Re: [Dbus-cxx-devel] Patch to support vector of structures

[Rick L. V. Jr. <rvi...@cs...>]

Never mind. I see what you mean.

You overloaded the global << operator. That does make it more powerful.

I'll incorporate the change in the next release (coming soon probably).

Tyler Conant wrote:
> Thanks for incorporating that so quickly. Let me explain why I changed it
> from append to the overloaded "<< operator". My DBus interface needed to
> exposes a method with a structure for a return value.
> This structure had a couple of vectors of structures. I overloaded the "<<
> operator" for the return value structure as well as the structures for
> each vector type. When the vectors were being appended by the
> MessageAppendIterator it was calling Append on the structure, but of
> course it wasn't defined for my structure type. Changing it from append
> allowed me to create a "<< overload " for my structure.
>
> If I'm approaching this problem incorrectly please let me know (I'm new to
> this). I didn't see any examples where there was a vector of user defined
> structures so I tried to follow the existing design pattern.
>
>
> On 1/4/10 8:03 AM, "Rick L. Vinyard, Jr." <rvi...@cs...> wrote:
>
> Tyler Conant wrote:
>> 1. This is a diff against 0.5.0. The sub iter was not being set to NULL
>> during the deletion of the iter when closing the container.  This was
>> causing an access error when creating a second child container.
>>
>
> I just pushed out 0.5.1 that fixes this bug. Thanks again for hunting this
> one down.
>
>> 2. To support structures the << operator is overloaded, but this did not
>> help with a vector of structures since the append operator was called on
>> the child iter, instead of the << operator. This change doesn't appear
>> to
>> have any side effects, but I'm new to dbus-cxx and have yet to walk
>> through the entire code base.
>>
>
> -          m_subiter->append( v[i] );
> -
> +          //m_subiter->append( v[i] );
> +                       *m_subiter << v[i];
>
> This one I'm not too clear on. I'm wondering if there is also something
> else going on.
>
> The overloaded << operator is very thin and is essentially:
>         this->append( v );
>
> As a result,
>         m_subiter->append(v[i]);
> and
>         *m_subiter << v[i];
> should be equivalent unless there is something subtle going on in the
> resolution.
>
> ---
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>