How to find object like in C++ with findChild(), but from javascript?
As on the QML-side you usually have no access to the parent/child-relationships of the Qt/C++-side, but only to the visual parent/child-relationship, you will need to resort to C++.
You could e.g. create a object, that exposes a method which takes a QObject, and a name and calls the function findChild of this object.
If you only want to find a visual child, you might just implement a recursive bfs over the visual tree in JS and call this.
But as I said in my comment: If you need this, you probably messed up at some other place and should rather think about a way to do it, without findChild(). Using it is not recommended in C++, and is certainly not so in QML.
As it is a recursive search it will do its best in killing your performance. A UI contains easily a thousand elements and you would need to compare the strings all the time. Further you would lie about the dependencies by sneakingly access things you don't tell anyone you are depending on.
The objectName and the object that calls findChild might not be in the same logical part of your code, so it is easily broken, if someone might change this object or the objectName, and you are searching for a name that does not exist anymore.
Additionally, if you found an object with the name - and possibly the right type - there is still no guarantee, it is the right object, as the objectNames are not necessarily unique.
All in all, it is not the best design, to access objects like that - tough it might be possible.
Disclaimer: I have not tried out my proposed solution, as I don't want to waste my time on it.
Related
I want to know which pointers point to a specific object at runtime in c/c++.
For example, I have an object A, now I want to do something for A, such as changing the memory address of A, at this moment I have to know there are how many pointer pointing to A, and,at least, the name of these pointers at runtime.
In fact I just want to realize the migration of an object or some data else, without making the program wrong. Because in c/c++ if I want to migrate an object A I must figure out how many pointer pointing to the object A, and than make these pointer pointing to the new address which is the address of the object A after migration.
Totally speaking, it likes the std::shared_ptr, and I also have realized a self-defined class to achieve this goal. But now, I just want to know are there some ways to achieve this goal by using some compiler tools such as LLVM, and without modifying the source code or modifying the source automatically.
*******problem description**********
In fact, I have two types of memory, typeA and typeB, and now I want to realize a function which can migrate an object X in typeA to typeB. To make sure the validity of programs, after migrating object X form typeA to typeB,I have to know how many pointers point to the object X and than make these pointers pointing to the new address of object X.
I want to know which pointers point to a specific object at runtime in c/c++.
In general this is not possible. BTW, it looks that you want to implement something quite similar to a precise copying garbage collector. If this is not clear to you, read the GC handbook (for the concepts and the terminology). Notice that variables (and their names) don't exist at runtime (only memory locations, perhaps on the call stack, are relevant then) but only at compile time.
Totally speaking, it likes the std::shared_ptr, and I also have realized a self-defined class to achieve this goal. But now, I just want to know are there some ways to achieve this goal by using some compiler tools such as LLVM, and without modifying the source code or modifying the source automatically.
Again, in general that is not possible. For an intuition about why, imagine that you deal with a union { Foo* fooptr; std::uintptr foonum; }; which is in fact discriminated by some arbitrary external property, like e.g. the oddness of your current pid. If you could solve that you have solved the halting problem. Read also about Rice's theorem. Both are very relevant for static source code analysis.
However, what you could do is define explicitly some additional strong coding rules and constraints, (perhaps with some support runtime library) and design and implement, e.g. with LLVM or some GCC plugin, a static analyzer which check against these coding rules and constraints.
Notice that in practice you can use some GCs with C++, e.g. Boehm's GC or
Ravenbrook's MPS.
Your question is still lacking a real motivation (which I am trying to guess) and looks like some XY problem. "Like a GC" is not enough.
See also this. Perhaps read about dynamic software updating or application checkpointing.
addenda
your problem (even with the problem description edit, I don't understand it well) looks similar to copying garbage collection techniques like Cheney's algorithm.
For this purpose, you can create a class which record amount of reference and every reference name. Like this
class custom_obj {
Custom A; // target object
int count_ptr; // reference count
vector<void*> ref_ptr; // reference pointer
};
That's a simple way.
I work on a class in VBA, that encapsulates downloading stuff with MSXML2.XmlHttp.
There are three possibilities for the return value: Text, XML and Stream.
Should I create a function for each:
aText=myDownloader.TextSynchronous(URL,formData,dlPost,....)
aXml.load myDownloader.XmlSynchronous(URL,formData,dlPost,....)
Or can I just return the XmlHttpObject I created inside the class and then have
aText=myDownloader.Synchronous(URL,formData,dlPost,.....).ResponseText
aXML=myDownloader.Synchronous(URL,formData,dlPost,.....).ResponseXML
In the former case I can set the obj to nothing in the class but have to write several functions that are more or less the same.
In the latter case, I relay on the "garbage collector" but have a leaner class.
Both should work, but which one is better coding style?
In my opinion, the first way is better because you don't expose low level details to a high level of the abstraction.
I did something similar with a web crawler in Java, so I have a class only to manipulate the URL connection getting all the needed data (low level) and a high level class using the low level class that return an object called Page.
You can have a third method that only execute myDownloader.Synchronous(URL,formData,dlPost,.....) and stores the returned object in a private variable and the others method only manipulate this object. This form, you will only open the connection one time.
After much seeking around in the web (triggered by the comment by EmmadKareem) I found this:
First of all, Dont do localObject=Nothing at the end of a method - the variable goes out of scope anyway and is discarded. see this older but enlightening post on msdn
VBA uses reference counting and apart from some older bugs on ADO this seems to work woute well and (as I understand) immediately discards ressources that are not used anymore. So from a performance/memory usage point of view this seems not to be a problem.
As to the coding style: I think the uncomfortable fdeeling I had when I designed this could go away by simply renaming the function to myDownloader.getSyncDLObj(...) or some such.
There seem to be two camps on codestyle. One promotes clean code, which is easy to read, but uses five lines everytime you use it. Its most important prerogative is "every function should do one thing and one thing only. Their approach would probably look something like
myDownloader.URL="..."
myDownloader.method=dlSync
myDownloader.download
aText=myDownloader.getXmlHttpObj.ResponseText
myDownloader.freeResources
and one is OK with the more cluttered, but less lineconsuming
aText=myDownloader.getSyncObj(...).ResponseText
both have their merits both none is wrong, dangerous or frowned upon. As this is a helper class and I use it to remove the inner workings of the xmlhttp from the main code I am more comfortable with the second approach here. (One line for one goal ;)
I would be very interested on anyones take on that matter
I'm in the design/skeleton coding phase of my C++ game with Lua scripting, but I have run into a design issue:
The game will have many copies of the same kind of entities, with behavior controlled by the same script. Is there a straightforward way I can share the script between entities of the same type in a single lua_state? I have only been able to find this question asked a couple of times on the Internet; I have read mixed feedback on whether or not it's a good idea to load the same script in different lua_state's, and not in-depth feedback on alternatives.
It's simple and bullet-proof, but I think loading, compiling, and storing addition copies of the same byte code with each instance of the same entity type created is a tragic waste, so I would like to figure out a smarter solution.
These are the two solutions I have thought of. I'm not new to programming or C or OO concepts but I am still learning when it comes to Lua and especially the Lua/C API. I think my ideas are sound but I am not even sure how I would go about implementing them.:
Implement OO in the Lua script and have each entity be represented by a Lua object; all the Lua logic would act on the object. This would also have the benefit (or the "benefit") of allowing the global environment to be changed by anything single entity.
Encapsulate each entity in its own environment using setfenv and copy references of all of the functions from the global space. As I understand it the env is just a different table than the default global, but I've looked into setfenv but I don't know how I would do that.
1 and 2 are just different sides of the same coin, more or less. It's simply a matter of where the object goes. In type 1, the object is an explicit part of the Lua script. Which means the script decides how it wants to set up its objects.
In type 2, the object is the environment. It is still a Lua table, but one created for it by the external code. The script cannot break free of the confines of this object, except in the ways that the external code allows.
The easiest way for me to implement type 1 would be with Luabind. I'd have an AI object as a C++ class, which Lua would be able to derive from. Running the "main script" for that AI would create an instance of that class. You would pass the script parameters, like the name of the entity it controls, maybe a reference it can use to control it, etc.
Type 2 is fairly simple. First, you create the new environment by creating an empty table and populating it with the global variables that you want the user to be able to have access to. These would be for things like talking to game-state (find other objects in the scene, etc), ways to move the entity in question around, and so forth. There are metatable tricks you can play to effectively make these values immutable and constant, so the user can't modify them later.
Then, you load the script with lua_loadstring or lua_loadfile. This puts a function on the Lua stack that represents that Lua script. Then you apply this table as that script function's environment with lua_setfenv. You can then run that script, passing whatever variables you wish (the name of the entity, etc).
I often find myself needing reference to an object that is several objects away, or so it seems. The options I see are passing a reference through a middle-man or just making something available statically. I understand the danger of global scope, but passing a reference through an object that does nothing with it feels ridiculous. I'm okay with a little bit passing around, I suppose. I suspect there's a line to be drawn somewhere.
Does anyone have insight on where to draw this line?
Or a good way to deal with the problem of distributing references amongst dependent objects?
Use the Law of Demeter (with moderation and good taste, not dogmatically). If you're coding a.b.c.d.e, something IS wrong -- you've nailed forevermore the implementation of a to have a b which has a c which... EEP!-) One or at the most two dots is the maximum you should be using. But the alternative is NOT to plump things into globals (and ensure thread-unsafe, buggy, hard-to-maintain code!), it is to have each object "surface" those characteristics it is designed to maintain as part of its interface to clients going forward, instead of just letting poor clients go through such undending chains of nested refs!
This smells of an abstraction that may need some improvement. You seem to be violating the Law of Demeter.
In some cases a global isn't too bad.
Consider, you're probably programming against an operating system's API. That's full of globals, you can probably access a file or the registry, write to the console. Look up a window handle. You can do loads of stuff to access state that is global across the whole computer, or even across the internet... and you don't have to pass a single reference to your class to access it. All this stuff is global if you access the OS's API.
So, when you consider the number of global things that often exist, a global in your own program probably isn't as bad as many people try and make out and scream about.
However, if you want to have very nice OO code that is all unit testable, I suppose you should be writing wrapper classes around any access to globals whether they come from the OS, or are declared yourself to encapsulate them. This means you class that uses this global state can get references to the wrappers, and they could be replaced with fakes.
Hmm, anyway. I'm not quite sure what advice I'm trying to give here, other than say, structuring code is all a balance! And, how to do it for your particular problem depends on your preferences, preferences of people who will use the code, how you're feeling on the day on the academic to pragmatic scale, how big the code base is, how safety critical the system is and how far off the deadline for completion is.
I believe your question is revealing something about your classes. Maybe the responsibilities could be improved ? Maybe moving some code would solve problems ?
Tell, don't ask.
That's how it was explained to me. There is a natural tendency to call classes to obtain some data. Taken too far, asking too much, typically leads to heavy "getter sequences". But there is another way. I must admit it is not easy to find, but improves gradually in a specific code and in the coder's habits.
Class A wants to perform a calculation, and asks B's data. Sometimes, it is appropriate that A tells B to do the job, possibly passing some parameters. This could replace B's "getName()", used by A to check the validity of the name, by an "isValid()" method on B.
"Asking" has been replaced by "telling" (calling a method that executes the computation).
For me, this is the question I ask myself when I find too many getter calls. Gradually, the methods encounter their place in the correct object, and everything gets a bit simpler, I have less getters and less call to them. I have less code, and it provides more semantic, a better alignment with the functional requirement.
Move the data around
There are other cases where I move some data. For example, if a field moves two objects up, the length of the "getter chain" is reduced by two.
I believe nobody can find the correct model at first.
I first think about it (using hand-written diagrams is quick and a big help), then code it, then think again facing the real thing... Then I code the rest, and any smells I feel in the code, I think again...
Split and merge objects
If a method on A needs data from C, with B as a middle man, I can try if A and C would have some in common. Possibly, A or a part of A could become C (possible splitting of A, merging of A and C) ...
However, there are cases where I keep the getters of course.
But it's less likely a long chain will be created.
A long chain will probably get broken by one of the techniques above.
I have three patterns for this:
Pass the necessary reference to the object's constructor -- the reference can then be stored as a data member of the object, and doesn't need to be passed again; this implies that the object's factory has the necessary reference. For example, when I'm creating a DOM, I pass the element name to the DOM node when I construct the DOM node.
Let things remember their parent, and get references to properties via their parent; this implies that the parent or ancestor has the necessary property. For example, when I'm creating a DOM, there are various things which are stored as properties of the top-level DomDocument ancestor, and its child nodes can access those properties via the reference which each one has to its parent.
Put all the different things which are passed around as references into a single class, and then pass around just that one class instance as the only thing that's passed around. For example, there are many properties required to render a DOM (e.g. the GDI graphics handle, the viewport coordinates, callback events, etc.) ... I put all of these things into a single 'Context' instance which is passed as the only parameter to the methods of the DOM nodes to be rendered, and each method can get whichever properties it needs out of that context parameter.
I have a "parent" Obj-C object containing (in a collection) a bunch of objects whose instance variables point to one another, possibly circularly (fear not, no retaining going on between these "siblings"). I write the parent object to XML, which of course involves (among other things) writing out its "children", in no particular order, and due to the possible circularity, I replace these references between the children with unique IDs that each child has.
The problem is reading this XML back in... as I create one "child", I come across an ID, but there's no guarantee the object it refers to has been created yet. Since the references are possibly circular, there isn't even an order in which to read them that solves this problem.
What do I do? My current solution is to replace (in the actual instance variables) the references with strings containing the unique IDs. This is nasty, though, because to use these instance variables, instead of something like [oneObject aSibling] I now have to do something like [theParent childWithID:[oneObject aSiblingID]]. I suppose I could create an aSibling method to simplify things, but it feels like there's a cleaner way than all this. Is there?
This sounds an awful lot like you are re-inventing NSCoding as it handles circular references, etc... Now, there might be a good reason to re-invent that wheel. Only you can answer that question.
In any case, sounds like you want a two pass unarchival process.
Pass 1: Grab all the objects out of the backing store and reconstitute. As each object comes out, shove it in a dictionary or map with the UID as the key. Whenever an object contains a UID, register the object as needing to be fixed up; add it to a set or array that you keep around during unarchival.
Pass 2: Walk the set or array of objects that need to be fixed up and fix 'em up, replacing the UIDs with objects from the map you built in pass #1.
I hit a bit of parse error on that last paragraph. Assuming your classes are sensibly declared, they ought to be able to repair themselves on the fly.
(All things considered, this is exactly the kind of data structure that is much easier to implement in a GC'd environment. If you are targeting Mac OS X, not the iPhone, turning on GC is going to make your life easier, most likely)
Java's serialization process does much the same thing. Every object it writes out, it puts in a 'previously seen objects' table. When it comes to writing out a subsequent reference, if it's seen the object before, then it writes out a code which indicates that it's a previously seen object from the list. When the reverse occurs, whenever it sees such a reference, it replaces it on the fly with the instance before.
That approach means that you don't have to use this map for all instances, but rather the substitution happens only for objects you've seen a second time. However, you still need to be able to uniquely reference the first instance you've got written, whether by some pointer to a part in the data structure or not is dependent on what you're writing.