the whole implementation will very much be based on
my experiences with the TestMutationTarget and TestWireTap.
Insofar it was a good idea to implement this test dummy first,
as a prototype. Basically what emerges here is a standard pattern
how to implement a tree mutator:
- the TreeMutator will be a one-way-off "throwaway" object.
- its lifecylce starts with sucking away the previous contents
- consuming the diff moves contents back in place
- thus the mutator always attaches onto a target by reference
and needs the ability to manipulate the target
- the test will use some really private data types,
valid only within the scope of the test function.
- invoking the builder for real got me into problems
with the aggregate initialisation I'd used.
Maybe it's the function pointers? Anyway, working
around that by definint a telescope ctor
the concern is for the structure of the builder to be
incomprehensible and completely buried within the
implementation details of the various binding layers
the first part of the unit test (now passing)
is able to demonstrate the full set of diff operations
just by binding to a TestMutationTarget.
Now, after verifying the design of those primmitive operations,
we can now proceed with bindings to "real" data structures
now the full API for the "mutation primitives" is shaped.
Of course the actual implementation is missing, but that
should be low hanging fuit by now.
What still requires some thinking though is how to implement
the selector, so we'll actually get a onion shaped decorator
basically we'll establish a collaboration where both sides
know only the interface (contract) of the partner; a safe margin
for allocation size has to be established through metaprogramming (TODO)
what's problematic is that we leave back waste in the
internal buffer holding the source. Thus it doesn't make
sense to check if this buffer is empty. Rather the
Mutator must offer an predicate emptySrc().
This will be relevant for other implementations as well
now this feels like making progress again,
even when just writing stubs ;-)
Moreover, it became clear that the "typing" of typed child collections
will always be ad hoc, and thus needs to be ensured on a case by case
base. As a consequence, all mutation primitives must carry the
necessary information for the internal selector to decide if this
primitive is applicable to a given decorator layer. Because
otherwise it is not possible to uphold the concept of a single,
abstracted "source position", where in fact each typed sub-collection
of children (and thus each "onion layer" in the decorator chain)
maintains its own private position
Note: not fixing all relevant warnings.
Especially, the "-Woverloaded-virtual" of Clang defeats the whole purpose
of generated generic interfaces. For example, our Variant type is instantiated
with a list of types the variant can hold. Through metaprogramming, this
instantiation generates also an embedded Visitor interface, which has
virtual 'handle(TY)' functions for all the types in question
The client now may implement, or even partially implement this Visitor,
to retrieve specific data out of given Variant instance with unknown conent.
To complain that some other virtual overload is now shaddowed is besides the point,
so we might consider to disable this warning altogether
The actual trick to make it work is to use decltype on the function operator
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7943525/is-it-possible-to-figure-out-the-parameter-type-and-return-type-of-a-lambda/7943765#7943765
In addition, we now pick up the functor by template type and
store it under that very type. For one, this cuts the size
of the generated class by a factor of two. And it gives the
compiler the ability to inline a closure as much as is possible,
especially when the created Binder / Mutator lives in the same
reference frame the closure taps into.
to carry out that rather obvious step, I was bound to consider
all the implications of choosing a given layout and handling pattern
for our external structure representation.
Finally, I settled upon the following decisions
- the value space represented within the DataCap is flat, not further structured
- the distinction between "attribute" and "nested object" is merely conceptual
and will be enforced solely by the diff detection / representation protocol
- basically, a nested subtree may appear as an attribute; the difference
between attributes and children lies solely in the way of access and referral:
by-name vs. positional
- it is pointless to save space for the representation of the discriminator ID
- but we can omit any further explicit type tag, because
- we do *not* support programming by switch-on-type, and thus
- we do *not* support full introspection, only a passive type-safety check
- this is *not* a limitation, since we acknowledge that GenNode is a *Monad*
- and the partial function needed within any flatMap implementation
maps naturally onto our Variant-Visitor; thus
- the DataCap can basically just *be* a Variant
- and GenNode has just to supply the neccessary shaffolding
to turn that into a full fledged Monad implementation, including
direct construction by wrapping a value and flatMap with tree walk
After some reconsideration, I decide to stick to the approach with the closures,
but to use a metaprotramming technique to build an inheritance chain.
While I can not decide on the real world impact of storing all those closures,
in theory this approach should enable the compiler to remove all of the
storage overhead. Since, when storing the result into an auto variable
right within scope (as demonstrated in the test), the compiler
sees the concrete type and might be able to boil down the actual
generated virtual function implementations, thereby inlining the
given closures.
Whereas, on the other hand, if we'd go the obvious conventional route
and place the closures into a Map allocated on the stack, I wouldn't
expect the compiler to do data flow analysis to prove this allocation
is not necessary and inline it away.
NOTE: there is now guarantee this inlining trick will ever work.
And, moreover, we don't know anything regarding the runtime effect.
The whole picture is way more involved as it might seem at first sight.
Even if we go the completely conventional route and require every
participating object to supply an implementation of some kind of
"Serializable" interface, we'll end up with a (hand written!)
implementation class for each participating setup, which takes
up space in the code segment of the executable. While the closure
based approach chosen here, consumes data segment (or heap) space
per instance for the functors (or function pointers) representing
the closures, plus code segment space for the closures, but the
latter with a way higher potential for inlining, since the closure
code and the generated virtual functions are necessarily emitted
within the same compilation unit and within a local (inline, not
publickly exposed) scope.
so yes, it is complicated, and inevitably involves three layers
of indirection. The alternative seems to bind the GUI direcly to
the Session interface -- is there a middle gound?
For the messages from GUI to Proc, we have our commands, based
on PlacementRef entities. But for feeding model updates to the
GUI, whatever I consider, I end up either with diff messages or
an synchronised access to Session attributes, which ties the
responsiveness of the GUI to the Builder operation.
