Status: Sort of solved. Switching Lua.Ref (close equivalent to LuaD LuaObject) to struct as suggested in answer has solved most issues related to freeing references, and I changed back to similar mechanism LuaD uses. More about this in the end.
In one of my project, I am working with Lua interface. I have mainly borrowed the ideas from LuaD. The mechanism in LuaD uses lua_ref & lua_unref to be able to move lua table/function references in D space, but this causes heavy problems because the calls to destructors and their order is not guaranteed. LuaD usually segfaults at least at the program exit.
Because it seems that LuaD is not maintained anymore, I decided to write my own interface for my purposes. My Lua interface class is here: https://github.com/mkoskim/games/blob/master/engine/util/lua.d
Usage examples can be found here:
https://github.com/mkoskim/games/blob/master/demo/luasketch/luademo.d
And in case you need, the Lua script used by the example is here:
https://github.com/mkoskim/games/blob/master/demo/luasketch/data/test.lua
The interface works like this:
Lua.opIndex pushes global table and index key to stack, and return Top object. For example, lua["math"] pushes _G and "math" to stack.
Further accesses go through Top object. Top.opIndex goes deeper in the table hierarchy. Other methods (call, get, set) are "final" methods, which perform an operation with the table and key at the top of the stack, and clean the stack afterwards.
Close everything works fine, except this mechanism has nasty quirk/bug that I have no idea how to solve it. If you don't call any of those "final" methods, Top will leave table and key to the stack:
lua["math"]["abs"].call(-1); // Works. Final method (call) called.
lua["math"]["abs"]; // table ref & key left to stack :(
What I know for sure, is that playing with Top() destructor does not work, as it is not called immediately when object is not referenced anymore.
NOTE: If there is some sort of operator to be called when object is accessed as rvalue, I could replace call(), set() and get() methods with operator overloads.
Questions:
Is there any way to prevent users to write such expressions (getting Top object without calling any of "final" methods)? I really don't want users to write e.g. luafunc = lua["math"]["abs"] and then later try to call it, because it won't work at all. Not without starting to play with lua_ref & lua_unref and start fighting with same issues that LuaD has.
Is there any kind of opAccess operator overloading, that is, overloading what happens when object is used as rvalue? That is, expression "a = b" -> "a.opAssign(b.opAccess)"? opCast does not work, it is called only with explicit casts.
Any other suggestions? I internally feel that I am looking solution from wrong direction. I feel that the problem reside in the realm of metaprogramming: I am trying to "scope" things at expression level, which I feel is not that suitable for classes and objects.
So far, I have tried to preserve the LuaD look'n'feel at interface user's side, but I think that if I could change the interface to something like following, I could get it working:
lua.call(["math", "abs"], 1); // call lua.math.abs(2)
lua.get(["table", "x", "y", "z"], 2); // lua table.x.y.z = 2
...
Syntactically that would ensure that reference to lua object fetched by indexing is finally used for something in the expression, and the stack would be cleaned.
UPDATE: Like said, changing Lua.Ref to struct solved problems related to dereferencing, and I am again using reference mechanism similar to LuaD. I personally feel that this mechanism suits the LuaD-style syntax I am using, too, and it can be quite a challenge to make the syntax working correctly with other mechanisms. I am still open to hear if someone has ideas to make it work.
The system I sketched to replace references (to tackle the problem with objects holding references living longer than lua sandbox) would probably need different kind of interface, something similar I sketched above.
You also have an issue when people do
auto math_abs = lua["math"]["abs"];
math_abs.call(1);
math_abs.call(3);
This will double pop.
Make Top a struct that holds the stack index of what they are referencing. That way you can use its known scoping and destruction behavior to your advantage. Make sure you handle this(this) correctly as well.
Only pop in the destructor when the value is the actual top value. You can use a bitset in LuaInterface to track which stack positions are in use and put the values in it using lua_replace if you are worried about excessive stack use.
I have a control derived from TStringGrid.
During creation I want to access the Cancas to do some one time initializing.
I can't do it in Create because the Canvas is not ready yet. I also can't do it in CreateWnd because CreateWnd it is called multiple times.
There are some cheap tricks (use a Boolean variable) to initialize that var only once but I would like to know how to do it the 'nice way'.
So, since Create and CreateWnd is not a good place, where during the creation of a control can I initialize the var ONLY once.
The simple answer is that you should not cache this value. Calculate the value on demand, when you need it.
Caching is something that you should avoid doing. The problem with caching is that you have to make sure that you never work with a stale value. You need to respond to anything that might result in a change in the value and update your cached value.
It's easy to get that updating logic wrong. Even if you get it right, you've just added a whole load of complexity to your code. And you always want to avoid that if possible. In the case of a physical font metric, they are cheap to obtain in comparison with what you use them for. Invariably you will be using the font metric as part of your painting code. And surely that is many orders of magnitude more expensive than obtaining a font metric.
So, you can make all your problems go away by the very simple expedient of not caching, and obtaining the font metric as and when you need it. By all means wrap it up in a property with a getter method to make the code as clean as possible.
I'm currently working on a Rails project, and have found times where it's easiest to do
if object.class == Foo
...
else if object.class == Bar
...
else
...
I started doing this in views where I needed to display different objects in different ways, but have found myself using it in other places now, such as in functions that take objects as arguments. I'm not precisely sure why, but I feel like this is not good practice.
If it's not good practice, why so?
If it's totally fine, when are times that one might want to use this specifically?
Thanks!
Not sure why that works for you at all. When you need to test whether object is instance of class Foo you should use
object.is_a? Foo
But it's not a good practice in Ruby anyway. It'd much better to use polymorphism whenever it's possible. For example, if somewhere in the code you can have object of two different classes and you need to display them differently you can define display method in both classes. After that you can call object.display and object will be displayed using method defined in the corresponding class.
Advantage of that approach is that when you need to add support for the third class or a whole bunch of new classes all you'll need to do is define display method in every one of them. But nothing will change in places where you actually using this method.
It's better to express type specific behavior using subtyping.
Let the objects know how they are displays. Create a method Display() and pass all you need from outside as parameter. Let "Foo" know to display foo and "Bar" know how to display bar.
There are many articles on replacing conditionals with polymorphism.
It’s not a good idea for several reasons. One of them is duck typing – once you start explicitly checking for object class in the code, you can no longer simply pass an instance of a different class that conforms to a similar interface as the original object. This makes proxying, mocking and other common design tricks harder. (The point can be also generalized as breaking encapsulation. It can be argued that the object’s class is an implementation detail that you as a consumer should not be interested in. Broken encapsulation ≈ tight coupling ≈ pain.)
Another reason is extensibility. When you have a giant switch over the object type and want to add one more case, you have to alter the switch code. If this code is embedded in a library, for example, the library users can’t simply extend the library’s behaviour without altering the library code. Ideally all behaviour of an object should be a part of the object itself, so that you can add new behaviour just by adding more object types.
If you need to display different objects in a different way, can’t you simply make the drawing code a part of the object?
To get tracing output from Saxon-B, you call something like:
processor.getUnderlyingConfiguration().setTraceListener(new XSLTTraceListener());
My question is, how dynamic is that? Once I've created an executable, does it capture this somehow, or can I change the listener on the fly and have it take effect?
You shouldn't really set the TraceListener on the Configuration, since it doesn't really make sense to use the same one for different transformations. Better to set it on the Controller. If you do that, then I suspect you can switch it at any time - but at your own risk, for example you won't get paired open() and close() calls.
I've been a bad programmer because I am doing a copy and paste. An example is that everytime i connect to a database and retrieve a recordset, I will copy the previous code and edit, copy the code that sets the datagridview and edit. I am aware of the phrase code reuse, but I have not actually used it. How can i utilize code reuse so that I don't have to copy and paste the database code and the datagridview code.,
The essence of code reuse is to take a common operation and parameterize it so it can accept a variety of inputs.
Take humble printf, for example. Imagine if you did not have printf, and only had write, or something similar:
//convert theInt to a string and write it out.
char c[24];
itoa(theInt, c, 10);
puts(c);
Now this sucks to have to write every time, and is actually kind of buggy. So some smart programmer decided he was tired of this and wrote a better function, that in one fell swoop print stuff to stdout.
printf("%d", theInt);
You don't need to get as fancy as printf with it's variadic arguments and format string. Even just a simple routine such as:
void print_int(int theInt)
{
char c[24];
itoa(theInt, c, 10);
puts(c);
}
would do the trick nickely. This way, if you want to change print_int to always print to stderr you could update it to be:
void print_int(int theInt)
{
fprintf(stderr, "%d", theInt);
}
and all your integers would now magically be printed to standard error.
You could even then bundle that function and others you write up into a library, which is just a collection of code you can load in to your program.
Following the practice of code reuse is why you even have a database to connect to: someone created some code to store records on disk, reworked it until it was usable by others, and decided to call it a database.
Libraries do not magically appear. They are created by programmers to make their lives easier and to allow them to work faster.
Put the code into a routine and call the routine whenever you want that code to be executed.
Check out Martin Fowler's book on refactoring, or some of the numerous refactoring related internet resources (also on stackoverflow), to find out how you could improve code that has smells of duplication.
At first, create a library with reusable functions. They can be linked with different applications. It saves a lot of time and encourages reuse.
Also be sure the library is unit tested and documented. So it is very easy to find the right class/function/variable/constant.
Good rule of thumb is if you use same piece three times, and it's obviously possible to generalize it, than make it a procedure/function/library.
However, as I am getting older, and also more experienced as a professional developer, I am more inclined to see code reuse as not always the best idea, for two reasons:
It's difficult to anticipate future needs, so it's very hard to define APIs so you would really use them next time. It can cost you twice as much time - once you make it more general just so that second time you are going to rewrite it anyway. It seems to me that especially Java projects of late are prone to this, they seem to be always rewritten in the framework du jour, just to be more "easier to integrate" or whatever in the future.
In a larger organization (I am a member of one), if you have to rely on some external team (either in-house or 3rd party), you can have a problem. Your future then depends on their funding and their resources. So it can be a big burden to use foreign code or library. In a similar fashion, if you share a piece of code to some other team, they can then expect that you will maintain it.
Note however, these are more like business reasons, so in open source, it's almost invariably a good thing to be reusable.
to get code reuse you need to become a master of...
Giving things names that capture their essence. This is really really important
Making sure that it only does one thing. This is really comes back to the first point, if you can't name it by its essence, then often its doing too much.
Locating the thing somewhere logical. Again this comes back to being able to name things well and capturing its essence...
Grouping it with things that build on a central concept. Same as above, but said differntly :-)
The first thing to note is that by using copy-and-paste, you are reusing code - albeit not in the most efficient way.
You have recognised a situation where you have come up with a solution previously.
There are two main scopes that you need to be aware of when thinking about code reuse. Firstly, code reuse within a project and, secondly, code reuse between projects.
The fact that you have a piece of code that you can copy and paste within a project should be a cue that the piece of code that you're looking at is useful elsewhere. That is the time to make it into a function, and make it available within the project.
Ideally you should replace all occurrances of that code with your new function, so that it (a) reduces redundant code and (b) ensures that any bugs in that chunk of code only need to be fixed in one function instead of many.
The second scope, code reuse across projects, requires some more organisation to get the maximum benefit. This issue has been addressed in a couple of other SO questions eg. here and here.
A good start is to organise code that is likely to be reused across projects into source files that are as self-contained as possible. Minimise the amount of supporting, project specific, code that is required as this will make it easier to reuse entire files in a new project. This means minimising the use of project specific data-types, minimising the use project specific global variables, etc.
This may mean creating utility files that contain functions that you know are going to be useful in your environment. eg. Common database functions if you often develop projects that depend on databases.
I think the best way to answer your problem is that create a separate assembly for your important functions.. in this way you can create extension methods or modify the helper assemble itself.. think of this function..
ExportToExcel(List date, string filename)
this method can be use for your future excel export functions so why don't store it in your own helper assembly.. i this way you just add reference to these assemblies.
Depending on the size of the project can change the answer.
For a smaller project I would recommend setting up a DatabaseHelper class that does all your DB access. It would just be a wrapper around opening/closing connections and execution of the DB code. Then at a higher level you can just write the DBCommands that will be executed.
A similar technique could be used for a larger project, but would need some additional work, interfaces need to be added, DI, as well as abstracting out what you need to know about the database.
You might also try looking into ORM, DAAB, or over to the Patterns and Practices Group
As far as how to prevent the ole C&P? - Well as you write your code, you need to periodically review it, if you have similar blocks of code, that only vary by a parameter or two, that is always a good candidate for refactoring into its own method.
Now for my pseudo code example:
Function GetCustomer(ID) as Customer
Dim CMD as New DBCmd("SQL or Stored Proc")
CMD.Paramaters.Add("CustID",DBType,Length).Value = ID
Dim DHelper as New DatabaseHelper
DR = DHelper.GetReader(CMD)
Dim RtnCust as New Customer(Dx)
Return RtnCust
End Function
Class DataHelper
Public Function GetDataTable(cmd) as DataTable
Write the DB access code stuff here.
GetConnectionString
OpenConnection
Do DB Operation
Close Connection
End Function
Public Function GetDataReader(cmd) as DataReader
Public Function GetDataSet(cmd) as DataSet
... And So on ...
End Class
For the example you give, the appropriate solution is to write a function that takes as parameters whatever it is that you edit whenever you paste the block, then call that function with the appropriate data as parameters.
Try and get into the habit of using other people's functions and libraries.
You'll usually find that your particular problem has a well-tested, elegant solution.
Even if the solutions you find aren't a perfect fit, you'll probably gain a lot of insight into the problem by seeing how other people have tackled it.
I'll do this at two levels. First within a class or namespace, put that code piece that is reused in that scope in a separate method and make sure it is being called.
Second is something similar to the case that you are describing. That is a good candidate to be put in a library or a helper/utility class that can be reused more broadly.
It is important to evaluate everything that you are doing with an perspective whether it can be made available to others for reuse. This should be a fundamental approach to programming that most of us dont realize.
Note that anything that is to be reused needs to be documented in more detail. Its naming convention be distinct, all the parameters, return results and any constraints/limitations/pre-requisites that are needed should be clearly documented (in code or help files).
It depends somewhat on what programming language you're using. In most languages you can
Write a function, parameterize it to allow variations
Write a function object, with members to hold the varying data
Develop a hierarchy of (function object?) classes that implement even more complicated variations
In C++ you could also develop templates to generate the various functions or classes at compile time
Easy: whenever you catch yourself copy-pasting code, take it out immediately (i.e., don't do it after you've already CP'd code several times) into a new function.