Hi, It seems that you have done an excellent job with this. I'm really impressed. Would you be kind enough to provide me with a snapshot of xrtti to check it out. Also when do you think all your modifications will be final?
Regards, Gabriel -----Message d'origine----- De : Bryan Ischo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2007 00:18 À : CHABO Gabriel Cc : [email protected] Objet : Re: [GCC-XML] C++ Reflection Using GCCXML? Importance : Haute [My apologies if this message is a duplicate, I originally sent it to the gccxml mailing list using the wrong email address and I think it may have been silently rejected for that reason] CHABO Gabriel wrote: > > Hi, > > I just read your post about Reflection using GCCXML. > > Do you know if anyone took it upon himself to develop such a project? > > Also, I'm wondering about uninstantiated template support in the > current version, what I want to do is define a set of rules that govern the coding convention of a cpp file, one of which is to forbid the use of templates (for now), Is there any way I can do this in GCCXML? > > Thank you and regards, > > Gabriel Chabo > What an amazing coincidence. Over the past week I have just been putting the finishing touches on my project before releasing it. I was going to announce it on the gccxml mailing list. I'll give you a brief description here of what I'm doing: I have implemented a project that I call "xrtti", which stands for eXtended Runtime Type Information for C++. It uses gccxml to generate a source file that you compile and link into your project. If you do so, you then can reflect on any of the classes that your project defines. You can do things like look up classes, methods, their types, etc. You can "create" new instances of classes that you can reflect on in this way, like this: ------ // Look up the class you are interested in const Class *pMyClass = Xrtti::LookupClass("Foo::Bar"); if (pMyClass == NULL) { printf("Could not find class Foo::Bar\n"); return -1; } // Call the Create() method to create a new instance void *pNewInstance = pMyClass->Create(); // If it returned NULL, then "Foo::Bar" was a non-instantiable // (i.e., abstract) if (pNewInstance == NULL) { printf("Could not create an instance of Foo::Bar\n"); return -1; } // Iterate over the list of methods available in myClass to find the // one you want; perhaps eventually a "findMethod" utility will be // implemented so this will be a little easier const Xrtti::Method *pMyMethod = NULL; int methodCount = pMyClass->GetMethodCount(); for (int i = 0; i < methodCount; i++) { const Xrtti::Method &method = pMyClass->GetMethod(i); if (!strcmp(method.GetName(), "SomeMethod")) { pMyMethod = &method; break; } } if (pMyMethod == NULL) { printf("Could not find method SomeMethod\n"); return -1; } // Declare the arguments array that will contain the method arguments. // You would know how many arguments there are to the method and their // type by reflecting on the Method Xrtti::Value args[3]; args[0].signed_int_v = 5; args[1].pointer_v = "Hello,world!"; args[2].float_v = 11.0; Xrtti::Value returnValue; // This call is equivalent to calling: // returnValue.int_v = ((Foo::Bar *) pNewInstance->SomeMethod // (args[0].int_v, args[1].pointer_v, args[2].float_v); // ... assuming that the signature of SomeMethod looked like this: // int SomeMethod(int, char *, float); pMyMethod->Invoke(pNewInstance, returnValue, args); printf("SomeMethod returned %d\n", returnValue.signed_int_v); // All of the above is much less interesting than reflecting on classes // that your runtime doesn't know about. If you know about Foo::Bar // already, then you might as well just call its methods directly! But // with Xrtti, you can introspect on classes that you have never heard // of before and use them via Xrtti metaprogramming just like other C++ // classes that you do know about ------ Anyway, that's a brief introduction to what you can do. You can get enough detail out of the Xrtti reflection system to completely re-emit the original class definitions of most classes (I know this because one of my test cases re-creates the header file that the test case was built from using the Xrtti system), so every detail about most classes is present (there are a few things which are not present, including initialization values of static members, and some other minor things). You can also invoke any method on any class using this "metaprogramming" technique I demonstrated above. There are also getters/setters for every field of every class, so you can programmatically get and set values in classes. I am almost done with this project and ready to release it, I just have a couple more things to do: - Finish my test case for getter/setter methods so that I can be sure that it is working correctly (already finished the test case for constructors/destructors and invoke methods) - I have been using gccxml 6.0 the entire development cycle, I need to get around to compiling the newest gccxml and running Xrtti with it to make sure it works (if it doesn't, there are probably minor variations in the XML output of gccxml that I will have to incorporate) - Better documentation; all of my code is well documented and generates pretty good doxygen API docs, but I would like to write some more HOWTO and FAQ type docs. Anyway, I am Real Close Now after having worked on this off and on for a couple of years (much longer than it would take someone with more time and dedication than myself!). I would be happy to share a snapshot of Xrtti with you if you'd like to see it. I am going to release it under GPLv2. Also, I should have mentioned this at the beginning - while developing Xrtti I discovered that there is already a project out there that did something very similar. It is called "SEAL Reflex" and you can find it at: http://seal-reflex.web.cern.ch/seal-reflex/index.html It looks to be complete and ready to use. However, I did not like its API which I consider to be much more awkward than what I would like. Xrtti is intended to have the cleanest API possible, and I personally find it much nicer than SEAL Reflex. But this is a matter of opinion (and an obviously biased one) so you should look at both and see if you like SEAL Reflex better. SEAL Reflex certainly has many more methods than Xrtti; I tried to be minimalistic and simple with Xrtti, and you may prefer the more "complete" approach of SEAL Reflex more to your liking. Finally, my plans after releasing Xrtti are to implement a library for doing "serialization" of C++ objects into binary form. In fact this was my whole goal originally, and I implemented a complete software system to do this, which worked quite well, but then when it was done, took a step back and said - hey, this would be even better as two separate components - a generically useful reflection system, and then a serialization system built on top of that. So I spent the next year and a half making the first part happen. I'm appending the Xrtti.h header file to this email so that you can see the complete API if you are interested. Comments/questions are very welcome! Thank you, Bryan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bryan Ischo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001 Mazda 626 GLX Hamilton, New Zealand http://www.ischo.com RedHat Fedora Core 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ******************************* This e-mail contains information for the intended recipient only. It may contain proprietary material or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient you are not authorised to distribute, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment to it. Murex cannot guarantee that it is virus free and accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising from its use. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify immediately the sender and delete the original email received, any attachments and all copies from your system. _______________________________________________ gccxml mailing list [email protected] http://www.gccxml.org/mailman/listinfo/gccxml
