我们可以增加这种面向关键的访问保护模式的可重用性吗？ [英] Can we increase the re-usability of this key-oriented access-protection pattern?
问题描述
我们可以提高这个面向键的访问保护模式：
class SomeKey {
friend class Foo;
// more friends... ?
SomeKey() {}
// possibly non-copyable too
};
class Bar {
public:
void protectedMethod(SomeKey); // only friends of SomeKey have access
};
为避免持续的误解，此模式不同于 Attorney-Client 成语：
To avoid continued misunderstandings, this pattern is different from the Attorney-Client idiom:
- 它可能比律师 - 客户它不涉及通过第三类代理）
- 它可以允许访问权限的授权
- ...但它也更加侵入原始类（每个方法一个虚拟参数）
（这个问题，因此我打开此问题。）
(A side-discussion developed in this question, thus i'm opening this question.)
推荐答案
我喜欢这个成语，它有潜力变得更干净，更具表现力。
I like this idiom, and it has the potential to become much cleaner and more expressive.
在标准C ++ 03中，我认为以下方法是最容易使用和最通用的。 （不是太多的改进，但是，大部分节省重复自己。）因为模板参数不能是朋友，我们必须使用宏来定义passkey的：
In standard C++03, I think the following way is the easiest to use and most generic. (Not too much of an improvement, though. Mostly saves on repeating yourself.) Because template parameters cannot be friends, we have to use a macro to define passkey's:
// define passkey groups
#define EXPAND(pX) pX
#define PASSKEY_1(pKeyname, pFriend1) \
class EXPAND(pKeyname) \
{ \
private: \
friend EXPAND(pFriend1); \
EXPAND(pKeyname)() {} \
\
EXPAND(pKeyname)(const EXPAND(pKeyname)&); \
EXPAND(pKeyname)& operator=(const EXPAND(pKeyname)&); \
}
#define PASSKEY_2(pKeyname, pFriend1, pFriend2) \
class EXPAND(pKeyname) \
{ \
private: \
friend EXPAND(pFriend1); \
friend EXPAND(pFriend2); \
EXPAND(pKeyname)() {} \
\
EXPAND(pKeyname)(const EXPAND(pKeyname)&); \
EXPAND(pKeyname)& operator=(const EXPAND(pKeyname)&); \
}
// and so on to some N
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// test!
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
struct bar;
struct baz;
struct qux;
void quux(int, double);
struct foo
{
PASSKEY_1(restricted1_key, struct bar);
PASSKEY_2(restricted2_key, struct bar, struct baz);
PASSKEY_1(restricted3_key, void quux(int, double));
void restricted1(restricted1_key) {}
void restricted2(restricted2_key) {}
void restricted3(restricted3_key) {}
} f;
struct bar
{
void run(void)
{
// passkey works
f.restricted1(foo::restricted1_key());
f.restricted2(foo::restricted2_key());
}
};
struct baz
{
void run(void)
{
// cannot create passkey
/* f.restricted1(foo::restricted1_key()); */
// passkey works
f.restricted2(foo::restricted2_key());
}
};
struct qux
{
void run(void)
{
// cannot create any required passkeys
/* f.restricted1(foo::restricted1_key()); */
/* f.restricted2(foo::restricted2_key()); */
}
};
void quux(int, double)
{
// passkey words
f.restricted3(foo::restricted3_key());
}
void corge(void)
{
// cannot use quux's passkey
/* f.restricted3(foo::restricted3_key()); */
}
int main(){}
这种方法有两个缺点：1）调用者必须知道它需要创建的特定密钥。虽然一个简单的命名方案（ function_key ）基本上消除了它，它仍然可以是一个抽象清洁（和更容易）。 2）虽然不是很难使用宏，但可以看作是有点丑陋，需要一个密钥定义块。但是，在C ++ 03中无法改进这些缺点。
This method has two drawbacks: 1) the caller has to know the specific passkey it needs to create. While a simple naming scheme (function_key) basically eliminates it, it could still be one abstraction cleaner (and easier). 2) While it's not very difficult to use the macro can be seen as a bit ugly, requiring a block of passkey-definitions. However, improvements to these drawbacks cannot be made in C++03.
在C ++ 0x中，达到其最简单和最具表现力的形式。这是由于两个可变模板和允许模板参数是朋友。 （请注意，MSVC 2010之前允许模板朋友说明符作为扩展名;因此可以模拟此解决方案）：
In C++0x, the idiom can reach its simplest and most expressive form. This is due to both variadic templates and allowing template parameters to be friends. (Note that MSVC pre-2010 allows template friend specifiers as an extension; therefore one can simulate this solution):
// each class has its own unique key only it can create
// (it will try to get friendship by "showing" its passkey)
template <typename T>
class passkey
{
private:
friend T; // C++0x, MSVC allows as extension
passkey() {}
// noncopyable
passkey(const passkey&) = delete;
passkey& operator=(const passkey&) = delete;
};
// functions still require a macro. this
// is because a friend function requires
// the entire declaration, which is not
// just a type, but a name as well. we do
// this by creating a tag and specializing
// the passkey for it, friending the function
#define EXPAND(pX) pX
// we use variadic macro parameters to allow
// functions with commas, it all gets pasted
// back together again when we friend it
#define PASSKEY_FUNCTION(pTag, pFunc, ...) \
struct EXPAND(pTag); \
\
template <> \
class passkey<EXPAND(pTag)> \
{ \
private: \
friend pFunc __VA_ARGS__; \
passkey() {} \
\
passkey(const passkey&) = delete; \
passkey& operator=(const passkey&) = delete; \
}
// meta function determines if a type
// is contained in a parameter pack
template<typename T, typename... List>
struct is_contained : std::false_type {};
template<typename T, typename... List>
struct is_contained<T, T, List...> : std::true_type {};
template<typename T, typename Head, typename... List>
struct is_contained<T, Head, List...> : is_contained<T, List...> {};
// this class can only be created with allowed passkeys
template <typename... Keys>
class allow
{
public:
// check if passkey is allowed
template <typename Key>
allow(const passkey<Key>&)
{
static_assert(is_contained<Key, Keys>::value,
"Passkey is not allowed.");
}
private:
// noncopyable
allow(const allow&) = delete;
allow& operator=(const allow&) = delete;
};
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// test!
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
struct bar;
struct baz;
struct qux;
void quux(int, double);
// make a passkey for quux function
PASSKEY_FUNCTION(quux_tag, void quux(int, double));
struct foo
{
void restricted1(allow<bar>) {}
void restricted2(allow<bar, baz>) {}
void restricted3(allow<quux_tag>) {}
} f;
struct bar
{
void run(void)
{
// passkey works
f.restricted1(passkey<bar>());
f.restricted2(passkey<bar>());
}
};
struct baz
{
void run(void)
{
// passkey does not work
/* f.restricted1(passkey<baz>()); */
// passkey works
f.restricted2(passkey<baz>());
}
};
struct qux
{
void run(void)
{
// own passkey does not work,
// cannot create any required passkeys
/* f.restricted1(passkey<qux>()); */
/* f.restricted2(passkey<qux>()); */
/* f.restricted1(passkey<bar>()); */
/* f.restricted2(passkey<baz>()); */
}
};
void quux(int, double)
{
// passkey words
f.restricted3(passkey<quux_tag>());
}
void corge(void)
{
// cannot use quux's passkey
/* f.restricted3(passkey<quux_tag>()); */
}
int main(){}
注意只有样板代码，在大多数情况下（所有非功能case！）没有什么需要被特别定义。
Note with just the boilerplate code, in most cases (all non-function cases!) nothing more ever needs to be specially defined. This code generically and simply implements the idiom for any combination of classes and functions.
调用者不需要尝试创建或记住特定于该函数的密钥。相反，每个类现在都有自己唯一的密钥，函数只需选择它将在passkey参数的模板参数中允许的密钥（不需要额外的定义）。这消除了两个缺点。调用者只是创建自己的密钥和调用，并且不需要担心任何其他。
The caller doesn't need to try to create or remember a passkey specific to the function. Rather, each class now has its own unique passkey and the function simply chooses which passkey's it will allow in the template parameters of the passkey parameter (no extra definitions required); this eliminates both drawbacks. The caller just creates its own passkey and calls with that, and doesn't need to worry about anything else.
这篇关于我们可以增加这种面向关键的访问保护模式的可重用性吗？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
