I am new to Qt and I want to try to understand it better.
I know from an inheritance perspective that a QMainWindow is derived from QObject. (Directly/Indirectly)
This allows for us to connect signals to slots in the following ways within the QMainWindow:
`
1- QObject::connect(sender, &QObject::signal, this, &MyObject::slot);
2- connect(sender, &QObject::signal, this, &MyObject::slot);
`
Even tough both ways are a possibility, I never understood what the major differences between them are.
Here are my questions:
1- Which method is more performant and why?
2- Why do programmers sometimes use one over the other?
I used both of these methods and they both seem to work similarly.
Consider following code.
class Foo {
static void fn();
};
class Bar: public Foo {
void bar() {
// 1
}
};
void main() {
// 2
}
If you want to call Foo::fn() at 1, you can just write fn(); since static functions is "visible" inside methods in derived classes, you can also write Foo::fn() and it will do exactly the same. If you want to call it at 2, you can only use full name Foo::fn().
Related
We are in the process of converting C# code to C++, but we need to do so in phases. I am at a point now where I need to instantiate several native objects from within managed code. These native objects I cannot change, and their declaration looks like this:
public class NativeA();
public class NativeB(std::shared_ptr<NativeA> obj);
Both NativeA and NativeB need to be instantiated from managed code as:
void main() {
ManagedA ObjectA = gcnew ManagedA();
ManagedB ObjectB = gcnew ManagedB(ObjectA);
}
The problem comes in with getting the shared_ptr of NativeA in the constructor of NativeB. Niether NativeA nor NativeB will be manipulated in managed code, they just need to be instantiated. Ideally, something like this:
public ref class ManagedA {
public:
ManagedA() { _object = new NativeA(); }
~ManagedA() { delete _object; }
NativeA * Get() { return _object; }
private:
NativeA *_object;
};
public ref class ManagedB {
public:
ManagedB(ManagedA^ objectA ) {
_object = new NativeB(std::make_shared<NativeA>(*objectA->Get());
}
~ManagedB() { delete _object; }
private:
NativeB *_object;
};
But, this is not allowed in c++/cli because native types are declared as private. Defining #pragma make_public(NativeA) does not solve this either.
My intent is not to work with the native objects in managed code, they just need to be instantiated, so I really don't care about trying to marshal the native pointers and deal with .NET GC if I don't have to, and I don't want to perform a copy. I just want to wrap the classes in order to pass them around.
Is there a clean and simple way to do this?
It appears that the answer was not due to a syntax or usage problem. The two managed objects were in different DLLs and could not be passed across them via .NET. Once the code was compiled in the same project, the issue was resolved.
Although the error message indicated the problem was an accessibility issue in VS 2015, and because it reported it during the link phase, I suspect the cause was because the linker would not have known about the implementation of the NativeA in NativeB without declaring an extern. Being wrapped in CLR, it surfaced as a different issue.
As we all know, Q_OBJECTs are instances and are not copyable.
Is there any kind of syntactic sugar to copy all static and dynamic properties of an arbitrary QObject derived class?
It seems such a nobrainer, but I can't find any reference to such - obviously implementing one myself should be quite trivial - loop over metaObject(), loop over dynamicPropertyNames(), set accordingly.
You could implement a copy helper class as follows.
/** Enable QObjects to be explicitly copyable by copying property values. */
template<class T>
class QObjectCopyHelper<T>
{
protected:
explicit QObjectCopyHelper(T *client) : m_client(client) {}
public:
T *clone(QObject *parent = 0) {
T *copy = new T(parent);
// loop over and copy properties from m_client to copy
// (both from T::staticMetaObject and dynamic ones)
return copy;
}
private:
T *m_client; // <-- I think we need this, but I might be wrong
};
Then you can use this in any QObject subclass with very low work needed to be done:
class MyClass : public QObject, public QObjectCopyHelper<MyClass>
{
Q_OBJECT
...
};
However, this still needs clone() to be called (the ugly "Java-style"). So we can additionally define a copy constructor just calling clone() and you also might think of a assign() method called within the assignment operator.
Please note that this really copies the properties only! There are a lot of other things being tracked in QObject, like the current connections. They explicitly forbid copying QObjects because it would be very difficult to define rules on how this should be done, and these rules would be the correct ones for some use cases only, while in others you want other rules...
A solution is discussed here, where they take the loop-over-the-properties approach. There seems to be no "syntactic sugar" here.
I am loading an swf created in flash professional cs5 via the loader class into a flex 4.1 application. The flash file contains multiple movieclips that are exported for actionscript and those movieclips exist in many instances throughout the movie.
Iterating through everything, comparing class types seems to be the most easy but also the most redundant way to solve this. Is there any way of using the class name as a kind of global selector to access the clips?
I could also make the sub-clips in the flash listen for an event on which they perform an action, but I am not really sure what might be best.
In cases like these, I find that a good way to solve the problem is to create a statically accessable class that manages instances of other classes that are registered with it on instantiation. As an example...
public class GlobalStopper{
private static var clips:Array = [];
public static function add(mc:MovieClip):void{
clips.push(mc);
}
public static function stop():void{
var mc:MovieClip;
for(var i:int = 0, ilen:int = clips.length ; i < ilen ; i++){
mc = clips[i] as MovieClip;
if (mc) mc.stop();
}
}
}
and...
public class GloballyStoppableMovieClip extends MovieClip{
public function GloballyStoppableMovieClip(){
GlobalStopper.add(this);
}
}
Any and all instances of GloballyStoppableMovieClip are instantly registered with the GlobalStopper, so calling
GlobalStopper.stop();
...will stop all registered movieclips.
You can add in any other functions you want. Furthermore, instead of having add accept MovieClip instances, you could have it accept IStoppable or IPlayable objects that implement public functions stop() and play() that your movieclip subclass (or non-movieclip object that also might need to stop and play!) then implements.
But as for jQuery-like selectors? Not really the way I'd handle this particular issue.
i guess typing it out did the trick. i used the event solution:
in the root timeline i placed a function like this:
function cause():void {
dispatchEvent(new Event("do stuff",true));
}
and in the library clip's main timeline goes:
DisplayObject(root).addEventListener("do stuff", function (e:Event=null) {
... whatever ...
});
this is dirty but you get the idea.
Due to requirements outside of my control (don't ask, it's ridiculous) I need to create an AS3 class called 'Math' that references the Global AS Math class. So, for example:
package my.package
{
public class Math
{
public static function pow( a:Number, b:Number ):Number {
// How do I call the Global.as$Math#pow(..) function?
return Math.pow(a,b);
}
}
}
The code above is clearly wrong - results in infinite recursion. I'm not sure how to say that I want to delegate to the Global.as$Math class and not this Math class...
My current awkward solution is to delegate to another class (not named Math) that passes through to the Global Math class. Is there a better way to do this?
Thanks!
Here is another way that popped into my mind after reading Josh Tynjala's post about how package in actionscript are just an abstraction layer over namespaces:
public class Math
{
namespace globalNs = "";
public static function pow( a:Number, b:Number ):Number
{
return globalNs::Math.pow(a, b);
}
}
The globalNs::Math.pow explicitly refer to the top level Math Class.
Save a static reference to the flash player Math object and use it throughout your static methods:
package test
{
import flash.utils.getDefinitionByName;
public class Math
{
private static var _flashMath:Class = Class(getDefinitionByName("Math"));
public static function pow( a:Number, b:Number ):Number
{
return _flashMath.pow(a, b);
}
}
}
Try using the AS3 namespace to refer to the AS3 Math object. Or your class could simply extend the Math object and it would automatically have all of the Math object's functionality without you having to rewrite all those wrapper functions.
As a small follow up on apphackers reply, you can not simple extends the AS3 Math object and have all it's functionality as was suggeested. Static methods are lost when extending an object since they are statically tied to the object which defines them. Additionally you can't extends a class with the same name. You might have some success with the namespace solution however, though I'm not sure if it'll work with static methods, I'd be interested to see your results.
Math is a special case in AS3 because really it shouldn't be global but it is. So it has no namespace as far as I can tell. The solution you came up with to route through another class is actually very clever. But you know that really the solution is to name the class Math2 or MathHelper or MathUtils rather than Math. Please tell me what the reason beyond your control is! The not knowing is killing me!!!
What I'd like to do is something like the following:
FooClass.prototype.method = function():String
{
return "Something";
}
var foo:FooClass = new FooClass();
foo.method();
Which is to say, I'd like to extend a generated class with a single method, not via inheritance but via the prototype.
The class is generated from a WSDL, it's not a dynamic class, and I don't want to touch the generated code because it will be overwritten anyway.
Long story short, I'd like to have the moral equivalent of C# 3:s Extension Methods for AS3.
Edit: I accepted aib's answer, because it fits what I was asking best -- although upon further reflection it doesn't really solve my problem, but that's my fault for asking the wrong question. :) Also, upmods for the good suggestions.
Yes, such a thing is possible.
In fact, your example is very close to the solution.
Try
foo["method"]();
instead of
foo.method();
#Theo: How would you explain the following working in 3.0.0.477 with the default flex-config.xml (<strict>true</strict>) and even a -compiler.strict parameter passed to mxmlc?
Foo.as:
package
{
public class Foo
{
public var foo:String;
public function Foo()
{
foo = "foo!";
}
}
}
footest.as:
package
{
import flash.display.Sprite;
public class footest extends Sprite
{
public function footest()
{
Foo.prototype.method = function():String
{
return "Something";
}
var foo:Foo = new Foo();
trace(foo["method"]());
}
}
}
Note that the OP said inheritance was unacceptable, as was modifying the generated code. (If that weren't the case, adding "dynamic" to the class definition would probably be the easiest solution.)
Depending on how many methods your class has, this may work:
Actual Class:
public class SampleClass
{
public function SampleClass()
{
}
public function method1():void {
Alert.show("Hi");
}
Quick Wrapper:
var actualClass:SampleClass = new SampleClass();
var QuickWrapper:Object = {
ref: actualClass,
method1: function():void {
this.ref.method1();
},
method2: function():void {
Alert.show("Hello!");
}
};
QuickWrapper.method1();
QuickWrapper.method2();
#aib is unfortunately incorrect. Assuming strict mode (the default compiler mode) it is not possible to modify the prototype of non-dynamic class types in ActionScript 3. I'm not even sure that it's possible in non-strict mode.
Is wrapping an option? Basically you create a class that takes one of the objects you get from the web service and just forwards all method calls to that, but also has methods of its own:
public class FooWrapper extends Foo {
private var wrappedFoo : Foo;
public function FooWrapper( foo : Foo ) {
wrappedFoo = foo;
}
override public function methodFromFoo( ) : void {
wrappedFoo.methodFromFoo();
}
override public function anotherMethodFromFoo( ) : void {
wrappedFoo.anotherMethodFromFoo();
}
public function newMethodNotOnFoo( ) : String {
return "Hello world!"
}
}
When you want to work with a Foo, but also have the extra method you need you wrap the Foo instance in a FooWrapper and work with that object instead.
It's not the most convenient solution, there's a lot of typing and if the generated code changes you have to change the FooWrapper class by hand, but unless you can modify the generated code either to include the method you want or to make the class dynamic I don't see how it can be done.
Another solution is to add a step to your build process that modifies the source of the generated classes. I assume that you already have a step that generates the code from a WSDL, so what you could do is to add a step after that that inserts the methods you need.
Monkey patching is an (inelegant) option.
For example, suppose you don't like the fact that Flex 3 SpriteAsset.as returns a default border metrics of [7,7,7,7] (unlike flex 2). To fix this, you can:
Create a copy of SpriteAsset.as and add it to your project at /mx/core/SpriteAsset.as
Edit your local copy to fix any problems you find
Run your ap
Google "flex monkey patch" for more examples and instructions.