I've been trying to define a generic, inheritable TSingleton class. Here's what I had in progress:
TSingleton<RealClass, InheritsFrom : class> = class(InheritsFrom)
strict private
class var FInstance : RealClass;
protected
procedure InstanceInitialization;virtual;
public
destructor Destroy; override;
class procedure Create; reintroduce;
class function Instance : RealClass;
class procedure InstanceFree;
end;
The goal was to be able to "insert" the singleton pattern in an inheritance tree. so instead of declaring something like this :
TMySingletonComponent = class(TComponent)
end;
And need to implement the singleton pattern there, I would declare something like this :
TMyGenericSingletonComponent = class(TSingleton<TMyGenericSingletonComponent,TComponent>)
end;
Sadly, this won't work. I'm getting the following error(In D2010):
TSingleton<RealClass, InheritsFrom : class> = class(InheritsFrom) ///E2021 Class type required
Now I was wondering, would this work in Delphi XE? Is there some "clean hack" I could use to make this work in D2010? Is there some fundamental reasons why this can't work?
By design, you can't create a generic class which derives from one of its type arguments.
No, that won't work. You're trying to define a class in terms of itself. Whatever you put inside the parameters has to be fully defined already.
What do you want to obtain?
IMHO, singletons are evil. They were introduced because of bad OOP design of C++ (for access to input/output streams in console applications, as far as I remember). And they tend to be like hell to maintain.
You can always live without them. It's definitively not a "Delphi classical" way of programing, because Delphi doesn't suffer the C++ problems I mentioned.
Some Java project (ab)uses of singleton. Google for it, and you'll find out what I mean.
Use a property of a common class with a getter, initializing an instance if the corresponding field is still nil, or directly returning the field pointer to the instance if it was already created. You'll have the singleton feature, with good performance, nice code, good OOP practice (no "global" class), and the ability to run the class without any singleton feature, if you don't need this feature later (for testing purpose, for instance).
Related
I have many singletons where I don't want the developers to call the constructor Create. Instead they should use the function Instance
TdgpBankBranch = class(TDataGroup)
strict private
class var InstanceVar : TdgpBankBranch;
private
{ Only for internal use }
constructor Create (AOwner : TComponent); reintroduce;
protected
public
class function Instance : TdgpBankBranch;
class function Is_A_Live_Singleton: boolean;
property Rec[Bank, Branch : integer]: TBankBranch read GetRec; default;
end;
I have been shifting the constructors to private. This makes the code analysers complain "Non-public constructor".
I could shift them back to public. Is there a way to make the compiler fail if an attempt is made at using the constructor ?
Moving the constructor to private will prevent other units from being able to call Create() directly, however code inside the same unit as the class will still be able to call it unhindered, due to implicit friendship within a unit. If you don't want any code outside of the class calling Create() directly, even in the same unit, then declare it as strict private so only the class itself can call it directly.
You ask how to stop the compiler from creating an object when somebody calls .create, but what you're trying to do is create a singleton, so it helps to see how others solved this.
In Delphi, singletons are often implemented via a function that's declared in the interface section and which returns an object that's declared in the implementation section of a unit. The function creates the instance if it doesn't exist yet, to provide lazy loading. Cleanup is done via the finalization section.
In your situation, instead of having an instance() function, you just create a global function that gives you an instance.
This approach probably stems from the days before classes and private sections existed, but it's pretty straightforward, and prevents the issue that you're running in to. Look at how TClipboard is implemented. This implementation is not possible in Java or C# because they don't have global functions, or the type of scoping that makes this Delphi implementation work...
Or take a look at this answer by David Heffernan:
Delphi Singleton Pattern
It's even better than TClipboard, because it hides the entire class in the implementation section, truly preventing people to create instances themselves, but you'll have to create an interface for your class.
I would like to have some suggestions for the following problem:
Let's say you want to write adapters for the VCL controls. All Adapters should have the same base class, but differ in wrapping special controls (for example getting a value from a TEdit is different from getting a value from TSpinEdit).
So the first idea is to create a class hierarchy like
TAdapter = class
end;
TEditAdapter = class (TAdapter)
end;
TSpinEditAdapter = class (TAdapter)
end;
Now I want to introduce a field to hold a reference to the vcl control. In my special adapaters I want - of course - work with the concrete subclass. But the Base class should also contain a reference (for example if I want to use the adapter to make a control visible).
Possibility 1 (Downcast in Property Accessor):
TAdapter = class
protected
FCtrl : TControl;
end;
TEditAdapter = class (TAdapter)
public
property Control : TEdit read GetControl write Setcontrol;
end;
{...}
function TEditAdapter.GetControl : TEdit;
begin
Result := FCtrl as TEdit;
end;
So if I implement a specific method I work with the property Control, if I do something in my base class I use the protected field.
Possibility 2 (Use a generic base class):
TAdapter = class
end;
TAdapter <T : TControl> = class (TAdapter)
protected
FCtrl : T;
end;
TEditAdapter = class (TAdapter <TEdit>)
end;
Which solution would you prefer? Or is there a third solution, which is even better?
Kind regards,
Christian
You can't use generics to solve this problem, because you'll be in one of two situations:
The property or method you want to "Adapt" (the Text property for example) is defined in an ancestor class. In that case you don't need generics because you can use the one adapter for the ancestor and solve the problem for all descendants.
The property or method is introduced by the class you want to adapt. In that case you can't use generics because in order to access the property or method you'd need a generic type constraint of that given type. Example. Let's say you want an adapter for the Text property of TMyClass. Let's assume TMyClass is the one introducing the Text property. In order to access it, you'd need to declare the generic type as TGeneric<T:TMyClass> and that's not actually generic.
In my opinion the best bet is to write specific adapters for each class, as in your first option. You might be able to use RTTI tricks to make your first option easier to implement, but I'm not sure it'd be worth it.
The generics version could allow to avoid some duplicated code, at least in the TAdapter class. By using the T type, it will allow a lot of shared code.
On the other hand, due to the VCL hierarchy, most used properties and methods will already be in TControl. So I'm not sure there will be so many duplicated code in non-generic implementation.
I suspect the non-generic version will produce less code and RTTI, since the current generics implementation tends not to duplicate the source, but increase the exe size.
IMHO the generic-based design will add more abstraction to the implementation, but the non-generic would perhaps be more close to the VCL hierarchy it will adapt on.
So for your particular case (mapping the VCL), since your attempt is to map non generic classes, I'd rather investigate into the non-generic solution.
For another (non VCL-based) adapter architecture, I would probably have advised a pure generic implementation, from the bottom up.
I am writing a simple dependency injection / inversion of control system based on a TDictionary holding abstract class references with their respective implementor classes.
My goals are:
Avoid direct instantiation by type (obviously).
Inclusion of a class' unit in the dpr should be enough to have it registered and be available for selection and instantiation through the di/ioc system.
Declare concrete implementing classes in implementation section only.
Use class constructors instead of initialization sections.
Btw, I am aware that using class constructors to take advantage of smart linking and wanting the inclusion of a unit to be enough to make a class available are defeating each other. I want to use class constructors instead of initialization sections for other reasons as well. And I would like to keep all class initialization/registration code together instead of having to split it between the class constructor and initialization section.
Problem
I want the registration of the class into the factory to be in the class constructor. Unfortunately, the compiler doesn't think the class is "touched" by just using its type in its own class constructor.
When I put the registration function in the initialization section, then the compiler does think the class is touched and calls the class constructor. But that defeats the object of my exercise of keeping all class initialization code in the class constructor.
Two questions
Should the compiler consider the use of the class in its own class constructor "touching the class" or is that too much to expect the compiler to do?
Does anybody have any clever ideas on how I can still achieve my goals without using the initialization section?
Example
The abstract classes used in the application:
TSite = class abstract (TObject)
function GetURL: string; virtual; abstract;
property URL: string read GetURL;
end;
TSites = class (TList<TSite>);
TThisApplication = class abstract (TObject)
function Sites: TSites; virtual; abstract;
end;
The concrete implementing class (declared in the implementation section!) for TThisApplication
TThisApplicationConcrete = class(TThisApplication)
class constructor ClassCreate;
strict private
FSites: TSites;
function Sites: TSites; override;
end;
class constructor TThisApplicationConcrete.ClassCreate;
begin
RegisterImplementorClass(TThisApplication, TThisApplicationConcrete);
end;
function TThisApplicationConcrete.Sites: TSites;
var
SiteList: TSites;
begin
if not Assigned(FSites) then begin
SiteList := TSites.Create; // Change to use factory
//RetrieveSites(SiteList);
FSites := SiteList;
end;
Result := FSites;
end;
The function to get an instance of TThisApplication:
function ThisApplication: TThisApplication;
var
ImplementorClass: TClass;
begin
ImplementorClass := GetImplementorClass(TThisApplication);
if Assigned(ImplementorClass) then begin
Result := ImplementorClass.Create as TThisApplication;
end else begin
Result := nil;
end;
end;
This is currently coded in a separate function, but it w/could be moved to the factory.
Full example code
If anybody would like to experiment, I have the full code of my test projects available at : http://www.bjsoftware.com/delphistuff/stackoverdlow/classconstructors.zip
Zip contents:
4 projects all using the same source files, differing only in conditional defines (that's why the dproj's are also included)
4 source files
groupproj and its dsk with all 4 projects
RunTestApps.cmd to run all 4 projects
Results.txt with the output of my run of the RunTestApps.cmd
WriteUp.txt with the text of this question
Please bear in mind that at all times you need to do a "Build All Projecs" because all dcu's and exe's are going to the source dir and otherwise you are going to face a lot of errors and/or confusion because the exe isn't doing what its name indicates.
This is as expected. As Uwe pointed out, a self-referential class constructor isn't enough to trigger inclusion. Placing the reference in the initialization section will do the trick since that is outside the class itself. Trying to self-reference a class for inclusion is akin to trying pull yourself out of a deep hole by pulling on your own suspenders.
As long as you don't use the class anywhere outside the class itself, the compiler takes this as the class not used at all and hence won't call the class constructor. So I guess you have to use the intialization section instead of tweaking the code to fool the compiler. Take the pragmatic approach instead of the dogmatic one. It will be more readable anyway.
I think you expect the class constructor to work differently than it has been designed to. Class constructor don't get called "just before" the first create. (Not in WIN32 delphi at least). If a class is referenced, its class constructor will run before the unit's initialization code.
If the only reference that you have to your class happens to be inside said class, then no code actually linked into your application refer to said class. Therefore, its class constructor will never get called.
I believe register functions belongs to the initialization section. Having the register function there will force the class constructor to also be executed. I don't see why you would want/require the register code to be placed into the class constructor.
If you want more information about the way class constructor/destructor works, you can read this pretty good article by Allen Bauer:
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer/2009/09/04/38899
Let's assume you have a very well designed Delphi project, which respects the dependency injection and some other good practices.
Now let's assume you need to mock a class defined as:
TMyClass = class
public
procedure Method1;
procedure Method2
end;
Method1 and Method2 are not virtual. What do you do in this case? To mock an object we need to inherit it and override every method you want to mock, but it is not possible in this case because they are not virtual. Should I change the source code to add virtual on every method I need to mock? Is not it bad?
Edit
I was thinking about creating a compiler directive to make all fields in the class to be virtual, is it a good ideia? Only my test suite is going to set the compiler directive.
EDIT2*
Embarcadero should provide an easy way of changing a method pointer of a class to another method point, without the need for virtual.
Make the methods virtual so you can mock them. (They don't need to be abstract.)
If you cannot do that, then wrap the class with another class. Make the wrapper's methods virtual, and in the default implementation, just forward call calls to the original class. Wherever your program uses the original class, replace it with the wrapper. Now, mock the wrapper.
To mock an object we need to inherit
it, but it is not possible in this
case.
I'd recommend that every class that you say "I need to mock this" should end up being based on an interface.
In other words, if you have methods that need to be mocked, they should be put into an interface, and then the class to be mocked implements that interface. Then, you create the mock by implementing the same interface in the mock object.
The alternative is to use a Mocking library. You can look at these SO question:
What is your favorite Delphi mocking library?
and this framework includes mocking objects as well:
http://code.google.com/p/emballo/
Mocking objects should also encourage the proper use of dependency injection in your code.
You should not only make the methods virtual, you should declare a pure virtual base class, and make the other classes use only the pure virtual base class name. Now you can use what we call the "Liskov substitution principle", and you can make as many concrete subtypes of the abstract base class as you need. Since the abstract base class works just like an Interface works in delphi, minus the reference counting part, you get the best of both worlds. You can really keep your app code simple, and reduce bad coupling this way, plus you get unit testable "composite objects" that you put together yourself.
// in UnitBase.pas
TMyClassBase = class
public
procedure Method1; virtual; abstract;
procedure Method2; virtual; abstract;
end;
// in UnitReal.pas
TMyClassReal = class(TMyClassbase)
public
procedure Method1; override;
procedure Method2; override;
end;
// in UnitMock.pas
TMyClassMock = class(TMyClassbase)
public
procedure Method1; override;
procedure Method2; override;
end;
In the place that uses "TMyClass", change it to use TMyClassbase:
TMyOtherClass = class(TMyOtherClassBase)
private
FMyThing:TMyClassbase;
public
property MyThing:TMyClassBase read FMyThing write FMyThing;
end;
By connecting TMyOtherclass at runtime you can decide whether to use the real or mock class:
// in my realapp.pas
MyOtherClassObj := TMyotherClass.Create;
MyOtherClassObj.MyThing := TMyOtherClassReal.Create; // real object
// in my unittest.pas
MyOtherClassObj := TMyotherClass.Create;
MyOtherClassObj.MyThing := TMyOtherClassMock.Create; // mock object
(Don't forget to make a way to free MyOtherClassObj.MyThing later, or you'll have a leak)
I'm using Delphi 2009. Is it possible to write a class helper for a generic class, i.e. for TQueue . The obvious
TQueueHelper <T> = class helper of TQueue <T>
...
end;
does not work, nor does
TQueueHelper = class helper of TQueue
...
end;
As documented in the Delphi help, class helpers are not designed for general purpose use and they are incorrectly perceived as having a number of limitations or even bugs as a result.
nevertheless there is a perception - incorrect and dangerous in my view - that these are a legitimate tool in the general purpose "toolkit". I have blogged about why this is wrong and subsequently about how you can go some way to mitigate the dangers by following a socially responsible coding pattern (although even this isn't bullet proof).
You can achieve much the effect of a class helper without any of these bugs or limitations or (most importantly) risks by using a hard cast to a "pseudo" class derived from the class you are trying to extend. i.e instead of:
TFooHelper = class helper for TFoo
procedure MyHelperMethod;
end;
use
TFooHelper = class(TFoo)
procedure MyHelperMethod;
end;
Just like with a "formal" helper, you never instantiate this TFooHelper class, you use it solely to mutate the TFoo class, except in this case you have to be explicit. In your code when you need to use some instance of a TFoo using your "helper" methods you then have to hard cast:
TFooHelper(someFoo).MyHelperMethod;
Downsides:
you have to stick to the same rules that apply to helpers - no member data etc (not really a downside at all, except that the compiler won't "remind you").
you have to explicitly cast to use your helper
If using a helper to expose protected members you have to declare the helper in the same unit that you use it (unless you expose a public method which exposes the required protected members)
Advantages:
Absolutely NO risk that your helper will break if you start using some other code that "helps" the same base class
The explicit typecasting makes it clear in your "consumer" code that you are working with the class in a way that is not directly supported by the class itself, rather than fudging and hiding that fact behind some syntactic sugar.
It's not as "clean" as a class helper, but in this case the "cleaner" approach is actually just sweeping the mess under the rug and if someone disturbs the rug you end up with a bigger mess than you started with.
I currently still use Delphi 2009 so I thought I'd add a few other ways to extend a generic class. These should work equally well in newer versions of Delphi. Let's see what it would look like to add a ToArray method to a List class.
Interceptor Classes
Interceptor classes are classes that are given the same name as the class they inherit from:
TList<T> = class(Generics.Collections.TList<T>)
public
type
TDynArray = array of T;
function ToArray: TDynArray;
end;
function TList<T>.ToArray: TDynArray;
var
I: Integer;
begin
SetLength(Result, self.Count);
for I := 0 to Self.Count - 1 do
begin
Result[I] := Self[I];
end;
end;
Notice you need to use the fully qualified name, Generics.Collections.TList<T> as the ancestor. Otherwise you'll get E2086 Type '%s' is not completely defined.
The advantage of this technique is that your extensions are mostly transparent. You can use instances of the new TList anywhere the original was used.
There are two disadvantages to this technique:
It can cause confusion for other developers if they aren't aware that you've redefined a familiar class.
It can't be used on a sealed class.
The confusion can be mitigated by careful unit naming and avoiding use of the "original" class in the same place as your interceptor class. Sealed classes aren't much of a problem in the rtl/vcl classes supplied by Embarcadero. I only found two sealed classed in the entire source tree: TGCHandleList(only used in the now defunct Delphi.NET) and TCharacter. You may run into issues with third party libraries though.
The Decorator Pattern
The decorator pattern lets you extend a class dynamically by wrapping it with another class that inherits its public interface:
TArrayDecorator<T> = class abstract(TList<T>)
public
type
TDynArray = array of T;
function ToArray: TDynArray; virtual; abstract;
end;
TArrayList<T> = class(TArrayDecorator<T>)
private
FList: TList<T>;
public
constructor Create(List: TList<T>);
function ToArray: TListDecorator<T>.TDynArray; override;
end;
function TMyList<T>.ToArray: TListDecorator<T>.TDynArray;
var
I: Integer;
begin
SetLength(Result, self.Count);
for I := 0 to Self.Count - 1 do
begin
Result[I] := FList[I];
end;
end;
Once again there are advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages
You can defer introducing the new functionally until its actually needed. Need to dump a list to an array? Construct a new TArrayList passing any TList or a descendant as a parameter in the constructor. When you're done just discard the TArrayList.
You can create additional decorators that add more functionality and combine decorators in different ways. You can even use it to simulate multiple inheritance, though interfaces are still easier.
Disadvantages
It's a little more complex to understand.
Applying multiple decorators to an object can result in verbose constructor chains.
As with interceptors you can't extend a sealed class.
Side Note
So it seems that if you want to make a class nearly impossible to extend make it a sealed generic class. Then class helpers can't touch it and it can't be inherited from. About the only option left is wrapping it.
As near as I can tell, there's no way to put a class helper on a generic class and have it compile. You ought to report that to QC as a bug.