Is it possible to create an own tcl environment?
What basically want to have is an own executable of Tcl8.5 but with some of my own package embedded in it.
This would make it much easier to distribute a tcl application.
Of course it's possible. One of the standard ways to use Tcl is as an embedded language: you just link your code against the Tcl library and go from there.
If you want to make your code work like an extended version of tclsh then you just call Tcl_Main() at the right point, with one of the arguments that you pass in being a callback that will add the local packages/commands that you want to add. It's conventional to call such a function Tcl_AppInit but you can call it anything you want really.
Otherwise, you do things more manually.
// Initialize the Tcl library first
Tcl_FindExecutable(argv[0]);
// Make the interpreter
Tcl_Interp *interp = Tcl_CreateInterp();
// Add your stuff in here
if (Tcl_EvalFile(interp, "your_main_script.tcl") != TCL_OK) {
// IMPORTANT: If things go wrong, print what happened. Saves debugging time!
fprintf(stderr, "error: %s\n", Tcl_GetString(Tcl_GetObjResult(interp)));
exit(1);
}
// Delete and clean up
Tcl_DeleteInterp(interp);
exit(0);
Take a look at Tclkit and Kitgen Build System - these systems can build an all-in-one-file Tcl runtime, also you can customise what packages get included.
Related
I know specific instances of this question have been answered before:
How can I dynamically include Perl modules without using eval?
How do I use a Perl package known only in runtime?
There are also good answers at Perl Monks:
Writing a Perl module that dynamically loads other modules.
Creating subroutines on the fly
But I would like a robust way to add functionallity to a Perl application that will be:
Efficient: if the code is not needed it should not be compiled.
Easy to debug: error reporting if something goes wrong at the dynamic code, should point at the right place at the dynamic code.
Easy to extend: adding new code should be as easy as adding a new file or directory+file.
Easy to invoke: the main application should be able to use an "add on" without much trouble. An efficient mechanism to check if the "add on" has already been loaded and if not load it, would be a plus.
To illustrate the point, here are some examples that would benefit from a good solution:
A set of scripts that move data from different applications. For instance, moving data from OpenCart to Prestashop, where each entity in the data model has a specific "add on" that deals with the input or output; then an intermediate data model takes care of the transformation of the data. This could be used to move data in any direction or even between different versions of the same ecommerce.
A web application that needs to render different types of HTML in different places. Each "module" knows how to handle a certain information and accepts parameters to do it. A module outputs HTML, another a list of documents, another a document, another a banner, and so on.
Here are some examples that I have used and that work.
Load a function at run time and output the possible compile errors:
eval `cat $file_with_function`;
if( $# ) {
print STDERR $#, "\n";
die "Errors at file $file_with_function\n";
}
Or more robust using File::Slurp:
eval read_file("$file_with_function", binmode => ':utf8');
Check that a certain function has been defined:
if( !defined &myfunction ) {
die "myfunction is not defined\n";
}
The function may be called from there on. This is fine with one function, but not for many.
If the function is put in a module:
require $file_with_function; # needs the ".pm" extension, i.e. addon/func.pm
$name_of_module->import(); # need to know the module name, i.e. Addon::Func
$name_of_module->myfunction(...);
Where the require may be protected inside an eval and then use $# as before.
With Module::Load:
load $name_of_module;
Followed by the import and used in the same way. Security should not be a concern as it may be assumed that the dynamic code comes from a trusted place. Are there better ways? Which way would be considered good practice?
In case it helps, I will be using the solution (among other places, but not exclusively) within the Dancer framework.
EDIT: Given the comments, I add some more info. All cases that I have in mind have in common:
There is more than one dynamic piece of code. Probably many to start with.
Each bit of code has the same interface.
Given the comments and the lack of responses, I have done some research to answer my own question. Comments or other answers are welcome!
Dynamic code
By dynamic code I mean code that is evaluated at run-time. In general, I consider better to compile an application so that you have all the error checking the Perl compiler can offer before starting to execute. Added to use strict and use warnings, you can catch many common mistakes that way. So why using dynamic code at all? These are the reasons I consider:
An application performs many different actions that are chosen depending on the context of execution. For instance, an application extracts certain properties from a file. The way to extract them depends on the file type and we want to deal with many file types, but we do not want to change the application for each new file type we add. We also want the application to start quickly.
An application needs to be expanded on the fly in a way that does not require the application to restart.
We have a large application that contains a number of features. When we deploy the application, we do not want to provide all the possible features all the time, maybe because we licence them separately, maybe because not all of them are able to run under all platforms. By throwing in only the files with the features we want, we have a distribution that does not require changing any code or config files.
How do we do it?
Given the possibilities that Perl offers, solutions to adding dynamic code come in two flavors: using eval and using require. Then there are modules that may help do things in an easier or more maintainable way.
The quick and dirty way
The eval way uses the form eval EXPR to compile a piece of Perl code at run-time. The expression could be a string but I suggest putting the code in a file and grouping other similar files in a convenient place. Then, if possible using File::Slurp:
eval read_file("$file_with_code", binmode => ':utf8');
if( $# ) {
die "$file_with_code: error $#\n";
}
if( !defined &myfunction ) {
die "myfunction is not defined at $file_with_code\n";
}
Specifying the character set to read_file makes sure that the file will be interpreted correctly. It is also good to check that the compilation was correct and that the function we expect was defined. So in $file_with_code, we will have:
sub myfunction(...) {
# Do whatever; maybe return something
}
Then you may invoke the function normally. The function will be a different one depending on which file was loaded. Simple and dynamic.
The modular way (recommended)
The way I would do it with maintainability in mind would be using require. Unlike use, that is evaluated at compile-time, require may be used to load a module at run-time. Out of the various ways to invoke require, I would go for:
my $mymodule = 'MyCompany::MyModule'; # The module name ends up in $mymodule
require $mymodule;
Also unlike use, require will load the module but will not execute import. So we may use any functions inside the module and those function names will not polute the calling namespace. To access the function we will need to use:
$mymodule->myfunction($a, $b);
See below as to how the arguments get passed. This way of invoking a function will add an argument before $a and $b that is usually named $self. You may ignore it if you don´t know anything about object orientation.
As require will try to load a module and the module may not exist or it may not compile, to catch the error it will be better to use:
eval "require $mymodule";
Then $# may be used to check for an error in the loading+compiling process. We may also check that the function has been defined with:
if( $mymodule->can('myfunction') ) {
die "myfunction is not defined at module $mymodule\n";
}
In this case we will need to create a directory for the modules and a file with the .pm extension for each one:
MyCompany
MyModule.pm
Inside MyModule.pm we will have:
package MyCompany::MyModule;
sub myfunction {
my ($self, $a, $b);
# Do whatever; maybe return something
# $self will be 'MyCompany::MyModule'
}
1;
The package bit is essential and will make sure that whatever definitions we put inside will be at the MyCompany::MyModule namespace. The 1; at the end will tell require that the module initialization was correct.
In case we wanted to implement the module by using other libraries that could polute the caller namespace, we could use the namespace::clean module. This module will make sure the caller does not get any additions to the namespace coming from the module we are defining. It is used in this way:
package MyCompany::MyModule;
# Definitions by these modules will not be available to the code doing the require
use Library1 qw(def1 def2);
use Library2 qw(def3 def4);
...
# Private functions go here and will not be visible from the code doing the require
sub private_function1 {
...
}
...
use namespace::clean;
# myfunction will be available
sub myfunction {
# Do whatever; maybe return something
}
...
1;
What happens if we include a module more than once?
The short answer is nothing. Perl keeps track of which modules have been loaded and from where using the %INC variable. Both use and require will not load a library twice. use will add any exported names to the callers namespace. require will not do that either. In case you want to check that a module has been loaded already, you could use %INC or better yet, you could use module::loaded which is part of the core in modern Perl versions:
use Module::Loaded;
if( !is_loaded( $mymodule ) {
eval "require $mymodule" );
...
}
How do I make sure Perl finds my module files?
For use and require Perl uses the #INC variable to define the list of directories that will be used to look for libraries. Adding a new directory to it may be achieved (among other ways) by adding it to the PERL5LIB environment variable or by using:
use lib '/the/path/to/my/libs';
Helper libraries
I have found some libraries that may be used to make the code that uses the dynamic mechanism more maintainable. They are:
The if module: will load a module or not depending on a condition: use if CONDITION, MODULE => ARGUMENTS;. May also be used to unload a module.
Module::Load::Conditional: will not die on you while trying to load a module and may also be used to check the module version or its dependencies. It is also able to load a list of modules all at once even checking their versions before doing so.
Taken from the Module::Load::Conditional documentation:
use Module::Load::Conditional qw(can_load);
my $use_list = {
CPANPLUS => 0.05,
LWP => 5.60,
'Test::More' => undef,
};
print can_load( modules => $use_list )
? 'all modules loaded successfully'
: 'failed to load required modules';
I often work on a huge, not-very-well-documented, object-oriented Perl repo at my place of employment. While maintaining the code, I frequently need to trace things that are inherited from other classes so that I can understand what they're doing. For example, I need to figure out what $self->mystery is and what it's doing:
package Foo::Bar;
use Moose;
use Method::Signatures;
use Foo::Bar::Element;
use Foo::Bar::Function;
use base qw (Baz::Foo::Bar);
method do_stuff ($some_arg) {
# mystery is not defined in Foo::Bar
my $mystery = $self->mystery;
$mystery->another_mystery($some_arg);
}
I usually find myself spending way too much time tracing through parent classes. So my question is, is there an easy way for me to figure out where $self->mystery comes from? Or in other words, I need to find where mystery is declared.
And by "easy way", I don't mean using ack or grep to string search through files. I'm hoping there's some sort of debugging module I can install and use which could help give me some insight.
Thank you.
Thanks to Standard Perl . . . the comes_from Method!
You don’t need to download any special tool or module this, let alone some giant IDE because your undocumented class structure has gotten too complicated for mere humans ever to understand without a hulking IDE.
Why not? Simple: Standard Perl contains everything you need to get the answer you’re looking for. The easy way to find out where something comes from is to use the very useful comes_from method:
$origin = $self->comes_from("mystery");
$secret_origin = $self->comes_from("another_mystery");
$birthplace = Some::Class->comes_from("method_name");
That will return the original name of the subroutine which that method would resolve to. As you see, comes_from works as both an object method and a class method, just like can and isa.
Note that when I say the name of the subroutine it resolves to, I mean where that subroutine was originally created, back before any importing or inheritance. For example, this code:
use v5.10.1;
use Path::Router;
my($what, $method) = qw(Path::Router dump);
say "$what->$method is really ", $what->comes_from($method);
prints out:
Path::Router->dump is really Moose::Object::dump
Similar calls would also reveal things like:
Net::SMTP->mail is really Net::SMTP::mail
Net::SMTP->status is really Net::Cmd::status
Net::SMTP->error is really IO::Handle::error
It works just fine on plain ole subroutines, too:
SQL::Translator::Parser::Storable->normalize_name
is really SQL::Translator::Utils::normalize_name
The lovely comes_from method isn’t quite built in though it requires nothing outside of Standard Perl. To make it accessible to you and all your classes and objects and more, just add this bit of code somewhere — anywhere you please really :)
sub UNIVERSAL::comes_from($$) {
require B;
my($invocant, $invoke) = #_;
my $coderef = $invocant->can($invoke) || return;
my $cv = B::svref_2object($coderef);
return unless $cv->isa("B::CV");
my $gv = $cv->GV;
return if $gv->isa("B::SPECIAL");
my $subname = $gv->NAME;
my $packname = $gv->STASH->NAME;
return $packname . "::" . $subname;
}
By declaring that as a UNIVERSAL sub, now everybody who’s anybody gets to play with it, just like they do with can and isa. Enjoy!
Are you sure you don't want an IDE? It seems to be what you are asking about. Padre, Eclipse EPIC, Emacs , and vim and many other editors offer some variation on the features you mention - probably simpler than you seem to want. If you have big project to navigate ctags can help - it's usually easy to integrate into an editor and you are allowed to hack on your configuration file (with regexes BTW) to get it to recognize bits of a complicated set of source files.
There is a related PERL FAQ entry about IDEs and a SO question: What's a good development environment for Perl?. There are also a host of CPAN modules you will want to use when developing that let you look into your code programmatically:
Devel::Kit
Devel::Peek
SUPER
Devel::Trepan
MooseX::amine / mex
...
You can see an example of a script that looks for methods in classes in the SO node: Get all methods and/or properties in a given Perl class or module.
You might be able to get tools like these to help you hop around in your source in a way you find useful from a shell or from inside the debugger. Trepan has a good short summary of debugging tools as part of its documentation. Generally though you can be very productive combining Data::Dumper the B:: modules (B::Xref , B::Deparse, etc., etc.) with the debugger and ack.
I'm getting ready to try to deploy some code to multiple machines. As far as I know, using a Makefile.pm to track dependencies is the best way to ensure they are installed everywhere. The problem I have is I'm not sure our Makefile.pm has been updated as this application has passed through a few different developers.
Is there any way to automatically parse through either my source or a few full runs of my program to determine exactly what versions of what modules my application is depending on? On top of that, is there any way to filter it based on CPAN packages? (So that I only depend on Moose instead of every single module that comes with Moose.)
A third related question is, if you depend on a version of a module that is not the latest, what is the best way to have someone else install it? Should I start including entire localized Perl installations with my application?
Just to be clear - you can not generically get a list of modules that the app depends on by code analysis alone. E.g. if your apps does eval { require $module; $module->import() }, where $module is passed via command line, then this can ONLY be detected by actually running the specific command line version with ALL the module values.
If you do wish to do this, you can figure out every module used by a combination of runs via:
Devel::Cover. Coverage reports would list 100% of modules used. But you don't get version #s.
Print %INC at every single possible exit point in the code as slu's answer said. This should probably be done in END{} block as well as __DIE__ handler to cover all possible exit points, and even then may be not fully 100% covering in generic case if somewhere within the program your __DIE__ handler gets overwritten.
Devel::Modlist (also mentioned by slu's answer) - the downside compared to Devel::Cover is that it does NOT seem to be able to aggregate a database across multiple sample runs like Devel::Cover does. On the plus side, it's purpose-built, so has a lot of very useful options (CPAN paths, versions).
Please note that the other module (Module::ScanDeps) does NOT seem to allow you to do runtime analysis based on arbitrary command line arguments (e.g. it seems at first glance to only allow you to execute the program with no arguments) and if that's true, is inferior to all the above 3 methods for any code that may possibly load modules dynamically.
Module::ScanDeps - Recursively scan Perl code for dependencies
Does both static and runtime scanning. Just modules, I don't know of any exact way of verifying what versions from what distributions. You could get old packages from BackPan, or just package your entire chain of local dependencies up with PAR.
You could look at %INC, see http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=681911 which also mentions Devel::Modlist
I would definitely use Devel::TraceUse, which also shows a tree of the modules, so it's easy to guess where they are being loaded.
I've been assigned to pick up a webapplication written in some old Perl Legacy code, get it working on our server to later extend it. The code was written 10 years ago by a solitary self-taught developer...
The code has weird stuff going on - they are not afraid to do lib-param.pl on line one, and later in the file do /lib-pl/lib-param.pl - which is offcourse a different file.
Including a.pl with methods b() and c() and later including d.pl with methods c() and e() seems to be quite popular too... Packages appear to be unknown, so you'll just find &c() somewhere in the code later.
Interesting questions:
Is there a tool that can draw relations between perl-files? Show a list of files used by each other file?
The same for MySQL databases and tables? Can it show which schema's/tables are used by which files?
Is there an IDE that knows which c() is called - the one in a.pl or the one in d.pl?
How would you start to try to understand the code?
I'm inclined to go through each file and refactor it, but am not allowed to do that - only the strict minimum to get the code working. (But since the code never uses strict, I don't know if I'm gonna...)
Not using strict is a mistake -- don't continue it. Move the stuff in d.pl to D.pm (or perhaps a better name alltogether), and if the code is procedural use Sub::Exporter to get those subs back into the calling package. strict is lexical, you can turn it on for just one package. Such as your new package D;. To find out which code is being called, use Devel::SimpleTrace.
perl -MDevel::SimpleTrace ./foo.pl
Now any warnings will be accompanied by a full back-log -- sprinkle warnings around the code and run it.
I think the MySQL question should be removed, from this. Schema Table mappings have nothing to do with perl, it seems an out of place distraction on this question.
I would write a utility to scan a complete list of all subs and which file they live in; then I would write a utility to give me a list of all function calls and which file they come from.
By the way - it is not terribly hard to write a fairly mindless static analysis tool to generate a call graph.
For many cases, in well-written code, that will be enough to help me out...
This is a little convoluted, but lets try:
I'm integrating LUA scripting into my game engine, and I've done this in the past on win32 in an elegant way. On win32 all I did was to mark all of the functions I wanted to expose to LUA as export functions. Then, to integrate them into LUA, I'd parse the PE header of the executable, unmangle the names, parse the parameters and such, then register them with my LUA runtime. This allowed me to avoid manually registering every function individually just to expose them to LUA.
Now, flash forward to today where I'm working on the iPhone. I've looked through some Unix stuff and I've gotten very close to taking a similar approach, however I'm not sure it will actually work.
I'm not entirely familiar with Unix, but here is what I have so far on iPhone:
Step 1: Query for the executable path through objective-C and get the path of my app
Step 2: Use dlopen to get a handle to my app using: `dlopen(path, RTLD_NOW)`
Step 3: Use `dlsym( libraryHandle, objectName )` to attempt to get the address of a known symbol.
The above steps won't actually get me to where I want to be, but even that doesn't work. Does anyone have any experience doing this type of thing on Unix? Are there any headers or functions I can google to put me on the right track?
Thanks;)
iPhone does not support dynamic linking after the initital application launch. While what you want to do does not actually require linking in any new application TEXT, it would not shock me to find out that some of the dl* functions do not behave as expected.
You may be able to write some platform specific code, but I recommend using a technique developed by the various BSDs called linker sets. Bascially you annotate the functions you want to do something with (just like you currently mark them for export). Through some preprocessor magic they store the annotations, sometimes in an extra segment in the binary image, then have code that grabs that data and enumerates its. So you simply add all the functions you want into the linker set, then walk through the linker set and register all the functions in it with lua.
I know people have gotten this stuff up and running on Windows and Linux, I have used it on Mac OS X and various *BSDs. I am linking the FreeBSD linker_set implementation, but I have not personally seen the Windows implementation.
You need to pass --export-dynamic to the linker (via -Wl,--export-dynamic).
Note: This is for Linux, but could be a starting point for your search.
References:
http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/ld/Options.html
If static linking is an option, integrate that into the linker script. Before linking, do "nm" on all object files, extract the global symbols, and generate a C file containing a (preferably sorted/hashed) mapping of all symbol names to symbol values:
struct symbol{ char* name; void * value } symbols = [
{"foo", foo},
{"bar", bar},
...
{0,0}};
If you want to be selective in what you expose, it might be easiest to implement a naming schema, e.g. prefixing all functions/methods with Lua_.
Alternatively, you can create a trivial macro,
#define ForLua(X) X
and then grep the sources for ForLua, to select the symbols that you want to incorporate.
You could just generate a mapfile and use that instead, no?