due to the lack of real backtracking, the existing solution
relied on a quirk, and started the before / after chained search
conditions /at/ the current element, not after / before it.
Now we're able to remove this somewhat surprising behaviour, yet to do so
we also need to introduce basic "just search" variations of all search
operations, in order to define the initial condition for a chained search.
Without that, the first condition in a chain would never be able to
match on the header entry of the log
- need to use dedicated steps in the chain for every added condition now
- seems to break the logic on tests on non-match.
This doesn't come as a surprise, since backtracking can be expected
to reveal additional solutions.
NOTE: some tests broken, to be investigated
est-event-log-test.cpp:228: thread_1: verify_callLogging: (log.ensureNot("fun").after("fun").after("fun2"))
...which can be achieved by checking the backtracking loop
always right after the non-backtracking iteration, exploiting
the fact that the guard conditions of both are complimentary.
So the only case when we'd actually enter the backtracking
loop after regular iteration would precisely be when
we drop down due to exahausting an upper layer.
The result now reads
"sausage-bacon-tomato-and-spam-spam-bacon-spam-tomato-and-spam-bacon-tomato-and-bacon-tomato-and-tomato-and"
...which sounds correct, yay!
...since usually such evaluation layers are finally wrapped into
an IterableDecorator and then presented as TreeEplorer -- an exercise
we do not want to perform here, since it is pointless in the typicall
use case. The IterChainSearch is already meant to be ready-for-use.
Thus, instead of wrapping again, the pragmatic solution is simply
to overload the missing operator++ and make it call the augmented
iterNext() function. Related to this, we also need to ensure
proper operation in case no further expansion is mandated
...seems basically sane now.
Just we still need to wrap it one more time into IterableDecorator;
which means the overall scheme how to build and package the whole pipeline
is not correct yet.
Maybe it is not possible to get it packaged all into one single class?
on closer investigation it turned out that the logic of the
first design attempt was broken altogether. It did not properly
support backtracking (which was the reason to start this whole
exercise) and it caused dangling references within the lambda
closure once the produced iterator pipeline was moved out
into the target location.
Reasoning from first principles then indicated that the only sane
way to build such a search evaluation component is to use *two*
closely collaborating layers. The actual filter configuration
and evaluation logic can not reside and work from within the
expander. Rather, it must sit in a layer on top and work in
a conventional, imperative way (with a while loop).
Sometimes, functional programming is *not* the natural way
of doing things, and we should then stop attempting to force
matters against their nature.
this is an rather obvious extension to the TreeExplorer framework.
In some cases, client code wants to define its own very specific
processing layers, beyond of what can be done with filters and
transformers. Obviously, writing such a custom layer requires
intimate knowledge about the internals of TreeExplorer
the actual use case prompting this extension is IterChainSearch;
it turned out that the original design can not be implemented,
unless the resulting object is non-copyable (which violates
the basic traits of a TreeExplorer based pipeline).
Up to now, we had a very simplistic configuration option just
to search for a match, and we had the complete full-blown reconfiguration
builder option, which accepts a functor to work on and reconfigure the
embedded Filter chain.
It occurred to me that in many cases you'd rather want some intermediary
level of flexibility: you want to replace the filter predicate entirely
by some explicitly given functor, yet you don't need the full ability
to re-shape the Filter chain as a whole. In fact the intended use case
for IterChainSearch (which is the EventLog I am about to augment with
backtracking capabilities) will only ever need that intermediate level.
Thus wer're adding this intermediary level of configurability now.
The only twist is that doing so requires us to pass an "arbitrary function like thing"
(captured by universal reference) through a "layer of lambdas". Which means,
we have to capture an "arbitrary thingie" by value.
Fortunately, as I just found out today, C++14 allows something which comes
close to that requirement: the value capture of a lambda is allowe to have
an intialiser. Which means, we can std::forward into the value captured
by the intermediary lambda. I just hope I never need to know or understand
the actual type this captured "value" takes on.... :-)
with the augmented TreeExplorer, we're now able to get rid of the
spurious base layer, and we're able to discard the filter and
continue with the unfiltered sequence starting from current position.
build a special feature into the Explorer component of TreeExplorer,
causing it to "lock into" the current child sequence and discard
all previous sequences from the stack of child explorations
There is an asymetry, insofar the base layer configuration is
evaluated immediately, causing the MutableFilter to be reconfigured
and forwarded to the first match.
to the contrary, when configuring an additional layer, we just
add it to the chain, but then need to iterate once to cause
this configuration actually to be unfolded onto the stack
...which just turns the pipeline into exhausted state,
instead of raising an Assertion failure
The point is, expandChildren() does not guard itself,
since it _requires_ an non-empty iterator as precondition.
Thus, any function downstream, which invokes expandChildren(),
has to check and guard this call apropriately.
In the concrete case at hand we just stop adding further constraints
when the pipeline is already in exhausted state
...the solution built thus far was logically broken, since it retained the unfiltered
source sequence within the base layer. Thus it would backtrack into this unfiltered
sequence eventually.
The idea was to build a special treatment for attaching the first filter condition;
in fact the first one does not need to be added to the chain, but rather should be
planted directly into the base layer.
WIP: this is a solution draft, but does not work yet
- when attaching the base layer, the filter is pulled twice
- an overconstrained filter raises an Assertion failure
(instead of just transitioning into exhausted state)
So we have now a reworked version of the internals of TreeExplorer in place.
It should be easier to debug template instantation traces now, since most
of the redundancy on the type parameters could be remove. Moreover, existing
pipelines can now be re-assigned with similarily built pipelines in many cases,
since the concrete type of the functor is now erased.
The price tag for this refactoring is that we have now to perform a call
through a function pointer on each functor invocation (due to the type erasure).
And seemingly the bloat in the debugging information has been increased slightly
(this overhead is removed by stripping the binary)
Here the design trardeoff becomes clearly visiblie
- on the plus side, we removed that spurous redundant info
from the template parameter, and we simplified functor rebinding
- but as a tradeoff, we now always have two std::function objects
nested into each other, which also means that at least the outer
object resides on the heap and /inevitably/ calls through a
function pointer, even in case the target function is a lambda,
simply because some type erasure happened, and the call site
does not know the actual type anymore
...step by step switch over to the new usage pattern.
Transformer should be the blueprint for all other functor usages.
The reworked solutions behaves as expected;
we see two functor invocations; the outer functor, which does
the argument adaptation, is allocated in heap memory
This does not touch the existing code-path,
but the idea is to use the _FunTraits directly from within the
constructor of the respective processing layer, and to confine the
knowledge of the actual FUN functor type to within that limited context.
Only the generic signature of the resulting std::function need to be
encoded into the type of the processing component, which should help
to simplify the type signatures
...which still needs to be the *concrete* signature of the funcition to pass,
but we'll attempt to loosen that requirement in the next refactoring steps
...and in preparation start with some renamings...
The overall goal is to simplify the type signatures and thereby
to make the generates pipelines more assignment compatible.
The debugging experience form the last days indicated that the
current design is not maintainable on the long run. Both the
template instantiation chains and the call stacks are way to
complicated and hard to understand and diagnose
It is essential that we pass the current state of the filter
into the expand functor, where it needs to be copied (once!)
to create a child state, which can then be augmented.
This augmented state is then pushed onto a stack, to enable backtracking.
Due to the flexible adapters and the wrapping into the TreeExplorer builder,
we ended up performing several spurious copies on the current state
...based on a monadic tree expansion: we define a single step,
which takes the current filter configuration and builds the next
filter configuration, based on a stored chain of configuration functions
The actual exhausting depth-first results just by the greedy application pattern,
and uses the stack embedded in the "Explorer" layer of TreeExplorer
..this resolves the most challenging part of the construction work;
we use the static helper functions to infer a type and construct a suitable
processing pipeline and we invoke the same helper to initialise the base class
in the ctor.
Incidentally... we can now drop all the placeholder stubs,
since we now inherit the full iterator and child explorer API.
The test now starts actually to work... we get spam and sausage!
TODO: now actually fill in the expand functor such as to pick the
concrete filter step in the chain from a sequence of preconfigured
filter bindings
...now matters start to get really nasty,
since we have to pick up an infered type from a partially built pipeline
and use it to construct the signature for a functor to bind into the more elaborate complete pipeline
this is a tricky undertaking, since our treeExplore() helper constructs
a complex wrapped type, depending on the actual builder expressions used.
Solution is to use decltype on the result of a helper function,
and let the _DecoratorTraits from TreeExplorer do the necessary type adaptations
when adapting a functor, the wrapper automatically decides
if this functor was meant to be used in "monadic style" (value -> new monad)
or in "manipulate state-core style" (iter& -> iter)
Unfortunately, in some cases functions accepting a partially built pipeline
will be classified in the wrong way, due to the fact that IterableDecorator
has a templated wildcard constructor and thus seems to accept the conversion
value_type -> IterableDecorator. This causes the "monadic style" to be chosen
erroneously, and leads to a template instantiation failure just at the point when
the generated functor will be used.
The solution is to explicitly *rule out* the monadic usage style
in all those cases, where the *argument* of the functor to bind can
in fact be directly constructed / converted from the source iterator
or state core. Because, if that is the case
- it is superfluous explicitly to dereference the source iterator;
the functor can do the same
- chances are that the "manipulation style" was intended
(as was the case in the concrete example at hand here)
...it should have been this way all the time.
Generic code might otherwise be ill guided to assume a conversion
from the Iterator to its value type, while in fact an explicit dereferentiation is necessary
Need to be more careful when eating trailing spaces after a std::string.
Because the full-blown type is a template, sometimes the compiler adds a spurious
additional space behind the closing angle bracket, due to the now obsolete
"maximum munch rule" of C++98 -- to prevent closing angle brackets to become '>>'.
But in other cases, some type adornments or other language identifiers follow the
string type, like e.g. 'const'. In those cases, the trailing space must be retained.
We solve this by a look-ahead assertion in the regular expression:
consume the trailing space _only_ if a non-word character follows (like '>').
The intention is to augment the iterator based (linear) search
used in EventLog to allow for real backtracking, based on a evaluation tree.
This should be rather staight forward to implement, relying on the
exploreChildren() functionality of TreeExplorer. The trick is to package
the chained search step as a monadic flatMap operation
while this is basically a drop-in replacement,
it marks the switch to the monadic evaluation technology,
which is prerequisite for building real backtracking into the search.
we did an unnecessary copy of the argument, which was uncovered
by the test case manipulating the state core.
Whew.
Now we have a beautiful new overengineered solution
outift the Filter base class with the most generic form of the Functor
wrapper, and rather wrap each functor argument individually. This allows
then to combine various kinds of functors
...this solution works, but has a shortcoming:
the type of the passed lambdas is effectively pinned to conform
with the signature of the first lambda used initially when building the filter.
Well, this is the standard use case, but it kind of turns all the
tricky warpping and re-binding into a nonsense excercise; in this form
the filter can only be used in the monadic case (value -> bool).
Especially this rules out all the advanced usages, where the filter
collaborates with the internals of the source.
while this is basically just code code cosmetics,
at least it marks this as a very distinct special case,
and keeps the API for the standard Filter layer clean.
a quite convoluted construct built from several nested generic lambdas.
When investigated in the debugger, the observed addresses and the
invoked code looks sane and as expected.
The intention is to switch from the itertools-based filter
to the filter available in the TreeExplorer framework.
Thus "basically" we just need to copy the solution over,
since both are conceptually equivalent.
However...... :-(
The TreeExplorer framework is designed to be way more generic
and accepts basically everything as argument and tries to adapt apropriately.
This means we have to use a lot of intricate boilerplate code,
just to get the same effect that was possible in Itertools with
a simple and elegant in-place lambda assignment
Fillter needs to be re-evaluated, when an downstream entity requests
expandChildren() onto an upstream source. And obviously the ordering
of the chained calls was wrong here.
As it turns out, I had discovered that necessity to re-evaluate with
the Transformer layer. There is a dedicated test case for that, but
I cut short on verifying the filter in that situation as well, so
that piece of broken copy-n-paste code went through undetected.
This is in fact a rather esoteric corner case, because it is only
triggered when the expandChildren() call is passed through the filter.
When otoh the filter sits /after/ the entity generating the expandChildren()
calls, everything works as intended. And the latter is the typical standard
usage situation of an recursive evalutation algorithm: the filter is here
used as final part to drive the evaluation ahead and pick the solutions.
There is a bug or shortcoming in the existing ErrorLog matcher implementation.
It is not really difficult to fix, however doing so would require us to intersperse
yet another helper facility into the log matcher. And it occurred to me, that
this helper would effectively re-implement the stack based backtracking ability,
which is already present in TreeExplorer (and was created precisely to support
this kind of recursive evaluation strategies).
Thus I intend to switch the implementation of the EventLog matcher from the
old IterTool framework to the newer TreeExplorer framework. And this intention
made me re-read the code, fixing several comments and re-thinking the design
seemingly my quick-n-dirty implementation was to naiive.
We need real backtracking, if we want to support switches
in the search direction (match("y").after("x").before("z")
Up to now, I have cheated myself around this obvious problem :-/
as it turns out, we need to set the property_expand() on the child widget
within Gtk::Expander explicitly, to cause the child to grab and additional
available screen space (which obviously is what we want in case of a
log display with scrollbars)
basically Gtk::Expander will do the trick.
However, resizing of the enclosing panel is not handled properly,
the log does not expand to take up the available space, as it did
automaticall when just added directly into the frame
no need to define a private function on Wizard anymore, it just forwards the call
to the service actually implementing the view allocation. For now this is the
PanelLocator (and eventually this will be the ViewLocator / ViewSpecDSL)
PanelLocator is a sub component of the WindowLocator (top-level GUI service).
Eventually this shall become a mere widget/component access service, with the
actual lookup and allocation logic layered on top through ViewLocator, configurable
via ViewSpec-DSL.
We can not implement the full scheme right now, since we're lacking knowledge
about internals of a typical Lumiera UI widget
This is only a premature hack, since the whole structure of PanelManager is somewhat broken.
Moreover, the ViewLocator is not really ready for use yet, so this hack at least
allows us to "reach into" a top-level window and "grab" the pannel we need.
* 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
...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
it seems apropriate to move the base definition of gui::idi::Descriptor<VIEW>
into view-spec-dsl.hpp and only retain the actual DSL definitions in id-scheme.hpp
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).
seemingly this code was brittle: GCC-7 treats int64_t as long,
which leads to preferring the template specialisation over the
explicit version of the operator* -- which means the template
instantiation invokes itself.
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
usually the ID is hard coded, but when re-throwing errors, it might be
from "somewhere else", which means it is possibly a NULL ptr.
In those cases we fall back to the cannonical ID of the error class.
My understanding is that in the standard use case, we precisely know what to expect
and just go ahead and perform the conversion. Thus it is pointless to introduce
fine grained distinctions. When the access fails, this always indicates some broken
application logic, and just raises an error.
With this solution, somewhere deep down within the implementation
the knowledge about the actual result type would be encoded into
the embedded VTable within a lib::variant. At interface level,
ther will be a double dispatch based on that result type
and the desired result type, leading either to a successful
access or an error response.
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
Basically the mocking mechanism just switches the configuration
and then waits for the service to be accessed in order to cause acutual
instantiation of the mock service implementation. But sometimes we want
to prepare and rig the mock instance prior to the first invocation;
in such cases it can be handy just to trigger the lazy creating process
...reduce immediate coupling, since we do not really now what actions ElementAccess
will actually perform, and this is likely to remain this way for some time.
So just let it sit there are an on-demand dependency.
Moreover, create an (empty placeholder) implementation within WindowLocator.
So everything is set now for the actual implementation to be filled in
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
while switching various services to the new framework,
I noticed the requirement to create a service handle in not-yet-started mode
and then start it explicitly, maybe even from another thread. Thus I introduced
a no-arg default ctor for that purpose, but overlooked that the forwarding ctor
might also need zero arguments for default constructible service implementation
classes. Thus I've now introduced a marker ENUM for disambiguation
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".
SingletonRef was only invented because lib::Depend (or lib::Singleton at that time)
offered only on-demand initialisation, but could not attach to an external service.
But this is required for calling out at the implementation side of a
Lumiera Interface into the actual service implementation.
The recently created DependInject::ServiceInstance now fulfils this task way better
and is seamlessly integrated into the lib::Depend front-end
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
...and package the ZombieCheck as helper object.
Also rewrite the SyncClassLock_test to perform an
multithreaded contended test to prove the lock is shared and effective
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
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.
the operation to run within the thread can be passed through as lambda;
and with the help of C++11 perfect forwarding we can get rid of the
temporary ThreadStartContext entirely, which removes a lot of
pass-through argument copying
...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.
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.
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"
util::contains used to pick the overload for strings,
i.e. it first converted the UI-Coordinates to diagnostic output format
and then searched that string for '*' to determine if the pattern is explicit
works as expected, but not what you'd intend....
...and breaks spectacularly once you search for something as innocuous as '.'
when used in a pattern for matching against the UI tree,
an element marked as UIC_ELIDED = "." is treated as existentially quantified.
This means, we assume / verify there *is* an element at that level,
but we do not care about what this element actually is. Within the
implementation, the handling is similar to a wildcard, yet such a
spec is not classified as a wildcard (it *is* an explicit element,
just not explicitly named).
The relevant consequence is that such an element matches at a leaf
position, while match on wildcards on leaf positions is prohibited,
to prevent arbitrary and nonsensical wildcard matches against
open ended patterns. Especially we need such an existential pattern
to express a rule to create elements from scratch, but within a
specific window with arbitrary (but existing) perspective.
turns out to be somewhat tricky.
The easy shot would be to use the comma operator,
but I don't like that idea, since in logic programming, comma means "and then".
So I prefer an || operator, similar to short-circuit evaluation of boolean OR
Unfortunately, OR binds stronger than assignment, so we need to trick our way
into a smooth DSL syntax by wrapping into intermediary marker types, and accept
rvalue references only, as additional safeguard to enforce the intended inline
definition syntax typical for DSL usage.
