Destructors in Delphi are usually named "Destroy", however as far as i understand you can also
name destructors differently
have multiple destructors
Is there any reason why this was implemented this way? What are the possible use cases for differently named / multiple destructors?
In theory you can manually call different destructors to free different external resources, like breaking ref-counting loops, deleting or just closing file, etc.
Also, since the Object Pascal language does not have those magical new/delete operations, there just should be some identifier to call for disposing of the object.
I'd prefer to look at that in retrospect.
"Turbo Pascal with Objects" style objects have both - you call a "magical" Dispose procedure but explicitly specify a destructor to call, since language itself did not knew what to choose. Similarly "magic" procedure New had to be supplied with a manually selected constructor.
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/dispose.html
http://putka.acm.si/langref/turboPascal/0547.html
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/new.html
http://putka.acm.si/langref/turboPascal/04A4.html
This however violates DRY principle: compiler knows that we are calling d-tor or c-tor, but yet we have to additionally call those "New" and "Dispose" functions. In theory that probably provided to decouple memory allocation and information feeding and combine them anyway we'd like. But i don't think this feature was actually used anything wide.
Interesting that the same design is used in Apple Objective C. You 1st allocate memory for the object and after that you call a constructor for that new instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C#Instantiation
When that model was streamlined for Delphi few decisions was made to make things more simplified (and unified). Memory [de]allocation strategy was shifted to the class level, rather than call-site. That made the redundancy of both calling "New" and named constructor very contrast. One had to be dropped.
C++/C#/Java chosen to retain a special language-level keywords for it, using overloaded functions to provide different c-tors. Perhaps that corresponds to USA style of computer languages.
However Pascal at its core has two ideas: verbosity and small vocabulary. Arguably they can be tracked in other European-school languages like Scala. If possible, the keywords should be removed from language itself and moved to external modules - libraries that you can add or remove from project. And overloaded functions were introduced much later to the language and early preference was to surely have two differently named (self-documenting) function names.
This both ideas probably caused Delphi to remove "magic" procedures and to deduce object creation/destruction at the call-site just by used function names. If you call MyVar.Destroy then compiler looks at the declaration of .Destroy and knows we are deleting the object. Similarly it knows TMyType.CreateXXX(YYY,ZZZ) is an object instanbtiation due to the way CreateXXX was declared.
To make c-tor and d-tor no-named like in C++, Delphi would have to introduce two more keywords to the language level, like those C++ new and delete. And there seems to be no clear advantage in that. At least personally i better like Delphi way.
PS. I had to add there one assumption: we are talking about real C++ and Delphi languages as they were around 1995. They only featured manual memory control for heap-allocated objects, no garbage collection and no automatic ref-counting. You could not trigger object destruction by assigning variable with nil/NULL pointer.
Related
I'm fairly new to Delphi and have been doing all my memory management manually, but have heard references to Delphi being able to use interfaces to do reference counting and providing some memory management that way. I want to get started with that, but have a few questions.
Just generally, how do I use it. Create the interface and the class implementing it. Then anytime I need that object, have the variable actually be of the Interface type, but instantiate the object and presto? No nee to think about freeing it? No more try-finallys?
It seems very cumbersome to create a bunch of interfaces for classes that really don't need them. Any tips on auto generating those? How do I best organize that? Interface and class in the same file?
What are common pitfalls that might cause me grief? Ex: Does casting the interfaced object to the an object of its class break my reference counting? Or are there any non-obvious ways Delphi would create reference loops? (meaning besides A uses B uses C uses A)
If there are tutorials that cover any of this, that would be great, but I didn't come up with anything in my searches. Thanks.
I am currently working with a very large project that takes advantage of the "side affect" of interface reference counting for the purpose of memory management.
My own personal conclusion is that you end up with a lot of code that is overly complex for no better reason than, "I don't have to worry about calling free"
I would strongly advise against this course of action for some very basic reasons:
1) You are using a side affect that exists for the purpose of COM compatibility.
2) You are making your object footprint and efficiency heavier. Interfaces are pointers to lists of pointers.. or something along those lines.
3) Like you stated... you now have to make piles of interfaces for the sole purpose of avoiding freeing memory yourself... this causes more trouble than it's worth in my opinion.
4) Most common bug that will be a HUGE pain to debug will become when an object gets freed, before it's reference. We have special code in our own reference counting to try and test for this problem before software goes out the door.
Now to answer your questions.
1) Given TFoo and interface IFoo you can have a method like the following
function GetFoo: IFoo;
begin
Result := (TFoo.Create as IFoo);
end;
...and presto, you don't need the finally to free it.
2) Yes like I said, you think it's a great idea, but it turns into a huge pain in the bupkis
3) 2 problems.
A) you have Object1.Interface2 and Object2.Interface1... these objects will never be freed due to the circular reference
B) Freeing the object before all the references are released, I cannot stress how dificult these bugs are to track down...
The most common complaint leading to the desire for "automatic garbage collection" in Delphi is the way that even short-lived temporary objects have to be disposed of manually and that you have to write a fair amount of "boiler-plate" code to ensure that this takes place when exceptions occur.
For example, creating a TStringList for some temporary sorting or other algorithmic purpose within a procedure:
procedure SomeStringsOperation(const aStrings: TStrings);
var
list: TStringList;
begin
list := TStringList.Create;
try
:
// do some work with "list"
:
finally
list.Free;
end;
end;
As you mentioned, objects that implement the COM protocol of reference counted lifetime management avoid this by cleaning themselves up when all references to them have been released.
But since TStringList isn't a COM object, you cannot enjoy the convenience this offers.
Fortunately there is a way to use COM reference counting to take care of these things without have to create all new, COM versions of the classes you wish to use. You don't even need to switch to an entirely COM based model.
I created a very simple utility class to allow me to "wrap" ANY object inside a lightweight COM container specifically for the purpose of getting this automatic cleanup behaiour. Using this technique you can replace the above example with:
procedure SomeStringsOperation(const aStrings: TStrings);
var
list: TStringList;
begin
AutoFree(#list);
list := TStringList.Create;
:
// do some work with "list"
:
end;
The AutoFree() function call creates an "anonymous" interfaced object that is Release()'d in the exit code generated by the compiler for the procedure. This autofree object is passed a pointer to the variable that references the object you wish to be free'd. Among other things this allows us to use the AutoFree() function as a pseudo-"declaration", placing any and ALL AutoFree() calls at the top of the method, as close as possible to the variable declarations that they reference, before we have even created any objects.
Full details of the implementation, including source code and further examples, are on my blog in this post.
The memory management of interfaces is done through implementation of _AddRef and _Release which are implemented by TInterfacedObject.
In general using interfaces to make memory management less cumbersome can be a nice idea, but you need to take care of these things:
Make sure the classes that implement interfaces are derived from TInterfacedObject or roll your own ancestor class that provides good implementations for _AddRef and _Release
Use either/or: so either user interfaces references, or use object instance references, don't mix them. That can be problematic when implementing interfaces in components (as those derive from TComponent, not TInterfacedObject)
Don't go the TInterfacedComponent way as that mixes Owner based memory management and _AddRef/_Release based memory management
Watch circular interface references (you can go around implementing "weak interface references" mentioned here and implemented here)
You need to maintain extra code as you need to define interfaces for the parts your classes that you want to expose, and keep those two in sync (you could Model Maker Code Explorer for this; it allows you to extract interfaces and in general boost your development because it manages the interface/implementation parts of code in single-actions)
You need some extra plumbing to create instances of the underlying classes. You can use the factory pattern for that.
That is not always effectively, but does answer a few of your underlying questions.
Shortest possible answer: The default delphi memory model is that owners free the objects they own. All other references are weak references and must let go before the owner does. "Sharing" an object that has a lifetime shorter than the entire lifetime of the app is rarely done. Reference counting is rarely done, and when it is done, it is only done by experts, or else it adds more bugs and crashes than it solves.
Learn idiomatic delphi style and try to imitate it, don't fight the grain. Sadly, people think that "program against interfaces, not implementations" means "Use IUnknown everywhere". That's not true. I recommend you don't use COM IUnknown interfaces, and use abstract base classes instead. The only thing you can't do is implement two abstract base classes in a single class, and the need for that is rare.
Update: I've recently found it helpful to use COM Interfaces (IUnknown based) to help me separate out my model and controller implementations from my UI classes. So I do find using IUnknown based interfaces useful. But there is not a lot of documentation and prior art out there to base your efforts on. I'd like to see a "cookbook" style recipe that lays all this out for people, so they can work without the usual problem of combining interface and non-interface based lifetime management, and all the trouble that comes while you get used to that extra complexity.
Switching to interfaces only for avoiding manual Free's is senseless. Little economy in Free/try-finally lines will hardly compensate the necessity of declaring both g/setters and properties in the interface not mentioning the necessity of keeping the intf/class declarations in sync. Interfaces also bring performance loss due to implicit finalize code and reference counting. If performance is not the main point and all you want to achieve is autofreeing, I'd recommend using some universal interface wrappers like the one Deltics suggested.
I have a following definition.
type
TOmniTaskDelegate = reference to procedure(const task: IOmniTask);
What type of container should I use (should be supported in D2009) to store a list of TOmniTaskDelegate instances? Currently I'm using array of TOmniTaskDelegate but I'm not really happy with that.
I would use TList<TOmniTaskDelegate>. Since this is typesafe due to the use of generics, it will correctly handle the lifetime issues of its members.
Edit: Delphi 2009 includes the generic TList<T>, I assume it's implemented using array of, just as the one in Delphi 2010. That makes the TList<T> the optimal choice! My original answer stays because it explains why array of is a great data structure and why not using it is a lot of trouble.
Your choice of array of Anonym looks very good to me because:
Anonymous methods are managed entities (implemented using interfaces). They need to be properly finalized.
The dynamic array is itself a managed type, making sure the anonymous method references are properly finalized.
Delphi 2010 generic containers are implemented using dynamic arrays, so they're up to the task. But make sure you don't grow your arrays one-by-one, grow in chunks.
If you use anything else for the implementation you'll need to take care of finalizing the references yourself. Examples:
If you use plain blocks of memory you'll need an destructor that deliberately sets each item to nil (ie: not ZeroMemory or FillChar) so the compiler gets a chance to generate finalization code.
Records are managed objects, and they could hold references to dynamic methods, but they can only hold a finite number of references, if you need more you'll need to implement a sort of linked list and then you'll need to carefully manage there life cycle.
Classes suffer all the deficiencies of records, and they add their own layer of overhead on top of that.
I have used Delphi classes for a while now but never really got into using interfaces. I already have read a bit about them but want to learn more.
I would like to hear which pros and cons you have encountered when using interfaces in Delphi regarding coding, performance, maintainability, code clearness, layer separation and generally speaking any regard you can think of.
All I can think of for now:
Pros:
Clear separation between interface and implementation
Reduced unit dependencies
Multiple inheritance
Reference counting (if desired, can be disabled)
Cons:
Class and interface references cannot be mixed (at least with reference counting)
Getter and setter functions required for all properties
Reference counting does not work with circular references
Debugging difficulties (thanks to gabr and Warren for pointing that out)
Adding to the answers few more advantages:
Use interfaces to represent the behavior and each implementation of a behavior will implement the interface.
API Publishing: Interfaces are great to use when publishing APIs. You can publishing an interface without giving out the actual implementation. So you are free to make internal structural changes without causing any problems to the clients.
All I say is that interfaces WITHOUT reference counting are VERY HIGH on my wishlist for delphi!!!
--> The real use of interfaces is the declaration of an interface. Not the ability for reference counting!
There are some SUBTLE downsides to interfaces that I don't know if people consider when using them:
Debugging becomes more difficult. I have seen a lot of strange difficulties stepping into interfaced method calls, in the debugger.
Interfaces in Delphi come with IUnknown semantics, if you like it or not, you'r stuck with reference counting being a supported interface. And, thus, with any interfaces created in Delphi's world, you have to be sure you handle reference counting correctly, and if you don't, you'll end up with leaks. When you want to avoid reference counting, your only choice is to override addref/decref and don't actually free anything, but this is not without its own problems. I find that the more heavily interface-laden codebases have some of the hardest-to-find access violations, and memory leaks, and this is, I think because it is very difficult to combine the refcount semantics, and the default delphi semantics (owner frees objects, and nobody else does, and most objects live for the entire life of their parents.).
Badly-done implementations using Interfaces can contribute some nasty code-smells. For example, Interfaces defined in the same unit that defines the initial concrete implementation of a class, add all the weight of interfaces, without really providing proper separation between the users of the interfaces and the implementors. I know this isn't a problem with interfaces themselves, but more of a quibble with those who write interface-based code. Please put your interface declarations in units that only have those interface declarations in them, and avoid unit-to-unit dependency hell caused by glomming your interface declarations into the same units as your implementor classes.
I mostly use interfaces when I want objects with different ancestry to offer a common service. The best example I can think of from my own experience is an interface called IClipboard:
IClipboard = interface
function CopyAvailable: Boolean;
function PasteAvailable(const Value: string): Boolean;
function CutAvailable: Boolean;
function SelectAllAvailable: Boolean;
procedure Copy;
procedure Paste(const Value: string);
procedure Cut;
procedure SelectAll;
end;
I have a bunch of custom controls derived from standard VCL controls. They each implement this interface. When a clipboard operation reaches one of my forms it looks to see if the active control supports this interface and, if so, dispatches the appropriate method.
For a very simple interface you can do this with an of object event handler, but once it gets sufficiently complex an interface works well. In fact I think that is a very good analogue. Use an interface where you a single of object event won't fit the functionality.
Interfaces solves a certain kind of issues. The primary function is to... well, ...define interfaces. To distinguish between definition and implementation.
When you want to specify or check if a class supports a set of methods - use interfaces.
You cannot do that in any other way.
(If all classes inherits from the same base class, then an abstract class will define the interface. But when you are dealing with different class hierarchies, you need interfaces to define the methods thy have in common...)
Extra note on
Cons: Performance
I think many people are too blithely dismissing the performance penalty of interfaces. (Not that I don't like and use interfaces but you should be aware of what you are getting into). Interfaces can be expensive not just for the _AddRef / _Release hit (even if you are just returning -1) but also that properties are REQUIRED to have a Get method. In my experience, most properties in a class have direct access for the read accessor (e.g., propery Prop1: Integer read FProp1 write SetProp1). Changing that direct, no penalty access to a function call can be significant hit on your speed (especially when you start adding 10s of property calls inside a loop.
For example, a simple loop using a class
for i := 0 to 99 do
begin
j := (MyClass.Prop1 + MyClass.Prop2 + MyClass.Prop3) / MyClass.Prop4;
MyClass.Update;
// do something with j
end;
goes from 0 function calls to 400 function calls when the class becomes an interface. Add more properties in that loop and it quickly gets worse.
The _AddRef / _Release penalty you can ameliorate with some tips (I am sure there are other tips. This is off the top of my head):
Use WITH or assign to a temp variable to only incur the penalty of one _AddRef / _Release per code block
Always pass interfaces using const keyword into a function (otherwise, you get an extra _AddRef / _Release occurs every time that function is called.
The only case when we had to use interfaces (besides COM/ActiveX stuff) was when we needed multiple inheritance and interfaces were the only way to get it. In several other cases when we attempted to use interfaces, we had various kinds of problems, mainly with reference counting (when the object was accessed both as a class instance and via interface).
So my advice would be to use them only when you know that you need them, not when you think that it can make your life easier in some aspect.
Update: As David reminded, with interfaces you get multiple inheritance of interfaces only, not of implementation. But that was fine for our needs.
Beyond what others already listed, a big pro of interfaces is the ability of aggregating them.
I wrote a blog post on that topic a while ago which can be found here: http://www.nexusdb.com/support/index.php?q=intf-aggregation (tl;dr: you can have multiple objects each implementing an interface and then assemble them into an aggregate which to the outside world looks like a single object implementing all these interfaces)
You might also want to have a look at the "Interface Fundamentals" and "Advanced Interface Usage and Patterns" posts linked there.
I am trying to write a function that takes any TList and returns a String representation of all the elements of the TList.
I tried a function like so
function ListToString(list:TList<TObject>):String;
This works fine, except you can't pass a TList<String> to it.
E2010 Incompatible types: 'TList<System.TObject>' and 'TList<System.string>'
In Delphi, a String is not an Object. To solve this, I've written a second function:
function StringListToString(list:TList<string>):String;
Is this the only solution? Are there other ways to treat a String as more 'object-like'?
In a similar vein, I also wanted to write an 'equals' function to compare two TLists. Again I run into the same problem
function AreListsEqual(list1:TList<TObject>; list2:TList<TObject>):boolean;
Is there any way to write this function (perhaps using generics?) so it can also handle a TList<String>? Are there any other tricks or 'best practises' I should know about when trying to create code that handles both Strings and Objects? Or do I just create two versions of every function? Can generics help?
I am from a Java background but now work in Delphi. It seems they are lately adding a lot of things to Delphi from the Java world (or perhaps the C# world, which copied them from Java). Like adding equals() and hashcode() to TObject, and creating a generic Collections framework etc. I'm wondering if these additions are very practical if you can't use Strings with them.
[edit: Someone mentioned TStringList. I've used that up till now, but I'm asking about TList. I'm trying to work out if using TList for everything (including Strings) is a cleaner way to go.]
Your problem isn't that string and TObject are incompatible types, (though they are,) it's that TList<x> and TList<y> are incompatible types, even if x and y themselves are not. The reasons why are complicated, but basically, it goes like this.
Imagine your function accepted a TList<TObject>, and you passed in a TList<TMyObject> and it worked. But then in your function you added a TIncompatibleObject to the list. Since the function signature only knows it's working with a list of TObjects, then that works, and suddenly you've violated an invariant, and when you try to enumerate over that list and use the TMyObject instances inside, something's likely to explode.
If the Delphi team added support for covariance and contravariance on generic types then you'd be able to do something like this safely, but unfortunately they haven't gotten around to it yet. Hopefully we'll see it soon.
But to get back to your original question, if you want to compare a list of strings, there's no need to use generics; Delphi has a specific list-of-strings class called TStringList, found in the Classes unit, which you can use. It has a lot of built-in functionality for string handling, including three ways to concatenate all the strings into a single string: the Text, CommaText and DelimitedText properties.
Although it is far from optimal, you can create string wrapper class, possibly containing some additional useful functions which operate on strings. Here is example class, which should be possibly enhanced to make the memory management easier, for example by using these methods.
I am only suggesting a solution to your problem, I don't agree that consistency for the sake of consistency will make the code better. If you need it, Delphi object pascal might not be the language of choice.
It's not cleaner. It's worse. It's a fundamentally BAD idea to use a TList<String> instead of TStringList.
It's not cleaner to say "I use generics everywhere". In fact, if you want to be consistent, use them Nowhere. Avoid them, like most delphi developers avoid them, like the plague.
All "lists" of strings in the VCL are of type TStringList. Most collections of objects in most delphi apps use TObjectList, instead of templated types.
It is not cleaner and more consistent to be LESS consistent with the entire Delphi platform, and to pick on some odd thing, and standardize on it, when it will be you, and you alone, doing this oddball thing.
In fact, I'm still not sure that generics are safe to use heavily.
If you start using TList you won't be able to copy it cleanly to your Memo.Lines which is a TStringList, and you will have created a type incompatibility, for nothing, plus you will have lost the extra functionality in TStringList. And instead of using TStringList.Text you have to invent that for yourself. You also lose LoadFromFile and SaveToFile, and lots more. Arrays of strings are an ubiquitous thing in Delphi, and they are almost always a TStringList. TList<String> is lame.
I'm still something of a newbie, and I know my thinking is incorrect; I just don't know where ...
Just about everything in Delphi is descended from TObject. What if everything instead descended from a TInterfaceObject that implemented some trivial interface (e.g., "INamable," with a single method that returned a class's name string)? Since TObject already has a property that returns a name string, you wouldn't need to add anything to additional classes.
In other words, a TInterfacedObject would inherit from TObject (or something high up in the hierarchy), and everything currently descending from TObject would now descend from this new class. Wouldn't this mean everything was now reference counted?
If you can spot where my knowledge is lacking, I'd love to learn. Thanks, as always -- Al C.
It's not clear whether you're asking:
Why didn't Borland do this, when they originally developed Delphi?
Why don't Embarcadero do this, in a future version of Delphi?
Why don't I do this, with my own user data types?
Wouldn't this mean everything was now reference counted?
Yes it would.
However, you don't necessarily want everything to be ref-counted: every little integer, every string, every boolean, every element in an array ... if for no other reason that the implementation of ref-counting adds some overhead, e.g. a little extra memory per object, perhaps insignificant for large objects but proportionally more significant if applied to every tiny object.
Also, see also Garbage Collector For Delphi Objects and Components which says (quote),
Delphi provides three ways of object management :
Create/destroy the objects using try..finally.
Use TComponent descendants - create a component and let its owner free it.
Interfaces - when the reference count for an interface becomes 0 the
object which implements it is
destroyed.
The Delphi help says you shouldn't mix
the TComponent owner approach with the
interface memory management, but ...
Would this be garbage collection?
Not quite; mere reference-counting isn't as robust as garbage-collection:
With reference-counting, if you have two reference-counted instances each holding a reference to the other, then they're not released automatically. To release them you would need to break this 'circular reference' (i.e. explicitly tell one of them to release its reference to the other).
With true garbage-collection, the garbage-collector would notice that those two istance aren't referenced from anywhere else, and release them both.
Update
If you annotate your potentially circular references as [weak] references, then they will get destroyed ok. But prior to Delphi 10.1 Berlin this only works in the NexGen compilers (i.e. those that use LLVM under the hood). From 10.1 Berlin onwards these [weak] references work everywhere.
It wouldn't be working garbage collection because interfaces use a very simple reference-counting system, and circular references, which are very common in Delphi code, break simple ref-counting.
No, because of two things:
Even if a class implements an interface it does not automatically make it reference counted. Only if you actually use it to implement that interface the reference counting will have any effect.
As others already said: Reference counting in interfaces will result in the class instance to be freed immediately when the reference count reaches 0. It is an implicit call to the Free method at that point in code. This will fail e.g. if two objects reference each other. True garbage collection will free the objects not when they go out of scope but when memory is needed, so there is no performance impact every time the reference count reaches 0 because the object will just continue to exist. In addition a good garbage collector will detect the isolated circular references (e.g. A references B references C references A but nothing else references any of these objects) and will free these objects as well.
Garbage collection is different from simple ref counting. You can have automatic deletion when a ref count reaches 0, but that too is not garbage collection. Garbage collection means letting go of your ability to control when things are deleted from memory, and allowing the underlying language's implementation to optimize the behviours. You stop paying attention to reference counts, and trust in the dynamic behaviours of a particular implementation of garbage collection.
Naturally, garbage collection uses a system of reference counting to know when something is no longer referenced, but that is a small piece of the puzzle.
Reference counting is a form of garbage collection, but not a very good one. It is used by some languages (python I think) although often with cycle detection.
Even if you descended from TInterfaceObject, the object is not reference counted and thus garbage collected unless you only use the interface reference and not the object reference.
I.e. you would need to use
Var
nameable: IMyInterface;
begin
nameable:= IMyInterface.Create();
nameable.x(y);
etc
end;
This implies that your interface needs to support already the methods and properies that you require which quickly becomes tedious as you need to create an interface for each class.
It can be done reasonably easily in D2009 or later though. See Barry Kelly's implimentation of smart pointers. The usual reference countng cavets apply though.