I have a method that returns a IInterface, the method contain a dictionary created like this:
Dictionary:= TDictionary<string, IInterface>.Create;
That contains:
Dictionary.Add('key', TPerson.Create(DatabaseCon)as IInterface);
When I quit my ongoing program I get an error message memory leaks on the object Tperson.
I've tried in the class destructor method the following:
private //Global variabels
Person:TPerson;
I: IInterface;
begin // in the destructor method of the class
Person:= IInterface as TPerson;
Person.Free;
end;
But I still get the error... How do I release the TPerson.Create(DatabaseCon) as IInterface)?
Or would it be better to save the TPerson as a string in an INI file and then drag the string name out and turn it into an object .. But how??
The structure of the program:
Inf1= Interface(IInterface)
//some functions
Inf2=Interface(Inf1)
//Some functions
TPerson= class(TInterfacedPersistent,Inf2)
// All my functions.
I can get it to work if I:
Dictionary.Add ('key', Person) as IInterface);
Where I in the Create method of the class write:
Person:= TPerson.Create(DatabaseCon);
and in the destructor method writes:
Person.Free;
but is it not wrong to do so? since the class person must first be instantiated when I access the dictionary?
The most likely explanation is that TPerson does not use interface reference counting to manage lifetime. To be sure we'd need to know exactly how TPerson implements IInterface. Unfortunately that key detail was omitted from the question.
If TPerson derives from TInterfacedObject, and so has lifetime managed by reference counting, then your code will not leak. So, I'm reasonably confident that the problem is that your class's implementation of IInterface does not free the object when its reference count goes to zero.
Assuming I am correct, then you have a couple of options to resolve the issue:
Change your class to implement interface reference counted lifetime management.
Use TObjectDictionary<TKey,TValue> rather than TDictionary<TKey,TValue>. Arrange that the value type TValue is TPerson rather than IInterface. And arrange that the dictionary owns its values so that it can free them when they are removed.
Update: Your update shows that my hunch was correct. Your class does not manage lifetime with interface reference counting.
Related
The one with virtual/dynamic
// declare in Child Class
constructor Create; virtual;
constructor TChildClass.Create;
begin
inherited;
end;
The one with override.
// declare in Child Class
constructor Create; override;
constructor TChildClass.Create;
begin
inherited;
end;
The one with nothing
// declare in Child Class
constructor Create;
constructor TChildClass.Create;
begin
inherited;
end;
Are these the same thing? It looks confusing.
Yes, there is a difference, but let's deal with the virtual keyword in more basic OOP terms first, yet still how it applies to Delphi methods.
When you declare a derived (child) class, and implement a method as "override", it means that you're overriding (surprise) the matching method of the base class.
This means that you can write code like this:
var child : TBaseClass;
begin
child := TChildClass.Create; // note that it is stored in TBaseClass variable
child.VirtualMethodDefinedInBaseClassThatHasBeenOverriddenInChildClass;
This will call the method in the child class, even if the variable is defined to be of the base class type. This is the whole purpose of virtual methods, you can access the object through a reference of a more general type, and still call methods that have been written for the particular type of object you're dealing with.
If you have a virtual method in the base class that you chose not to override in the child class, but instead reintroduce, you're effectively replacing it in some cases. Note that in most cases you need to tell the compiler that you really meant to do this, though I'm unsure about what Delphi requires here.
Basically, if your variable is of type TBaseClass, and you call a virtual method on it, that has been reintroduced in the TChildClass, it will still call the method in the base class.
However, if your variable is of type TChildClass, and you call that method on it, you will get the new method instead.
Now, for constructors, in Delphi, it is slightly different.
The point of virtual constructors is to be able to virtually construct objects, and to do that, Delphi also has "class types".
You can say this:
type TClassToUse = class of TBaseClass;
var cls : TClassToUse;
obj : TBaseClass;
begin
cls := TChildClass;
obj := cls.Create;
(note that my Delphi knowledge is a bit rusty here, if anyone spots bugs or glaring problems in the above code, please let me know or just fix it)
Here we store a "class" in a variable, and then ask the class to please construct an object for us. This allows us to switch out which class to create, but we also need to declare the constructors we want to use virtual, otherwise we will have problems.
So in the above code, if you declared the constructor as virtual in TBaseClass, and then override it in TChildClass (which the code is actually using in cls), the overridden constructor is the one that will be used.
If, on the other hand, you don't declare the constructor as virtual, we're back to the base class constructor. Virtual basically means to figure out the right method to execute at runtime, whereas non-virtual will figure it out at compile time.
Reintroduction as described for normal methods above, also works this way.
However, virtual constructors are only used as virtual when used through a class type.
No, static and virtual methods are not the same thing.
And override is a case of virtual method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_function
http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/XE4/en/Methods#Method_Binding
Constructors bring nothing special here - they conform to the same rules as other methods for the question
Here I have a tricky situation, I guess. I need to be able to free an object which is a field of a record. I would normally write the cleanup code in the destructor, if it was a class. But since record types can't introduce a "destructor", how would it be possible to call TObject(Field).Free; ?
There'll be two types of usage I predict:
Replacing the record with a new one.
I think this usage would be easy to implement. Since records are value types and so they are copied on assignment, I can overload the assigning operator and free the objects owned by old record.
( Edit: Assignment overloading wasn't able. That's a new info to me.. )
Exiting the scope where record variable defined.
I can think of a private method that frees the objects and this method could be called on scope excitation manually. BUT, here is the same question: How to make it more recordly? This behaviour kind of feels like a class...
Here is a sample (and obviously not the intended usage):
TProperties = record
... some other spesific typed fields: Integers, pointers etc..
FBaseData: Pointer;
FAdditionalData: TList<Pointer>;
//FAdditionalData: array of Pointer; this was the first intended definition
end;
Assume,
FAdditionalData:=TList<Pointer>.Crete;
called in record constructor or manually in record variable scope by accessing the field publicly like
procedure TFormX.ButtonXClick(Sender: TObject);
var
rec: TProperties;
begin
//rec:=TProperties.Create(with some parameters);
rec.FAdditionalData:=TList<Pointer>.Create;
//do some work with rec
end;
After exiting the ButtonClick scope the rec is no more but a TList still keeps its existance which causes to memory leaks...
If all you have in the record is an object reference, then you can't get the compiler to help you. You are in sole charge of the lifetime of that object. You cannot overload the assignment operator, and you don't get any notification of scope finalisation.
What you can do though is to add a guard interface that will manage the lifetime of the object.
TMyRecord = record
obj: TMyObject;
guard: IInterface;
end;
You need to make sure that TMyObject manages its lifetime by reference counting. For example by deriving from TInterfacedObject.
When you initialise the record you do this:
rec.obj := TMyObject.Create;
rec.guard := rec.obj;
At this point, the guard field of the record will now manage your object's lifetime.
In fact, if you want to push this idea further, you can build a dedicated class to guard the lifetime of objects. That then no longer constrains you to implement IInterface on your class. There are plenty of examples on the web that illustrate the technique. For example I offer Jarrod Hollingworth's article titled Smart Pointers, and Barry Kelly's titled Reference-counted pointers, revisited. There are many more out there. It's an old trick!
Note however, that what you have here is a strange hybrid of value type and reference type. On the face of it, records are value types. However, this one acts like a reference type. If you have other fields in the record that are value types then that would be even more confusing. You'll need to be very aware of this issue when you work with such a record.
On the face of it, without knowing more about your design, I'd be inclined to advise you not to put object references in records. They fit better inside reference types, i.e. classes.
I remember that someone created a class named TLifetimeWatcher. Basically, it looks like:
TLifetimeWatcher = class(TInterfacedObject)
private
fInstance: TObject;
fProc: TProc;
public
constructor Create(instance: TObject); overload;
constructor Create(instance: TObject; proc: TProc); overload;
destructor Destroy; override;
end;
// The (cleanup) proc will be executed in the destructor if assigned, otherwise the instance will be freed by invoking the Free method.
https://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/Sydney/en/Custom_Managed_Records
THeaderStruct = record
private
public
class operator Initialize (out Header: THeaderStruct);
class operator Finalize (var Header: THeaderStruct);
end;
I have designed a hierarchy, every class has 2 readonly properties mapped to 2 private fields.
Every class has a cosntructor that inherits the parent class one.
The problem is that at every level of hierarchy the number of parameters increase of 2:
TBaseClass.Create (par1, par2);
TSubClass.Create(par1, par2, par3, par4);
TSubSubClass.Create(par1, par2, par3, par4, par5, par6);
[...]
Is it ok to have constructors with 6-8 parameteres? After creation my objects should be immutable, so this is why I try to initialize all fileds in the constructors.
Is there another technique you can suggest or should I go with the above mentioned approach? Thanks.
As long as they're well-documented, I've never had any stigma against functions with large numbers of parameters. So an 8-param constructor wouldn't scare me.
However, I can see where the explosion-of-params could occur here, especially if you start adding more than 2 properties per object. I could also see an uncomfortable proliferation of constructor overloads, if some of those params can be defaulted/optional.
With that in mind, you might want to encapsulate the complexities of setting all those params, by using a construction pattern. Builder comes to mind, though Factory or Prototype might also be useful.
Best to stick with conventions when you can. A Builder implies a sequential or multiple object creation process. Abstract Factory is more appropriate for creating a single object from a hierarchy.
Having said that, the regularity does seem a little odd. Does SubClass3 in fact need all 6 properties or only it's two? Remember LSP - SubClass3 is supposed to be completely substitutible for BaseClass so at each level the new ancestor assumes responsibility for the entire set, which is usually more than just passing them back through constructors.
Why don't you let those properties be writable and protect the object by casting it to an interface? Like this:
type
IMyObject = interface
function GetProperty1(): integer;
function GetProperty2(): boolean;
end;
TMyObject = class(TInterfacedObject, IMyObject)
public
constructor Create();
function GetProperty1(): integer;
function GetProperty2(): boolean;
procedure SetProperty1(Value: integer);
procedure SetProperty2(Value: boolean);
end;
function CreateMyObject: IMyObject;
var obj: TMyObject
begin
obj := TMyObject.Create;
obj.SetProperty1(45);
obj.SetProperty2(false);
Result := obj;
end;
I have a small problem with interfaces. Here it is in Pseudo code :
type
Interface1 = interface
end;
Interface2 = interface
end;
TParentClass = class(TInterfacedObject, Interface1)
private
fChild : Interface2;
public
procedure AddChild(aChild : Interface2);
end;
TChildClass = class(TInterfacedObject, Interface2)
private
fParent : Interface2;
public
constructor Create(aPArent : Interface1);
end;
Can anyone see the flaw? I need the child to have a reference to it's parent, but the reference counting doesn't work in this situation. If I create a ParentClass instance, and add a child, then the parent class is never released. I can see why. How do I get round it?
A reference-counted reference has two semantics: it acts as a share of ownership as well as a means of navigating the object graph.
Typically, you don't need both of these semantics on all links in a cycle in the graph of references. Perhaps only parents own children, and not the other way around? If that is the case, you can make the child references to the parent weak links, by storing them as pointers, like this:
TChildClass = class(TInterfacedObject, Interface2)
private
fParent : Pointer;
function GetParent: Interface1;
public
constructor Create(aPArent : Interface1);
property Parent: Interface1 read GetParent;
end;
function TChildClass.GetParent: Interface1;
begin
Result := Interface1(fParent);
end;
constructor TChildClass.Create(AParent: Interface1);
begin
fParent := Pointer(AParent);
end;
This is safe if the root of the tree of instances is guaranteed to be kept alive somewhere, i.e. you are not relying on only keeping a reference to a branch of the tree and still being able to navigate the whole of it.
Well, the reference counting of course does work in this situation - it just doesn't solve the problem.
That's the biggest problem with reference counting - when you have a circular reference, you have to explicitely 'break' it (set one interface reference to 'nil', for example). That's also why reference counting is not really a replacement for garbage collection - garbage collectors are aware that cycles may exist and can release such cyclic structures when they are not referenced from the 'outside'.
You must make a method that explicitly unlinks the right references. There is no way to get the automatic reference counting working properly in this case.
With the use of a function pointer in the first example then the cyclic reference problem doesn't exist. .NET uses delegates, and VB6 uses events. All of which have the benefit of not incrementing the reference count of the object being pointed too.
What was the motivation for having the reintroduce keyword in Delphi?
If you have a child class that contains a function with the same name as a virtual function in the parent class and it is not declared with the override modifier then it is a compile error. Adding the reintroduce modifier in such situations fixes the error, but I have never grasped the reasoning for the compile error.
If you declare a method in a descendant class that has the same name as a method in an ancestor class then you are hiding that ancestor method — meaning if you have an instance of that descendant class (that is referenced as that class) then you will not get the behavior of the ancestor. When the ancestor's method is virtual or dynamic, the compiler will give you a warning.
Now you have one of two choices to suppress that warning message:
Adding the keyword reintroduce just tells the compiler you know you are hiding that method and it suppresses the warning. You can still use the inherited keyword within your implementation of that descended method to call the ancestor method.
If the ancestor's method was virtual or dynamic then you can use override. It has the added behavior that if this descendant object is accessed through an expression of the ancestor type, then the call to that method will still be to the descendant method (which then may optionally call the ancestor through inherited).
So difference between override and reintroduce is in polymorphism. With reintroduce, if you cast the descendant object as the parent type, then call that method you will get the ancestor method, but if you access it the descendant type then you will get the behavior of the descendant. With override you always get the descendant. If the ancestor method was neither virtual nor dynamic, then reintroduce does not apply because that behavior is implicit. (Actually you could use a class helper, but we won't go there now.)
In spite of what Malach said, you can still call inherited in a reintroduced method, even if the parent was neither virtual nor dynamic.
Essentially reintroduce is just like override, but it works with non-dynamic and non-virtual methods, and it does not replace the behavior if the object instance is accessed via an expression of the ancestor type.
Further Explanation:
Reintroduce is a way of communicating intent to the compiler that you did not make an error. We override a method in an ancestor with the override keyword, but it requires that the ancestor method be virtual or dynamic, and that you want the behavior to change when the object is accessed as the ancestor class. Now enter reintroduce. It lets you tell the compiler that you did not accidentally create a method with the same name as a virtual or dynamic ancestor method (which would be annoying if the compiler didn't warn you about).
There are lots of answers here about why a compiler that lets you hide a member function silently is a bad idea. But no modern compiler silently hides member functions. Even in C++, where it's allowed to do so, there's always a warning about it, and that ought to be enough.
So why require "reintroduce"? The main reason is that this is the sort of bug that can actually appear by accident, when you're not looking at compiler warnings anymore. For example, let's say you're inheriting from TComponent, and the Delphi designers add a new virtual function to TComponent. The bad news is your derived component, which you wrote five years ago and distributed to others, already has a function with that name.
If the compiler just accepted that situation, some end user might recompile your component, ignore the warning. Strange things would happen, and you would get blamed. This requires them to explicitly accept that the function is not the same function.
The RTL uses reintroduce to hide inherited constructors. For example, TComponent has a constructor which takes one argument. But, TObject has a parameterless constructor. The RTL would like you to use only TComponent's one-argument constructor, and not the parameterless constructor inherited from TObject when instantiating a new TComponent. So it uses reintroduce to hide the inherited constructor. In this way, reintroduce is a little bit like declaring a parameterless constructor as private in C#.
First of all, "reintroduce" breaks the inheritance chain and should not be used, and I mean never ever. In my entire time I worked with Delphi (ca 10 years) I've stumbled upon a number of places that do use this keyword and it has always been a mistake in the design.
With that in mind here's the simplest way it works:
You have like a virtual method in a base class
Now you wanna have a method that has the exact same name, but maybe a different signature. So you write your method in the derived class with the same name and it will not compile because the contract is not fulfilled.
You put the reintroduce keyword in there and your base class does not know about your brand new implementation and you can use it only when accessing your object from a directly specified instance type. What that means is toy can't just assign the object to a variable of base type and call that method because it's not there with the broken contract.
Like I said it's pure evil and must be avoided at all cost (well, that's my opinion at least). It's like using goto - just a terrible style :D
The purpose of the reintroduce modifier is to prevent against a common logical error.
I will assume that it is common knowledge how the reintroduce keyword fixes the warning and will explain why the warning is generated and why the keyword is included in the language. Consider the delphi code below;
TParent = Class
Public
Procedure Procedure1(I : Integer); Virtual;
Procedure Procedure2(I : Integer);
Procedure Procedure3(I : Integer); Virtual;
End;
TChild = Class(TParent)
Public
Procedure Procedure1(I : Integer);
Procedure Procedure2(I : Integer);
Procedure Procedure3(I : Integer); Override;
Procedure Setup(I : Integer);
End;
procedure TParent.Procedure1(I: Integer);
begin
WriteLn('TParent.Procedure1');
end;
procedure TParent.Procedure2(I: Integer);
begin
WriteLn('TParent.Procedure2');
end;
procedure TChild.Procedure1(I: Integer);
begin
WriteLn('TChild.Procedure1');
end;
procedure TChild.Procedure2(I: Integer);
begin
WriteLn('TChild.Procedure2');
end;
procedure TChild.Setup(I : Integer);
begin
WriteLn('TChild.Setup');
end;
Procedure Test;
Var
Child : TChild;
Parent : TParent;
Begin
Child := TChild.Create;
Child.Procedure1(1); // outputs TChild.Procedure1
Child.Procedure2(1); // outputs TChild.Procedure2
Parent := Child;
Parent.Procedure1(1); // outputs TParent.Procedure1
Parent.Procedure2(1); // outputs TParent.Procedure2
End;
Given the above code both of the procedures in TParent are hidden. To say they are hidden means that the procedures can not be called through the TChild pointer. Compiling the code sample produces a single warning;
[DCC Warning] Project9.dpr(19): W1010 Method 'Procedure1' hides virtual method of base type 'TParent'
Why only a warning for the virtual function and not the other? Both are hidden.
A virtue of Delphi is that library designers are able to release new versions without fear of breaking the logic of existing client code. This contrasts to Java where adding new functions to a parent class in a library is fraught with danger because classes are implicitly virtual. Lets say that TParent from above lives in a 3rd party library, and the library manufacture releases the new version below.
// version 2.0
TParent = Class
Public
Procedure Procedure1(I : Integer); Virtual;
Procedure Procedure2(I : Integer);
Procedure Procedure3(I : Integer); Virtual;
Procedure Setup(I : Integer); Virtual;
End;
procedure TParent.Setup(I: Integer);
begin
// important code
end;
Imagine we had the following code in our client code
Procedure TestClient;
Var
Child : TChild;
Begin
Child := TChild.Create;
Child.Setup;
End;
For the client it does not matter if the code is compiled against version 2 or 1 of the library, in both cases TChild.Setup is called as the user intends. And in the library;
// library version 2.0
Procedure TestLibrary(Parent : TParent);
Begin
Parent.Setup;
End;
If TestLibrary is called with a TChild parameter, everything works as intended. The library designer have no knowledge of the TChild.Setup, and in Delphi this does not cause them any harm. The call above correctly resolves to TParent.Setup.
What would happen in a equivalent situation in Java? TestClient would work correctly as intended. TestLibrary would not. In Java all functions are assumed virtual. The Parent.Setup would resolve to TChild.Setup, but remember when TChild.Setup was written they had no knowledge of the future TParent.Setup, so they are certainly not going to ever call inherited. So if the library designer intended TParent.Setup to be called it will not be, no matter what they do. And certainly this could be catasrophic.
So the object model in Delphi requires explicit declaration of virtual functions down the chain of child classes. A side effect of this is that it is easy to forget to add the override modifier on child methods. The existence of the Reintroduce keyword is a convenience to the programmer. Delphi was designed so that the programmer is gently persuaded, by the generation of a warning, to explicitly state their intentions in such situations.
tl;dr: Trying to override a non-virtual method makes no sense. Add the keyword reintroduce to acknowledge that you're making a mistake.
Reintroduce tells the compiler you want to call the code defined in this method as an entry point for this class and its descendants, regardless of other methods with the same name in the ancestors’ chain.
Creating a TDescendant.MyMethod would create a potential confusion for the TDescendants in adding another method with the same name, which the compiler warns you about.
Reintroduce disambiguates that and tells the compiler you know which one to use.
ADescendant.MyMethod calls the TDescendant one, (ADescendant as TAncestor).MyMethod calls the TAncestor one. Always! No confusion…. Compiler happy!
This is true whether you want the descendant method to be virtual or not: in both cases you want to break the natural linkage of the virtual chain.
And it does not prevent you from calling the inherited code from within the new method.
TDescendant.MyMethod is virtual: ...but you cannot or don’t want to use the linkage.
You cannot because the method signature is different. You have no other choice as overriding is impossible in this case with return type or parameters not exactly the same.
You want to restart an inheritance tree from this class.
TDescendant.MyMethod is not virtual: You turn MyMethod into a static one at the TDescendant level and prevent further overriding. All classes inheriting from TDescendant will use the TDescendant implementation.
When the ancestor class also has a method with the same name, and it is not necessarily declared virtual, you would see a compiler warning (as you would hide this method).
In other words: You tell the compiler that you know that you hide the ancestor function and replace it with this new function and do so deliberately.
And why would you do this? If the method is virtual in the parent class, the only reason is to prevent polymorphism. Other then that just override and do not call inherited. But if the parent method is not declared virtual (and you cannot change that, because you do not own the code for example), you can inherit from that class and let people inherit from your class without seeing a compiler warning.
This has been introduced to the language because of Framework versions (including the VCL).
If you have an existing code base, and an update to a Framework (for instance because you bought a newer Delphi version) introduced a virtual method with the same name as a method in an ancestor of your code base, then reintroduce will allow you to get rid of the W1010 warning.
This is the only place where you should use reintroduce.
First, as it was said above, you should never ever deliberately reintroduce virtual method. The only sane use of reintroduce is when the author of the ancestor (not you) added a method that goes into conflict with your descendant and renaming your descendant method is not an option. Second, you can easily call the original version of the virtual method even in classes where you reintroduced it with different parameters:
type
tMyFooClass = class of tMyFoo;
tMyFoo = class
constructor Create; virtual;
end;
tMyFooDescendant = class(tMyFoo)
constructor Create(a: Integer); reintroduce;
end;
procedure .......
var
tmp: tMyFooClass;
begin
// Create tMyFooDescendant instance one way
tmp := tMyFooDescendant;
with tmp.Create do // please note no a: integer argument needed here
try
{ do something }
finally
free;
end;
// Create tMyFooDescendant instance the other way
with tMyFooDescendant.Create(20) do // a: integer argument IS needed here
try
{ do something }
finally
free;
end;
so what should be the purpose of reintroducing virtual method other than make things harder to read?
reintroduce allows you to declare a method with the same name as the ancestor, but with different parameters. It has nothing to do with bugs or mistakes!!!
For example, I often use it for constructors...
constructor Create (AOwner : TComponent; AParent : TComponent); reintroduce;
This allows me to create the internal classes in a cleaner fashion for complex controls such as toolbars or calendars. I normally have more parameters than that. Sometimes it is almost impossible or very messy to create a class without passing some parameters.
For visual controls, Application.Processmessages can get called after Create, which can be too late to use these parameters.
constructor TClassname.Create (AOwner : TComponent; AParent : TComponent);
begin
inherited Create (AOwner);
Parent := AParent;
..
end;