Consider the following class:
public ref class Workspace
{
protected:
Form^ WorkspaceUI;
SplitContainer^ WorkspaceSplitter;
AvalonEditTextEditor^ TextEditor;
ScriptOffsetViewer^ OffsetViewer;
SimpleTextViewer^ PreprocessedTextViewer;
ListView^ MessageList;
ListView^ FindList;
ListView^ BookmarkList;
ListView^ VariableIndexList;
TextBox^ VariableIndexEditBox;
Label^ SpoilerText;
ToolStrip^ WorkspaceMainToolBar;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarNewScript;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarOpenScript;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarPreviousScript;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarNextScript;
ToolStripSplitButton^ ToolBarSaveScript;
ToolStripDropDown^ ToolBarSaveScriptDropDown;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarSaveScriptNoCompile;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarSaveScriptAndPlugin;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarRecompileScripts;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarCompileDependencies;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarDeleteScript;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarNavigationBack;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarNavigationForward;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarSaveAll;
ToolStripButton^ ToolBarOptions;
ArbitraryCustomClass^ CustomClassInstance;
public:
Workspace()
{
WorkspaceUI = gcnew Form();
WorkspaceSplitter = gcnew SplitContainer();
// ...
Form->Controls->Add(WorkspaceSplitter);
// ...
WorkspaceUI->Show();
}
~Workspace
{
// dispose stuff here
}
};
What would be the most efficient and elegant way to dispose an instance of the above class so that all of its memory is reclaimed by the GC during its next collection? Do I need to call delete explicitly on each member and/or reset them to nullptr?
NB. You may not need to do anything. Memory for objects is reclaimed by the GC when references no longer exist that point to it.
You only need to explicitly reclaim when an object implements IDisposable. In C++/CLI this maps to destructors.
So if none of the objects you're allocating need to be disposed, you can ignore the rest of this answer. But supposing they do...
Remove the ^ from each field and they will be reclaimed automatically.
It would also mean that they would be default-constructed automatically when the Workspace is constructed, which may save you a lot of gcnew stuff in your hand-written constructor.
That is, if you say:
Form WorkspaceUI;
Then you don't need to say:
WorkspaceUI = gcnew Form();
The compiler has already generated that for you - imagine it being inserted at the start of your constructor.
Nor do you need to dispose/delete anything.
Finally, you need to use . instead of -> to access members of the objects that you declare in this way:
Form.Controls->Add(WorkspaceSplitter);
Update:
In C++/CLI, handles to ref classes are declared with ^, and this is analogous to the way pointers to native classes are declared with *.
Also correspondingly, there needs to be a way to get a handle to an object. To get a pointer to a native object, we prefix with &. To get a handle to a ref object, we prefix with %. For example:
ref class Fred { };
// function that accepts a handle
void ping(Fred ^h) { }
// Elsewhere... declare object of type Fred
Fred f;
// Get handle to pass to function
ping(%f);
If repeatedly creating and deleting objects of your class leads to out-of-memory there are two possibilities:
You are inadvertently holding references to it (or something it allocates). See my answer to this question: Memory Leaks in C# WPF (it doesn't have anything specific to do with C# or WPF really, it's just a matter of using the debugger interactively)
You need to call Dispose on one or more of the objects you allocate inside your class.
If it's the latter, in C++/CLI there is built-in support for calling Dispose automatically - C++/CLI treats a disposable object as if it was a C++ ref class with a destructor.
So if you delete a handle, you're calling Dispose on the object it points to.
Or if (as I suggest above) you simply have member objects, you don't even need to explicitly delete. When the outer containing class is destructed (i.e. something calls its Dispose method), it will automatically call Dispose on any member objects that require it.
Related
I am having problems to decorate the final class "DocumentGenerator" (in vendor/shopware/core/Checkout/Document/Service/DocumentGenerator.php) and overwrite the "generate" function inside of it.
I tried to decorate it the usual way, but an error is thrown because the "DocumentController" class excepts the original class and not my decorated one?
Argument 2 passed to Shopware\Core\Checkout\Document\DocumentGeneratorController::__construct() must be an instance of Shopware\Core\Checkout\Document\Service\DocumentGenerator
Its also not possible to extend from the class in my decorated class, because the "DocumentGenerator" is a final class.
My goal is to execute additional code, after an order document is generated. Previously I successfully used to decorate the "DocumentService" Class, but its marked as deprecated and shouldnt be used anymore. Also the "DocumentGenerator" class is used for the new "bulkedit" function for documents as of Version 6.4.14.0
I'm grateful for every tip.
As #j_elfering already wrote it's by design that you should not extend that class and therefore also shouldn't decorate it.
To offer a potential alternative:
Depending on what you want to do after a document has been generated it might be enough to add a subscriber to listen to document.written, check if it was a new document created and then work with the data from the payload for fetching/persisting data depending on that.
public static function getSubscribedEvents()
{
return [
'document.written' => 'onDocumentWritten',
];
}
public function onDocumentWritten(EntityWrittenEvent $event): void
{
foreach ($event->getWriteResults() as $result) {
if ($result->getOperation() !== EntityWriteResult::OPERATION_INSERT) {
// skip if the it's not a new document created
continue;
}
$payload = $result->getPayload();
// do something with the payload
}
}
Probably not what you want to hear but: The service is final in purpose as it is not intended to be decorated.
So the simple answer is you can't. Depending on your use case there may be other ways that don't rely on decoration.
Consider an operation with a standard asynchronous interface:
std::future<void> op();
Internally, op needs to perform a (variable) number of asynchronous operations to complete; the number of these operations is finite but unbounded, and depends on the results of the previous asynchronous operations.
Here's a (bad) attempt:
/* An object of this class will store the shared execution state in the members;
* the asynchronous op is its member. */
class shared
{
private:
// shared state
private:
// Actually does some operation (asynchronously).
void do_op()
{
...
// Might need to launch more ops.
if(...)
launch_next_ops();
}
public:
// Launches next ops
void launch_next_ops()
{
...
std::async(&shared::do_op, this);
}
}
std::future<void> op()
{
shared s;
s.launch_next_ops();
// Return some future of s used for the entire operation.
...
// s destructed - delayed BOOM!
};
The problem, of course, is that s goes out of scope, so later methods will not work.
To amend this, here are the changes:
class shared : public std::enable_shared_from_this<shared>
{
private:
/* The member now takes a shared pointer to itself; hopefully
* this will keep it alive. */
void do_op(std::shared_ptr<shared> p); // [*]
void launch_next_ops()
{
...
std::async(&shared::do_op, this, shared_from_this());
}
}
std::future<void> op()
{
std::shared_ptr<shared> s{new shared{}};
s->launch_next_ops();
...
};
(Asides from the weirdness of an object calling its method with a shared pointer to itself, )the problem is with the line marked [*]. The compiler (correctly) warns that it's an unused variable.
Of course, it's possible to fool it somehow, but is this an indication of a fundamental problem? Is there any chance the compiler will optimize away the argument and leave the method with a dead object? Is there a better alternative to this entire scheme? I don't find the resulting code the most intuitive.
No, the compiler will not optimize away the argument. Indeed, that's irrelevant as the lifetime extension comes from shared_from_this() being bound by decay-copy ([thread.decaycopy]) into the result of the call to std::async ([futures.async]/3).
If you want to avoid the warning of an unused argument, just leave it unnamed; compilers that warn on unused arguments will not warn on unused unnamed arguments.
An alternative is to make do_op static, meaning that you have to use its shared_ptr argument; this also addresses the duplication between this and shared_from_this. Since this is fairly cumbersome, you might want to use a lambda to convert shared_from_this to a this pointer:
std::async([](std::shared_ptr<shared> const& self){ self->do_op(); }, shared_from_this());
If you can use C++14 init-captures this becomes even simpler:
std::async([self = shared_from_this()]{ self->do_op(); });
I used the below to see how dart calls methods passed in to other methods to see what context the passed in method would/can be called under.
void main() {
var one = new IDable(1);
var two = new IDable(2);
print('one ${caller(one.getMyId)}'); //one 1
print('two ${caller(two.getMyId)}'); //two 2
print('one ${callerJustForThree(one.getMyId)}'); //NoSuchMethod Exception
}
class IDable{
int id;
IDable(this.id);
int getMyId(){
return id;
}
}
caller(fn){
return fn();
}
callerJustForThree(fn){
var three = new IDable(3);
three.fn();
}
So how does caller manager to call its argument fn without a context i.e. one.fn(), and why does callerJustForThree fail to call a passed in fn on an object which has that function defined for it?
In Dart there is a difference between an instance-method, declared as part of a class, and other functions (like closures and static functions).
Instance methods are the only ones (except for constructors) that can access this. Conceptually they are part of the class description and not the object. That is, when you do a method call o.foo() Dart first extracts the class-type of o. Then it searches for foo in the class description (recursively going through the super classes, if necessary). Finally it applies the found method with this set to o.
In addition to being able to invoke methods on objects (o.foo()) it is also possible to get a bound closure: o.foo (without the parenthesis for the invocation). However, and this is crucial, this form is just syntactic sugar for (<args>) => o.foo(<args>). That is, this just creates a fresh closure that captures o and redirects calls to it to the instance method.
This whole setup has several important consequences:
You can tear off instance methods and get a bound closure. The result of o.foo is automatically bound to o. No need to bind it yourself (but also no way to bind it to a different instance). This is way, in your example, one.getMyId works. You are actually getting the following closure: () => one.getMyId() instead.
It is not possible to add or remove methods to objects. You would need to change the class description and this is something that is (intentionally) not supported.
var f = o.foo; implies that you get a fresh closure all the time. This means that you cannot use this bound closure as a key in a hashtable. For example, register(o.foo) followed by unregister(o.foo) will most likely not work, because each o.foo will be different. You can easily see this by trying print(o.foo == o.foo).
You cannot transfer methods from one object to another. However you try to access instance methods, they will always be bound.
Looking at your examples:
print('one ${caller(one.getMyId)}'); //one 1
print('two ${caller(two.getMyId)}'); //two 2
print('one ${callerJustForThree(one.getMyId)}'); //NoSuchMethod Exception
These lines are equivalent to:
print('one ${caller(() => one.getMyId())}');
print('two ${caller(() => two.getMyId())}');
print('one ${callerJustForThree(() => one.getMyId())}';
Inside callerJustForThree:
callerJustForThree(fn){
var three = new IDable(3);
three.fn();
}
The given argument fn is completely ignored. When doing three.fn() in the last line Dart will find the class description of three (which is IDable) and then search for fn in it. Since it doesn't find one it will call the noSuchMethod fallback. The fn argument is ignored.
If you want to call an instance member depending on some argument you could rewrite the last example as follows:
main() {
...
callerJustForThree((o) => o.getMyId());
}
callerJustForThree(invokeIDableMember){
var three = new IDable(3);
invokeIDableMember(three);
}
I'll try to explain, which is not necessarily a strength of mine. If something I wrote isn't understandable, feel free to give me a shout.
Think of methods as normal objects, like every other variable, too.
When you call caller(one.getMyId), you aren't really passing a reference to the method of the class definition - you pass the method "object" specific for instance one.
In callerJustForThree, you pass the same method "object" of instance one. But you don't call it. Instead of calling the object fn in the scope if your method, you are calling the object fn of the instance three, which doesn't exist, because you didn't define it in the class.
Consider this code, using normal variables:
void main() {
var one = new IDable(1);
var two = new IDable(2);
caller(one.id);
caller(two.id);
callerJustForThree(one.id);
}
class IDable{
int id;
IDable(this.id);
}
caller(param){
print(param);
}
callerJustForThree(param){
var three = new IDable(3);
print(three.id); // This works
print(param); // This works, too
print(three.param); // But why should this work?
}
It's exactly the same concept. Think of your callbacks as normal variables, and everything makes sense. At least I hope so, if I explained it good enough.
i have a structure defined, which contains a public field and a public property named _one and One respectively, now i instantiate the struct in the main function (not creating new object), and called the Property from the struct, i am getting the compile time error saying use of unassigned local variable One, however when i called the field _one, it works pretty expected here what i am doing:
public struct myStruct
{
public int _one;
public int One
{
get { return _one; }
set { _one = value; }
}
public void Display()
{
Console.WriteLine(One);
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
myStruct _struct;
_struct.One = 2; // Does not works
_struct._one = 2; // Works fine
}
can anyone explain whats the reason behind this, could not understand the concept.
You need to initialize the struct in order for the property to be accessible - _struct has a default value otherwise:
myStruct _struct = new myStruct();
By the way - mutable value types are evil.
This is unintuitive behavior, but it is permitted by the rules of Definite assignment checking. Described in excruciating detail in section 5.3 of the C# Language Specification. The key phrase, early in the chapter is:
In additional to the rules above, the following rules apply to struct-type variables and their instance variables:
- An instance variable is considered definitely assigned if its containing struct-type variable is considered definitely assigned.
- A struct-type variable is considered definitely assigned if each of its instance variables is considered definitely assigned.
It is the latter rule that permits this. In other words, you can also initialize a struct by assigning all of its variables. You can see this by trying these snippets:
myStruct _struct = new myStruct();
_struct.Display(); // fine by the 1st bullet
myStruct _struct;
_struct.Display(); // bad
myStruct _struct;
_struct._one = 2;
_struct.Display(); // fine by the 2nd bullet
So you don't get CS0165 by assigning the field because that would disallow initializing the structure by assigning its variables.
The reasons which would favor using read-write properties instead of exposed fields in class definitions do not apply to structures, since they can support neither inheritance nor update notifications, and the mutability of a struct's field depends upon the mutability of the struct instance, regardless of whether the field is exposed or not. If a struct is supposed to represent a group of related but freely-independently-modifiable variables, it should simply expose those variables as fields. If a property with a backing field is supposed to be read-only, the constructor should set the backing field directly, rather than via property setter.
I am just trying to compile a bit bigger project using the Visual Studio 2012 Release Candidate, C++. The project was/is compiled using the VS2010 now. (I am just greedy to get the C++11 things, so I tried. :)
Apart of things that I can explain by myself, the project uses the code like this:
ostringstream ostr;
ostr << "The " __FUNCTION__ "() failed to malloc(" << i << ").";
throw bad_alloc(ostr.str().c_str());
The compiler now complains
error C2248: 'std::bad_alloc::bad_alloc' : cannot access private member declared
in class 'std::bad_alloc'
... which is true. That version of constructor is now private.
What was the reason to make that version of constructor private? Is it recommended by C++11 standard not to use that constructor with the argument?
(I can imagine that if allocation failed, it may cause more problems to try to construct anything new. However, it is only my guess.)
Thanks,
Petr
The C++11 Standard defines bad_alloc as such (18.6.2.1):
class bad_alloc : public exception {
public:
bad_alloc() noexcept;
bad_alloc(const bad_alloc&) noexcept;
bad_alloc& operator=(const bad_alloc&) noexcept;
virtual const char* what() const noexcept;
};
With no constructor that takes a string. A vendor providing such a constructor would make the code using it not portable, as other vendors are not obliged to provide it.
The C++03 standard defines a similar set of constructors, so VS didn't follow this part of the standard even before C++11. MS does try to make VS as standard compliant as possible, so they've probably just used the occasion (new VS, new standard) to fix an incompatibility.
Edit: Now that I've seen VS2012's code, it is also clear why the mentioned constructor is left private, instead of being completely removed: there seems to be only one use of that constructor, in the bad_array_new_length class. So bad_array_new_length is declared a friend in bad_alloc, and can therefore use that private constructor. This dependency could have been avoided if bad_array_new_length just stored the message in the pointer used by what(), but it's not a lot of code anyway.
If you are accustomed to passing a message when you throw a std::bad_alloc, a suitable technique is to define an internal class that derives from std::bad_alloc, and override ‘what’ to supply the appropriate message.
You can make the class public and call the assignment constructor directly, or make a helper function, such as throw_bad_alloc, which takes the parameters (and additional scalar information) and stores them in the internal class.
The message is not formatted until ‘what’ is called. In this way, stack unwinding may have freed some memory so the message can be formatted with the actual reason (memory exhaustion, bad request size, heap corruption, etc.) at the catch site. If formatting fails, simply assign and return a static message.
Trimmed example:
(Tip: The copy constructor can just assign _Message to nullptr, rather than copy the message since the message is formatted on demand. The move constructor, of course can just confiscate it :-).
class internal_bad_alloc: public std::bad_alloc
{
public:
// Default, copy and move constructors....
// Assignment constructor...
explicit internal_bad_alloc(int errno, size_t size, etc...) noexcept:
std::bad_alloc()
{
// Assign data members...
}
virtual ~internal_bad_alloc(void) noexcept
{
// Free _Message data member (if allocated).
}
// Override to format and return the reason:
virtual const char* what(void) const noexcept
{
if (_Message == nullptr)
{
// Format and assign _Message. Assign the default if the
// format fails...
}
return _Message;
}
private:
// Additional scalar data (error code, size, etc.) pass into the
// constructor and used when the message is formatted by 'what'...
mutable char* _Message;
static char _Default[];
}
};
//
// Throw helper(s)...
//
extern void throw_bad_alloc(int errno, size_t size, etc...)
{
throw internal_bad_alloc(errno, size, etc...);
}