* have a dedicated "information hub" controller, which acts a receiver of "error log messages" on the UI-Bus
* let that controller in turn allocate an apropriate view on demand
The goal is to build a (in itself completely meaningless) ping-pong interaction
between the UI and Proc-Layer, for the purpose of driving the integration ahead.
The immediate challenge is how to create and place an apropriate "GuiComponentView",
i.e. a Tangible, which is connected to the UI-Bus with an predictable EntryID.
And the problem is to get that settled right now, without building the envisioned
generic framework for View allocation in the UI. When this is achieved,
it should be a rather small step to actually send those notifications over
the UI-Bus, which is basically implemented and ready by now.
right now this will just end up in the log, since not even the
notification display is implemented beyond the GuiNotification-facade.
Anyway, we get some kind of communication now for real, in the actual application
...because due of #211, we usually don't execute commands yet.
For now there is only the backdoor to prefix the command-ID with "test"
With this change, the TODO message appears now immediately after GUI start!
In the end, I decided against building a generic service here,
since it pretty much looks like a one-time problem.
Preferrably UI content will be pushed or pulled on demand,
rather than actively coding content from within the UI-Layer
- activation signal is a facility offered and used solely by Gtk::Application
- we do not need nor want an Gtk::Application, we deal with our own application
concerns as we see fit.
Gio::Application holds a signal_activation(), which seems to be used for
precisely that task we need here: to do something right after the UI is operative
...and while doing so, also re-check the state of the GTK toolkit initialisation.
Looks like we're still future-proof, while cunningly avoiding all this
Gnome-style "Application" blurb
I will abandon work on the ViewSpec DSL in current shape (everything fine with that)
and instead work on a general UI start-up and content population sequence.
From there, my intention is to return to the docks, the placement of views
and then finally to the TimelineView
This finishes the first round of design drafts in this area.
Right now it seems difficult to get any further, since most of
the actual view creation and management in the UI is not yet coded.
looks like I'm trapped with the choice between a convoluted API design
and an braindead and inefficient implementation. I am leaning towards the latter
looks like we're hitting a design mismatch here....
...and unfortunately I have to abandon this task now and concentrate
on preparation of my talk at LAC.2018 in June
this is a (hopefully just temporary) workaround to deal with static initialisation
ordering problems. The original solution was cleaner from a code readability viewpoint,
however, when lib::Depend was used from static initialisation code, it could
be observed that the factory constructor was invoked after first use.
And while this did not interfer with the instance lifecycle management itself,
because the zero-initialisation of the instance (atomic) pointer did happen
beforehand, it would discard any special factory functions installed from such
a context (and this counts as bug for my taste).
The original goal for #1129 (ViewSpecDSL_test) is impossible to accomplish,
at least within our existing test framework. Thus I'll limit myself to coding
a clean-room integration test with purely synthetic DSL definitions and mock widgets
Problem is, we can not even compile the conversion in the "other branch".
Thus we need to find some way to pick the suitable branch at compile time.
Quite similar to the solution found for binding Rec<GenNode> onto a typed Tuple
Attempt to find my way back to the point
where the digression regarding dependency-injection started.
As it turns out, this was a valuable digression, since we can rid ourselves
from lots of ad-hoc functionality, which basically does in a shitty way
what DependencyFactory now provides as standard solution
FIRST STEP is to expose the Navigator as generic "LocationQuery" service
through lib::Depend<LocationQuery>
more of a layout improvement, to avoid any code duplication.
The mechanics remain the same
- write an explicit specialisation
- trigger template intantiation within a dedicated translation unit
from now on, we'll have dedicated individual translation units (*cpp)
for each distinct interface proxy. All of these will include the
interfaceproxy.hpp, which now holds the boilerplate part of the code
and *must not be included* in anything else than interfac proxy
translation units. The reason is, we now *definie* (with external linkage)
implementations of the facade::Link ctor and dtor for each distinct
type of interface proxy. This allows to decouple the proxy definition code
from the service implementation code (which is crucial for plug-ins
like the GUI)
The recently rewritten lib::Depend front-end for service dependencies,
together with the configuration as lib::DependInject::ServiceInstance
provides all the necessary features and is even threadsafe.
Beyond that, the expectation is that also the instantiation of the
interface proxies can be simplified. The proxies themselves however
need to be hand-written as before
I am fully aware this change has some far reaching ramifications.
Effectively I am hereby abandoning the goal of a highly modularised Lumiera,
where every major component is mapped over the Interface-System. This was
always a goal I accepted only reluctantly, and my now years of experience
confirm my reservation: it will cost us lots of efforts just for the
sake of being "sexy".
Actually this is on the implementation side only.
Since Layer-Separation-Interfaces route each call through a binding layer,
we get two Service-"Instances" to manage
- on the client side we have to route into the Lumiera Interface system
- on the implementation side the C-Language calls from the Interface system
need to get to the actual service implementation. The latter is now
managed and exposed via DependInject::ServiceInstance
...still using the FAKE implementation, not a real rules engine.
However, with the new Dependency-Injection framework we need to define
the actual class from the service-provider, not from some service-client.
This is more orthogonal, but we're forced to install a Lifecycle-Hook now,
in order to get this configuration into the system prior to any use
This is borderline yet acceptable;
A service might indeed depend on itself circularly
The concrete example is the Advice-System, which needs to push
the clean-up of AdviceProvicions into a static context. From there
the deleters need to call back into the AdviceSystem, since they have
no wey to find out, if this is an individual Advice being retracted,
or a mass-cleanup due to system shutdown.
Thus the DependencyFactory now invokes the actual deleter
prior to setting the instance-Ptr to NULL.
This sidesteps the whole issue with the ClassLock, which actually
must be already destroyed at that point, according to the C++ standard.
(since it was created on-demand, on first actual usage, *after* the
DependencyFactory was statically initialised). A workaround would be
to have the ctor of DependencyFactory actively pull and allocate the
Monitor for the ClassLock; however this seems a bit overingeneered
to deal with such a borderline issue
Static initialisation and shutdown can be intricate; but in fact they
work quite precise and deterministic, once you understand the rules
of the game.
In the actual case at hand the ClassLock was already destroyed, and
it must be destroyed at that point, according to the standard. Simply
because it is created on-demand, *after* the initialisation of the
static DependencyFactory, which uses this lock, and so its destructor
must be called befor the dtor of DependencyFactory -- which is precisely
what happens.
So there is no need to establish a special secure "base runtime system",
and this whole idea is ill-guided. I'll thus close ticket #1133 as wontfix
Conflicts:
src/lib/dependable-base.hpp
When some dependency or singleton violates Lumiera's policy regarding destructors and shutdown,
we are unable to detect this violation reliably and produce a Fatal Error message.
This is due to lib::Depend's de-initialisating being itself tied to template generated
static variables, which unfortunately have a visibility scope beyond the translation unit
responsible for construction and clean-up.
- state-of-the-art implementation of access with Double Checked Locking + Atomics
- improved design for configuration of dependencies. Now at the provider, not the consumer
- support for exposing services with a lifecycle through the lib::Depend<SRV> front-end
...which declare DependencyFactory as friend.
Yes, we want to encourrage that usage pattern.
Problem is, std::is_constructible<X> gives a misleading result in that case.
We need to do the instantiation check within the scope of DependencyFactory
ideally we want
- just a plain unique_ptr
- but with custom deleter delegating to lib::Depend
- Depend can be made fried to support private ctor/dtor
- reset the instance-ptr on deletion
- always kill any instance
all these tests are ported by drop-in replacement
and should work afterwards exactly as before (and they do indeed)
A minor twist was spotted though (nice to have more unit tests indeed!):
Sometimes we want to pass a custom constructor *not* as modern-style lambda,
but rather as direct function reference, function pointer or even member
function pointer. However, we can not store those types into the closure
for later lazy invocation. This is basically the same twist I run into
yesterday, when modernising the thread-wrapper. And the solution is
similar. Our traits class _Fun<FUN> has a new typedef Functor
with a suitable functor type to be instantiated and copied. In case of
the Lambda this is the (anonymous) lamda class itself, but in case of
a function reference or pointer it is a std::function.
...which showed up under high system load.
The initialisation of the member variables for the check sum
could be delayed while the corresponding thread was already running
- polish the text in the TiddlyWiki
- integrate some new pages in the published documentation
Still mostly placeholder text with some indications
- fill in the relevant sections in the overview document
- adjust, expand and update the Doxygen comments
TODO: could convert the TiddlyWiki page to Asciidoc and
publish it mostly as-is. Especially the nice benchmarks
from yesterday :-D
This solution is considered correct by the experts.
Regarding the dependency-configuration part, we do not care too much about performance
and use the somewhat slower default memory ordering constraint
This is essentially the solution we used since start of the Lumiera project.
This solution is not entirely correct in theory, because the assignment to the
instance pointer can be visible prior to releasing the Mutex -- so another thread
might see a partially initialised object
_not_ using the dependency factory, rather direct access
- to a shared object in the enclosing stack frame
- to a heap allocated existing object accessed through uniqe_ptr
...written as byproduct from the reimplementation draft.
NOTE there is a quite similar test from 2013, DependencyFactory_test
For now I prefer to retain both, since the old one should just continue
to work with minor API adjustments (and thus prove this rewrite is a
drop-in replacement).
On the long run those two tests could be merged eventually...
This is a complete makeover of our lib::Depend and lib::DependencyFactory templates.
While retaining the basic idea, the configuration has been completely rewritten
to favour configuration at the point where a service is provided rather,
than at the point where a dependency is used.
Note: we use differently named headers, so the entire Lumiera
code base still uses the old implementation. Next step will be
to switch the tests (which should be drop-in)
explicit friendship seems adequate here
DependInject<SRV> becomes more or less a hidden part of Depend<SRV>,
but I prefer to bundle all those quite technical details in a separate
header, and close to the usage
This is a tricky problem an an immediate consequence of the dynamic configuration
favoured by this design. We avoid a centralised configuration and thus there
are no automatic rules to enforce consistency. It would thus be possible
to start using a dependency in singleton style, but to switch to service
style later, after the fact.
An attempt was made to prevent such a mismatch by static initialisiation;
basically the presence of any Depend<SRV>::ServiceInstance<X> would disable
any usage of Depend<SRV> in singleton style. However, such a mechanism
was found to be fragile at best. It seems more apropriate just to fail
when establishing a ServiceInstance on a dependency already actively in
use (and to lock usage after destroying the ServiceInstance).
This issue is considered rather an architectural one, which can not be
solved by any mechanism at implementation level ever
up to now we used placement into a static buffer.
While this approach is somewhat cool, I can't see much practical benefit anymore,
given that we use an elaborate framework which rules out the use of Meyers Singleton.
And given that with C++11 we're able just to use std::unique_ptr to do all work.
Moreover, the intended configurability will become much simpler by relying
on a _closure_ to produce a heap-allocated instance for all cases likewise.
The only possible problem I can see is that critical infrastructure might
rely on failsafe creation of some singleton. Up to now this scenario
remains theoretical however
Meyers Singleton is elegant and fast and considered the default solution
However...
- we want an "instance" pointer that can be rebound and reset,
and thus we are forced to use an explicit Mutex and an atomic variable.
And the situation is such that the optimiser can not detect/verify this usage
and thus generates a spurious additional lock for Meyers Singleton
- we want the option to destroy our singletons explicitly
- we need to create an abstracted closure for the ctor invocation
- we need a compiletime-branch to exclude code generation for invoking
the ctor of an abstract baseclass or interface
All those points would be somehow manageable, but would counterfeit the
simplicity of Meyers Singleton
Problems:
- using Meyers Singleton plus a ClassLock;
This is wasteful, since the compiler will emit additional synchronisation
and will likely not be able to detect the presence of our explicit locking guard
- what happens if the Meyers Singleton can not even be instantiated, e.g. for
an abstract baseclass? We are required to install an explicit subclass configuration
in that case, but the compiler is not able to see this will happen, when just
compiling the lib::Depend
Most dependencies within Lumiera are singletons and this approach remains adequate.
Singletons are not "EVIL" per se. But in some cases, there is an explicit
lifecycle, managed by some subsystem. E.g. some GUI services are only available
while the GTK event loop is running.
This special case can be integrated transparently into our lib::Depend<TY> front-end,
which defaults to creating a singleton otherwise.
we'll use a typedef to represent the default case
and provide the level within the UI-Tree as template parameter for the generic case
This avoids wrapping each definition into a builder function, which will be
the same function for 99% of the cases, and it looks rather compact and natural
for the default case, while still retaining genericity.
Another alternative would have been to inject the Tree-level at the invocation;
but doing so feels more like magic for me.
decided to add a very specific preprocessing here, to make the DSL notation more natural.
My guess is that most people won't spot the presence of this tiny bit of magic,
and it would be way more surprising to have rules like
UICoord::currentWindow().panel("viewer").create()
fail in most cases, simply because there is a wildcard on the perspective
and the panel viewer does not (yet) exist. In such a case, we now turn the
perspective into a "existential quantified" wildcard, which is treated as if
the actually existing element was written explicitly into the pattern.
...actually just more test coverage,
the feature is already implemented.
What *could* be done though is to inject that UIC_ELIDED marker
on missing perspective specs in create clauses automatically...
