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.
- 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
The Lumiera thread-wrapper accepts the operation to be performed
within the new thread as a function object, function reference or lambda.
Some of these types can be directly instantiated in the threadMain
function, and thus possibly inlined altogether. This is especially
relevant for Lambdas. OTOH, we can not instantiate function references
or bound member functions; in those cases we fall back to using a
std::function object, possibly incurring heap allocations.
...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)
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.
especially std::find is relevant here.
I consider this only a preliminary solution and need to think it over
more in detail. But, judging from the description given in
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/iterator
and
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/concept/InputIterator
...the standard concept of "input iterator" seems to be closest to our
own concept, albeit it requires things like post increment, and a
reference_type convertible to value_type -- requirements we do not
necessarily support with our more limited "Lumiera Forward Iterator"
seems to be the most orthogonal way to strip adornments from the SIG type
Moreover, we want to move the functor into the closure, where it will be stored anyay.
From there on, we can pass as const& into the binder (for creating the partially closed functor)
...but not yet able to get it to compile.
Problem seems to be the generic lambda, which is itself a template.
Thus we need a way to instantiate that template with the correct arguments
prior to binding it into a std::function
been there, seen that recently (-> TreeExplorer, the Expander had a similar problem)
yet some more trickery to get around this design problem.
I just do not want to rework IterSource right now, since this will be
a major change and require more careful consideration.
Thus introduce a workaround and mark it as future work
Using this implementation, "child expansion" should now be possible.
But we do not cover this directly in Unit test yet
...but not yet switched into the main LocationQuery interface,
because that would also break the existing implementation;
recasting this implementation is the next step to do....
...which basically allows us to return any suitable implementation
for the child iterator, even to switch the concrete iteration on each level.
We need this flexibility when implementing navigation through a concrete UI
...at least when using a wrapped Lumiera Iterator as source.
Generally speaking, this is a tricky problem, since real mix-in interfaces
would require the base interface (IterSource) to be declared virtual.
Which incurres a performance penalty on each and every user of IterSource,
even without any mix-in additions. The tricky part with this is to quantify
the relevance of such a performance penalty, since IterSource is meant
to be a generic library facility and is a fundamental building block
on several component interfaces within the architecture.
...yet I do not want to move all of the traits over into the
publicly visible lib::iter_explorer namespace -- I'm quite happy
with these traits being clearly marked as local internal details
surprise: the standard for-Loop causes a copy of the iterator.
From a logical POV this is correct, since the iterator is named,
it can not just be moved into the loop construct and be consumed.
Thus: write a plain old-fashioned for loop and consume the damn thing.
So the top-level call into util::join(&&) decides, if we copy or consume
several extensions and convenience features are conceivable,
but I'll postpone all of them for later, when actual need arises
Note especially there is one recurring design challenge, when creating
such a demand-driven tree evaluation: more often than not it turns out
that "downstream" will need some information about the nested tree structure,
even while, on the surfice, it looks as if the evaluation could be working
completely "linearised". Often, such a need arises from diagnostic features,
and sometimes we want to invoke another API, which in turn could benefit
from knowing something about the original tree structure, even if just
abstracted.
I have no real solution for this problem, but implementing this pipeline builder
leads to a pragmatic workaround: since the iterator already exposes a expandChildren(),
it may as well expose a depth() call, even while keeping anything beyond that
opaque. This is not the clean solution you'd like, but it comes without any
overhead and does not really break the abstraction.
...so sad.
The existing implementation was way more elegant,
just it discarded an exahusted parent element right while in expansion,
so effectively the child sequence took its place. Resolved that by
decomposing the iterNext() operation. And to keep it still readable,
I make the invariant of this class explicit and check it (which
caught yet another undsicovered bug. Yay!)
instead of building a very specific collaboration,
rather just pass the tree depth information over the extended iterator API.
This way, "downstream" clients *can* possibly react on nested scope exploration
...and there is a point where to stop with the mere technicalities,
and return to a design in accordance with the inner nature of things.
Monads are a mere technology, without explicatory power as a concept or pattern
For that reason
- discard the second expansion pattern implemented yesterday,
since it just raises the complexity level for no given reason
- write a summary of my findings while investigating the abilities
of Monads during this design excercise.
- the goal remains to abandon IterExplorer and use the now complete
IterTreeEplorer in its place. Which also defines roughly the extent
to wich monadic techniques can be useful for real world applications
