Several C++ classes need to use the same static method with a different implementation

I need several C++ classes 开发者_如何转开发to have a static method "register", however the implementation of register varies between those classes.

It should be static because my idea is to "register" all those classes with Lua (only once of course).

Obviously I can't declare an interface with a static pure virtual function. What do you guys suggest me to do ? Simplicity is welcome, but I think some kind of template could work.

Example of what I would like to achieve

class registerInterface
{
public:
    static virtual void register() = 0; //obviously illegal
};

class someClass: public registerInterface
{
    static virtual void register()
    {
        //I register myself with Lua
    }
}

class someOtherClass: public registerInterface
{
    static virtual void register()
    {
        //I register myself with Lua in a different way

    }
}

int main()
{
    someClass::register();
    someOtherClass::register();

    return 0;
}

Based on how you've described the problem, it's unclear to me why you even need the 'virtual static method' on the classes. This should be perfectly legal.

class SomeClass {
  static void register(void) {
    ...
  }
}

class SomeOtherClass {
  static void register(void) {
    ...
  }
}

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
  SomeClass::register();
  SomeOtherClass::register();

  return 0;
}

Drop the RegisterInterface, I don't think you need it.

If it helps, you could take Hitesh's answer, and add:

struct luaRegisterManager {
    template <typename T>
    void registrate() {
        T::registrate();
        // do something else to record the fact that we've registered - 
        // perhaps "registrate" should be returning some object to help with that
    }
};

Then:

int main() {
    luaRegisterManager lrm;
    lrm.registrate<someClass>();
    lrm.registrate<someOtherClass>();
}

More generally, if you want to introduce any dynamic polymorphism in C++, then you need an object, not just a class. So again, perhaps the various register functions should be returning objects, with some common interface base class registeredClass, or classRegistrationInfo, or something along those lines.

Could provide an example of what you feel it is that you need dynamic polymorphism for? Hitesh's code precisely matches your one example, as far as I can see, so that example must not cover all of your anticipated use cases. If you write the code that would be using it, perhaps it will become clear to you how to implement it, or perhaps someone can advise.

Something else that might help:

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>

struct Registered {
    virtual std::string name() = 0;
    virtual ~Registered() {}
    Registered() {
        all.push_back(this);
    }
    static std::vector<Registered*> all;
};

std::vector<Registered*> Registered::all;
typedef std::vector<Registered*>::iterator Iter;

template <typename T>
struct RegisteredT : Registered {
    std::string n;
    RegisteredT(const std::string &name) : n(name) { T::registrate(); }
    std::string name() { return n; }
    // other functions here could be implemented in terms of calls to static
    // functions of T.
};

struct someClass {
    static Registered *r;
    static void registrate() { std::cout << "registering someClass\n"; }
};
Registered *someClass::r = new RegisteredT<someClass>("someClass");

struct someOtherClass {
    static Registered *r;
    static void registrate() { std::cout << "registering someOtherClass\n"; }
};
Registered *someOtherClass::r = new RegisteredT<someOtherClass>("someOtherClass");

int main() {
    for (Iter it = Registered::all.begin(); it < Registered::all.end(); ++it) {
        std::cout << (*it)->name() << "\n";
    }
}

There are all sorts of problems with this code if you try to split it across multiple compilation units. Furthermore, this kind of thing leads to spurious reports from memory leak detectors unless you also write some code to tear everything down at the end, or use a vector of shared_ptr, Boost pointer vector, etc. But you see the general idea that a class can "register itself", and that you need an object to make virtual calls.

In C++ you usually try to avoid static initialisation, though, in favour of some sort of setup / dependency injection at the start of your program. So normally you would just list all the classes you care about (calling a function on each one) rather than try to do this automatically.

Your intentions are noble, but your solution is inkling towards "overengineering" (unless I am missing an obvious solution).

Here is one possibility: You can use the Virtual Friend function idiom For example,

class RegisterInterface{
   friend void register(RegisterInterface* x){x->do_real_register();}
 protected:
   virtual void do_real_register();
}

class Foo : public RegisterInterface{
 protected:
  virtual void do_real_register(){}
};

class Bar : public RegisterInterface{
 protected:
  virtual void do_real_register(){}
};

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
  BOOST_FOREACH(RegisterInterface* ri, registered_interfaces)
  {
    register(ri);
  }
  return 0;
}

I know you've already accepted an answer, but I figured I would write this up anyway. You can have self-registering classes if you use some static initialization and the CRTP:

#include <vector>
#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class RegisterableRoot // Holds the list of functions to call, doesn't actually need
                       // need to be a class, could just be a collection of globals
{
  public:
  typedef void (*registration_func)();
  protected:
  static std::vector<registration_func> s_registery;
  public:
  static void do_registration()
  {
    for(int i = 0; i < s_registery.size(); ++i)
      s_registery[i]();
  }
  static bool add_func(registration_func func) // returns something so we can use it in
                                               // in an initializer
  {
     s_registery.push_back(func);
     return true;
  }
};



template<typename RegisterableType>          // Doesn't really need to inherit from
class Registerable : public RegisterableRoot // RegisterableRoot
{
   protected:
   static const bool s_effect;
};


class A : public Registerable<A> // Honestly, neither does A need to inherit from 
                                 // Registerable<T>
{
   public:
   static void Register()
   {
     cout << "A" << endl;
   }
};

class B : public Registerable<B>
{
   public:
   static void Register()
   {
     cout << "B" << endl;
   }
};

int main()
{

  RegisterableRoot::do_registration();
  return 0;
}


std::vector<RegisterableRoot::registration_func> RegisterableRoot::s_registery;

template <typename RegisterableType> // This is the "cute" part, we initialize the 
                                     // static s_effect so we build the list "magically"
const bool Registerable<RegisterableType>::s_effect = add_func(&RegisterableType::Register);

template class Registerable<A>; // Explicitly instantiate the template
                                // causes the equivalent of
                                // s_registery.push_back(&A::Register) to
                                // be executed
template class Registerable<B>;

This outputs

 A
 B

although I wouldn't rely on this order if I were you. Note that the template class Registerable<X> need not be in the same translation unit as the call to do_registration, you can put it with the rest of your definition of Foo. If you inherit from Registerable<> and you don't write a static void Register() function for your class you'll get a (admittedly probably cryptic) compiler error much like you might expect if there really was such a thing as "static virtuals". The "magic" merely adds the class specific function to the list to be called, this avoids several of the pitfalls of doing the actual registration in a static initializer. You still have to call do_registration for anything to happen.

How about this way? Define an interface class:

// IFoobar.h
class IFoobar{
    public:
        virtual void Register(void) = 0;
}

Then define the class that handles the register..

// RegisterFoobar.h
class RegisterFoobar{
    public:
        // Constructors etc...
        IFoobar* fooBar;
        static void RegisterFoobar(IFoobar&  fubar){
             foobar = &fubar;
        }
    private:
        void Raise(void){ foobar->Register(); }
}

Now, then define another class like this

// MyFuBar.h
class MyFuBar : IFoobar{
    public:
        // Constructors etc...
        void Register(void);
    private:
        RegisterFoobar* _regFoobar;
}

Call the code like this:

//MyFuBar.cpp
MyFuBar::MyFuBar(){
    _regFoobar = new Foobar();
    _regFoobar->RegisterFoobar(this);
}
void MyFuBar::Register(void){
    // Raised here...
}

Maybe I have misunderstood your requirements...