tl;dr:
Trying to pass a list of objects to a function, which expects list of objects implementing an interface. Said objects implement that interface. Compiler will not allow it.
Looking for an alternative workaround or my mistake.
The setup
I did not use the actual code, and that should not matter IMO. Seems like a conceptional problem to me.
The class TObjectWithInterface implements the interface ISomeInterface and extends the class TCustomInterfacedObject, which simply works around the reference counting of IInterface as given in the documentation.
TObjectWithInterface = class(TCustomInterfacedObject, ISomeInterface)
If have a procedure which takes a list of objects implementing that interface:
procedure SomeFunction(List: TList<ISomeInterface>)
The issue
Inside of a function of TObjectWithInterface, I try to call that function, using a list of objects of TObjectWithInterface:
procedure TObjectWithInterface.DoTheStuff(ListOfObjects: TList<TObjectWithInterface>)
begin
// ...
SomeFunction(ListOfObjects); // <-- Compiler error: Incompatible types
// ...
end;
The compiler tells me the following:
E2010: Incompatible types: 'System.Generics.Collections.TList' and 'System.Generics.Collections.TList'
The dumb workaround
I really dislike my current workaround, which consists of creating a new list and type casting each TObjectWithInterface to ISomeInterface:
procedure TObjectWithInterface.DoTheStuff(ListOfObjects: TList<TObjectWithInterface>)
var
ListOfInterfaceObjects: TList<ISomeInterface>;
begin
// ...
ListOfInterfaceObjects := TList<ISomeInterface>.Create;
for var Object in ListOfObjects do
ListOfInterfaceObjects.Add(Objects as ISomeInterface);
SomeFunction(ListOfInterfaceObjects)
// ...
end;
This seems very hacky to me. I may have done something stupid, or do not understand something correctly, as this is the first time, that I am trying to use Interfaces in Delphi. Please don't be mad.
Either way, I hope someone can point out my mistake or, if this is a language limitation, has an alternative workaround.
Your "workaround" to copy the list of objects into a separate list of interfaces is actually the correct and proper solution. You can't use a TList<X> where a TList<Y> is expected, they are different and unrelated types. Just because you are disabling reference counting on the interfaces doesn't change the memory layout of the objects in relation to their interfaces, so you still have to pass around proper memory pointers, which means performing necessary conversions from one to the other.
Related
I'm trying to create a generic method to get all the references to an object from an object.
For example:
TTest2 = class(TObject);
TTest = class(TObject)
Test2: TTest2;
end;
I want to create a method like:
var
Local: TTest;
LinkedObjects: TList;
begin
Local := TTest.Create;
LinkedObjects := Local.GetChildren;
//blah
end;
I'd like to create a method that says to me that on offset X, there is a reference for an object. The objective is to be able to list any object in any kind of field, so, published field's (that are listed on object header - vmtFieldTable) won't solve, Rtti (As it's not default for every classes) won't solve too.
It's probably not possible without some help from compiler (providing some information), but if you have some idea, please let me know.
I'm researching the possibility to develop a GC for Delphi. Everything on a GC is very mature, the technology is not a problem. But how to have access for some information is what make things complicated. At this point, I'm thinking a way to deal with the Mark step.
Some thoughts
Overload the assign operator of TObject ?
It's not possible just on NextGen compilers. Full answer.
Go through all the allocated memory and search for valid pointers on its space ?
Slow, but is it possible ? initialize and finalize all the object's memory clear, and then go through the memory looking for pointer with a valid object header ? or can I create a parity bit on objects to make it easier to identify?
Update: I found an interesting link! Talking about the same problem we discussed here.
I'll try do it.
I'm putting some information together here.
Thanks you,
Unlike the case with common objects, it is impossible to directly assign generics of different related types in Delphi as follows:
Possible (normal objects):
var
var_1 : TObject;
var_2 : MyTObjectSubClass;
var_1 := var_2; //Works
Not possible (generics):
var
var_1 : TList<TObject>;
var_2 : TList<MyTObjectSubClass>;
var_1 := var_2; //Does not compile
It is possible to use casts to accomplish this though, as follows:
var
var_1 : TList<TObject>;
var_2 : TList<MyTObjectSubClass>;
var_1 := TList<TObject>(var_2); //Works
This creates the need to be able to dynamically cast generics (i.e. to dynamically parameterize their generic type specification) somehow, but I have not been able to find a way to do this, so my question is: Is this in any way possible?
I'm indeed aware of the covariance/contravariance problems related to this, but in some cases it would indeed both be useful and "correct" to do such a thing.
One example of such a situation is the current code I'm writing for generic streaming of Delphi objects over a TStream, where the receiving end knows the exact type of the object that is incoming over the stream, e.g. TList<MyTObjectSubClass>. This type information is extracted by means of RTTI though (from a provided target variable to which the loaded object should be written), so I cannot explicitly mention the exact generics type in my stream-loading code in advance, but rather have to detect it by means of RTTI (which is possible, although somewhat hacky) and then write it to a target variable that I only at that run-time point will know the exact type of.
Thus, the load-object-from-stream code has to be fully generic, and thus, it would need to dynamically cast an existing TList<TObject> variable (which is defined explicitly in the code) to the exact type of TList<MyTObjectSubClass> (which I at that point have just learned about, through the use of RTTI), in order to be able to pass this object loaded from the stream to its final destination variable.
So again, is there ANY way whatsoever to accomplish this, or is it on the contrary actually completely impossible to assign to a not-in-advance-known generics collections using generic code (i.e. code that does not explicitly have some kind of "if [type of xxx is TList<TMyObject1>] then ... else if [type of xxx is TList<TMyObject2>] then ... else ..." test, containing explicit mentions of every single generics type that should be supported by it)?
PS.
The generics type of the stream-loaded object obviously already exists somewhere in the program (since it is concluded by means of RTTI on the target variable that the stream-loaded object should be written to), so I'm not asking about full run-time dynamic creation of generics types, but rather just about how to be able to dynamically pick the right one of those generics types already defined at compile-time in the program, and then cast a variable to that type.
EDIT:
By request from #RemyLebeau , here comes some more example code from my application, from its stream-loading function:
var
source_stream : TStream;
field_to_process : TRttiField;
field_type : TRttiType;
loaded_value : TValue;
temp_int : integer;
//...
//The fields of any object given to the streaming function are
//enumerated and sorted here
//...
//Then, for each field (provided in field_to_process),
//the following is done:
case field_to_process.FieldType.TypeKind of
//...
tkInteger:
begin
source_stream.ReadBufferData(temp_int);
loaded_value := TValue.From(temp_int);
end;
tkString,
tkLString,
tkWString,
tkUString:
begin
source_stream.ReadBufferData(noof_raw_bytes_in_string_data);
SetLength(raw_byte_buf, noof_raw_bytes_in_string_data + 4);
source_stream.ReadBuffer(raw_byte_buf[0], noof_raw_bytes_in_string_data);
temp_str := used_string_encoding.GetString(raw_byte_buf, 0, noof_raw_bytes_in_string_data);
loaded_value := TValue.From(temp_str);
end;
tkClass:
begin
is_generics_collection_containing_TObject_descendants := <does some hacky detection here>; //Thanks Remy :-)
if is_generics_collection_containing_TObject_descendants then
begin
<magic code goes here that loads data from the stream into the currently processed field, whose type has been detected to be of some specific generics collection type>
end;
end;
//...
end;
field_to_process.SetValue(self, loaded_value);
That should hopefully give a somewhat better overview of my problem. The superfluous code for strings and integers are just for context, by showing how some simple types are handled.
For more info about the (necessarily) "hacky detection" mentioned in the code, please see this question. After doing that, I will know the exact type of the generics collection and its subitems, for example TList<TSomeTObjectDescendant>.
So, as you hopefully can see now, the question is about the <magic code goes here that loads data from the stream into the currently processed field, whose type has been detected to be of some specific generics collection type> part. How can it be implemented?
NOTE: My problem is not to understand how to serialize/deserialize contents of an enumerable through a stream (which can of course be done by simply iterating over the items in the enumerable and then recursing the stream saving/loading code for each of them, where the number of items is given first of all in the stream). The problem is rather how to create generic code that will be able to recreate/populate any kind of generics collection of TObject descentants, whose type you only get to know at runtime, and then to finally get this into the object field that was originally enumerated by RTTI at the beginning of the stream-loading code. As an example, assume that the processed field has the type TList<TSomeTObjectDescendant>, and that you can easily load its subobjects from the stream using a call like function load_list_TSomeTObjectDescendant_subitems(input_stream : TStream) : array of TSomeTObjectDescendant. How could I then get these subitems into the TList<TSomeTObjectDescendant> field?
Type-casts and variable declarations are parsed at compile-time (though is and as casts are executed at runtime based on compiler-provided RTTI). The type being casted to, and the type of the variable being assigned to, must be known to the compiler. So what you are asking for is simply not possible with Generics. Not the way you have described it, anyway.
I have a list of type TList<TForm>. I need to cast it and use it as TList<TObject> like this:
procedure mainForm.testCast;
var
listT: TList<TForm>;
listW: TList<TObject>;
obj: TObject;
begin
listT := TList<TForm>.create;
listT.add(form1);
listT.add(form2);
listW := TList<TObject>(listT); // Casting is OK
// This works, but is this fine?
for obj in listW do
memo1.lines.add(obj.className);
end;
The sample works as expected, but is it ok to cast like this between generic lists? Will this cause some data structure corruption etc?
I use it only for looping (DoGetEnumerator) purposes and some string checks i.e. I'll not add/remove items.
The real function is little more complicated. It gets reference to listT using RTTI in a TValue.
The main goal is not to link FMX.Forms in my unit.
Update:
Why are TGeneric<Base> and TGeneric<Descendant> incompatible types?
Well, your code will work, but it somewhat dubious in my view. Simply put the cast is not legal because
TList<TForm>.InheritsFrom(TList<TObject>)
is false. So a TList<TForm> object is not a TList<TObject>. If it were, then the cast would not be needed.
That this is so is because Delphi's generic types are invariant. More details can be found here:
Why is a class implementing an interface not compatible with the interface type when used in generics?
If you have any difficulty understanding why the designers made generic types invariant, consider for a moment the effect of writing listW.Add(TObject.Create) in your code. Think what it means to the true underlying object of type TList<TForm>.
So the language promises you nothing. You are venturing outside its guarantees. It so happens that the implementation of these two un-related types is compatible enough for your code to work. But that is really just an accident of implementation.
Since you are already using RTTI, then I suggest that you iterate over the list with RTTI. You can call GetEnumerator and so on using RTTI. That way you will call the actual methods of the object.
This is similar to this question. I asked "Why?" to the most popular response but I don't know that anyone would ever look at it again. At least not in any timely manner.
Anyway, my question is about best practices for delegating responsibility for creation of objects to functions or procedures, without causing memory leaks. It seems that this:
procedure FillObject(MyObject: TMyObject; SomeParam: Integer);
begin
//Database operations to fill object
end;
procedure CallUsingProcedure();
var
MyObject: TMyObject;
begin
MyObject = TMyObject.Create();
try
FillObject(MyObject, 1);
//use object
finally
MyObject.Free();
end;
end;
is preferred over this:
function CreateMyObject(DBID: Integer): TMyObject;
begin
Result := TMyObject.Create();
try
//Database operations to fill object
except on E: Exception do
begin
Result.Free();
raise;
end;
end;
end;
procedure CallUsingFunction();
var
MyObject: TMyObject;
begin
MyObject = CreateMyObject(1);
try
//use object
finally
MyObject.Free();
end;
end;
Why?
I'm relatively new to Delphi, having previously worked most with Java and PHP, as well as C++, though to a lesser extent. Intuitively, I lean toward the function method because:
It encapsulates the object creation code in the function, rather than create the object separately whenever I want to use the procedure.
I dislike methods that alter their parameters. It's often left undocumented and can make tracing bugs more difficult.
Vague, but admittedly it just "smells" bad to me.
I'm not saying I'm right. I just want to understand why the community chooses this method and if there is good reason for me to change.
Edit:
References to #E-Rock in comments are to me(Eric G). I changed my display name.
One problem is what Ken White wrote: you hand the user of the function an object he or she must free.
Another advantage of procedures is that you can pass several objects of a hierarchy, while a function that creates such an object always generates the same. E.g.
procedure PopulateStrings(Strings: TStrings);
To that procedure, you can pass any kind of TStrings, be it the Lines of a TMemo, the Items of a TListBox or TComboBox or a simple standalone TStringList. If you have a function:
function CreateStrings: TStrings;
You always get the same kind of object back (which object exactly is not known, as TStrings is abstract, so you probably get a TStringList), and must Assign() the contents to the TStrings you want to modify. The procedure is to be preferred, IMO.
Additionally, if you are the author of the function, you can't control whether the object you create is freed, or when. If you write a procedure, that problem is taken off your hands, since the user provides the object, and its lifetime is none of your concern. And you don't have to know the exact type of the object, it must just be of the class or a descendant of the parameter. IOW, it is also much better for the author of the function.
It is IMO seldom a good idea to return an object from a function, for all the reasons given. A procedure that only modifies the object has no dependency on the object and creates no dependency for the user.
FWIW, Another problem is if you do that from a DLL. The object returned uses the memory manager of the DLL, and also the VMT to which it points is in the DLL. That means that code that uses as or is in the user code does not work properly (since is and as use the VMT pointer to check for class identity). If the user must pass an object of his, to a procedure, that problem does not arise.
Update
As others commented, passing an object to a DLL is not a good idea either. Non-virtual functions will call the functions inside the DLL and use its memory manager, which can cause troubles too. And is and as will not work properly inside the DLL either. So simply don't pass objects into or out of a DLL. That goes with the maxime that DLLs should only use POD type parameters (or compound types -- arrays, records -- that only contain POD types) or COM interfaces. The COM interfaces should also only use the same kind of parameters.
Creating the object instance and passing it into another procedure makes it clear which code is responsible for freeing the instance.
In the first case (using a procedure to fill it):
MyObj := TMyObject.Create;
try
// Do whatever with MyObj
finally
MyObj.Free;
end;
This is clear that this block of code is responsible for freeing MyObj when it's finished being used.
MyObj := CreateMyObject(DBID);
What code is supposed to free it? When can you safely free it? Who is responsible for exception handling? How do you know (as a user of someone else's code)?
As a general rule, you should create, use, and free object instances where they're needed. This makes your code easier to maintain, and definitely makes it easier for someone who comes along later and has to try and figure it out. :)
I use a combination of both idioms. Pass the object as an optional parameter and if not passed, create the object. And in either case return the object as the function result.
This technique has (1) the flexibility of the creation of the object inside of the called function, and (2) the caller control of the caller passing the object as a parameter. Control in two meanings: control in the real type of the object being used, and control about the moment when to free the object.
This simple piece of code exemplifies this idiom.
function MakeList(aList:TStrings = nil):TStrings;
var s:TStrings;
begin
s:=aList;
if s=nil then
s:=TSTringList.Create;
s.Add('Adam');
s.Add('Eva');
result:=s;
end;
And here are three different ways to use it
simplest usage, for quick and dirty code
var sl1,sl2,sl3:TStrings;
sl1:=MakeList;
when programmer wants to make more explicit ownership and/or use a custom type
sl2:=MakeList(TMyStringsList.create);
when the object is previously created
sl3:=TMyStringList.Create;
....
MakeList(sl3);
I'm attempting to write a unit test for a simple factory class that creates one of several possible implementing objects and returns it as an interface reference.
DUnit has a built in procedure, CheckIs(AObject: TObject; AClass: TClass; msg: string), that based on its name and the parameters it accepts should fail the test if the object's class type doesn't match the expected one. The only problem is it requires an object reference not an interface reference.
So I'm trying to use CheckTrue and perform the comparison in the body of the test but I'm not as familiar with Delphi's type checking support as I am with C#'s.
I know the is operator is out of the question since it only works with object references.
CheckTrue(LMyInterfaceReference {comparison here} TMyClass);
Any suggestions?
BTW, I'm using Delphi 2009 so I don't have access to the new RTTI support added in 2010+.
I'm wondering why you MUST have to test this... maybe you really don't have to.
But if knowing the underlying object of a Interface is a must, you have two choices:
Add a method to the interface which returns the underlying object, just a TObject, and implement this in each class just by returning self.
Hack a bit, for example using this Interface to object routine.
If you don't like hacks and don't feel like upgrading to Delphi 2010+ you may use an interface like this:
IImplementingObjectInterface = interface
function GetImplementingObject: TObject;
end;
Make sure your objects also implement this interface and use it to extract the implementing object. If you need to do this for a lot of objects you can define your own TInterfacedObject derivate that already implements this so you can simply change your inheritance and be done.
Barry Kelly (one of the main Embarcadero Delphi Compiler Engineers) wrote a nice An ugly alternative to interface to object casting this week.
It answers your question.
The fun is that Hallvard Vassbotn wrote a very similar piece of code back in 2004.
From Delphi 2010 on, you can just use an is check or as cast to go back from interface references to object references.
--jeroen