package a::b::c:d
my $res = a::b::c:e->new(); # i am doing like this
# is there any othere to do this
sub new {
...
my $self = {
#result = a::b::c:e->new();
}
}
sub test {
}
sub test2 {
}
1;
package a::b::c:e
sub new {
...
}
sub testresult {
}
1;
My question is:
how to initalize the e module in d in new itself rather creating every function and
how to use that to store some results into e:testresult
There are two strategies -- either examine the symbol table to initialize on creation, or make use of AUTOLOAD and test with can. AUTOLOAD can be messier as you have to deal with the case where the method isn't there:
sub AUTOLOAD {
my $self = shift;
my $method = $AUTOLOAD;
$method =~ s/.*://; # strip package name
if ( $self->{'result'}->can($method) ) {
return $self->{'result'}->$method(#_);
} else {
croak "Unknown method : $method";
}
}
But the symbol table trick is brittle, as if they're using inheritance, you won't see the inherited methods without walking up #ISA, too. (and even if they're not -- they might start using inheritance in the future, which results in things breaking)
...
Typically, when you're trying to copy another module's interface, you've got a case of inheritance, so you might want to ask yourself what the relationship is between ::d and ::e :
a::b::c::d is an a::b::c::e
a::b::c::d uses a::b::c::e
If it's an is-a relationship, it's typically better suited to inheritance (although you might have wrappers around each of the methods, and still need to go through this whole exercise anyway). If it's a uses relationship, odds are you don't want to inherit from every last method they have, and can just hard code a list (although, the list might change if the used class is updated)
foreach my $method ( #list_of_methods_to_copy ) {
*{$method} = sub {
my $self = shift;
return $self->{'results'}->$method(#_);
}
}
Provided that you're not looking for inheritance between the two classes, it looks to me that you might want to use Class::Delegator for composing your class. That way, you can create the delegation routines by putting the following in a::b::c::d.
use Class::Delegator send => 'testresult', to => '{result}';
But you'd need to fix your constructor anyway:
my $self
= bless {
result => a::b::c::e->new()
}, $class_name
;
return $self;
Having done that, you'd have a field '{result}' to delegate to.
Related
I'm aware that Perl is not statically typed when I want to apply this mechanism to a Perl object of a derived class:
Say I have a base class B and a derived class D inheriting from B.
Also I have an object $obj that holds a D object.
A function Bf() is expecting a parameter of type B.
Obviously (by the rules of polymorphism) I can pass $obj to Bf() like Bf($obj), but unlike to a static-typed language Bf() will see the whole D object (and not just the elements of B).
Is there a (rather clean and simple) solution for this problem in Perl? The solution should "hide" the attributes (and methods) a B does not have from D in Bf(), not restricting modifications of the original B (which is D actually).
Adult Programmers only (added 2020-03-06)
OK, people wanted a more concrete description.
Unfortunately (as pointed out) the original program is highly complex and uses reflection-like mechanisms to generate getters, setters and formatters automatically, to I really can't give a minimum working example here, because it would not be minimal.
First I have a class MessageHandler that handle messages (no surprise!).
Then I have a function log_message($$$) that expects (among others) a MessageHandler object as first argument.
Then I have this hierarchy of classes (it's much more complex in reality):
MessageHandler
ControlMessageHandler (ISA: MessageHandler)
ControlMessageResponseHandler (ISA: ControlMessageHandler)
Now if log_message wants a MessageHandler I can pass a ControlMessageResponseHandler as it conforms to MessageHandler.
But doing so exposes all the attributes of ControlMessageResponseHandler to log_message that are non-existent in MessageHandler.
The danger is that log_message might (by mistake) access an attribute of ControlMessageResponseHandler that is not present in MessageHandler. To prevent errors I'd like to prevent that, or at least get some warning (like I would get in a statically-typed language as Eiffel).
Dirty Details inside
Just in case it matters, I'll sketch how my array objects are built (a lot of extra code would be needed for a working example):
First the array indices are allocated automatically like this:
use constant I_VERBOSITY => IS_NEXT->(); # verbosity level
use constant I_TAG => IS_NEXT->(); # additional tag
use constant I_TAG_STACK => IS_NEXT->(); # tag stack
use constant I_MSG_DEBUG => IS_NEXT->(); # handler for debug messages
...
use constant I_LAST => IS_LAST->(); # last index (must be last)
I_LAST is needed for inheritance.
The attributes are defines like this:
use constant ATTRIBUTES => (
['verbosity', I_VERBOSITY, undef],
['tag', I_TAG, \&Class::_format_string],
['tag_stack', I_TAG_STACK, undef],
['msg_debug', I_MSG_DEBUG, \&Class::_format_code],
...
);
The definition contains a hint how to format each attribute.
This information is used to set up formatters to format each attribute like this:
use constant FORMATTERS =>
(map { Class::_attribute_string($_->[0], $_->[1], undef, $_->[2]) }
ATTRIBUTES); # attribute formatters
Getters and setters are automatically defined like this:
BEGIN {
foreach (ATTRIBUTES) {
Class::_assign_gs_ai(__PACKAGE__, $_->[0], $_->[1]);
}
}
The constructor would use the following lines:
my $self = [];
$#$self = I_LAST;
$self->[I_VERBOSITY] = $verbosity;
...
And finally my object print routine goes like this:
sub as_string($)
{
my $self = shift;
my $a_sep = ', ';
return join($a_sep, map { $_->($self, $a_sep) } FORMATTERS);
}
With inheritance it looks like this:
sub as_string($)
{
my $self = shift;
my $a_sep = ', ';
return join($a_sep, $self->SUPER::as_string(),
map { $_->($self, $a_sep) } FORMATTERS);
}
I'm not sure what your problem is, although I think you took the long way to say "I have a function that expects a B object, and I want to pass it a D object."
If you only want objects of a certain exact type, don't accept anything else:
use Carp qw(croak);
sub Bf {
croak "Bad object! I only like B" unless ref $_[0] eq 'B';
...
}
But, that's a bad idea. A derived class should be just as good as the base class. The clean solution is to not care what type you get.
sub Bf {
croak "Bad object! Doesn't respond to foo!" unless $_[0]->can('foo');
...
}
Since this Bf method works with the base class, why would it look for something in some derived class it didn't know about? If the derived class has changed the interface and no longer acts like its parent, then maybe it's isn't a good fit for inheritance. There are many problems like this that are solved by a different architecture.
I think you'll have to come up with a concrete example where the derived class wouldn't work.
It sounds like for some reason you need your D object to behave like a B object, but at the same time not like a D object. As the existing answers and comments indicate, it's a very common to use a sub-class where the base class is expected, and most algorithms shouldn't care whether what you actually passed is D or B. The only reason I can think of why you would want otherwise is that D overrides (redefines) some methods in an incompatible way, and you want the methods from B instead.
package Dog;
sub new {
my ($class, %args) = #_;
return bless \%args, $class;
}
sub bark { print "Bark!\n"; }
package Dingo;
use parent 'Dog';
sub bark { print "...\n"; }
package main;
my $dingo = Dingo->new;
$dingo->bark; # "..."
(n.b., I've left off the recommended use strict; and use warnings; for terseness, they should be used in all packages)
You may be aware from reading perldoc perlootut and perldoc perlobj that an object in Perl is just a blessed reference of some sort; in the example above, we use a hash reference. If you are trying to get the "attributes" that only exist in B, I think you would have to write some sort of translation method. But, if you care about the methods that exist in B, all you have to do is re-bless it into the parent class.
my $dingo = Dingo->new;
$dingo->bark; # "..."
bless $dingo, "Dog";
$dingo->bark; # "Bark!"
Note that bless does not return a new reference, but modifies that reference in-place; if you want it to behave like a Dingo again, you have to bless it back.
Perhaps more conveniently you can define a method to create a copy for you and bless it into the appropriate class:
package Dog;
sub as_dog {
my ($self) = #_;
# The {} below create a shallow copy, i.e., a new reference
return bless { %{$self} }, __PACKAGE__;
}
#...
package main;
my $dingo = Dingo->new;
$dingo->bark; # ...
$dingo->as_dog->bark; # Bark!
$dingo->bark; # ...
While there doesn't seem to be a perfect solution, temporary "re-blessing" the object seems to get quite close to what is asked for:
sub Bf($) # expects a "B" object (or descendant of "B" (like "D"))
{
my $B = shift;
my $type = ref($B); # save original type
die "unexpected type $type" unless ($B->isa('B'));
bless $B, 'B'; # restrict to "B"'s features
$B->whatever(...);
#...
bless $B, $type; # restore original type
}
I have this perl object. After the object is instantiated, I'm trying to add a new method to the object within a loader method, that can then be called later.
I've tried a whole bunch of stuff that hasn't worked. Examples include:
sub loader {
my ($self) = #_;
sub add_me {
my ($self, $rec) = #_
warn "yayyyyyy";
return $rec;
}
#here are the things I've tried that dont work:
# &{$self->{add_me}} = \&add_me;
# \&{$self->{add_me}} = \&add_me;
# assuming the class definition is in Holder::Class try to add it to symblol table
# *{Holder::Class::add_me} = \&add_me;
}
EDIT:
The reason that I need to do this is I'm adding a hook in my code where the user of my software will have the ability to inject their own sub to edit a data structure as they will.
To do this, they will be able to edit a secondary file that will only contain one sub and get the data structure in question passed in, so something like:
sub inject_a_sub {
my ($self, $rec) = #_;
#do stuff to $rec
return $rec;
}
then inside my original object upon its instantiation, I check to see if the above mentioned file exists, and if so read its contents and eval them. Lastly, I want to make the eval'd code which is just a sub, a method of my object. To be precise, my object is already inheriting a method called do_something and i want to make the sub read in by the eval override the do_something method being inherited so that when called the sub from the external file runs.
its a weird problem :/
and it hurts me :(
Obi wan kenobi you're my only hope!
Cheers!
If you just want to attach functionality to a specific object, and don't need inheritance, you can store a code ref in the object and call it.
# Store the code in the object, putting it in its own
# nested hash to reduce the chance of collisions.
$obj->{__actions}{something} = sub { ... };
# Run the code
my #stuff = $obj->{__actions}{something}->(#args);
Problem is, you need to check that $obj->{__actions}{something} contains a code reference. What I would suggest is to wrap a method around this procedure.
sub add_action {
my($self, $action, $code) = #_;
$self->{__actions}{$action} = $code;
return;
}
sub take_action {
my($self, $action, $args) = #_;
my $code = $self->{__actions}{$action};
return if !$code or ref $code ne 'CODE';
return $code->(#$args);
}
$obj->add_action( "something", sub { ... } );
$obj->take_action( "something", \#args );
If you already know the class name you want to inject a method into, write the subroutine as normal but use the fully qualified name.
sub Some::Class::new_method {
my $self = shift;
...
}
Note that any globals inside that subroutine will be in the surrounding package, not in Some::Class. If you want persistent variables use state inside the subroutine or my outside the subroutine.
If you don't know the name at compile time, you'll have to inject the subroutine into the symbol table, so you were close with that last one.
sub inject_method {
my($object, $method_name, $code_ref) = #_;
# Get the class of the object
my $class = ref $object;
{
# We need to use symbolic references.
no strict 'refs';
# Shove the code reference into the class' symbol table.
*{$class.'::'.$method_name} = $code_ref;
}
return;
}
inject_method($obj, "new_method", sub { ... });
Methods in Perl are associated with a class, not an object. In order to assign a method to a single object, you have to put that object into its own class. Similar to the above, but you have to create a subclass for every instance.
my $instance_class = "_SPECIAL_INSTANCE_CLASS_";
my $instance_class_increment = "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA";
sub inject_method_into_instance {
my($object, $method_name, $code_ref) = #_;
# Get the class of the object
my $old_class = ref $object;
# Get the special instance class and increment it.
# Yes, incrementing works on strings.
my $new_class = $instance_class . '::' . $instance_class_increment++;
{
# We need to use symbolic references.
no strict 'refs';
# Create its own subclass
#{$new_class.'::ISA'} = ($old_class);
# Shove the code reference into the class' symbol table.
*{$new_class.'::'.$method_name} = $code_ref;
# Rebless the object to its own subclass
bless $object, $new_class;
}
return;
}
I left out the code to check whether or not the instance has already had this treatment by checking if its class matches /^${instance_class}::/. I leave that as an exercise for you. Creating a new class for every object is not cheap and will cost memory.
There are valid reasons to do this, but they are exceptional. You should really, really question whether you should be doing this sort of monkey patching. In general, action at a distance should be avoided.
Can you accomplish the same thing using a subclass, delegation or role?
There already exist Perl OO systems which will do this for you and much much more. You should be using one. Moose, Moo (via Role::Tiny) and Mouse can all add roles to an instance.
Trying to understand Moose:
use Modern::Perl;
package FOO {
use Moose;
sub rep { say " <report></report>"; }
sub doc {
say "<document>";
inner();
say "</document>";
}
}
package BAR {
use Moose;
extends 'FOO';
around 'rep' => sub {
my $orig = shift;
my $self = shift;
say "<document>";
$self->$orig(#_);
say "</document>";
};
augment 'doc' => sub {
say " <report></report>";
};
}
package main {
BAR->new->rep;
say "===";
BAR->new->doc;
}
Produces...
<document>
<report></report>
</document>
===
<document>
<report></report>
</document>
... the same result. When desinging the "model (object hierarchy)" - based on what I should decide when to use around and when augment?
Here are probably other (deeper) things what i currently didn't understand yet.
Can please someone provide an "more deep" explanation, because reading tru the Moose/Manual/MethodModifiers obviously not helped enough...
augment and around do rather different things. augment is designed to make this sort of pattern easier:
package Document {
use Moose;
sub make_document {
my $self = shift;
return "<doc>" . $self->_document_innards . "</doc>"
}
# stub; override in child class
sub _document_innards {
my $self = shift;
return "";
}
}
package Invoice {
use Moose;
extends 'Document';
sub _document_innards {
my $self = shift;
return "Give me money!";
}
}
With augment it becomes:
package Document {
use Moose;
sub make_document {
my $self = shift;
return "<doc>" . inner() . "</doc>"
}
}
package Invoice {
use Moose;
extends 'Document';
augment make_document => sub {
my $self = shift;
return "Give me money!";
};
}
On the other hand, around is used as a replacement for doing $self->SUPER::method(#args) because SUPER can't work in roles (the notion of which package to check superclasses for is bound at compile-time, so $self->SUPER::method(#args) would check superclasses of the role (i.e. none) instead of superclasses of the class that consumed the role. If you're not using roles, then SUPER can still be used in Moose classes just fine. TLDR: SUPER is broken by roles, so Moose gives you around as an alternative.
Another thing to compare is override which is a bit like around, but gives you this super() function which is perhaps slightly cleaner than $self->$orig(#_). It also has an "there can be only one" feature. If two roles try to provide an around modifier for the same method, that's fine: they both get to wrap the method (though the order in which they are applied is undefined). If two roles try to provide an override modifier, that's an error.
The implementation of augment is somewhat fragile in my experience, so that in my book is a reason to avoid it. Don't try to replace it with around, because they do rather different things. Instead, replace it with the pattern used in my first example above.
Using around should always be your first instinct. As (Moose creator) Stevan Little says about augment:
Thankfully, only a small percentage of people actually grok this
feature and of those people only a handful of them are crazy enough to
try and use it.
I want to put some subs that are within an OO package into an array - also within the package - to use as a dispatch table. Something like this
package Blah::Blah;
use fields 'tests';
sub new {
my($class )= #_;
my $self = fields::new($class);
$self->{'tests'} = [
$self->_sub1
,$self->_sub2
];
return $self;
}
_sub1 { ... };
_sub2 { ... };
I'm not entirely sure on the syntax for this?
$self->{'tests'} = [
$self->_sub1
,$self->_sub2
];
or
$self->{'tests'} = [
\&{$self->_sub1}
,\&{$self->_sub2}
];
or
$self->{'tests'} = [
\&{_sub1}
,\&{_sub2}
];
I don't seem to be able to get this to work within an OO package, whereas it's quite straightforward in a procedural fashion, and I haven't found any examples for OO.
Any help is much appreciated,
Iain
Your friend is can. It returns a reference to the subroutine if it exists, null otherwise. It even does it correctly walking up the OO chain.
$self->{tests} = [
$self->can('_sub1'),
$self->can('_sub2'),
];
# later
for $tn (0..$#{$self->{tests}}) {
ok defined $self->{tests}[$tn], "Function $tn is available.";
}
# and later
my $ref = $self->{tests}[0];
$self->$ref(#args1);
$ref = $self->{tests}[1];
$self->$ref(#args2);
Or, thanks to this question (which happens to be a variation of this question), you can call it directly:
$self->${\$self->{tests}[0]}(#args1);
$self->${\$self->{tests}[1]}(#args1);
Note that the \ gives us a reference to a the subref, which then gets dereferenced by the ${} after $self->. Whew!
To solve the timeliness issue brain d foy mentions, an alternative would be to simply make the {test} a subroutine itself, that returns a ref, and then you could get it at exactly the time you need it:
sub tests {
return [
$self->can('_sub1'),
$self->can('_sub2')
];
}
and then use it:
for $tn (0..$#{$self->tests()}) {
...
}
Of course, if you have to iterate over the refs anyway, you might as well just go straight for passing the reference out:
for my $ref (0..$#{$self->tests()}) {
$self->$ref(#args);
}
Although Robert P's answer might work for you, it has the problem of fixing the dispatch very early in the process. I tend to resolve the methods as late as I can, so I would leave the things in the tests array as method names until you want to use them:
$self->{tests} = [
qw( _sub1 _sub2 )
];
The strength of a dynamic language is that you can wait as long as you like to decide what's going to happen.
When you want to run them, you can go through the same process that Robert already noted. I'd add an interface to it though:
foreach my $method_name ( $obj->get_test_methods )
{
$obj->$method_name();
}
That might even be better as not tying the test to an existing method name:
foreach my $method_name ( $obj->get_test_methods )
{
$obj->run_test_named( $method_name );
}
That run_test_named could then be your dispatcher, and it can be very flexible:
sub run_test_named
{
my( $self, $name ) = #_;
# do anything you want, like in Robert's answer
}
Some things you might want to do:
Run a method on an object
Pass the object as an argument to something else
Temporarily override a test
Do nothing
etc, etc
When you separate what you decide to do from its implementation, you have a lot more freedom. Not only that, the next time you call the same test name, you can do something different.
use lib Alpha;
my $foo = Alpha::Foo->new; # indirect object syntax is deprecated
$foo->bar();
my %disp_table = ( bar => sub { $foo->bar() } );
$disp_table{bar}->(); # call it
You need a closure because you want to turn a method call into an ordinary subroutine call, so you have to capture the object you're calling the method on.
There are a few ways to do this. Your third approach is closest. That will store a reference to the two subs in the array. Then when you want to call them, you have to be sure to pass them an object as their first argument.
Is there a reason you are using the use fields construct?
if you want to create self contained test subs, you could do it this way:
$$self{test} = [
map {
my $code = $self->can($_); # retrieve a reference to the method
sub { # construct a closure that will call it
unshift #_, $self; # while passing $self as the first arg
goto &$code; # goto jumps to the method, to keep 'caller' working
}
} qw/_sub1 _sub2/
];
and then to call them
for (#{ $$self{test} }) {
eval {$_->(args for the test); 1} or die $#;
}
Last week I was bitten twice by accidentally overriding methods in a subclass. While I am not a fan of inheritance, we (ab)use this in our application at work. What I would like to do is provide some declarative syntax for stating that a method is overriding a parent method. Something like this:
use Attribute::Override;
use parent 'Some::Class';
sub foo : override { ... } # fails if it doesn't override
sub bar { ... } # fails if it does override
There are a couple of issues here. First, if method loading is delayed somehow (for example, methods loaded via AUTOLOAD or otherwise later installed in the symbol table), this won't detect those methods.
Walking the inheritance tree could also get similarly expensive. I do this with Class::Sniff, but it's not really suitable for running code. I could walk the inheritance tree and simply match where there's a defined CODE slot in the appropriate symbol table and that would be faster, but if the method cache is invalidated, that would break if I were to cache those results.
So I have two questions: is this a reasonable approach and is there a hook which allows me to check if the method cache has changed? (search for 'cache' in 'perldoc perlobj').
Of course, this shouldn't break production code, I am thinking about only having it fail or warn if the TEST_HARNESS environment variable is active (and have an explicit environment variable to force it to be inactive, if production code were to set the TEST_HARNESS environment variable for some reason).
One way to enforce this:
package Base;
...
sub new {
my $class = shift;
...
check_overrides( $class );
...
}
sub check_overrides {
my $class = shift;
for my $method ( #unoverridable ) {
die "horribly" if __PACKAGE__->can( $method ) != $class->can( $method );
}
}
Memoization of check_overrides may be helpful.
If there are some cases where you want exemptions, have an alternate method name and
have the base class call that:
package Base;
...
my #unoverridable = 'DESTROY';
sub destroy {}
sub DESTROY {
my $self = shift;
# do essential stuff
...
$self->destroy();
}