I want to assign an event handler in constructor, if it does not have one assigned. Consequentially I want to remove the eventually assigned event handler in destructor. I wrote the code as follows, but cannot be compiled.
constructor TSomeControl.Create(Panel: TPanel);
begin
inherited Create;
FPanel := Panel;
if not Assigned(FPanel.OnResize) then
FPanel.OnResize := HandlePanelResize;
end;
destructor TSomeControl.Destroy;
begin
if #FPanel.OnResize = #HandlePanelResize then // [dcc32 Error] E2036 Variable required
FPanel.OnResize := nil;
FPanel := nil;
inherited;
end;
How to test it properly? I know a solution is to use a variable to record, whether I have assigned OnResize. But I do not want this as solution.
No need to write any custom code here as you can use the already existing comparers from Generics.Defaults:
destructor TSomeControl.Destroy;
begin
if Assigned(FPanel) and TEqualityComparer<TNotifyEvent>.Default.Equals(
FPanel.OnResize, HandlePanelResize) then
FPanel.OnResize := nil;
FPanel := nil;
inherited;
end;
This is complicated by the fact that OnResize is a property rather than a variable. And it's quite hard to refer to a method directly without the compiler thinking you want to call the method. This is the big drawback of Pascal's convenience of allowing you to call a procedure without using parens.
All this makes it rather hard to do it in a one-liner. As far as I can see you will need to do something like this:
destructor TSomeControl.Destroy;
var
Method1, Method2: TNotifyEvent;
begin
if Assigned(FPanel) then
begin
Method1 := FPanel.OnResize;
Method2 := HandlePanelResize;
if TMethod(Method1) = TMethod(Method2) then
FPanel.OnResize := nil;
end;
FPanel := nil;
inherited;
end;
This relies on modern Delphi's TMethod record which includes an overloaded equality operator to make the = test work.
I would wrap this all up in a generic method if I was doing it more than once. It might look like this:
type
TEventComparer = class
class function Equal<T>(const lhs, rhs: T): Boolean; static;
end;
class function TEventComparer.Equal<T>(const lhs, rhs: T): Boolean;
begin
Assert(SizeOf(T)=SizeOf(TMethod));
Result := TMethod((#lhs)^)=TMethod((#rhs)^);
end;
You'd call it like this:
destructor TSomeControl.Destroy;
begin
if Assigned(FPanel) and TEventComparer.Equal<TNotifyEvent>(FPanel.OnResize,
HandlePanelResize) then
FPanel.OnResize := nil;
FPanel := nil;
inherited;
end;
One thing that this highlights is that the generic constraints available to you do not allow you to constraint a type to being a method pointer. Hence the basic sanity check that the size of T is the same as the size of a method. This doesn't offer much safety though. You can call this method passing Int64, or Double. I'd be interested to see if anyone can come up with a cleaner variant.
There is no need to use Generics.Defaults or any generics at all. There is TMethod record declared in System unit, so this is probably the simplest one:
destructor TSomeControl.Destroy;
var
Event: TNotifyEvent;
begin
Event := HandlePanelResize;
if TMethod(FPanel.OnResize).Code = Addr(Event) then
FPanel.OnResize := nil;
FPanel := nil;
inherited;
end;
Related
This may be an extension of my previous question.
I have understood that an interface-based variable can not be defined as its original type, otherwise the reference count does not work properly for automatic release.
But if a class implements two interfaces, then what type should be defined when make an instance of it?
Consider following code:
program Project2;
{$APPTYPE CONSOLE}
{$R *.res}
uses
SysUtils, Classes;
type
ITestInterface = interface(IInvokable)
['{A7BDD122-7DC6-4F23-93A2-B686571AB2C8}']
procedure TestMethod;
end;
IAnotherInterface = interface(IInvokable)
['{15FEC4A7-E361-41D0-9D52-170AFAD1794B}']
procedure AnotherMethod;
end;
TTestObj = class(TInterfacedObject, ITestInterface, IAnotherInterface)
constructor Create;
destructor Destroy; override;
private
FData: TStrings;
public
procedure TestMethod;
procedure AnotherMethod;
end;
{ TTestObj }
constructor TTestObj.Create;
begin
FData := TStringList.Create;
end;
destructor TTestObj.Destroy;
begin
Writeln('Destroy');
FData.Free;
inherited;
end;
procedure TTestObj.TestMethod;
begin
FData.Text := 'TestMethod';
Writeln(FData.Strings[0]);
end;
procedure TTestObj.AnotherMethod;
begin
FData.Text := 'AnotherMethod';
Writeln(FData.Strings[0]);
end;
{ Main }
function CreateObj: TTestObj;
begin
Result := TTestObj.Create;
end;
function CreateObj_i1: ITestInterface;
begin
Result := TTestObj.Create;
end;
function CreateObj_i2: IAnotherInterface;
begin
Result := TTestObj.Create;
end;
procedure Main;
var
TestObj: ITestInterface; // It must be declared as an interface type, or it won't be freed correctly.
AnotherObj: IAnotherInterface;
NaturalObj: TTestObj;
begin
{ 1st way: The syntax is a bit natural, but easily lead to memory leaks. }
CreateObj; // memory leak !
TestObj := CreateObj;
TestObj.TestMethod;
AnotherObj := CreateObj;
AnotherObj.AnotherMethod;
TestObj := nil;
AnotherObj := nil;
Writeln('----------');
{ 2nd way: The syntax is a bit messy, you should do type conversion carefully. }
CreateObj_i1; // object freed correctly.
TestObj := TTestObj(CreateObj_i2); // Using ITestInterface(CreateObj_i2) is wrong.
TestObj.TestMethod;
AnotherObj := TTestObj(CreateObj_i1); // Using IAnotherInterface(CreateObj_i1) is wrong.
AnotherObj.AnotherMethod;
TestObj := nil; // useless, it won't be be freed until the procedure returns.
AnotherObj := nil; // as above.
Writeln('----------');
{ 3rd way: The syntax is a bit natural, but it's easily lead to access violation if pass the `NaturalObj` out of the procedure. }
NaturalObj := TTestObj(CreateObj_i1); // Using TTestObj(CreateObj_i2) is okay too.
NaturalObj.TestMethod;
NaturalObj.AnotherMethod;
end;
begin
Writeln('Program start!');
Main;
Writeln('Program end.');
Readln;
end.
So which way is your preferred? Or any other advice? Thanks in advance.
There is a lot of confusion and complexity here. Rather than trying to dissect what you have, I'll show you how I would do it.
First of all remove all variables of type TTestObj. You should be using interface references only. You'll want a variable for each one.
var
TestIntf: ITestInterface;
AnotherIntf: IAnotherInterface;
Note that I have changed the name of these variables, replacing the Obj suffix with Intf. This reflects that they are interface references rather than object references.
Then you can simply do this:
TestIntf := TTestObj.Create;
AnotherIntf := TestIntf as IAnotherInterface;
Now you have two interface variables, one for each of your interfaces. It so happens that the implementing object behind both of these references is the same object, which is presumably what you want.
You could equally have reversed the logic:
AnotherIntf := TTestObj.Create;
TestIntf := AnotherIntf as ITestInterface;
This achieves exactly the same effect, you can do it either way.
If you want a different instance behind the variables then that is easy enough:
TestIntf := TTestObj.Create;
AnotherIntf := TTestObj.Create;
The key points here are:
Don't mix interfaces and objects. Once you start using an interface don't access the implementing object behind it.
When an object implements multiple interfaces, use the as operator to obtain the other interfaces.
When using Interfaces in Delphi and overriding reference counting, it is possible to bypass the_Release calls Delphi makes when an interface reaches a reference count of zero.
But - when mixing classes and interfaces (which is very useful) the _Release method is ALWAYS called no matter what. The problem is that in the sample code below, the local object is nill-ed, but _Release is still called - except on invalid memory. Depending on memory operations in the application, an exception can result when _Release is called on the nilled localObject's old location or no exception if the memory was not re-used.
So, can the compiler generated call to _Release be "removed/blocked/avoided/killed/redirected/vmt hijacked/terminated/smacked/etc etc etc"? If this can be achieved you have proper pure interfaces in Delphi.
unit TestInterfaces;
interface
uses
Classes,
SysUtils;
type
ITestInterface = interface
['{92D4D6E4-A67F-4DB4-96A9-9E1C40825F9C}']
procedure Run;
end;
TTestClass = class(TInterfacedObject, ITestInterface)
protected
function _AddRef: Integer; stdcall;
function _Release: Integer; stdcall;
public
procedure Run;
end;
TRunTestClass = class(TObject)
protected
FlocalInterface : ITestInterface;
FlocalObject : TTestClass;
public
constructor Create;
destructor Destroy; override;
procedure Test;
end;
procedure RunTest;
procedure RunTestOnClass;
var
globalInterface : ITestInterface;
implementation
procedure RunTest;
var
localInterface : ITestInterface;
localObject : TTestClass;
begin
try
//create an object
localObject := TTestClass.Create;
//local scope
// causes _Release call when object is nilled
localInterface := localObject;
localInterface.Run;
//or global scope
// causes _Release call when exe shuts down - possibly on invalid memory location
globalInterface := localObject;
globalInterface.Run;
finally
//localInterface := nil; //--> forces _Release to be called
FreeAndNil( localObject );
end;
end;
procedure RunTestOnClass;
var
FRunTestClass : TRunTestClass;
begin
FRunTestClass := TRunTestClass.Create;
FRunTestClass.Test;
FRunTestClass.Free;
end;
{ TTheClass }
procedure TTestClass.Run;
begin
beep;
end;
function TTestClass._AddRef: Integer;
begin
result := -1;
end;
function TTestClass._Release: integer;
begin
result := -1;
end;
{ TRunTestClass }
constructor TRunTestClass.Create;
begin
FlocalObject := TTestClass.Create;
FlocalInterface := FlocalObject;
end;
destructor TRunTestClass.Destroy;
begin
//..
FlocalObject.Free;
//FlocalObject := nil;
inherited;
end;
procedure TRunTestClass.Test;
begin
FlocalInterface.Run;
end;
end.
There's no practical way to achieve what you are looking for. The compiler is going to emit the calls to _Release and in order to whack them you would need to find all the call sites. That's not practical.
I'm afraid the only viable approach when reference counted lifetime management is disabled is to ensure that you finalize (i.e. set to nil) all your interface references before calling Free.
When you use Interfaces you do not need to free your objects any more. interfaced objects will released automatically when there is no any references to same object.
In your sample you must delete _Release and _Addref functions in TTestClass they are defined in TInterfacedObject class.
In RunTest procedure you not need to Free the localObject only in finally section set globalInterface to nil. after end of procedure localInterface will destroy the local object automatically.
try
... use your code
...
finnaly
globalInnterface := nil;
end;
And about TTestRun.Destroy just left this destructor blank. you must not Free the FlocalObject.
TTestRun.Destroy;
begin
inherited;
end;
I got quite a large application which is currently being styled up.
To save me changing all the buttons in the IDE/Object Inspector I am planning on just doing a few functions for the main objects like
procedure StyleButton(AButton : TButton)
begin
AButton.Color := clGreen;
AButton.Font.Style = [fsBold];
end;
etc etc and then add that to the forms onCreates as needed
StyleButton(Button1); whatever etc
There is no issue passing objects in params like this. It does just reference the first object right?
It works fine and I can't think of any issues, but because this is a large application which thousands of users I just want to be sure there will be no issues/memory leaks/resource consumpution issues.
Will also be doing similar things with TAdvStringGrid and TEdit/TMemo components.
Then allows just 1 place to change these settings.
Or someone have a better idea?
This is an excellent idea. The function will modify whichever object you pass to it.
You are not passing by reference. You are passing by value. The value you are passing is a reference. "Passing by reference" means you'd use the var or out keywords, which are not appropriate in this situation.
Your idea is just fine, as the other answerers have already said. Just want to propose a solution that goes even further than David's and something you may want to consider in order to avoid having to add many statements like:
StyleButton(Button1);
StyleButton(Button2);
to each and every form for each and every control you would like to style;
What I would propose is to add a single method call to for example each form's OnShow event:
procedure TForm1.FormShow(Sender: TObject);
begin
TStyler.StyleForm(Self);
end;
The TStyler could be implemented in a separate unit that looks like this:
interface
type
TStyler = class;
TStylerClass = class of TStyler;
TStyler = class(TObject)
public
class procedure StyleForm(const aForm: TCustomForm);
class procedure StyleControl(const aControl: TControl); virtual;
class function GetStyler(const aControl: TControl): TStylerClass;
end;
implementation
uses
Contnrs;
type
TButtonStyler = class(TStyler)
public
class procedure StyleControl(const aControl: TControl); override;
end;
TEditStyler = class(TStyler)
public
class procedure StyleControl(const aControl: TControl); override;
end;
TLabelStyler = class(TStyler)
public
class procedure StyleControl(const aControl: TControl); override;
end;
var
_Controls: TClassList;
_Stylers: TClassList;
{ TStyler }
class function TStyler.GetStyler(const aControl: TControl): TStylerClass;
var
idx: Integer;
begin
Result := TStyler;
idx := _Controls.IndexOf(aControl.ClassType);
if idx > -1 then
Result := TStylerClass(_Stylers[idx]);
end;
class procedure TStyler.StyleForm(const aForm: TCustomForm);
procedure _StyleControl(const aControl: TControl);
var
i: Integer;
StylerClass: TStylerClass;
begin
StylerClass := TStyler.GetStyler(aControl);
StylerClass.StyleControl(aControl);
if (aControl is TWinControl) then
for i := 0 to TWinControl(aControl).ControlCount - 1 do
_StyleControl(TWinControl(aControl).Controls[i]);
end;
var
i: Integer;
begin
_StyleControl(aForm);
end;
class procedure TStyler.StyleControl(const aControl: TControl);
begin
// Do nothing. This is a catch all for all controls that do not need specific styling.
end;
{ TButtonStyler }
class procedure TButtonStyler.StyleControl(const aControl: TControl);
begin
inherited;
if aControl is TButton then
begin
TButton(aControl).Font.Color := clRed;
TButton(aControl).Font.Style := [fsBold];
end;
end;
{ TEditStyler }
class procedure TEditStyler.StyleControl(const aControl: TControl);
begin
inherited;
if aControl is TEdit then
begin
TEdit(aControl).Color := clGreen;
end;
end;
{ TLabelStyler }
class procedure TLabelStyler.StyleControl(const aControl: TControl);
begin
inherited;
if aControl is TLabel then
begin
TLabel(aControl).Font.Color := clPurple;
TLabel(aControl).Font.Style := [fsItalic];
end;
end;
initialization
_Controls := TClassList.Create;
_Stylers := TClassList.Create;
_Controls.Add(TButton);
_Stylers.Add(TButtonStyler);
_Controls.Add(TEdit);
_Stylers.Add(TEditStyler);
_Controls.Add(TLabel);
_Stylers.Add(TLabelStyler);
finalization
FreeAndNiL(_Controls);
FreeAndNiL(_Stylers);
end.
This solution basically employs polymorphism and a registry that links control classes to styler classes. It also uses class procedures and functions to avoid having to instantiate anything.
Please note that the registry is implemented in this example as two lists that need to be kept in sync manually as the code assumes that finding a class at index X will find the styler at the same index in the other list. This can of course be improved upon very much, but is sufficient here to show the concept.
No, There is no issue (in your specific case) passing a object as parameter
procedure StyleButton(AButton : TButton)
when you do this you are passing a address memory (reference) and setting some properties of the referenced object, so there is not problem.
To add to what Rob and RRUZ have already said, you could consider an extra helper using open array parameters:
procedure StyleButtons(const Buttons: array of TButton);
var
i: Integer;
begin
for i := low(Buttons) to high(Buttons) do
StyleButton(Buttons[i]);
end;
You can then call this as:
StyleButtons([btnOK, btnCancel, btnRelease64bitDelphi]);
which is, in my view, more readable at the call-site than:
StyleButton(btnOK);
StyleButton(btnCancel);
StyleButton(btnRelease64bitDelphi);
Note that I passed the open array as a const parameter because that is more efficient when dealing with arrays. Because each element of the array is itself a reference to the button, you are able to modify the actual button. The const just means that you cannot change the reference.
If I try to use a closure on an event handler the compiler complains with :
Incompatible types: "method pointer and regular procedure"
which I understand.. but is there a way to use a clouser on method pointers? and how to define if can?
eg :
Button1.Onclick = procedure( sender : tobject ) begin ... end;
Thanks!
#Button1.OnClick := pPointer(Cardinal(pPointer( procedure (sender: tObject)
begin
((sender as TButton).Owner as TForm).Caption := 'Freedom to anonymous methods!'
end )^ ) + $0C)^;
works in Delphi 2010
An excellent question.
As far as I know, it's not possible to do in current version of Delphi. This is much unfortunate since those anonymous procedures would be great to have for quickly setting up an object's event handlers, for example when setting up test fixtures in a xUnit kind of automatic testing framework.
There should be two ways for CodeGear to implement this feature:
1: Allow for creation of anonymous methods. Something like this:
Button1.OnClick := procedure( sender : tobject ) of object begin
...
end;
The problem here is what to put as the self pointer for the anonymous method. One might use the self pointer of the object from which the anonymous method was created, but then one can only create anonymous methods from an object context. A better idea might be to simply create a dummy object behind the scenes to contain the anonymous method.
2: Alternatively, one could allow Event types to accept both methods and procedures, as long as they share the defined signature. In that way you could create the event handler the way you want:
Button1.OnClick := procedure( sender : tobject ) begin
...
end;
In my eyes this is the best solution.
In previous Delphi versions you could use a regular procedure as event handler by adding the hidden self pointer to the parameters and hard typecast it:
procedure MyFakeMethod(_self: pointer; _Sender: TObject);
begin
// do not access _self here! It is not valid
...
end;
...
var
Meth: TMethod;
begin
Meth.Data := nil;
Meth.Code := #MyFakeMethod;
Button1.OnClick := TNotifyEvent(Meth);
end;
I am not sure the above really compiles but it should give you the general idea. I have done this previously and it worked for regular procedures. Since I don't know what code the compiler generates for closures, I cannot say whether this will work for them.
Its easy to extend the below to handle more form event types.
Usage
procedure TForm36.Button2Click(Sender: TObject);
var
Win: TForm;
begin
Win:= TForm.Create(Self);
Win.OnClick:= TEventComponent.NotifyEvent(Win, procedure begin ShowMessage('Hello'); Win.Free; end);
Win.Show;
end;
Code
unit AnonEvents;
interface
uses
SysUtils, Classes;
type
TEventComponent = class(TComponent)
protected
FAnon: TProc;
procedure Notify(Sender: TObject);
class function MakeComponent(const AOwner: TComponent; const AProc: TProc): TEventComponent;
public
class function NotifyEvent(const AOwner: TComponent; const AProc: TProc): TNotifyEvent;
end;
implementation
{ TEventComponent }
class function TEventComponent.MakeComponent(const AOwner: TComponent;
const AProc: TProc): TEventComponent;
begin
Result:= TEventComponent.Create(AOwner);
Result.FAnon:= AProc;
end;
procedure TEventComponent.Notify(Sender: TObject);
begin
FAnon();
end;
class function TEventComponent.NotifyEvent(const AOwner: TComponent;
const AProc: TProc): TNotifyEvent;
begin
Result:= MakeComponent(AOwner, AProc).Notify;
end;
end.
I have a TObjectList with OwnsObjects = true. It contains quite a few objects. Now I want to remove the object at index Idx from that list, without freeing it.
Is the Extract method the only option?
ExtractedObject := TheList.Extract(TheList[Idx]);
All other methods seem to free the object. I am looking for something a little bit more efficient, that does not do a linear search every time, since I already know the index of the object. Something like an overloaded ...
ExtractedObject := TheList.Extract(Idx);
... which does not exist.
Why not just set OwnsObjects to false, do your removal, then set it to true again?
If you look at the code for delete, it's the notify method which causes the freeing to happen.
This should work :
TMyObjectList = Class(TObjectList)
private
fNotify: Boolean;
{ Private declarations }
procedure EnableNotification;
procedure DisableNotification;
protected
procedure Notify(Ptr: Pointer; Action: TListNotification); override;
public
constructor Create(AOwnsObjects: Boolean);overload;
constructor Create; overload;
function Extract(const idx : Integer) : TObject;
end;
constructor TMyObjectList.Create(AOwnsObjects: Boolean);
begin
inherited Create(AOwnsObjects);
fNotify := True;
end;
constructor TMyObjectList.Create;
begin
inherited Create;
fNotify := True;
end;
procedure TMyObjectList.DisableNotification;
begin
fnotify := False;
end;
procedure TMyObjectList.EnableNotification;
begin
fNotify := True;
end;
function TMyObjectList.Extract(const idx: Integer) : TObject;
begin
Result := Items[idx];
DisableNotification;
try
Delete(idx);
finally
EnableNotification;
end;
end;
procedure TMyObjectList.Notify(Ptr: Pointer; Action: TListNotification);
begin
if fNotify then
inherited;
end;
This is where class helpers can be usefull
TObjectListHelper = class helper for TObjectList
function ExtractByIndex(const AIndex: Integer): TObject;
end;
function TObjectListHelper.ExtractByIndex(const AIndex: Integer): TObject;
begin
Result := Items[AIndex];
if Result<>nil then
Extract(Result);
end;
You can now use:
MyObjList.ExtractByIndex(MyIndex);
The proposed helperclass (by Gamecat) will result in the same lookup that Thomas would like to get rid of.
If you take a look at the source, you can see what Extract() really does, and then use the same approach.
I will suggest something like tis:
obj := list[idx];
list.list^[idx] := nil; //<- changed from list[idx] := nil;
list.delete(idx);
This will give you the object, as Extract() does, and then delete it from the list, without any lookups. Now you can put this in a method some where, a helperclass or subclass or wher ever you like.
I don't use Delphi/C++Builder some time ago, but as far as I can renmember thats the only way.
My suggestion is to use a TList instead, and manually delete the objects when required.
Anything wrong with:
ExtractedObject := TExtractedObject.Create;
ExtractedObject.Assign(Thelist[Idx]);
TheList.Delete(idx);
There is time needed for the create and assign but not for the search of the list. Efficiency depends on the size of the object -v- the size of the list.