What book best describes right way to make custom constructors ?
For example, I want special file system (emulatied in RDBMS storage).
Object subclass: #C1_Object
C1_Object subclass: #C1_File
instanceVariableNames: 'stream name'
Use case:
C1_File new: 'blablabla'
or
C1_File create: 'blablabla'
(1) looks native, but
I have seen recommends don't override system allocation mechanics.
Next step: what is better
C1_File class>>create: aFileName
^ self new initialize: aFileName
C1_File>>initialize: aFileName
name := aFileName.
stream := C1_FileStream forceNewFileNamed: aFileName.
or
C1_File class>>create: aFileName
| instance |
instance := super new.
instance name: aFileName.
instance stream: ( C1_FileStream forceNewFileNamed: aFileName ).
^ instance initialize
C1_File>>initialize
^ super initialize
What book best describes right way to make custom constructors ?
Kent Beck's Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns (which I highly recommend to keep at hand for reference) contains around 100 Smalltalk patterns, among which is also
Constructor Method
Constructor Parameter Method
Shortcut Constructor Method
All of them discuss various aspects of object creation and parameter passing, however the common theme is increased understanding and clarity (and intention revealing selectors, which is another pattern).
When you have
C1_File create: 'blablabla'
it is not clear what is actually going to happen; is C1_File going to create blablabla? What would that mean? As Esteban pointed out, it is better to name the argument... C1_File named: 'blablabla'; now I know what is going to happen.
(1) looks native, but I have seen recommends don't override system allocation mechanics.
You would have to mess with #basicNew to mess with allocation mechanics. If you look at implementation of #new, it actually doesn't do much.
Behavior>>new
^ self basicNew initialize
There also plenty of examples in the system:
OrderedCollection with: anItem
Color fromString: '#AC13D9' or Color r: 0.2 g: 0.5 b: 0.1
Point x: 10 y: 17
Readers/Writers often use on:.. STONReader on: aReadStream
Note that the book mentioned in the beginning doesn't just show how to create a basic constructor, but also discusses other problems and challenges of the instance creation itself (e.g. when you have multiple different constructors to not blow up you method protocol, etc.)
Class-side vs instance-side - more of an addendum for Esteban's answer:
Keep the amount of regular behavior on the class-side to minimum; the class-side is primarily for meta-behavior --- managing the class itself, not doing the actual work.
who tell you not to override system allocation mechanisms?
In any case, override #new: is not recommended in this case because for convention #new: with a parameter receives a size, not a string, so it will be confusing.
Now, I would use something like: named:, newWithName:, etc. but that's up to you (is a preference matter).
One thing: in Pharo, if you do instance := self new and later instance initialize you will be calling initialize twice because the default implementation of #new is self basicNew initialize, so your method needs to be defined like this:
C1_File class>>create: aFileName
| instance |
instance := self basicNew.
instance name: aFileName.
instance stream: ( C1_FileStream forceNewFileNamed: aFileName ).
^ instance initialize
But I also wouldn't recommend doing like that (initialise the stream in a creator method does not feels good). Instead I would do:
C1_File class>>create: aFileName
^ self basicNew
initializeName: aFileName;
yourself.
C1_File>>initializeName: aFileName
self name: aFileName.
self stream: ( C1_FileStream forceNewFileNamed: aFileName ).
self initialize.
I do not have a reference from the top of my head other than Smalltalk code I have seen in Sqeuak and third-party packages. Custom constructors like Read-/WriteStream class>>on: aCollection, Text class>>fromString: communicate in a way what their arguments will be used for in the created instance. Another style is to name the constructor directly after the instance variables that are initialized by it. Something like Point class>>x:y:. The Collection constructors with: and withAll: make the code read fluently.
I would always strive to name constructors such that it becomes clear for the reader of a send, what you will get as an answer (a Stream that operates on that collection, a Point with these coordinates, an opened File with the given name/path?). I would not override new:, and create sounds rather generic, but could be useful when talking about files (open for writing or create if it does not exist), though that differs from the FileStream API, as far as I know.
Otherwise, there is still the possibility to not define a constructors, but initialize the object with accessors etc. directly following the new:
MyFileDoesNotExist new
file: c1File;
yourself "or signal in this case"
Related
Hey guys this code is part of a mock client, mock server interaction. I am having trouble understanding context.
Here I explicitly "associate" my tracker interface with context using 'WithValue' and then inject it into my request using WithContext. But when I check if my request's context contains the tracker interface I am returned the error "This context should contain a tracker" . What is it about context and WithValue that I am just not understanding?
var tracker Tracker
ctx := context.WithValue(context.Background(), contextKey, tracker)
req := httptest.NewRequest("GET", "localhost:12345/test", nil)
req.Header.Add(HEADER)
req = req.WithContext(ctx)
_, ok := ctx.Value(contextKey).(Tracker)
if !ok {
log.Fatal("1: This context should contain a tracker")
}
Tracker is an interface, and it's not set to anything, so it's nil. So, it can't change nil to a Tracker, so it fails.
https://play.golang.org/p/4-KQXlCR8vD
The problem isn't that tracker is nil, the problem is that it doesn't contain a value of a concrete type that implements Tracker. The value of tracker could be nil, and this would work, but it has to be a "typed" nil.
The type assertion fails, because type assertions and type switches only work when the instance being asserted has a concrete type. A value can be of a concrete type by declaration , assignment, type assertion , or a type switch case.
When you do the type assertion ctx.Value(contextKey).(Tracker)
There's (conceptually) a 2-step process to this:
Determine the ctx.Value(contextKey)'s concrete type.
Determine whether that concrete type implements Tracker.
Here's a playground example that hopefully illustrates this better: https://play.golang.org/p/ojYzLObkisd
The DoAny() function in there is emulating what is happening when you put your tracker into context and then try to retrieve it with the type assertion.
I know this is just a basic example, but it's not very good practice to use var something SomeInterfaceType, even if you do assign it a value. You should use concrete types for that. Or even better, just use type inference, and you won't have to worry about it. For example:
type Foo interface {
DoFoo() string
}
type MyFoo struct {}
func (f *MyFoo) DoFoo() string {
return "some foo value"
}
// not so good
var f Foo = new(MyFoo)
// good
var f *MyFoo = new(MyFoo)
// better
f := new(MyFoo)
This leverages the fact that interfaces are implicit in Go, and leads to much more obvious and maintainable code, especially in larger projects. Declaring a variable with an interface type is essentially making your variable poloymorphic, but the real power of interfaces isn't polymorphism. The real power is in using them as "functional requirements" for your package's exposed functions/methods. One rule that illustrates this really well is "Accept interfaces, return structs".
EDIT:
I've edited my original answer to correct some mistakes and make some improvements. I also would like to answer a follow-up question from the OP:
what I did not understand is that unless you have an object that utilizes that tracker's methods your interface is nil. Is this correct thinking?
I think what you're trying to say is correct, but the words used aren't quite right. First, there are no objects in Go, as it is not object-oriented. Where in OOP languages, objects hold instances of types, Go uses variables and constants to hold instances of types. So the concept exists, but not by the same name. So your tracker variable will be an instance of a type that satisfies your Tracker interface, but its value with be nil unless you assign it a non-nil instance of a type that satisfies the Tracker interface.
I've been wondering how delegated properties ("by"-Keyword) work under-the-hood. I get that by contract the delegate (right side of "by") has to implement a get and setValue(...) method, but how can that be ensured by the compiler and how can those methods be accessed at runtime? My initial thought was that obviously the delegates must me implementing some sort of "SuperDelegate"-Interface, but it appears that is not the case. So the only option left (that I am aware of) would be to use Reflection to access those methods, possibly implemented at a low level inside the language itself. I find that to be somewhat weird, since by my understanding that would be rather inefficient. Also the Reflection API is not even part of the stdlib, which makes it even weirder.
I am assuming that the latter is already (part of) the answer. So let me furthermore ask you the following: Why is there no SuperDelegate-Interface that declare the getter and setter methods that we are forced to use anyway? Wouldn't that be much cleaner?
The following is not essential to the question
The described Interface(s) are even already defined in ReadOnlyProperty and ReadWriteProperty. To decide which one to use could then be made dependable on whether we have a val/var. Or even omit that since calling the setValue Method on val's is being prevented by the compiler and only use the ReadWriteProperty-Interface as the SuperDelegate.
Arguably when requiring a delegate to implement a certain interface the construct would be less flexible. Though that would be assuming that the Class used as a Delegate is possibly unaware of being used as such, which I find to be unlikely given the specific requirements for the necessary methods. And if you still insist, here's a crazy thought: Why not even go as far as to make that class implement the required interface via Extension (I'm aware that's not possible as of now, but heck, why not? Probably there's a good 'why not', please let me know as a side-note).
The delegates convention (getValue + setValue) is implemented at the compiler side and basically none of its resolution logic is executed at runtime: the calls to the corresponding methods of a delegate object are placed directly in the generated bytecode.
Let's take a look at the bytecode generated for a class with a delegated property (you can do that with the bytecode viewing tool built into IntelliJ IDEA):
class C {
val x by lazy { 123 }
}
We can find the following in the generated bytecode:
This is the field of the class C that stores the reference to the delegate object:
// access flags 0x12
private final Lkotlin/Lazy; x$delegate
This is the part of the constructor (<init>) that initialized the delegate field, passing the function to the Lazy constructor:
ALOAD 0
GETSTATIC C$x$2.INSTANCE : LC$x$2;
CHECKCAST kotlin/jvm/functions/Function0
INVOKESTATIC kotlin/LazyKt.lazy (Lkotlin/jvm/functions/Function0;)Lkotlin/Lazy;
PUTFIELD C.x$delegate : Lkotlin/Lazy;
And this is the code of getX():
L0
ALOAD 0
GETFIELD C.x$delegate : Lkotlin/Lazy;
ASTORE 1
ALOAD 0
ASTORE 2
GETSTATIC C.$$delegatedProperties : [Lkotlin/reflect/KProperty;
ICONST_0
AALOAD
ASTORE 3
L1
ALOAD 1
INVOKEINTERFACE kotlin/Lazy.getValue ()Ljava/lang/Object;
L2
CHECKCAST java/lang/Number
INVOKEVIRTUAL java/lang/Number.intValue ()I
IRETURN
You can see the call to the getValue method of Lazy that is placed directly in the bytecode. In fact, the compiler resolves the method with the correct signature for the delegate convention and generates the getter that calls that method.
This convention is not the only one implemented at the compiler side: there are also iterator, compareTo, invoke and the other operators that can be overloaded -- all of them are similar, but the code generation logic for them is simpler than that of delegates.
Note, however, that none of them requires an interface to be implemented: the compareTo operator can be defined for a type not implementing Comparable<T>, and iterator() does not require the type to be an implementation of Iterable<T>, they are anyway resolved at compile-time.
While the interfaces approach could be cleaner than the operators convention, it would allow less flexibility: for example, extension functions could not be used because they cannot be compiled into methods overriding those of an interface.
If you look at the generated Kotlin bytecode, you'll see that a private field is created in the class holding the delegate you're using, and the get and set method for the property just call the corresponding method on that delegate field.
As the class of the delegate is known at compile time, no reflection has to happen, just simple method calls.
I'm a fairly new Ada programmer. I have read the book by Barnes (twice I might add) and even managed to write a fair terminal program in Ada. My main language is C++ though.
I am currently wondering if there is a way to "protect" subroutine calls in Ada, perhaps in Ada 2012 (of which I know basically nothing). Let me explain what I mean (although in C++ terms).
Suppose you have a class Secret like this:
class Secret
{
private:
int secret_int;
public:
Set_Secret_Value( int i );
}
Now this is the usual stuff, dont expose secret_int, manipulate it only through access functions. However, the problem is that anybody with access to an object of type Secret can manipulate the value, whether that particular code section is supposed to do it or not. So the danger of rogue altering of secret_int has been reduced to anybody altering secret_int through the permitted functions, even if it happens in a code section that's not supposed to manipulate it.
To remedy that I came up with the following construct
class Secret
{
friend class Secret_Interface;
private:
int secret_int;
Set_Secret_Value( int i );
Super_Secret_Function();
};
class Secret_Interface
{
friend class Client;
private:
static Set_Secret_Value( Secret &rc_secret_object, int i )
{
rc_secret_object.Set_Secret( i );
}
};
class Client
{
Some_Function()
{
...
Secret_Interface::Set_Secret_Value( c_object, some-value );
...
}
}
Now the class Secret_Interface can determine which other classes can use it's private functions and by doing so, indirectly, the functions of class Secret that are exposed to Secret_Interface. This way class Secret still has private functions that can not be called by anybody outside the class, for instance function Super_Secret_Function().
Well I was wondering if anything of this sort is possible in Ada. Basically my desire is to be able to say:
Code A may only be executed by code B but not by anybody else
Thanks for any help.
Edit:
I add a diagram here with a program structure like I have in mind that shows that what I mean here is a transport of a data structure across a wide area of the software, definition, creation and use of a record should happen in code sections that are otherwise unrleated
I think the key is to realize that, unlike C++ and other languages, Ada's primary top-level unit is the package, and visibility control (i.e. public vs. private) is on a per-package basis, not a per-type (or per-class) basis. I'm not sure I'm saying that correctly, but hopefully things will be explained below.
One of the main purposes of friend in C++ is so that you can write two (or more) closely related classes that both take part in implementing one concept. In that case, it makes sense that the code in one class would be able to have more direct access to the code in another class, since they're working together. I assume that in your C++ example, Secret and Client have that kind of close relationship. If I understand C++ correctly, they do all have to be defined in the same source file; if you say friend class Client, then the Client class has to be defined somewhere later in the same source file (and it can't be defined earlier, because at that point the methods in Secret or Secret_Interface haven't yet been declared).
In Ada, you can simply define the types in the same package.
package P is
type Secret is tagged private;
type Client is tagged private;
-- define public operations for both types
private
type Secret is tagged record ... end record;
type Client is tagged record ... end record;
-- define private operations for either or both types
end P;
Now, the body of P will contain the actual code for the public and private operations of both types. All code in the package body of P has access to those things defined in P's private part, regardless of which type they operate on. And, in fact, all code has access to the full definitions of both types. This means that a procedure that operates on a Client can call a private operation that operates on a Secret, and in fact it can read and write a Secret's record components directly. (And vice versa.) This may seem bizarre to programmers used to the class paradigm used by most other OOP languages, but it works fine in Ada. (In fact, if you don't need Secret to be accessible to anything else besides the implementation of Client, the type and its operations can be defined in the private part of P, or the package body.) This arrangement doesn't violate the principles behind OOP (encapsulation, information hiding), as long as the two types are truly two pieces of the implementation of one coherent concept.
If that isn't what you want, i.e. if Secret and Client aren't that closely related, then I would need to see a larger example to find out just what kind of use case you're trying to implement.
MORE THOUGHTS: After looking over your diagram, I think that the way you're trying to solve the problem is inferior design--an anti-pattern, if you will. When you write a "module" (whatever that means--a class or package, or in some cases two or more closely related classes or packages cooperating with each other), the module defines how other modules may use it--what public operations it provides on its objects, and what those operations do.
But the module (let's call it M1) should work the same way, according to its contract, regardless of what other module calls it, and how. M1 will get a sequence of "messages" instructing it to perform certain tasks or return certain information; M1 should not care where those messages are coming from. In particular, M1 should not be making decisions about the structure of the clients that use it. By having M1 decree that "procedure XYZ can only be called from package ABC", M1 is imposing structural requirements on the clients that use it. This, I believe, causes M1 to be too tightly coupled to the rest of the program. It is not good design.
However, it may make sense for the module that uses M1 to exercise some sort of control like that, internally. Suppose we have a "module" M2 that actually uses a number of packages as part of its implementation. The "main" package in M2 (the one that clients of M2 use to get M2 to perform its task) uses M1 to create a new object, and then passes that object to several other packages that do the work. It seems like a reasonable design goal to find a way that M2 could pass that object to some packages or subprograms without giving them the ability to, say, update the object, but pass it to other packages or subprograms that would have that ability.
There are some solutions that would protect against most accidents. For example:
package M1 is
type Secret is tagged private;
procedure Harmless_Operation (X : in out Secret);
type Secret_With_Updater is new Secret with null record;
procedure Dangerous_Operation (X : in out Secret_With_Updater);
end M1;
Now, the packages that could take a "Secret" object but should not have the ability to update it would have procedures defined with Secret'Class parameters. M2 would create a Secret_With_Updater object; since this object type is in Secret'Class, it could be passed as a parameter to procedures with Secret'Class parameters. However, those procedures would not be able to call Dangerous_Operation on their parameters; that would not compile.
A package with a Secret'Class parameter could still call the dangerous operation with a type conversion:
procedure P (X : in out Secret'Class) is
begin
-- ...
M1.Secret_With_Updater(X).Dangerous_Operation;
-- ...
end P;
The language can't prevent this, because it can't make Secret_With_Updater visible to some packages but not others (without using a child package hierarchy). But it would be harder to do this accidentally. If you really wish to go further and prevent even this (if you think there will be a programmer whose understanding of good design principles is so poor that they'd be willing to write code like this), then you could go a little further:
package M1 is
type Secret is tagged private;
procedure Harmless_Operation (X : in out Secret);
type Secret_Acc is access all Secret;
type Secret_With_Updater is tagged private;
function Get_Secret (X : Secret_With_Updater) return Secret_Acc;
-- this will be "return X.S"
procedure Dangerous_Operation (X : in out Secret_With_Updater);
private
-- ...
type Secret_With_Updater is tagged record
S : Secret_Acc;
end record;
-- ...
end M1;
Then, to create a Secret, M2 would call something that creates a Secret_With_Updater that returns a record with an access to a Secret. It would then pass X.Get_Secret to those procedures which would not be allowed to call Dangerous_Operation, but X itself to those that would be allowed. (You might also be able to declare S : aliased Secret, declare Get_Secret to return access Secret, and implement it with return X.S'access. This may avoid a potential memory leak, but it may also run into accessibility-check issues. I haven't tried this.)
Anyway, perhaps some of these ideas could help accomplish what you want to accomplish without introducing unnecessary coupling by forcing M1 to know about the structure of the application that uses it. It's hard to tell because your description of the problem, even with the diagram, is still at too abstract a level for me to see what you really want to do.
You could do this by using child packages:
package Hidden is
private
A : Integer;
B : Integer;
end Hidden;
and then
package Hidden.Client_A_View is
function Get_A return Integer;
procedure Set_A (To : Integer);
end Hidden.Client_A_View;
Then, Client_A can write
with Hidden.Client_A_View;
procedure Client_A is
Tmp : Integer;
begin
Tmp := Hidden.Client_A_View.Get_A;
Hidden.Client_A_View.Set_A (Tmp + 1);
end Client_A;
Your question is extremely unclear (and all the C++ code doesn't help explaining what you need), but if your point is that you want a type to have some publicly accessible operations, and some private operations, then it is easily done:
package Example is
type Instance is private;
procedure Public_Operation (Item : in out Instance);
private
procedure Private_Operation (Item : in out Instance);
type Instance is ... -- whatever you need it to be
end Example;
The procedure Example.Private_Operation is accessible to children of Example. If you want an operation to be purely internal, you declare it only in the package body:
package body Example is
procedure Internal_Operation (Item : in out Instance);
...
end Example;
Well I was wondering if anything of this sort is possible in Ada. Basically my desire is to be able to say:
Code A may only be executed by code B but not by anybody else
If limited to language features, no.
Programmatically, code execution can be protected if the provider must be provided an approved "key" to allow execution of its services, and only authorized clients are supplied with such keys.
Devising the nature, generation, and security of such keys is left as an exercise for the reader.
I am trying to understand better reflection in Smalltalk. I am using the latest version of Squeak (v4.3). I want to intercept every message sent to instances of one of my classes. I assumed that I could override the method ProtoObject>>withArgs:executeMethod but Stéphane Ducasse explained me that for performance reason, this method is not used (this is my own summary of his answer). Which method should I override / how could intercept sent messages?
Here is the code of my attempt:
Object subclass: #C
instanceVariableNames: 'i'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'CSE3009'.
C class compile: 'newWithi: anInt
^(self new) i: anInt ; yourself.'.
C compile: 'withArgs: someArgs executeMethod: aMethod
Transcript show: ''Caught: ''.
^ super withArgs: someArgs executeMethod aMethod.'.
C compile: 'foo: aText
Transcript show: aText.
Transcript show: i.
Transcript cr.'.
C compile: 'i: anInt
i := anInt.'.
o := C newWithi: 42.
o foo: 'This is foo: '.
Executing this entire piece of code yields:
This is foo: 42
When I would like to have:
Caught: This is foo: 42
There's no build-in way to intercept messages to objects like that. There are two ways we commonly use to do this kind of trick.
First, you can create a wrapper object which responds to doesNotUnderstand:. This object usually has nil for the superclass so it doesn't inherit any instance methods from Object. The doesNotUnderstand: handler would delegate all its messages to the target object. It has the option of performing code before and after the call. All references to the original object would now point to the new "proxy" object. Messages to self wouldn't be intercepted and the proxy would need to test for objects that return self and change the returned object to be the proxy instead.
The second approach is to use a mechanism called Method Wrappers. Method Wrappers allows you to replace all of the methods in a set of classes with methods that do some other operations before and after calling the original method. This approach can provide fairly seemless results and intercepts all messages including those send to self.
MethodWrappers is available for VisualWorks and VASmalltalk. I believe it's also available for Squeak and Pharo but I'm not positive.
The three main techniques are:
Dynamic proxies
Method wrapper
Bytecode instrumentation
For a good comparision of all possible approaches, have a look at "Evaluating Message Passing Control Techniques in Smalltalk" by Stephane Ducasse (you already know him, apparently).
Of interest is also "Smalltalk: A Reflective Langauge" by F. Rivard, that shows how to implement pre- and post-conditions using bytecode rewriting. This is also a form of interception.
I am writing a DSL for expressing flow (original I know) in groovy. I would like to provide the user the ability to write functions that are stored and evaluated at certain points in the flow. Something like:
states {
"checkedState" {
onEnter {state->
//do some groovy things with state object
}
}
}
Now, I am pretty sure I could surround the closure in quotes and store that. But I would like to keep syntax highlighting and content assist if possible when editing these DSLs. I realize that the closure COULD reference artifacts from the surrounding flow definition which would no longer be valid when executing the closure in a different context, and I am fine with this. In reality I would like to use the closure syntax for a non-closure function definition.
tl;dr; I need to get the closure's code while evaluating the DSL so that it can be stored in the database and executed by a script host later.
I don't think there is a way to get a closure's source code, as this information is discarded during compilation. Perhaps you could try writing an AST transformation that would make closure's syntax tree available at runtime.
If all you care about is storing the closure in the database, and you don't need later access to the source code, you can try serializing it and storing the serialized form.
Closure implements Serializable, and after nulling its owner, thisObject and delegate attributes I was able to serialize it, but I'm getting ClassNotFoundException on deserialization.
def myClosure = {a, b -> a + b}
Closure.metaClass.setAttribute(myClosure, "owner", null)
Closure.metaClass.setAttribute(myClosure, "thisObject", null)
myClosure.delegate = null
def byteOS = new ByteArrayOutputStream()
new ObjectOutputStream(byteOS).writeObject(myClosure)
def serializedClosure = byteOS.toByteArray()
def input = new ObjectInputStream(new ByteArrayInputStream(serializedClosure))
def deserializedClosure = input.readObject() // throws CNFE
After some searching, I found Groovy Remote Control, a library created specifically to enable serializing closures and executing them later, possibly on a remote machine. Give it a try, maybe that's what you need.