I have a Terminal and a TerminalFactory type. What I want to achieve is a factory pattern or at least an implementation that is similar to it in regards to some key aspects.
In particular, I want every Terminal to have specific properties (e.G. id) that are set by TerminalFactory. In GRASP terms, TerminalFactory is the Creator and the Information Expert because it knows next_id.
TerminalFactory is not a singleton, it is an instance that will be injected in a container that will be handed around where necessary (I'm trying to implement an application based on the composite pattern to achieve the OCP of SOLID).
It looks like everything is in line with the fact that Rust discourages static state unless it's unsafe code.
The problem now is that instances of Terminal have an id which should not be set by arbitrary code. Therefore, it's not pub. On the other hand, it can be gotten. So I added a public getter, like this:
pub struct Terminal {
id: u32, // private
pub name: String
}
impl Terminal {
pub fn get_id(self: &Self) -> u32 {
self.id
}
}
As far as I can tell, there is no friend keyword in rust, no static state I can keep in the Terminal type and TerminalFactory cannot set Terminal::id during creation because it's not public.
I have the impression I can't implement the factory pattern correctly. Maybe I shouldn't even try to transfer "classical patterns" to Rust? Then what about the SOLID principles which are absolutely necessary to manage change in medium-scale applications (say, 50+ types and beyond 10000 lines of code)?
By adding an associate function new(id : u32) to Terminal I completely defeat the purpose of the factory. So this won't make sense, either.
As all of this code will be in a library that is consumed by other Rust code, how can I protect the consumer code from creating broken instances?
Put both types in the same module:
mod terminal {
pub struct Terminal {
id: u32,
pub name: String
}
impl Terminal {
pub fn get_id(&self) -> u32 {
self.id
}
}
pub struct TerminalFactory {
next_id: u32,
}
impl TerminalFactory {
pub fn new() -> Self {
Self {
next_id: 0,
}
}
pub fn new_terminal(&mut self, name: &str) -> Terminal {
let next_id = self.next_id;
self.next_id += 1;
Terminal {
id: next_id,
name: name.to_owned(),
}
}
}
}
Then this is OK:
let mut tf = terminal::TerminalFactory::new();
let t0 = tf.new_terminal("foo");
let t1 = tf.new_terminal("bar");
println!("{} {}", t0.get_id(), t0.name);
println!("{} {}", t1.get_id(), t1.name);
But this is not:
println!("{} {}", t0.id, t0.name); // error: private field
See Visibility and privacy for other scenarios.
Related
#[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Debug)]
struct Product {
id: usize,
name: String,
timestamp: i128
}
I deserialize this struct value from a JSON value.
Now I want to expose another property on my struct:
dt: OffsetDateTime
I want this property to be immutable, and set only once. So I don't want to expose a function that like below b/c it would re-calculate each time I call it:
impl Product {
fn dt(&self) -> OffsetDateTime {
OffsetDateTime::from_unix_timestamp_nanos(self.timestamp)
}
}
In java world or other languages I would do something like this:
private dt: OffsetDateTime = null;
public OffsetDateTime getDt() {
if(dt == null) {
dt = OffsetDateTime::from_unix_timestamp_nanos(self.timestamp)
}
return dt;
}
Does Rust have a similar pattern I can use?
You have three options:
Initialize it when initializing the struct, by providing a constructor. This is by far the easiest solution, if initialization isn't expensive or access is common enough that initializing always is not a problem. This is not equivalent to your Java code, however.
Store an Option<OffsetDateTime> and use Option::get_or_insert_with() to initialize it on access. This is cheapier than the third option, but requires a &mut access:
pub fn dt(&mut self) -> &OffsetDateTime {
self.dt.get_or_insert_with(|| { /* Initialization logic */ })
}
Use a library such as once_cell (or the unstable versions in std) to initialize under & access. You can use either Sync or not, depending on whether you need multiple threads to access the data):
pub fn dt(&self) -> &OffsetDateTime {
self.dt.get_or_init(|| { /* Initialization logic */ })
}
You could use an Option to simulate the Java behavior.
struct P {
pub thing: Option<i32>
}
impl P {
pub fn calc_thing( mut self ) -> i32 {
if let None = self.thing {
self.thing = Some(5);
}
self.thing.unwrap()
}
}
fn main(){
let p = P{ thing: None };
println!( "{}", p.calc_thing() );
}
I would like to create a struct using the builder pattern which must be validated before construction, and I would like to minimize the construction overhead.
I've come up with a nice way to do that using std::mem::transmute, but I'm far from confident that this approach is really safe, or that it's the best approach.
Here's my code: (Rust Playground)
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct ValidStruct {
items: Vec<ValidStruct>
}
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct Builder {
pub items: Vec<Builder>
}
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct InvalidStructError {}
impl Builder {
pub fn new() -> Self {
Self { items: vec![] }
}
pub fn is_valid(&self) -> bool {
self.items.len() % 2 == 1
}
pub fn build(self) -> Result<ValidStruct, InvalidStructError> {
if !self.is_valid() {
return Err(InvalidStructError {});
}
unsafe {
Ok(std::mem::transmute::<Builder, ValidStruct>(self))
}
}
}
fn main() {
let mut builder = Builder::new();
builder.items.push(Builder::new());
let my_struct = builder.build().unwrap();
println!("{:?}", my_struct)
}
So, this seems to work. I think it should be safe because I know the two structs are identical. Am I missing anything? Could this actually cause problems somehow, or is there a cleaner/better approach available?
You can't normally transmute between different structures just because they seem to have the same fields in the same order, because the compiler might change that. You can avoid the risk by forcing the memory layout but you're then fighting the compiler and preventing optimizations. This approach isn't usually recommended and is, in my opinion, not needed here.
What you want is to have
a recursive data structure with public fields so that you can easily build it
an identical structure, built from the first one but with no public access and only built after validation of the first one
And you want to avoid useless copies for performance reasons.
What I suggest is to have a wrapper class. This makes sense because wrapping a struct in another one is totally costless in Rust.
You could thus have
/// This is the "Builder" struct
pub struct Data {
pub items: Vec<Data>,
}
pub struct ValidStruct {
data: Data, // no public access here
}
impl Data {
pub fn build(self) -> Result<ValidStruct, InvalidStructError> {
if !self.is_valid() {
return Err(InvalidStructError {});
}
Ok(Self{ data })
}
}
(alternatively, you could declare a struct Builder as a wrapper of Data too but with a public access to its field)
I've an Arc<Mutex<Thing>> field in a struct which is cloned many times. It is shared between concurrent threads. Drop::drop is called for each clone as it goes out of scope. Is there any way to determine when Drop::drop is called for the last (unique) Arc<Mutex<Thing>>?
It's clear that strong_count is subject to data races (I've seen them). So, you can't count on Arc::strong_count() == 1 (no pun intended).
I found that I couldn't use Arc::try_unwrap() due to a move issue.
Arc::is_unique() is private.
Other than keeping a Arc<AtomicUsize> field, which is incremented on clone and decremented on drop, is there any way to determine if a drop is for a unique Arc<Mutex<Thing>>?
Here's an MRE:
use std::sync::{Arc};
#[derive(Debug)]
enum Action {
One, Two, Three
}
// Thing trait which operates on an Action, which should be a enum, allowing for
// different action sets.
trait Thing<T> {
fn disconnected(&self);
fn action(&self, action: T);
}
// There are many instances of an ActionController.
// There may be zero or more clones of an instance.
// The final drop of the instances should call thing.disconnected()
// In a multi-core environment, the same instance may be running on multiple cores
// ActionController should not be generic.
#[derive(Clone)]
struct ActionController {
id: usize,
thing: Arc<dyn Thing<Action>>,
}
impl ActionController {
fn new(id: usize, thing: Box<dyn Thing<Action>>) -> Self {
Self { id, thing: Arc::from(thing) }
}
fn invoke(&self, action: Action) {
self.thing.action(action);
}
}
//
// To work around the drop issue, I've implemented Clone for ActionController which
// performs a fetch_add(1) on clone and a fetch_sub(1) on drop. This provides
// suficient information to call disconnected() -- but it just seems like there's
// got to be a better way.
impl Drop for ActionController {
fn drop(&mut self) {
// drop will be called for each clone of an Controller instance. When
// the unique instance is dropped, disconnected() must be called
self.thing.disconnected();
}
}
struct Controlled {}
impl Thing<Action> for Controlled {
fn disconnected(&self) { println!("disconnected")}
fn action(&self, action: Action) {println!("action: {:#?}", action)}
}
fn bad() {
let controlled = Controlled{};
let controlled = Box::new(controlled) as Box<dyn Thing<Action>>;
let controller = ActionController::new(1, controlled);
let clone = controller.clone();
controller.invoke(Action::One);
clone.invoke(Action::Two);
drop (controller);
clone.invoke(Action::Three);
}
fn main() {
bad();
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn incorrect() {
bad();
}
}
Arc::try_unwrap is probably the intended way to do this - is it possible to restructure your code to avoid the move issues you were running into?
Why do you want to know? If you have some extra cleanup code that needs to be executed before the Mutex<Thing> is dropped, maybe you could use an Arc<MyLockedThing> instead, where MyLockedThing is a struct containing a Mutex<Thing> that impls Drop to do the cleanup?
It seems like you want to be notified when the data inside the Arc is to be dropped. If so, this can be done by implementing Drop on the type "inside" the Arc.
Define a newtype:
struct ThingAction(Box<dyn Thing<Action>>);
impl Thing<Action> for ThingAction {
fn disconnected(&self) {
self.0.disconnected()
}
fn action(&self, action: Action) {
self.0.action(action)
}
}
And implement Drop:
impl Drop for ThingAction {
fn drop(&mut self) {
self.disconnected()
}
}
Then use the newtype:
#[derive(Clone)]
struct ActionController {
id: usize,
thing: Arc<ThingAction>,
}
impl ActionController {
fn new(id: usize, thing: Box<dyn Thing<Action>>) -> Self {
Self { id, thing: Arc::new(ThingAction(thing)) }
}
I don't think there's any perfect way to do this without stdlib support (go checkout out Arc::drop).
Weak::strong_count or Weak::upgrade is less subject to races so if you downgrade your Arc then drop it, if the weakref's strong count is 0 or trying to upgrade it fails you know the Arc is dead, but there is no guarantee the current thread killed it, two might have concurrently dropped the Arc at the same time before either had the time to check for the weakref's strong count.
I think the only bulletproof way would be to get notified by a Drop stored inside the Arc, that you're guaranteed is only called once.
I'm working with a library that uses Rust types to keep track of state. As a simplified example, say you have two structs:
struct FirstStruct {}
struct SecondStruct {}
impl FirstStruct {
pub fn new() -> FirstStruct {
FirstStruct {}
}
pub fn second(self) -> SecondStruct {
SecondStruct {}
}
// configuration methods defined in this struct
}
impl SecondStruct {
pub fn print_something(&self) {
println!("something");
}
pub fn first(self) -> FirstStruct {
FirstStruct {}
}
}
And to actually use these structs you usually follow a pattern like so, after printing you may stay in second state or go back to first state depending on how you're using the library:
fn main() {
let first = FirstStruct::new();
let second = first.second(); // consumes first
second.print_something();
// go back to default state
let _first = second.first();
}
I want to create my own struct that handles the state changes internally and simplifies the interface. This also lets me have a single mutable reference around that I can pass to other functions and call the print method. Using it should look something like this:
fn main() {
let mut combined = CombinedStruct::new(FirstStruct::new());
combined.print();
}
I've come up with the following solution that works, at least in this simplified example:
enum StructState {
First(FirstStruct),
Second(SecondStruct),
}
struct CombinedStruct {
state: Option<StructState>,
}
impl CombinedStruct {
pub fn new(first: FirstStruct) -> CombinedStruct {
CombinedStruct {
state: Some(StructState::First(first)),
}
}
pub fn print(&mut self) {
let s = match self.state.take() {
Some(s) => match s {
StructState::First(first) => first.second(),
StructState::Second(second) => second,
},
None => panic!(),
};
s.print_something();
// If I forget to do this, then I lose access to my struct
// and next call will panic
self.state = Some(StructState::First(s.first()));
}
}
I'm still pretty new to Rust but this doesn't look right to me. I'm not sure if there's a concept I'm missing that could simplify this or if this solution could lead to ownership problems as my application gets more complicated. Is there a better way to do this?
Playground link
I once had a similar problem and went basically with your solution, but I avoided the Option.
I.e. I basically kept your
enum StructState {
First(FirstStruct),
Second(SecondStruct),
}
If an operation tries to convert a FirstStruct to a SecondStruct, I introduced a function try_to_second roughly as follows:
impl StructState {
fn try_to_second(self) -> Result<SecondState, StructState> {
/// implementation
}
}
In this case, an Err indicates that the StructState has not been converted to SecondStruct and preserves the status quo, while an Ok value indicates successfull conversion.
As an alternative, you could try to define try_to_second on FirstStruct:
impl FirstStruct {
fn try_to_second(self) -> Result<FirstStruct, SecondStruct> {
/// implementation
}
}
Again, Err/Ok denote failure/success, but in this case, you have more concrete information encoded in the type.
I'm coming from mostly OOP languages, so getting this concept to work in Rust kinda seems hard. I want to implement a basic counter that keeps count of how many "instances" I've made of that type, and keep them in a vector for later use.
I've tried many different things, first was making a static vector variable, but that cant be done due to it not allowing static stuff that have destructors.
This was my first try:
struct Entity {
name: String,
}
struct EntityCounter {
count: i64,
}
impl Entity {
pub fn init() {
let counter = EntityCounter { count: 0 };
}
pub fn new(name: String) {
println!("Entity named {} was made.", name);
counter += 1; // counter variable unaccessable (is there a way to make it global to the struct (?..idek))
}
}
fn main() {
Entity::init();
Entity::new("Hello".to_string());
}
Second:
struct Entity {
name: String,
counter: i32,
}
impl Entity {
pub fn new(self) {
println!("Entity named {} was made.", self.name);
self.counter = self.counter + 1;
}
}
fn main() {
Entity::new(Entity { name: "Test".to_string() });
}
None of those work, I was just trying out some concepts on how I could be able to implement such a feature.
Your problems appear to be somewhat more fundamental than what you describe. You're kind of throwing code at the wall to see what sticks, and that's simply not going to get you anywhere. I'd recommend reading the Rust Book completely before continuing. If you don't understand something in it, ask about it. As it stands, you're demonstrating you don't understand variable scoping, return types, how instance construction works, how statics work, and how parameters are passed. That's a really shaky base to try and build any understanding on.
In this particular case, you're asking for something that's deliberately not straightforward. You say you want a counter and a vector of instances. The counter is simple enough, but a vector of instances? Rust doesn't allow easy sharing like other languages, so how you go about doing that depends heavily on what it is you're actually intending to use this for.
What follows is a very rough guess at something that's maybe vaguely similar to what you want.
/*!
Because we need the `lazy_static` crate, you need to add the following to your
`Cargo.toml` file:
```cargo
[dependencies]
lazy_static = "0.2.1"
```
*/
#[macro_use] extern crate lazy_static;
mod entity {
use std::sync::{Arc, Weak, Mutex};
use std::sync::atomic;
pub struct Entity {
pub name: String,
}
impl Entity {
pub fn new(name: String) -> Arc<Self> {
println!("Entity named {} was made.", name);
let ent = Arc::new(Entity {
name: name,
});
bump_counter();
remember_instance(ent.clone());
ent
}
}
/*
The counter is simple enough, though I'm not clear on *why* you even want
it in the first place. You don't appear to be using it for anything...
*/
static COUNTER: atomic::AtomicUsize = atomic::ATOMIC_USIZE_INIT;
fn bump_counter() {
// Add one using the most conservative ordering.
COUNTER.fetch_add(1, atomic::Ordering::SeqCst);
}
pub fn get_counter() -> usize {
COUNTER.load(atomic::Ordering::SeqCst)
}
/*
There are *multiple* ways of doing this part, and you simply haven't given
enough information on what it is you're trying to do. This is, at best,
a *very* rough guess.
`Mutex` lets us safely mutate the vector from any thread, and `Weak`
prevents `INSTANCES` from keeping every instance alive *forever*. I mean,
maybe you *want* that, but you didn't specify.
Note that I haven't written a "cleanup" function here to remove dead weak
references.
*/
lazy_static! {
static ref INSTANCES: Mutex<Vec<Weak<Entity>>> = Mutex::new(vec![]);
}
fn remember_instance(entity: Arc<Entity>) {
// Downgrade to a weak reference. Type constraint is just for clarity.
let entity: Weak<Entity> = Arc::downgrade(&entity);
INSTANCES
// Lock mutex
.lock().expect("INSTANCES mutex was poisoned")
// Push entity
.push(entity);
}
pub fn get_instances() -> Vec<Arc<Entity>> {
/*
This is about as inefficient as I could write this, but again, without
knowing your access patterns, I can't really do any better.
*/
INSTANCES
// Lock mutex
.lock().expect("INSTANCES mutex was poisoned")
// Get a borrowing iterator from the Vec.
.iter()
/*
Convert each `&Weak<Entity>` into a fresh `Arc<Entity>`. If we
couldn't (because the weak ref is dead), just drop that element.
*/
.filter_map(|weak_entity| weak_entity.upgrade())
// Collect into a new `Vec`.
.collect()
}
}
fn main() {
use entity::Entity;
let e0 = Entity::new("Entity 0".to_string());
println!("e0: {}", e0.name);
{
let e1 = Entity::new("Entity 1".to_string());
println!("e1: {}", e1.name);
/*
`e1` is dropped here, which should cause the underlying `Entity` to
stop existing, since there are no other "strong" references to it.
*/
}
let e2 = Entity::new("Entity 2".to_string());
println!("e2: {}", e2.name);
println!("Counter: {}", entity::get_counter());
println!("Instances:");
for ent in entity::get_instances() {
println!("- {}", ent.name);
}
}