Policy based design and best practices - C++

问题:

struct InkPen
{
  void Write()
  {
    this->WriteImplementation();
  }

  void WriteImplementation()
  {
    std::cout << "Writing using a inkpen" << std::endl;
  }

};

struct BoldPen
{
  void Write()
  {
    std::cout << "Writing using a boldpen" << std::endl;
  }
};

template<class PenType>
class Writer : public PenType
{
public:
  void StartWriting()
  {
    PenType::Write();
  }
};

int main()
{
  Writer<InkPen> writer;
  writer.StartWriting();
  Writer<BoldPen> writer1;
  writer1.StartWriting();
  return 0;
}

I wrote the above code as part of learning policy based designs. I have few questions on the above code

1 - Does this implementation look correct? I mean: does it really look like a policy based design?

2 - I can now hook any kind of pens to writer. But what will I do when I got a pen with no default constructor (only parameterized constructors)? How will I handle this situation?

template<class PenType>
class Writer : public PenType
{
public:
  void StartWriting()
  {
    PenType::Write();
  }
};

3 - When the above code is used like

Writer<InkPen> writer;

I guess compiler will replace PenType with InkPen. If yes, why I am not able to call just Write() from StartWriting() instead of prefixing base class name (PenType::Write())?

4 - I think policy based design forces you to derive from classes which is semantically invalid. In the above code, a writer is derived from a pen only because writer uses a pen. But saying writer is a pen is semantically invalid. Is there any other better way to address this or I am missing something here?

Any thoughts?

回答1:

Here's how I would implement the class:

template<class PenType>
class Writer
{
public:
  Writer(const PenType& pen = PenType()) : pen(pen) {}

  void StartWriting()
  {
    pen.Write();
  }

private:
  PenType pen;
};

This allows the user to pass a specific Pen object to the constructor, if it either doesn't have a default constructor, or you don't want it to be used, and second, it still allows you to omit the PenType object if you're happy to let it create one with the default constructor. The C++ standard library does the same in many classes (think of the allocators for container classes for example).

I removed the inheritance. It didn't really seem to add anything (and might cause problems. You probably don't want the user of the Writer class to call the PenType::Write function directly. You could use private inheritance instead, but often, composition is a simpler and more conventional design.

In general, policy-based design does not require inheritance. Adding it as a member works just as well. If you do go for inheritance, make it private so you don't get the problem you mentioned as #4.

回答2:

This looks like a nice example of policy-based smart pointer implementation: link. Andrei Alexandrescu describes policy-based smart pointer implementation in one of his books. As to your questions now. I have some experience in this stuff but not enough to take my words for granted:

Ad 1 & 4. I guess policy-based design is more about templates than inheritance. You write a template class and template arguments are policy classes, like that:

template<class FooPolicy, class BarPolicy>
class Baz {
    // implementation goes here
};

Then you use methods from policy classes in your class:

void Baz::someMethod(int someArg) {
    FooPolicy::methodInit();
    // some stuff
    BarPolicy::methodDone();
}

I use static methods in this example because often policy doesn't require any state. If it does, you incorporate policy's state by composition, not by inheritance:

template<class FooPolicy, class BarPolicy>
class Baz {
  private:
    FooPolicy::State fooState; // might require 'typename' keyword, I didn't
                               // actually tried this in any compiler
    // rest of the Baz class
};

Ad 2. You can write a template specialization - for a particular combination of main class and it's policies you can write a special version of any method or constructor, AFAIK:

template <>
Baz<SomeConcreteFooPolicy, SomeConcreteBazPolicy>::Baz(someArgument)
   : fooState(someArgument)
{
    // stuff here
}

Hope it helps you a bit,

Mike

回答3:

1 - Is this implementation looks correct? I mean is it really looks like a policy based design?

Policy classes derive their usefulness from combining behaviors to produce a rich variety of combinations. When you have a single template parameter like this, it's not much of a policy class.

2 - I can now hook any kind of pens to writer. But what will I do when I got a pen with no default constructor (only parameterized constructors)? How will I handle this situation?

Again, this is an odd example of a policy class. However, to directly answer your question, you can provide a constructor which accepts PenType. You should probably also avoid inheriting from PenType and store it as a member instead (no need to tightly couple your policy class with its policies).

I guess compiler will replace PenType with InkPen. If yes, why I am not able to call just Write() from StartWriting() instead of prefixing base class name (PenType::Write())?

When you inherit from a class template, you have to specify this->member or BaseClass::member.

4 - I think policy based design forces you to derive from classes which is semantically invalid. In the above code, a writer is derived from a pen only because writer uses a pen. But saying writer is a pen is semantically invalid. Is there any other better way to address this or I am missing something here?

Store PenType as a member as suggested above. Always prefer composition to inheritance as it avoids the tight coupling relationship of inheritance.

回答4:

I know this thread is old, but there is a major flaw in the initial post and this thread is one of the top results of Google...so:

Do not use public inheritance for policy-based design! This would say "is-a" instead of "has-a" / "uses-a". You should therefore use private inheritance!