Users need to have fine control over the connection of
signals to slots and their eventual disconnection. The approach
taken by Boost.Signals is to return a
connection object that enables
connected/disconnected query, manual disconnection, and an
automatic disconnection on destruction mode. Some other possible
interfaces include:
-
Pass slot to disconnect: in this interface model, the disconnection of a slot connected with
sig.connect(slot)is performed viasig.disconnect(slot). Internally, a linear search using slot comparison is performed and the slot, if found, is removed from the list. Unfortunately, querying connectedness will generally also end up as linear-time operations. This model also fails for implementation reasons when slots become more complex than simple function pointers, member function pointers and a limited set of compositions and argument binders: to match the slot given in the call todisconnectwith an existing slot we would need to be able to compare arbitrary function objects, which is not feasible. -
Pass a token to disconnect: this approach identifies slots with a token that is easily comparable (e.g., a string), enabling slots to be arbitrary function objects. While this approach is essentially equivalent to the approach taken by Boost.Signals, it is possibly more error-prone for several reasons:
-
Connections and disconnections must be paired, so the problem becomes similar to the problems incurred when pairing
newanddeletefor dynamic memory allocation. While errors of this sort would not be catastrophic for a signals and slots implementation, their detection is generally nontrivial. -
Tokens must be unique, otherwise two slots will have the same name and will be indistinguishable. In environments where many connections will be made dynamically, name generation becomes an additional task for the user. Uniqueness of tokens also results in an additional failure mode when attempting to connect a slot using a token that has already been used.
-
More parameterization would be required, because the token type must be user-defined. Additional parameterization steepens the learning curver and overcomplicates a simple interface.
This type of interface is supported in Boost.Signals via the slot grouping mechanism. It augments the
connectionobject-based connection management scheme. -
Automatic connection management in thread_safe_signals
depends on the use of boost::shared_ptr to
manage the lifetimes of tracked objects. This is differs from
the original Boost.Signals library, which instead relied on derivation
from the boost::trackable class.
The Boost.Signals library would be
notified of an object's destruction by the
trackable destructor.
Unfortunately, the trackable
scheme cannot be made thread safe due
to destructor ordering. The destructor of an class derived from
trackable will always be
called before the destructor of the base trackable
class. However, for thread-safety the connection between the signal and object
needs to be disconnected before the object runs its destructors.
Otherwise, if an object being destroyed
in one thread is connected to a signal concurrently
invoking in another thread, the signal may call into
a partially destroyed object.
We solve this problem by requiring that tracked objects be
managed by shared_ptr. Slots keep a
weak_ptr to every object the slot depends
on. Connections to a slot are disconnected when any of its tracked
weak_ptrs expire. Additionally, signals
create their own temporary shared_ptrs to
all of a slot's tracked objects prior to invoking the slot. This
insures none of the tracked objects from destruct in mid-invocation.
The Combiner interface was chosen to mimic a call to an algorithm in the C++ standard library. It is felt that by viewing slot call results as merely a sequence of values accessed by input iterators, the combiner interface would be most natural to a proficient C++ programmer. Competing interface design generally required the combiners to be constructed to conform to an interface that would be customized for (and limited to) the Signals library. While these interfaces are generally enable more straighforward implementation of the signals & slots libraries, the combiners are unfortunately not reusable (either in other signals & slots libraries or within other generic algorithms), and the learning curve is steepened slightly to learn the specific combiner interface.
The Signals formulation of combiners is based on the combiner using the "pull" mode of communication, instead of the more complex "push" mechanism. With a "pull" mechanism, the combiner's state can be kept on the stack and in the program counter, because whenever new data is required (i.e., calling the next slot to retrieve its return value), there is a simple interface to retrieve that data immediately and without returning from the combiner's code. Contrast this with the "push" mechanism, where the combiner must keep all state in class members because the combiner's routines will be invoked for each signal called. Compare, for example, a combiner that returns the maximum element from calling the slots. If the maximum element ever exceeds 100, no more slots are to be called.
|
Pull |
Push |
|---|---|
struct pull_max {
typedef int result_type;
template<typename InputIterator>
result_type operator()(InputIterator first,
InputIterator last)
{
if (first == last)
throw std::runtime_error("Empty!");
int max_value = *first++;
while(first != last && *first <= 100) {
if (*first > max_value)
max_value = *first;
++first;
}
return max_value;
}
};
|
struct push_max {
typedef int result_type;
push_max() : max_value(), got_first(false) {}
// returns false when we want to stop
bool operator()(int result) {
if (result > 100)
return false;
if (!got_first) {
got_first = true;
max_value = result;
return true;
}
if (result > max_value)
max_value = result;
return true;
}
int get_value() const
{
if (!got_first)
throw std::runtime_error("Empty!");
return max_value;
}
private:
int max_value;
bool got_first;
};
|
There are several points to note in these examples. The
"pull" version is a reusable function object that is based on an
input iterator sequence with an integer value_type,
and is very straightforward in design. The "push" model, on the
other hand, relies on an interface specific to the caller and is
not generally reusable. It also requires extra state values to
determine, for instance, if any elements have been
received. Though code quality and ease-of-use is generally
subjective, the "pull" model is clearly shorter and more reusable
and will often be construed as easier to write and understand,
even outside the context of a signals & slots library.
The cost of the "pull" combiner interface is paid in the implementation of the Signals library itself. To correctly handle slot disconnections during calls (e.g., when the dereference operator is invoked), one must construct the iterator to skip over disconnected slots. Additionally, the iterator must carry with it the set of arguments to pass to each slot (although a reference to a structure containing those arguments suffices), and must cache the result of calling the slot so that multiple dereferences don't result in multiple calls. This apparently requires a large degree of overhead, though if one considers the entire process of invoking slots one sees that the overhead is nearly equivalent to that in the "push" model, but we have inverted the control structures to make iteration and dereference complex (instead of making combiner state-finding complex).
Boost.Signals supports a connection syntax with the form
sig.connect(slot), but a
more terse syntax sig += slot has been suggested (and
has been used by other signals & slots implementations). There
are several reasons as to why this syntax has been
rejected:
-
It's unnecessary: the connection syntax supplied by Boost.Signals is no less powerful that that supplied by the
+=operator. The savings in typing (connect()vs.+=) is essentially negligible. Furthermore, one could argue that callingconnect()is more readable than an overload of+=. -
Ambiguous return type: there is an ambiguity concerning the return value of the
+=operation: should it be a reference to the signal itself, to enablesig += slot1 += slot2, or should it return aconnectionfor the newly-created signal/slot connection? -
Gateway to operators -=, +: when one has added a connection operator
+=, it seems natural to have a disconnection operator-=. However, this presents problems when the library allows arbitrary function objects to implicitly become slots, because slots are no longer comparable.The second obvious addition when one has
operator+=would be to add a+operator that supports addition of multiple slots, followed by assignment to a signal. However, this would require implementing+such that it can accept any two function objects, which is technically infeasible.
libsigc++ is a C++ signals & slots library that originally started as part of an initiative to wrap the C interfaces to GTK libraries in C++, and has grown to be a separate library maintained by Karl Nelson. There are many similarities between libsigc++ and Boost.Signals, and indeed Boost.Signals was strongly influenced by Karl Nelson and libsigc++. A cursory inspection of each library will find a similar syntax for the construction of signals and in the use of connections. There are some major differences in design that separate these libraries:
-
Slot definitions: slots in libsigc++ are created using a set of primitives defined by the library. These primitives allow binding of objects (as part of the library), explicit adaptation from the argument and return types of the signal to the argument and return types of the slot (libsigc++ is, by default, more strict about types than Boost.Signals).
-
Combiner/Marshaller interface: the equivalent to Boost.Signals combiners in libsigc++ are the marshallers. Marshallers are similar to the "push" interface described in Combiner Interface, and a proper treatment of the topic is given there.
Microsoft has introduced the .NET Framework and an associated set of languages and language extensions, one of which is the delegate. Delegates are similar to signals and slots, but they are more limited than most C++ signals and slots implementations in that they:
-
Require exact type matches between a delegate and what it is calling.
-
Only return the result of the last target called, with no option for customization.
-
Must call a method with
thisalready bound.