact with all cars in the world through the public interface of their abstraction. We know that all cars have a steering wheel through which we control direction, they have a pedal that when you press it you accelerate the car and control speed, and another one that when you press it you make it stop, and you have a gear stick that let you control if you go forward or backwards. These features constitute the public interface of the car abstraction. In the morning you can drive a sedan and then get out of it and drive an SUV in the afternoon as if it was the same thing.
However, few of us know the details of how all these features are implemented under the hood. Think of the time when cars did not have a hydraulics directional system. One day, the car manufactures invented it, and they decide it to put it in cars from there on. Still, this did not change the way in which users where interacting with them. At most, users experienced an improvement in the use of the directional system. A change like this was possible because the internal implementation of a car is encapsulated. Changes can be safely done without affecting its public interface.
Now, think that car manufactures decided to put the fuel cap below the car, and not in one of its sides. You go and buy one of these new cars, and when you run out of gas you go to the gas station, and you do not find the fuel cap. Suddenly you realize is below the car, but you cannot reach it with the gas pump hose. Now, we have broken the public interface contract, and therefore, the entire world breaks, it falls apart because things are not working the way it was expected. A change like this would cost millions. We would need to change all gas pumps in the world. When we break encapsulation we have to pay a price.
So, as you can see, the goal of encapsulation is to minimize interdependence and facilitate change. You maximize encapsulation by minimizing the exposure of implementation details. The state of a class should only be accessed through its public interface.
I really recommend you to read a paper by Alan Snyder called Encapsulation and Inheritance in Object-Oriented programming Languages. This link points to the original paper on ACM, but I am pretty sure you will be able to find a PDF copy through Google.
Encapsulation - wrapping of data in single unit. also we can say hiding the information of essential details.
example
You have a mobile phone.... there it some interface which helps u to interact with cell phone and u can uses the services of mobile phone. But the actually working in cell phone is hide. u don't know how it works internally.
hide/bind something : eg: a capsule (which we consume when v r ill)hide/bind some powder form in itself,, means that capsule encapsulate the powder contained it.
Binding of data and behavior i.e functionality of an object in a secured and controlled manner.
or the best example of encapsulation is a CLASS because a class hides class variables/functions from outside d class..
Encapsulation:
Wrapping up data member and method together into a single unit (i.e. Class) is called Encapsulation.
Eg: we can consider a capsule. Encapsulation means hiding the internal details of an object, i.e. how an object does something. Here capsule is a single Unit contain many things. But we cant see what is there in side capsule.
This is the technique used to protect information about an object from other objects. Like variable we can set as private and property as Public. When we access the property then we validate and set it.
We can go through some other examples. Our Laptop. We can use Laptop but what operations are happening inside that we are not knowing. But we can use that. Same like mobile, TV etc.
We can conclude that a group of related properties, methods, and other members are treated as a single unit or object.An encapsulated object is often called an abstract data type.
There are several other ways that an encapsulation can be used, as an example we can take the usage of an interface. The interface can be used to hide the information of an implemented class.
//Declare as Private
private string _LegName;
// Property Set as public
public string LegName
{
get
{
return _LegName;
}
set
{
_LegName=value;
}
public class LegMain
{
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
Leg L= new Leg();
d.LegName="Right Leg";
Console.WriteLine("The Legis :{0}",d.LegName);return 0;
}
}
Note: Encapsulation provides a way to protect data from accidental corruption.
Thank you
Encapsulation means hiding the data. In other words a class only exposes those properties or information which is authorized to be seen. Consider the below exapmle where a certain property called ConfidentialMessage is accesible only to the Admin role. This property is made private and is returned through another method which checks the role of an user and return the message only for admin.
public class Message
{
public Message()
{
ConfidentialMessage = "I am Nemo";
}
private string ConfidentialMessage { get; set; }
public string GetMessage(string name)
{
string message = string.Empty;
if (name == "Admin")
{
message = this.ConfidentialMessage;
}
return message;
}
}
Putting definition of encapsulate
enclose in a capsule, from en- "make, put in" + capsule + -ate .
now capsule meaning is box, case
In real life example if you put things on desk open then it is accessible to anyone but if you put in case then it is accessible with the key of case to open.
Same way in class if you create a variable then it accessible whenever you create object of that class.But if you create function to access the variable then you have created case and function is key to access the variable.
So in programming language we are creating wrapper of the data by using getter and setter and making it private variable.
Encapsulation is a capsule, consider it to be a class enclosing or hiding fields, properties and functions.
Please check below url encapsulation is simplified with simple programming example.
http://itsforlavanya.blogspot.com/2020/08/encapsulation.html?m=1
Context: I converted a legacy standalone engine into a plugin component for a composition tool. Technically, this means that I compiled the engine code base to a C DLL which I invoke from a .NET wrapper using P/Invoke; the wrapper implements an interface defined by the composition tool. This works quite well, but now I receive the request to load multiple instances of the engine, for different projects. Since the engine keeps the project data in a set of global variables, and since the DLL with the engine code base is loaded only once, loading multiple projects means that the project data is overwritten.
I can see a number of solutions, but they all have some disadvantages:
You can create multiple DLLs with the same code, which are seen as different DLLs by Windows, so their code is not shared. Probably this already works if you have multiple copies of the engine DLL with different names. However, the engine is invoked from the wrapper using DllImport attributes and I think the name of the engine DLL needs to be known when compiling the wrapper. Obviously, if I have to compile different versions of the wrapper for each project, this is quite cumbersome.
The engine could run as a separate process. This means that the wrapper would launch a separate process for the engine when it loads a project, and it would use some form of IPC to communicate with this process. While this is a relatively clean solution, it requires some effort to get working, I don't now which IPC technology would be best to set-up this kind of construction. There may also be a significant overhead of the communication: the engine needs to frequently exchange arrays of floating-point numbers.
The engine could be adapted to support multiple projects. This means that the global variables should be put into a project structure, and every reference to the globals should be converted to a corresponding reference that is relative to a particular project. There are about 20-30 global variables, but as you can imagine, these global variables are referenced from all over the code base, so this conversion would need to be done in some automatic manner. A related problem is that you should be able to reference the "current" project structure in all places, but passing this along as an extra argument in each and every function signature is also cumbersome. Does there exist a technique (in C) to consider the current call stack and find the nearest enclosing instance of a relevant data value there?
Can the stackoverflow community give some advice on these (or other) solutions?
Put the whole darn thing inside a C++ class, then references to variables will automatically find the instance variable.
You can make a global pointer to the active instance. This should probably be thread-local (see __declspec(thread)).
Add extern "C" wrapper functions that delegate to the corresponding member function on the active instance. Provide functions to create new instance, teardown existing instance, and set the active instance.
OpenGL uses this paradigm to great effect (see wglMakeCurrent), finding its state data without actually having to pass a state pointer to every function.
Although I received a lot of answers that suggested to go for solution 3, and although I agree it's a better solution conceptually, I think there was no way to realize that solution practically and reliably under my constraints.
Instead, what I actually implemented was a variation of solution #1. Although the DLL name in DLLImport needs to be a compile-time constant, this question explains how to do it dynamically.
If my code before looked like this:
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
class DotNetAccess {
[DllImport("mylib.dll", EntryPoint="GetVersion")]
private static extern int _getVersion();
public int GetVersion()
{
return _getVersion();
//May include error handling
}
}
It now looks like this:
using System.IO;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
using Assembly = System.Reflection.Assembly;
class DotNetAccess: IDisposable {
[DllImport("kernel32.dll", EntryPoint="LoadLibrary", SetLastError=true)]
private static extern IntPtr _loadLibrary(string name);
[DllImport("kernel32.dll", EntryPoint = "FreeLibrary", SetLastError = true)]
private static extern bool _freeLibrary(IntPtr hModule);
[DllImport("kernel32.dll", EntryPoint="GetProcAddress", CharSet=CharSet.Ansi, ExactSpelling=true, SetLastError=true)]
private static extern IntPtr _getProcAddress(IntPtr hModule, string name);
private static IntPtr LoadLibrary(string name)
{
IntPtr dllHandle = _loadLibrary(name);
if (dllHandle == IntPtr.Zero)
throw new Win32Exception();
return dllHandle;
}
private static void FreeLibrary(IntPtr hModule)
{
if (!_freeLibrary(hModule))
throw new Win32Exception();
}
private static D GetProcEntryDelegate<D>(IntPtr hModule, string name)
where D: class
{
IntPtr addr = _getProcAddress(hModule, name);
if (addr == IntPtr.Zero)
throw new Win32Exception();
return Marshal.GetDelegateForFunctionPointer(addr, typeof(D)) as D;
}
private string dllPath;
private IntPtr dllHandle;
public DotNetAccess()
{
string dllDir = Path.GetDirectoryName(Assembly.GetCallingAssembly().Location);
string origDllPath = Path.Combine(dllDir, "mylib.dll");
if (!File.Exists(origDllPath))
throw new Exception("MyLib DLL not found");
string myDllPath = Path.Combine(dllDir, String.Format("mylib-{0}.dll", GetHashCode()));
File.Copy(origDllPath, myDllPath);
dllPath = myDllPath;
dllHandle = LoadLibrary(dllPath);
_getVersion = GetProcEntryDelegate<_getVersionDelegate>(dllHandle, "GetVersion");
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (dllHandle != IntPtr.Zero)
{
FreeLibrary(dllHandle);
dllHandle = IntPtr.Zero;
}
if (dllPath != null)
{
File.Delete(dllPath);
dllPath = null;
}
}
private delegate int _getVersionDelegate();
private readonly _getVersionDelegate _getVersion;
public int GetVersion()
{
return _getVersion();
//May include error handling
}
}
Phew.
This may seem extremely complex if you see the two versions next to each other, but once you've set up the infrastructure, it is a very systematic change. And more importantly, it localizes the modification in my DotNetAccess layer, which means that I don't have to do modifications scattered all over a very large code base that is not my own.
In my opinion, solution 3 is the way to go.
The disadvantage that you have to touch every call to the DLL should apply to the other solutions, too... without the lack of scalability and uglyness of the multiple-DLL approach and the unnecessary overhead of IPC.
Solution 3 IS the way to go.
Imagine, that current object oriented programming languages work similar to your 3rd solution, but only implicitly pass the pointer to the structure that contains the data of "this".
Passing around "some kind of context thing" is not cumbersome, but it is just how things work! ;-)
Use approach #3. Since the code is in C, an easy way to deal with the globals that are spread everywhere is to define a macro for each global that has the same name as the global variable, but the macro expands to something like getSession()->theGlobal where getSession() returns a pinter to a "session-specific" structure that holds all the data for your globals. getSession() would fish the right data structure out of a global map of data structures somehow, perhaps using thread-local storage, or based on process ID, etc.
Actually solution 3 is easier than it sounds. All other solutions are kind of patch and will break with time.
Create a .net class which will encapsulate all access to the legacy code. Make it IDisposable.
Change all the global variables to reside in a class named 'Context'
Have all the C++ interfaces get the context object and pass it around as the first argument. This is probably the longest stage and you can avoid it using the "thread-local-storage" method suggested by someone else, but I would vote against that solution: if your library has any working threads which it runs, the "thread-local-storage" solution will break. Just add the context object where it is needed.
Use the context object to access all global data.
Have the context object created from .net ctor (by p/invoking a new create_context function) and deleted by the .net Dispose() method.
Enjoy.
Some thoughts on suggested solution #2 (and a bit on #1 and #3).
Some sort of IPC layer might introduce lagging. It depends on the actual engine how bad that is. If the engine is a rendering engine and it is called, say, 60 times a second the overhead might be too much. But, if not, a named pipe might be quick enough and easy to create using WCF.
Are you entirely sure you will need EXACTLY the same engine multiple times or are you in danger of changing requirements that might lead to a scenario that forces your toward loading multiple versions at the same time? If so, option #2 might be a better way than option #3 as it would allow this easier.
If the IPC layer is not slowing things down too much, this architecture might allow you to distribute the engines over other PC's. This might enable you to use more hardware than you previously planned for. You could even think about hosting the engine in the Azure cloud.