...still fighting to find a suitable API to define
how inputs and outputs are connected and mapped to function parameters.
The solution drafted here uses the reshaped `DataBuilder` (≙`lib::SeveralBuilder`)
to add up connections for each »slot«, disregarding the possibility of permutations.
Similar to `NodeBuilder`, a policy template is used to pass down the setup
for an actual custom allocator.
After applying all the preceding refactorings, it turns out that
the `DataBuilder` defined here ''is essentially `lib::SeveralBuilder`'',
only with a different arrangement of the type parameters, due to the
specific usage context here.
It is thus possible to replace all the interim / helper / rebinding templates
by simple templated typedefs. The only tangible difference is that for
usage in the Builder, a ''selector policy'' is passed as a simple type argument,
which in practice wires the concrete allocator information down into each
sub-builder created during the ongoing construction of a node structure.
redefine the policy for `lib::SeveralBuilder` to be a template-template parameter.
In fact it should have been this way from start, yet defining this kind of
very elaborate code bottom-up lets you sometime miss the wood for the trees
So to restate: `lib::SeveralBuilder` takes a ''policy template,''
which then in turn will be instantiated with the same types `I` (interface)
and `E` (element type) used on `SeveralBuilder` itself. Obviously, there can be
further types involved and thus additional type parameters may be necessary,
notably the ''Allocator'' — yet these are better injected when ''defining''
the policy template itself.
The default binding for this policy template is defined as `allo::HeapOwn`,
which causes the builder to allocate the storage extents through the standard
heap allocator, and for the created `lib::Several` to take full ownership of
embedded objects, invoking their destructors when falling out of scope.
As a direct consequence of the insights regarding Dependency-Injection,
a ''Builder Toolkit'' is required, which can be used to adapt various
kinds of ''Weaving Patterns'' — since obviously it is not possible to
settle down on a single Pattern, and thus several ''families of builders''
will emerge, one for each ''line of construction'' for ''Weaving Patterns''.
To stress this point, what I am coding here is a prototype, aimed at
being used as part of a **Test Domain Ontology** — and other Domain Ontologies
(e.g. für FFmpeg) will certainly require other construction schemes
for their Weaving Patterns. So this is an open field, and can not be
settled once and for all.
This immediately leads to another, rather technical problem:
If we're about to work with ''delegate Builders,'' then also
a way to pass-down the allocator configuration is required.
We had settled on a preliminary solution with the helper `DataBuilder`,
yet this solution looks like it defines how `lib::SeveralBuilder`
should be used in most of the cases. So there is now a conflict
between the existing definition scheme for `lib::SeveralBuilder`,
which was achieved in a bottom-up way, and a slightly different
definition scheme ''as it should be''
Starting to attack this latter detail problem, as a first step,
the definition of `DataBuilder` can be simplified by collapsing
it with the `lib::allo::SetupSeveral`
...so the solution is to build up the working data as `lib::SeveralBuilder`;
however, a more concise notation can be achieved with a suitably configured
wrapping subclass; together with the cross-builder trick, this allows
to write the allocation configuration in a clearly libelled way,
while the field definition and the builder constructor hides the
complexities of picking up the extension point and passing on the
wiring to the allocator instance.
...using the same pattern here as was successful also for the underlying lib::SeveralBuilder;
even if it may seem logically backwards, it just reads much better and
is more understandable, and has the added benefit of providing a dedicated
definition scope, which can be kept separate from the constructor definition
of the actual builder
{{{
prepareNode()
.withAllocator<XYZ>()
.addLead(predecessor)
.build()
}}}
...turns out to be surprisingly tricky, since the nested
lib::SeveralBuilder instances require parametrisation by a
''policy template,'' which in turn relies on the actual allocator.
And we want to provide the allocator as a constructor parameter,
including the ability to pick up a custom specialisation for
some specific allocator (notably AllocationCluster requires
to hook into this kind of extension point, to be able to
employ its dedicated API for dynamic allocation adjustment)
...especially what is necessary to represent at this level and what information
is implicit; notably there will be an implicit default wiring, but we allow
for case-by-case deviations
The Builder will have to perform several passes, gradually refining
the model into the low-level Render Node network. Right now, some
guesses regarding the last steps of this process are possible,
thus defining the lowest level of a model builder structure
* Level-3 : mapping data flow paths
* Level-2 : detailed configuration of data buffer passing
* Level-1 : build the actual parameter structures for invocation
In the current »Vertical Slice« we're able to fully define Level-1
and maybe Level-2
To escape a possible deadlock in analysis, I resort to developing
some kind of free-wheeling presupposition how the **Builder** could
be implemented — a centrepiece of the Lumiera architecture envisioned
thus far — which ''unfortunately'' can only be planned and developed
in a more solid way ''after'' the current »Vertical Slice« is completed.
Thus I find myself in the uncomfortable situation of having to work towards
a core piece, which can not yet be built, since it relies heavily on
the very structures to be built...
2024-07-06 01:13:23 +02:00
Renamed from src/steam/engine/node-wiring-builder.hpp (Browse further)
