I'm trying my best to adhere to some strict design patterns while developing my current code base, as I am hoping I will be working on it for quite a while to come and I want it to be as flexible and clean as possible. However, in trying to combine all these design patterns to solve the current problem I am facing, I am running into some issues I'm hoping someone can advise me a bit on.
I'm working on some basic homebrewn GUI widgets that are to provide some generic click/drag/duplication behavior. On the surface, the user clicks the widget, then drags it somewhere. Having dragged it far enough, the widget will 'appear' to clone itself and leave the user dragging this new copy.
The Prototype design pattern obviously enters the foray to make this duplication functionality generalizable for many types of widgets. For most objects, the story ends there. The Prototype object is virtually an identical copy of the duplicated version the user ends up dragging.
However, one of the objects I want to duplicate has some fairly big resources attached to it, so I don't want to load them until the user actually decides to click and drag, and subsequently duplicate, that particular object. Enter Lazy initialization. But this presents me with a bit of a conundrum. I cannot just let the prototype object clone itself, as it would need to have the big resources loaded before the user duplicates the dummy prototype version. I'm also not keen on putting some logic into the object which, upon being cloned/duplicated, checks what's going on and decides if it should load in these resources. Instead, a helpful person suggested I create a kind of shell object and when it gets cloned, it were to return this more derived version containing the resources allowing for me to both use RAII and lazy initialization.
But I'm having some trouble implementing this, and I'm starting to wonder if I can even do it the way I'm thinking it should be done. Right now it looks like this:
class widgetSpawner : public widget {
public:
widgetSpawner();
~widgetSpawner();
private:
widget* mPrototypeWidget; // Blueprint with which to spawn new elements
};
class widgetAudioShell : public widget {
public:
widgetAudioShell(std::string pathToAudioFile);
widgetAudioShell( const widgetAudioShell& other );
~widgetAudioShell();
virtual widgetAudio* clone() const { return new widgetAudio(*this); };
private:
std::string mPathToAudioFile;
};
class widgetAudio : public widgetAudioShell {
public:
widgetAudio(AudioEngineAudioTrack &aTrack);
widgetAudio( const widgetAudio& other );
widgetAudio( const widgetAudioShell& other );
~widgetAudio();
virtual widgetAudio* clone() const { return new widgetAudio(*this); };
private:
AudioEngineAudioTrack &mATrack;
};
Obviously, this is not workable as the shell doesn't know the object that's using it to derive a new class. So it cannot return it via the clone function. However, if I keep the two inheritance-wise independent (as in they both inherit from widget), then the compiler complains about lack of co-variance which I think makes sense? Or maybe it's because I am again having the trouble of properly defining one before the other.
Essentially widgetAudioShell needs to know about widgetAudio so it can return a 'new' copy. widgetAudio needs to know about widgetAudioShell so it can read it's member functions when being created/cloned.
If I am not mistaken, this circular dependency is there because of my like of using references rather than pointers, and if I have to use pointers, then suddenly all my other widgets need to do the same which I'd find quite hellish. I'm hoping someone who's had their fingers in something similar might provide some wisdom?
