![]() |
Platforms, Frameworks & Libraries »
STL »
General
Intermediate
boost 2: shared_ptr wraps resource handlesBy peterchenUsing boost, we can write "almost perfect" wrappers for GDI and other resource handles, in a few lines of code. |
VC6, Windows, STL, GDI, Dev
|
|
Advanced Search Add to IE Search |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Windows resources, like GDI handles, are hard to manage correctly without
creating leaks. This article shows how smart pointers can simplify this, and
almost eliminate a major source of errors. It continues my previous article,
Smart Pointers to boost your code,
providing a practical example for using shared_ptr. (If you are not
familiar with boost::shared_ptr, you should read it now!)
Update: While the first version was more or less like "concept art", I
brushed up the sources a bit to make the more useful. I added a
reset() function that sets the HandleRef to 0, brushed up the
sources a bit and added a special implementation for HDC's. Also, I fixed some
snippets here, and added a few things to the article.
Many resource handles encountered in Win32 programming do not fit an object-oriented environment very well. Here is a list of problems:
CreateFont, you have to call
DeleteObject when you no longer need it. However, if you got the
HFONT from a Window, you must not delete the font.
If you have a function returning such a handle, you must at least specify if and when to release the handle. Things get much more complicated if the handle is a member of the class. Take a look at this innocent code snippet:
class CMessage { protected: HFONT m_font; public: ~CMessage(); // ... }; CMessage CreateMessage(CString const & msgText, LPCTSTR fontName, int fontSize);
Code Snippet (1): Demonstrating the problem
Let me ask one question: Should the destructor of CMessage call
DeleteObject(m_font)?
CreateMessage will give
you a corrupted font handle to a font that does not exist anymore.
One way or another, the user of the class is concerned with managing your
HFONT resource, or what he can do with your class is severely
limited.
A multitude of solutions exist, some are simple, some not:
CreateMessage function, then).
bool deleteTheFont" flag together with the font
handle. (I worked with std::pair<HANDLE, bool> for a while,
but this is still a pain.)
DuplicateHandle. However,
this is another can of worms opening up. No such luck with GDI handles.)
CFont class. The nature of handles makes them prime candidates for a reference counting mechanism:
Further, we would like to keep the possibility of "unmanaged" handles (i.e., it is not deleted automatically). This flag should be set when the smart pointer is created (close to where we acquire the resource, because this is the place where we know how to treat it).
See below: Why Not MFC?, why the MFC solution doesn't do it for me.
As seen above, a reference counting smart pointer is ideal to handle Handle.
Why boost::shared_ptr is great for this:
shared_ptr does not put any requirements on the type of the
resource. (We don't need to inherit HFONT from some
CRefCountable class. Phew!)
shared_ptr allows a custom deleter, which can do the
resource-specific cleanup. (DeleteObject for fonts,
CloseRegKey for handles, etc.)
Note: I mentioned custom deleters only briefly (if at all) in my previous article. See the boost documentation for more.
Let's look at the example for an HFONT:
// first we need a custom deleter for the font: void delete_HFONT(HFONT * p) { _ASSERTE(p != NULL); // boost says you don't need this, // but lets play safe... DeleteObject(*pFont); // delete the Windows FONT resource delete pFont; // delete the object itself // (normally done by default deleter) }; // typedef for our smart pointer: typedef boost::shared_ptr<HFONT> CFontPtr; // and a simple "Create" function: CFontPtr CreateFontPtr(HFONT font, bool deleteOnRelease) { if (deleteOnRelease) { // construct a new FontPtr. the custom deleter // is specified as second argument return CFontPtr(new HFONT(font), delete_HFONT); // (A) } else { // construct a new FontPtr with the default deleter: return CFontPtr(new HFONT(font)); } }
Code Snippet (2): The initial idea
The line (A) is the "magic" one: here we initialize the CFontPtr
as usual, but specify that the object should be deleted using
delete_HFONT when the last reference is gone.
Now, we can make heavy use of CFontPtr: we can use it as return
value from functions. We can have it as class member, and the default copy
constructor, assignment operator, and destructor do exactly what they
should.
Do you remember the first rule for using smart pointers? Put the resource into a smart pointer as soon as you get it. This rule holds up here as well: because when we get the font handle, we know exactly if it should be deleted or not. The smart pointer will carry around this flag, and automatically "do what we want".
There are some problems even this solution cannot solve:
deleteOnRelease = false,
and then forget to delete it ourselves. But such is life in C++, you are always free to shoot yourself in the foot you like most.
Some problems, however, can be solved better:
if (m_fontPtr && *m_fontPtr) // do we have a font?
typedef, Create function) for any other handle type we
would like to support. But this is the question of the next part.
This paragraph shows how to turn the concept into a complete extensible solution. It might be helpful in understanding how template libraries evolve into the complex beasts they are.
The following goals were set:
NULL resource
typedef would be great)
This goal was actually set "on the run", because there is not much that can go into a .cpp, and header-only makes the library easier to reuse.
First, we encapsulate the details of the smart pointer, solving the first two requirements:
class CFontRef { protected: typedef boost::shared_ptr<HFONT> tBoostSP; tBoostSP m_ptr; public: explicit CFontRef(HFONT font, bool deleteOnRelease) { if (deleteOnRelease) m_ptr = tBoostSP(new HFONT(font), delete_HFONT); else m_ptr = tBoostSP(new HFONT(font)); } operator HFONT() const { return m_ptr ? *m_ptr : NULL; } };
Code Snippet (3): Moving to a specialized class
You might (or should) notice the following things:
CreateFontPtr function has become the constructor.
HFONT is expected.
Ptr" to "Ref", since
it syntactically cast more like a reference than a pointer.
explicit keyword isn't really needed).
typedef'ed the boost pointer inside the class. It occurs in
quite a few places, the typedef makes the code easier to read, but
"outside" the class, no one really needs it. Another note: Now would be a good time to make the simplification used below. However, I'd like to go the "safe & clean way" a bit further.
Second, we can make both the Handle type and the Deleter a template
parameter. It's simple for the Handle, but some compilers can't handle a
function as template argument. The standard solution is to turn the Deleter
function into a functor - that is, a class that overloads
operator().
template <typename HDL, typename DELETER> class CHandleRefT { protected: typedef boost::shared_ptr<HDL> tBoostSP; tBoostSP m_ptr; public: CHandleRefT(HDL h, bool deleteOnRelease) { if (deleteOnRelease) m_ptr = tBoostSP(new HDL(h), DELETER()); else m_ptr = tBoostSP(new HDL(h)); } operator HDL() const { return m_ptr ? *m_ptr : NULL; } }; // the font deleter, turned into a functor: struct CDeleterHFONT { void operator()(HFONT * p) { DeleteObject(*p); delete p; } }; // the typedef for our CFontRef: typedef CHandleRefT<HFONT, CDeleterHFONT> CFontRef;
Code snippet (4): turning the class into a template
DeleteObject is used for many types, so we don't want to write
our own deleter for each. However, we would like to keep everything strictly
typed, so we make it a template again:
template <typename GDIHANDLE> struct CDeleter_GDIObject { void operator()(GDIHANDLE * p) { DeleteObject(*p); delete p; } }; // the typedef now has a nested template: typedef CHandleRef<HFONT, CDeleter_GDIObject<HFONT> > CFontRef;
Code snippet (5): a helper template
There are two things still bugging me:
delete p" part.
The first problem could be solved with another helper template, but that
wouldturn the actual type of CFontRef into something like
boost::shared_ptr<HFONT, GenericDeleter<
DeleteObjectDeleter<HFONT> > >. I see no solution for the
second in a generic approach.
However, both solve themselves when using some internal knowledge about
Windows: all resource handles in Windows can be represented by a void
*, and we can use a cast to get the strictly typed handle. This is so
deeply rooted in the Win32 API (in fact, if you #undef the
STRICT macro, most handle types are declared as void
*), that we won't see a change till .NET takes over completely. Further,
boost::shared_ptr can use void as template
argument.
So, with the following code, we can go:
// a void deleter replaces the default deleter for "unmanaged" handles struct CDeleter_Void { void operator()(void *) {} } template <typename HDL, typename DELETER> class CHandleRef { protected: typedef boost::shared_ptr<void> tBoostSP; tBoostSP m_ptr; public: explicit CHandleRef(HDL h, bool deleteOnRelease) { if (deleteOnRelease) m_ptr = tBoostSP(h, DELETER()); else m_ptr = tBoostSP(h, CDeleter_Void()); } operator HDL() const { return (HDL) m_ptr.get(); } }; struct CDeleter_GDIObject { void operator()(void * p) { DeleteObject( (HGDIOBJ) p); } }; typedef CHandleRef<HFONT, CDeleter_GDIObject> CFontRef;
Code snippet (6): the final code
Before, the smart pointer stored a pointer to our resource handle. Now, we
store the resource handle directly in the smart pointer (represented as
void *).
(I'll repeat a few things here for the impatient who skipped over all that boring explanation stuff)
CHandleRefT is a template class implementing a counted reference
to a Windows resource handle. Usage rules are similar to a reference counted
smart pointer. It is used to implement a variety of Windows Resource handles,
like:
HIMAGELIST ==> CImageListRef
HMENU ==> CMenuRef
HANDLE ==> CHandleRef
HBITMAP ==> CBitmapRef
HBRUSH ==> CBrushRef
HPEN ==> CPenRef HDL: type of the resource handle (e.g., HFONT).
DELETER : a functor releasing the resources of Handle of type
HDL (e.g., a functor calling DeleteObject). The handle is passed as
void *. When constructing a HandleRef from a raw handle, you pass a
bDeleteOnRelease flag indicating if the handle should be released
automatically when the last reference to it goes out of scope.
For an automatic handle, assign the raw handle to a HandleRef
immediately after construction, specifying bDeleteOnRelease=true.
Then, pass it around only as HandleRef. This guarantees the handle
is deleted when it is no longer used.
For a manual handle, that you will delete yourself manually, or that must not
be deleted, specify bDeleteOnRelease=false.
The idea here is that you can pass around, copy, store, or return a
HandleRef, it remembers its deletion policy.
Utility functions that merely receive and use a resource handle (without
storing it) may use the raw handle as argument. However, when the Handle is
stored (e.g., as a class member) or used as a return value from a function, a
HandleRef is recommended.
As an example, the CImageListRef class has the following
members:
CImageListRef(HIMAGELIST il, bool deleteOnRelease)
Initializes a new CImageListRef.
il [HIMAGELIST]: Image list to hold
deleteOnRelease [bool]: if true, the image List il
is destroyed when the last reference to it (made through the
CImageListRef instance) goes out of scope. The correct destroy
function (ImageList_Destroy) is used. operator HIMAGELIST
CImageListRef to the contained
HIMAGELIST. reset()
Releases the image list.
The type must be convertible to and from void *.
struct CDeleter_MyType { void operator()(void * p) { MyTypeRelease(p); }
typedef typedef CHandleRef<CMyType, CDeleter_MyType> CMyTypeRef;
MFC tried to solve the problem with its own wrappers. Unfortunately, they
chose to wrap the first option from the "possible solutions" above: no copy
functionality, but they pass around CFont *. This might have been a
good design decision back then, but now, it is just a pain. Consider a function
returning a CFont *. Now, there are two objects that need to be
released correctly: the Windows HFONT, and the CFont C++ object. Should you:
CFont * when you are done with it, because it was
allocated dynamically?
CFont *, but use it only until some other class
is destroyed (because the other class "holds" the font)?
OnIdle
call)?
HFONT from the CFont * before deleting
it (because you have to get rid of the MFC object, but the Windows resource is
still in use somewhere)? When turning UI code into general routines and classes, I regularly stumble over all these four scenarios. It is not a pleasant experience, I can tell you - so I end up using raw resource handles instead, to have "only the normal problems".
Further, I like UI code not to be dependent on MFC, if possible. The best code IMO is a library that relies solely on the Win32 API interface, and does not put any requirements on the framework.
The CDCRef class, referencing a HDC, deserves
additional discussion.
Device Contexts are the most complicated resource I've come across: There are
two cleanup functions: DeleteDC and ReleaseDC,
and the latter needs an additional parameter (the HWND the DC was
acquired from).
CDCRef is implemented as separate class, since I didn't want the complexity of HDC to "creep" into the Other HandleRef classes. The main difference is the constructor - instead of a flag, you directly pass the deleter:
CDCRef(hdc, CDCRef::Null()) // a CDCRef that doesn't get released automatically CDCRef(hdc, CDCRef::Delete()) // a CDCRef to be released by DeleteDC CDCRef(hdc, CDCRef::Release(hwnd)) // a CDCRef to be released by ReleaseDC
For ReleaseDC, the HWND is passed as parameter to the deleter. Again, we associated all information required for cleanup with the object when it is constructed, which is a design principle of HandleRef.
Further, CDCRef provides static member functions that wrap the Win32 API
functions that acquire a HDC. For example,
CDCRef::GetDC implements the GetDC Win32 API function,
but returns a CDCRef.
The solution provided here is not new. The idea of the article is to show
that the solution becomes very simple when using an appropriate library (about
20 lines of actual code), and how such a solution would be developed from the
initial idea to use shared_ptr.
Now, How good is the solution?
The second is not an issue: smart pointers are such a fundamental technique
that you shouldn't be caught without. The last might be an issue when handling
lots of resources. However, such an application likely benefits most from
automated resource management, and you can keep performance under control with
using a raw handle (or a CHandleRefT<> const &) where
appropriate.
The first actually reflects a design choice: CHandleRef does not isolate you from the underlying API, but makes it transparent and easier to use. (MFC, in contrast, isolates you very well in the default case, and fails misderably in all others). Additional advantage: CHandleRef is not only library independent, it also integrates easily with other libraries.
Is a "better" solution possible?
Definitely. You still can do things wrong: release an object while it is still selected into a device context, specify the wrong cleanup policy, or delete the handle while it is still in use. However, a completely safe solution would require to wrap the entire GDI API: all functions creating or using an GDI object.
CDCRef actually show the difference between an open
wrapper (allowing access to the underlying API handles) and a close
wrapper (denying the same access).
To make CDCRef construction "foolproof" the CDCRef
constructor would have to be protected, so they can be constructed only through
dedicated functions that initialize correctly. But this requires wrappers for
all functions acquiring a DC. Further, to make CDCRef completely
foolproof, one also would have to wrap all functions accepting a DC, and remove
the operator HDC() from the class. The open wrapper leaves you some
responsibility, but you have no problems if I forgot to provide a wrapper (or
the original API is extended).
Thank you all for the encouraging feedback! It is great to see the time to
write the article was well spent. ![]()
For a more formal conclusion: We have seen that
boost::shared_ptr provides the features to make an
implementation simple
General
News
Question
Answer
Joke
Rant
Admin
|
PermaLink |
Privacy |
Terms of Use
Last Updated: 16 Nov 2004 Editor: Nishant Sivakumar |
Copyright 2004 by peterchen Everything else Copyright © CodeProject, 1999-2009 Web16 | Advertise on the Code Project |