I'm trying to figure out the name behind this design pattern. Basically, you have some arbitrary data that needs to be processed, and any arbitrary number of "handler" objects that may be capable of handling the data. The data gets passed to these handlers until something processes it.
For example, in Qt, QImage reads images via QImageReader. QImageReader queries QImageIOHandler objects to see if the given file format can be read by that QImageIOHandler. If so, it uses that handler to read the image.
Is there a name for this delegation of responsibility?
Chain of Responsibility
Related
I'm learning Metal, and there's a conceptual question that I'm trying to wrap my head around: at what level, exactly, should my code handle successive drawing operations that require different pipeline states? As I understand it (from answers like this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/43827775/2752221), I can use a single MTLRenderCommandEncoder and change its pipeline state, the vertex buffer it's using, etc., between calls to drawPrimitives:, and the encoder state that was current at the time of each call to drawPrimitives: will be preserved. So that's great. But it also seems like the design of Metal is such that one can make multiple MTLRenderCommandEncoder instances, and use them to sequentially throw batches of commands into a MTLCommandBuffer. Given that the former works – using one MTLRenderCommandEncoder and changing its state – why would one do the latter? Under what circumstances is it correct to do the former, and under what circumstances is it necessary to do the latter? What is an example of a situation where the latter would be necessary/appropriate?
If it matters, I'm working on a macOS app, using Objective-C. Thanks.
Ignoring multithreaded encoding cases, which are somewhat advanced, the main reason you'd want to create multiple render command encoders during a frame is because you need to change which textures you're rendering to.
You'll notice that you need to provide a render pass descriptor when creating a render command encoder. For this reason, we often say that the sequence of commands belonging to a particular encoder constitute a render pass. The attachments of that descriptor refer to the textures that will be written to by the commands encoded by the encoder.
Many different techniques, including shadow mapping and postprocessing effects like bloom require multiple passes to produce. Since you can't change attachments in the midst of a pass, creating a new encoder is the only way to encode multiple passes in a frame.
Relatedly, you should ordinarily use one command buffer per frame. You can, however, sometimes reduce frame time by splitting your passes across multiple command buffers, but this is highly dependent on the shape of your workload and should only be done in tandem with profiling, as it's not always an optimization.
In addition to Warren's answer, another way to look at the question is by examining the API. A number of Metal objects are created from descriptors. The properties of the descriptor at the time an object is created from it govern that object for its lifetime. Those are aspects of the object that can't be changed after creation.
By contrast, the object will have various setter methods to modify other properties over its lifetime.
For a render command encoder, the properties that are fixed for its lifetime are those specified by the MTLRenderPassDescriptor used to create it. If you want to render with different values for any of those properties, the only way to do so is to create a new encoder from a different descriptor. On the other hand, if you can do everything you need/want to do by using the encoder's setter methods, then you don't need a new encoder.
I am writing a C++ OpenCV-based computer vision program. The basic idea of the program could be described as follows:
Read an image from a camera.
Do some magic to the image.
Display the transformed image.
The implementation of the core logic of the program (step 2) falls into a sequential calling of OpenCV functions for image processing. It is something about 50 function calls. Some temporary image objects are created to store intermediate results, but, apart from that, no additional entities are created. The functions from step 2 are used only once.
I am confused about organising this type of code (which feels more like a script). I used to create several classes for each logical step of the image processing. Say, here I could create 3 classes like ImagePreprocessor, ImageProcessor, and ImagePostprocessor, and split the abovementioned 50 OpenCV calls and temorary images correspondingly between them. But it doesn't feel like a resonable OOP design. The classes would be nothing more than a way to store the function calls.
The main() function would still just create a single object of each class and call thier methods consequently:
image_preprocessor.do_magic(img);
image_processor.do_magic(img);
image_postprocessor.do_magic(img);
Which is, to my impression, essentially the same thing as callling 50 OpenCV functions one by one.
I start to question whether this type of code requiers an OOP design at all. After all, I can simply provide a function do_magic(), or three functions preprocess(), process(), and postprocess(). But, this approach doesn't feel like a good practice as well: it is still just a pile of function calls, separated into a different function.
I wonder, are there some common practices to organise this script-like kind of code? And what would be the way if this code is a part of a large OOP system?
Usually, in Image Processing, you have a pipeline of various Image Processing Modules. Same is applicable on Video Processing, where each Image is processed according to its timestamp order in the video.
Constraints to consider before designing such pipeline:
Order of Execution of these modules is not always same. Thus, the pipeline should be easily configurable.
All modules of the pipeline should be executable in parallel with each other.
Each module of the pipeline may also have a multithreaded operation. (Out of scope of this answer, but is a good idea when a single module becomes the bottleneck for the pipeline).
Each module should easily adhere to the design and have the flexibility of internal implementation changes without affecting other modules.
The benefit of preprocessing of a frame by one module should be available to later modules.
Proposed Design.
Video Pipeline
A video pipeline is a collection of modules. For now, assume module is a class whose process method is called with some data. How each module can be executed will depend on how such modules are stored in VideoPipeline! To further explain, see below two categories:-
Here, let’s say we have modules A, B, and C which always execute in same order. We will discuss the solution with a video of Frame 1, 2 and 3.
a. Linked List: In a single-threaded application, frame 1 is first executed by A, then B and then C. The process is repeated for next frame and so on. So linked list seems like an excellent choice for the single threaded application.
For a multi-threaded application, speed is what matters. So, of course, you would want all your modules running 128-core machine. This is where Pipeline class comes into play. If each Pipeline object runs in a separate thread, the whole application which may have 10 or 20 modules starts running multithreaded. Note that the single-thread/multithread approach can be made configurable
b. Directed Acyclic Graph: Above-linked list implementation can be further improved when you have high processing power and want to reduce the lag between input and response time of pipeline. Such a case is when module C does not depend on B, but on A. In such case, any frame can be parallelly processed by module B and module C using a DAG based implementation. However, I wouldn’t recommend this as the benefits are not so great compared to the increased complexity, as further management of output from module B and C needs to be done by say module D where D depends on B or C or both. The number of scenarios increases.
Thus, for simplicity sake, let’s use LinkedList based design.
Pipeline
Create a linked list of PipelineElement.
Make process method of pipeline call process method of the first element.
PipelineElement
First, the PipelineElement processes the information by calling its ImageProcessor(read below). The PipelineElement will pass a Packet(of all data, read below) to ImageProcessor and receives the updated packet.
If next element is not null, call next PipelineElement process and pass updated packet.
If next element of a PipelineElement is null, stop. This element is special as it has an Observer object. Other PipelineElement will be set to null for Observer field.
FrameReader(VIdeoReader/ImageReader)
For video/image reader, create an abstract class. Whether you process video or image or multiple, processing is done one frame at a time, so create an abstract class(interface) ImageProcessor.
A FrameReader object stores reference to the pipeline.
For each frame, it pushes the information in by calling process method of Pipeline.
ImageProcessor
There is no Pre and Post ImageProcessor. For example, retinex processing is used as Post Processing but some application can use it as PreProcessing. Retinex processing class will implement ImageProcessor. Each element will hold Its ImageProcessor and Next PipeLineElement object.
Observer
A special class which extends PipelineElement and provides a meaningful output using GUI or disk.
Multithreading
1. Make each method run in its thread.
2. Each thread will poll messages from a BlockingQueue( of small size like 2-3 Frames) to act as a buffer between two PipelineElements. Note: The queue helps in averaging the speed of each module. Thus, small jitters(a module taking too long time for a frame) does not affect video output rate and provides smooth playback.
Packet
A packet will store all the information such as input or Configuration class object. This way you can store intermediate calculations as well as observe a real-time effect of changing configuration of an algorithm using a Configuration Manager.
To conclude, each element can now process in parallel. The first element will process nth frame, the second element will process n-1th frame, and soon, but with this, a lot more issues such as pipeline bottlenecks and additional delays due to less core power available to each element will pop up.
This structure lends itself to the pipes and filters architecture (see Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture Volume 1: A System of Patterns by Frank Buschmann):
The Pipes and Filters architectural pattern provides a structure for
systems that process a stream of data. Each processing step is
encapsulated in a filter component. Data is passed through pipes
between adjacent filters. Recombining filters allows you to build
families of related systems.
See also this short description (with images) from the Enterprise Integration Patterns book.
Question
Is there a way to programmatically set what FPGA variables I am reading from or writing to so that I can generalize my main simulation loop for every object that I want to run? The simulation loops for each object are identical except for which FPGA variables they read and write. Details follow.
Background
I have a code that uses LabVIEW OOP to define a bunch of things that I want to simulate. Each thing then has an update method that runs inside of a Timed Loop on an RT controller, takes a cluster of inputs, and returns a cluster of outputs. Some of these inputs come from an FPGA, and some of the outputs are passed back to the FPGA for some processing before being sent out to hardware.
My problem is that I have a separate simulation VI for every thing in my code, since different values are read from and returned to the FPGA for each thing. This is a pain for maintainability and seems to cry out for a better method. The problem is illustrated below. The important parts are the FPGA input and output nodes (change for every thing), and the input and output clusters for the update method (always the same).
Is there some way to define a generic main simulation VI and then programmatically (maybe with properties stored in my things) tell it which specific inputs and outputs to use from the FPGA?
If so then I think the obvious next step would be to make the main simulation loop a public method for my objects and just call that method for each object that I need to simulate.
Thanks!
The short answer is no. Unfortunately once you get down to the hardware level with LabVIEW FPGA things begin to get very static and rely on hard-coded IO access. This is typically handled exactly how you have presented your current approach. However, you may be able encapsulate the IO access with a bit of trickery here.
Consider this, define the IO nodes on your diagram as interfaces and abstract them away with a function (or VI or method, whichever term you prefer). You can implement this with either a dynamic VI call or an object oriented approach.
You know the data types defined by your interface are well known because you are pushing and pulling them from clusters that do not change.
By abstracting away the hardware IO with a method call you can then maintain a library of function calls that represent unique hardware access for every "thing" in your system. This will encapsulate changes to the hardware IO access within a piece of code dedicated to that job.
Using dynamic VI calls is ugly but you can use the properties of your "things" to dictate the path to the exact function you need to call for that thing's IO.
An object oriented approach might have you create a small class hierarchy with a root object that represents generic IO access (probably doing nothing) with children overriding a core method call for reading or writing. This call would take your FPGA reference in and spit out the variables every hardware call will return (or vice versa for a read). Under the hood it is taking care of deciding exactly which IO on the FPGA to access. Example below:
Keep in mind that this is nowhere near functional, I just wanted you to see what the diagram might look like. The approach will help you further generalize your main loop and allow you to embed it within a public call as you had suggested.
This looks like an [object mapping] problem which LabVIEW doesn't have great support for, but it can be done.
My code maps one cluster to another assuming the control types are the same using a 2 column array as a "lookup."
Assuming I have some kind of data structure to work on (for example images) which I want to pre- and postprocess in different ways to make further processing steps easier. What's the best way to implement this responsibility with an OOP language like C++?
Further assuming I have a lot of different processing algorithms with inherent complexity I very likely want to encapsulate them in dedicated classes. This means though that the algorithm implementations externally have to set some kind of info in my data to indicate it having been processed. And that also doesn't look like clean design to me because having been processed seems like an info associated with the data and thus something the data object itself should determine and set on its own.
It also looks like a very common source of error in complex applications: Someone implements another processing algorithm, forgets to set the flags in the data appropriately, something in completely different parts of the application won't work as expected and someone will have lots of fun spotting the error.
Can someone outline a general structure of a good and fail-save way to implement sth like this?
To make sure I understand what you are asking, here are my assumptions based on my reading of the question:
The data is some kind of binary format (presumably an image but as you say it could be anything) that can be represented as an array of bytes
There are a number of processing steps (I'll refer to them as transformations) that can be applied to the data
Some transformations depend on other such that, for example, you would like to avoid applying a transformation if its pre-requisite has not been applied. You would like it to be robust, so that attempting to apply an illegal transformation will be detected and prevented.
And the question is how to do this in an object-oriented way that avoids future bugs as the complexity of the program increases.
One way is to have the image data object, which encapsulates both the binary data and a record of the transformations that have been applied to it, be responsible for executing the transformation through a Transformation object delegate; and the Transformation objects implement both the processing algorithm and the knowledge of whether it can be applied based on previous transformations.
So you might define the following (excuse my Java-like naming style; it's been a long time since I've done C++):
An enumerated type called TransformationType
An abstract class called Transformer, with the following methods:
A method called 'getType' which returns a TransformationType
A method called 'canTransform' that accepts a list of TransformationType and returns a boolean. The list indicates transformations that have already been applied to the data, and the boolean indicates whether it is OK to execute this transformation.
A method called 'transform' that accepts an array of bytes and returns an array of (presumably modified) bytes
A class called BinaryData, containing a byte array and a list of TransformationType. This class implements the method 'void transform(Transformer t)' to do the following:
Query the transformer's 'canTransform' method, passing the list of transformation types; either throw an exception or return if canTransform returns false
Replace he byte array with the results of invoking t.transform(data)
Add the transfomer's type to the list
I think this accomplishes what you want - the image transformation algorithms are defined polymorphically in classes, but the actual application of the transformations is still 'controlled' by the data object. Hence we do not have to trust external code to do the right thing wrt setting / checking flags, etc.
Consider two problems:
We have a wrapper that detects if the wrapped object started a transaction, keeps the transaction number and makes it available to users of wrapper through a method. Can it be called a facade, assuming it simplifies interface of course?
There is a communication layer which provides high-level interface for low-level operations required to execute functions on attached device (these involves pushing bytes through socket and parsing the answers). Some of the answers contains a special "prompt number" which is required for some other queries. Communication layer detects answers which contains a prompt number and stores that number in a special holder which is available to caller. Could that be called a facade?
Overall those questions are related to a more general question:
Which design patterns allows to store or manage mutable or immutable state and/ or inspect the objects that are passed to wrapped objects or returned from them.
Take a look at the Observer Pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_pattern
The State pattern could be of use as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_pattern
and perhaps also Memento http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_pattern
depending on what you want to accomplish.
For the Observer look at boost signals and slots or at qt signals and slots for some neat implementation.