I am trying inject into a dll that sends a void ** for one of the parameters.
The void ** can contain structs that are created in the application.
Is there any way of getting data out of the structs.
If I understand you correcly you want to create a function in a DLL that accepts a void** and then be able to figure out what structs the caller has passed through the void** parameter.
In that case the answer is that no, you cannot do that. The function accepting the void** needs to know what is inside it. There is no such thing as reflection in pure C++ that can handle that situation.
Related
I'm new in building corba application. Presently I'm developping a corba application in java. The problem I have is that I should write a method that receive the name of the class, the method and the arguments to pass to the corba server as a string.
Before invoking the remote method, I have to parse the string and obtain all the necessary information (class, method, arguments)
There is no problem here. But now concerning the arguments i do not now in advance the type of the arguments, so I should be able to convert an argument by getting its type and insert it into a Any bject to be sent, is it possible?
If Know in advance the type such as seq.insert_string("bum") it works but I want to do it dynamically.
Use the DynAny interfaces, if your ORB supports them. They can do exactly what you want. From CORBA Explained Simply:
If an application wants to manipulate data embedded inside an any
without being compiled with the relevant stub code then the
application must convert the any into a DynAny. There are sub-types
of DynAny for each IDL construct. For example, there are types called
DynStruct, DynUnion, DynSequence and so on.
The operations on the DynAny interfaces allow a programmer to
recursively drill down into a compound data-structure that is
contained within the DynAny and, in so doing, decompose the compound
type into its individual components that are built-in types.
Operations on the DynAny interface can also be used to recursively
build up a compound data-structure from built-in types.
I have added a class to my program and tested it. I was really surprised that there was any real errors. Here is the code:
#pragma once
#include "Iingredient.h"
#include <string>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
ref class Recipe{
private:
string partsName;
vector<Iingredient> ing;
public:
Recipe(){}
};
And here are the errors:
Error 23 error C4368: cannot define 'partsName' as a member of managed
'Recipe': mixed types are not
supported c:\users\user\documents\visual studio
2010\projects\smestras2_l1\Recipe.h 10 1 file2_L1
Error 24 error C4368: cannot define 'ing' as a member of managed
'Recipe': mixed types are not
supported c:\users\user\documents\visual studio
2010\projects\smestras2_l1\Recipe.h 11 1 file2_L1
I googled a bit and found out that its about managed and unmanaged code.
How to fix this? Is it related with manged and unmanaged code or not? if so how?
I agree with others: you shouldn't use C++/CLI in most circumstances, you should use C# (or another "normal" managed language) for that (assuming you want to write a .Net application). C++/CLI is useful mostly in special circumstances, like interoperating between managed and unmanaged code.
If you're sure you want use C++/CLI, you can't put native classes into managed ones. But you can put pointers to native classes there:
ref class Recipe{
private:
string* partsName;
vector<Iingredient>* ing;
};
The code above works. But you have to keep in mind that those are normal native C++ pointers and that means you have to manually delete them. To do that property, you should read about how destructors and finalizers work in C++/CLI.
When defining ref class Recipe, you made it managed. But std::string and std::vector are umanaged types. You are trying to declare native variables in managed class, but it is not allowed.
Seems, you are novice in C++. Just, don't use C++/CLI. Consider C#, if you target .Net or unmanaged C++.
You cannot use unmanaged types in a managed class, ref keyword, because the heap and the managed heap are two different types of memory. To solve this specific problem you can use a managed string type (System::String^). The carrot tells the compiler that the type is a handle to a managed class.
Another way of going about this problem is to use pointers, that way the pointer will be on the managed heap, and the actual memory for that object will be in the standard unmanaged heap, which is where Recipe is located.
To construct your Recipe class you would have to do
Recipe^ recipe = gcnew Recipe();
With no idea of c++-cli, I can try and guess that the problem is that you are defining a reference type and trying to use C++ types inside (a std::string field) rather than whatever the equivalent managed type is (String?).
The reason why this can be problematic is that it mixes resource management approaches. Reference types are intended to be used out of a garbage collector, and unless you implement a destructor or IDisposable will just be ignored once proven that the last reference is lost. On the other hand, to be able to manage the memory in the internal field the std::string destructor must be called.
Is WCHAR in COM interfaces a good thing ?
I've been searching the internet for an answer to this question with no results.
Basically should char* / wchar* be used in COM or should i use BSTR instead ?
Is it safe or does it depend ?
In this code example its strings (code grabbed from a random source):
STDMETHOD(SetAudioLanguageOrder(WCHAR *nValue)) = 0;
STDMETHOD_(WCHAR *, GetAudioLanguageOrder()) = 0;
I'm confused over when to use what with all marshaling, memory boundaries, etc. that comes up when talking about COM.
What about data buffers (byte*) ?
It depends on the context in which the caller will call you. First, if you use a non-automation type, marshaling will not be automatically performed for you. Therefore, you'll end up having to write your own marshaler to move a wchar_t* across process boundaries.
That said, there's no rule that says you can't pass a wchar_t* in a COM interface. There are many COM interfaces that pass custom types (structs, pointers to structs, callbacks, etc), and it's all just about your needs.
In your interface, if you do use WCHAR strings, I'd declare SetAudioLanguageOrder this way:
STDMETHOD(SetAudioLanguageOrder(const WCHAR *nValue)) = 0;
This makes it clearer who is (not) supposed to free the string, and provides more context as how to treat the string (the caller is discouraged from modifying the string, though the caller can certainly force that behavior if they want to write bad code).
The GetAudioLanguageOrder call is OK, but now the question is: who frees the returned string, and how should it be freed? Via free(...)? Or C++ delete[]? If you use a BSTR, then you know - use SysFreeString. That's part of the reason to use BSTR's instead of WCHAR strings.
If you are going to support dual interfaces and clients other than C++, use BSTR. If all callers are C++, then WCHAR* is fine.
You will have to be able to know the length of that array in one way or another. In C or C++ it's typical to use null-terminated strings and you often use them within one process - the callee accesses the very same data as the caller prepared and null-terminated.
Not the same with COM - you might want to create an out-proc server or use your in-proc server in a surrogate process and then you'll need marshalling - a middleware mechanism that transmits that data between processes or threads - to work. That mechanism will not know about the size of the string unless you one of MIDL attributes such as size_is to specify the right array size. Using those attributes will require an extra parameter for each array - that complicates the interface and requires extra care while dealing with data.
That said, in most cases you get a more fluent interface by just using BSTRs.
Is there a recommended way to wrap a native c++ library by c++ cli?
Not sure if one size fits all, but yeah, it is largely a mechanical process. Your ref class wrapper should declare a private member that's a pointer to your native C++ class. Create the instance in the constructor. You'll need a destructor and a finalizer to delete that instance again.
Then for each function in the native C++ class you write a managed version of it. That's almost always a one-to-one call, you simply call the corresponding native method and let C++ Interop convert the arguments. Sometimes you have to write a bit of glue code to convert a managed argument to the native version of it, particularly if your native method uses 8-bit char* or structure arguments.
You'll find that standard pattern in code in my answer here. I also should mention SWIG, a tool that can automate it. Not sure how good it is, never used it myself.
I'm reading about constructors,
When an object is instantiated for a class, c'tors (if explicitly written or a default one) are the starting points for execution. My doubts are
is a c'tor more like the main() in
C
Yes i understand the point that you
can set all the default values using
c'tor. I can also emulate the behavior
by writing a custom method. Then why a c'tor?
Example:
//The code below is written in C#.
public class Manipulate
{
public static int Main(string[] args) {
Provide provide = new Provide();
provide.Number(8);
provide.Square();
Console.ReadKey();
return 0;
}
}
public class Provide {
uint num;
public void Number(uint number)
{
num = number;
}
public void Square()
{
num *= num;
Console.WriteLine("{0}", num);
}
}
Am learning to program independently, so I'm depending on programming communities, can you also suggest me a good OOP's resource to get a better understanding. If am off topic please excuse me.
Head First OOA&D will be a good start.
Dont you feel calling a function for setting each and every member variable of your class is a bit overhead.
With a constructor you can initialize all your member variables at one go. Isnt this reason enough for you to have constructors.
Constructor and Destructor functionality may be emulated using regular methods. However, what makes those two type of methods unique is that the language treats them in a special way.
They are automatically called when an object is created or destroyed. This presents a uniform means to handle the most delicate operations that must take place during those two critical periods of an object's lifetime. It takes out the possibility of an end user of a class forgetting to call those at the appropriate times.
Furthermore, advanced OO features such as inheritance require that uniformity to even work.
First of all, most answers will depend at least a bit on the language you're using. Reasons that make great sense in one language don't necessarily have direct analogs in other languages. Just for example, in C++ there are quite a few situations where temporary objects are created automatically. The ctor is invoked as part of that process, but for most practical purposes it's impossible to explicitly invoke other member functions in the process. That doesn't necessarily apply to other OO languages though -- some won't create temporary objects implicitly at all.
Generally you should do all your initialization in the constructor. The constructor is the first thing called when an instance of your class is created, so you should setup any defaults here.
I think a good way to learn is comparing OOP between languages, it's like seeing the same picture from diferent angles.
Googling a while:
java (I prefer this, it's simple and full)- http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/concepts/
python - http://www.devshed.com/c/a/Python/Object-Oriented-Programming-With-Python-part-1/
c# - http://cplus.about.com/od/learnc/ss/csharpclasses.htm
Why constructors?
The main diference between a simple function (that also could have functions inside) and an Object, is the way that an Object can be hosted inside a "variable", with all it functions inside, and that also can react completly diferent to an other "variable" with the same kind of "object" inside. The way to make them have the same structure with diferent behaviours depends on the arguments you gave to the class.
So here's a lazy example:
car() is now a class.
c1 = car()
c2 = car()
¿c1 is exactly c2? Yes.
c1 = car(volkswagen)
c2 = car(lamborghini)
C1 has the same functionalities than C2, but they are completly diferent kinds of car()
Variables volkswagen and lamborghini were passed directly to the constructor.
Why a -constructor-? why not any other function? The answer is: order.
That's my best shot, man, for this late hours. I hope i've helped somehow.
You can't emulate the constructor in a custom method as the custom method is not called when the object is created. Only the constructor is called. Well, of course you can then call your custom method after you create the object, but this is not convention and other people using your object will not know to do this.
A constructor is just a convention that is agreed upon as a way to setup your object once it is created.
One of the reasons we need constructor is 'encapsulation',the code do something initialization must invisible
You also can't force the passing of variables without using a constructor. If you only want to instantiate an object if you have say an int to pass to it, you can set the default constructor as private, and make your constructor take an int. This way, it's impossible to create an object of that class without having it take an int.
Sub-objects will be initialized in the constructor. In languages like C++, where sub-objects exist within the containing object (instead of as separate objects connected via pointers or handles), the constructor is your only chance to pass parameters to sub-object constructors. Even in Java and C#, any base class is directly contained, so parameters to its constructor must be provided by your constructor.
Lastly, any constant (or in C#, readonly) member variables can only be set from the constructor. Even helper functions called from the constructor are unable to change them.