[Solved] Basic QIODevice subclass in Qt4

giesbert

If you read the docs for IODevices, it states you must implement readData and writeData, that' scorrect. but it didnÄ't say you have to call them! the logic is up to youm, and if you sue another device, use it's public interface.

giesbert

Hi,

I created a wiki page as porting of the QQ 12 article to Qt 4:

"wiki":http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/CustomIoDevice

the main code is:

@
qint64 CryptDevice::readData(char* data, qint64 maxSize)
{
qint64 deviceRead = underlyingDevice->read(data, maxSize);
if (deviceRead == -1)
return -1;
for (qint64 i = 0; i < deviceRead; ++i)
data[i] = data[i] ^ 0x5E;

return deviceRead;

}

qint64 CryptDevice::writeData(const char* data, qint64 maxSize)
{
QByteArray buffer((int)maxSize, 0);
for (int i = 0; i < (int)maxSize; ++i)
buffer[i] = data[i] ^ 0x5E;
return underlyingDevice->write(buffer.data(), maxSize);
}
@

paucoma

Thanks Gerolf, Great iniciative in porting the code!

So if I understand correctly,

-- readData() and writeData(...) are not part of the general class Interface and therefore I can be pretty sure that "normally" it won't be called on its own, but only indirectly through read().

-- If I subclass QIODevice I should keep protected the reimplementations of readData(...) and writeData(...) to ensure this.

giesbert

you are right, yes

giesbert

Hi,

due to some bug, I updated the Wiki page.
The constructor of the io device was lacking a QObject* parent object pointer. The example had a mistake, as the encrypted data should never be interpreted as string...

it is now shown as hex code.

paucoma

Yea, the bad habit, or lets call it lazyness, of interpreting Bytes as string is just the quickest way to output "insignificant" data when you want to see that something is there or something is changing.

On the other hand looking at the class declaration:
@
class CryptDevice : public QIODevice
{
public:
explicit CryptDevice(QIODevice* deviceToUse, QObject* parent);
...
@

is this necessary because you have no other constructor that accepts a QObject ?

could it be broken down to
@
class CryptDevice : public QIODevice
{
public:
CryptDevice(QObject* parent);
explicit CryptDevice(QIODevice* deviceToUse);
...
@

@
CryptDevice::CryptDevice(QIODevice* deviceToUse) :
underlyingDevice(deviceToUse)
{
}
CryptDevice::CryptDevice(QObject* parent) :
QIODevice(parent)
{
}
@

On a side note: What about the Q_OBJECT macro? I understand that this needs to be included when you want to use signals and slots mechanism.

Thanks for the update.

giesbert

Hi Paucoma,

Q_OBJECT macro is needed, if this class uses signal slot, but my implementation has not signal/slot, no properties. So only the base classes have signal/slot and those have the macros, that's fine. But I add it, for completeness.

I removed the explicit for the constructor, and set the parent to 0. Two constructors makes no sense, as this device always needs an underlying device. The class en/decrypts data and stores it in the underlying device. Sure you can argue, otherwise you can open/close the device, change the underlying device by a method and open again, yes, but it's a code snippet, a description on how to implement a custom IO device.

andre

Note that the Q_OBJECT macro has more uses than just signal/slot. It also is needed for introspection and things like qobject_cast<>(). That may or may not be nessecairy, but I think it is good practice to include Q_OBJECT by default for QObject derived classes.

paucoma

Hi Gerolf!

Even though the custom IODevice, CryptDevice, does not implement signals and slots itself, it is a class derived from QIODevice which does provide signals, such as:

void aboutToClose ()
void bytesWritten ( qint64 bytes )
void readChannelFinished ()
void readyRead ()

To be able to use these signals from a CryptDevice Object is Q_OBJECT necessary in the definition of CryptDevice? or since QIODevice already declares it, it is not needed.

Your right, it doesn't make much sense to provide a seperate constructor.

I have been reading a bit on the explicit keyword and believe I understand that:

removing the explicit would now allow you to do
@
QBuffer bufferUsedLikeAFile(&dataArray);
SimpleCryptDevice deviceFilter = &bufferUsedLikeAFile;
@
before, with the explicit keyword, it would have thrown a compile error.

andre

[quote author="paucoma" date="1300957763"]Even though the custom IODevice, CryptDevice, does not implement signals and slots itself, it is a class derived from QIODevice which does provide signals, such as:

void aboutToClose ()
void bytesWritten ( qint64 bytes )
void readChannelFinished ()
void readyRead ()

To be able to use these signals from a CryptDevice Object is Q_OBJECT necessary in the definition of CryptDevice? or since QIODevice already declares it, it is not needed.
[/quote]

It is not needed for signals and slots provided by a base class. There are, however, other reasons why you might want to include Q_OBJECT.

paucoma

Thanks Andre for the clarification.

giesbert

bq. To be able to use these signals from a CryptDevice Object is Q_OBJECT necessary in the definition of CryptDevice? or since QIODevice already declares it, it is not needed.

You can use signals and slots from base classes without the Q_OBJECT macro in CryptDevice. But as Andre mentions, there is more (like qobject_cast) that also relies on the meta object system. so now it is added.

@
QBuffer bufferUsedLikeAFile(&dataArray);
SimpleCryptDevice deviceFilter = &bufferUsedLikeAFile;
@

This should not be possible, as QObject assignement is a bad idea. So I also added QBuffer Q_DISABLE_COPY(CryptDevice) to the class. Now, no assignment or copy constructor is possible.

Explicit means it can't be used indirectly for conversion. So I reach the same by using Q_DISABLE_COPY. Explicit makes sense only for one parameter constructors, and the c'tor was changed to two parameters, so it made no sense anymore.

paucoma

Quote from one of the articles I read about the explicit keyword:

"Explicit Constructor in C++ By Mridula":http://www.go4expert.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20756

bq. But explicit on a constructor with multiple arguments has no effect, since such constructors cannot take part in implicit conversions. However, explicit will have an effect if a constructor has multiple arguments and all but one of the arguments has a default value.

Which would be the case since the QObject defaults to 0, right?

giesbert

But it had 2 parameters without default:

@
explicit CryptDevice(QIODevice* deviceToUse, QObject* parent);
@

andre

Normally in Qt, the parent parameter actually defaults 0. Perhaps that should be the case here too:

@
CryptDevice(QIODevice* deviceToUse, QObject* parent = 0);
@

However, even then, I think explicit is not needed. What would potentially be cast to QIODevice* that would not be a valid argument?

giesbert

That's the difference in time :-)

it already is, but the explicit was before the code of the c'tor was changed, and there the C'tor did not default it (in fact between I had 2 c'tors, that's why it couldn't default).

Now we only have one c'tor which has a parent by default 0.

code from above:

@
QBuffer bufferUsedLikeAFile(&dataArray);
SimpleCryptDevice deviceFilter = &bufferUsedLikeAFile;
@

This code could result in a copy constructor / assignment operator call, depending on the compiler. It might be optimized. Both is not allowed for QObjects.

paucoma

Lets see if I understand then:
if we were to define the constructor as explicit:
@
explicit CryptDevice(QIODevice* deviceToUse, QObject* parent=0);
@
@
QIODevice dev;
QIODevice pdev;
CryptDevice cdev_1(&dev); //call to explicit constructor
CryptDevice cdev_2(pdev); //call to explicit constructor
CryptDevice cdev_3(dev); //illegal! -> compiler error (expecting QIODevice)
CryptDevice cdev_4(cdev_1); //call to compiler generated copy constructor
CryptDevice cdev_5 = cdev_1; //call to compiler generated copy constructor
CryptDevice cdev_6 = &dev; //illegal -> compiler error (expecting CryptDevice)
@

[quote] Q_DISABLE_COPY(CryptDevice) to the class. Now, no assignment or copy constructor is possible.[/quote]

@
Q_DISABLE_COPY(CryptDevice)
CryptDevice(QIODevice* deviceToUse, QObject* parent=0);
@
@
QIODevice dev;
QIODevice *pdev;
CryptDevice cdev_1(&dev); //call to constructor
CryptDevice cdev_2(pdev); //call to constructor
CryptDevice cdev_3(dev); // will it try type conversion?
CryptDevice cdev_4(cdev_1); //illegal -> Copy disabled
CryptDevice cdev_5 = cdev_1; //illegal -> operator= disabled
CryptDevice cdev_6 = &dev; //illegal -> operator= disabled
@

Or have I just gotten completly lost...

giesbert

Hi Pau,

I copied your entry and fixed the comments:

if we were to define the constructor as explicit:
@
explicit CryptDevice(QIODevice* deviceToUse, QObject* parent=0);
@
@
QIODevice dev;
QIODevice *pdev;

CryptDevice cdev_1(&dev); //call to explicit constructor
CryptDevice cdev_2(pdev); //call to explicit constructor
CryptDevice cdev_3(dev); //illegal! -> compiler error (expecting QIODevice*)
CryptDevice cdev_4(cdev_1); //call to compiler generated copy constructor --> will not work, as QIODevice has Q_DISABLE_COPY
CryptDevice cdev_5 = cdev_1; //call to compiler generated copy constructor --> will not work, as QIODevice has Q_DISABLE_COPY
CryptDevice cdev_6 = &dev; //illegal -> compiler error (expecting CryptDevice)
@

[quote] Q_DISABLE_COPY(CryptDevice) to the class. Now, no assignment or copy constructor is possible.[/quote]

@
Q_DISABLE_COPY(CryptDevice)
CryptDevice(QIODevice* deviceToUse, QObject* parent=0);
@
@
QIODevice dev;
QIODevice pdev;
CryptDevice cdev_1(&dev); //call to constructor
CryptDevice cdev_2(pdev); //call to constructor
CryptDevice cdev_3(dev); // illegal! -> compiler error (expecting QIODevice)
CryptDevice cdev_4(cdev_1); //illegal -> Copy disabled
CryptDevice cdev_5 = cdev_1; //illegal -> operator= disabled
CryptDevice cdev_6 = &dev; //illegal -> operator= disabled
@

Or have I just gotten completly lost...

paucoma

Hi Gerolf: thanks for fixing the comments.
In the first section I am suposing we dont declare the macro Q_DISABLE_COPY(CryptDevice)

In that case, will the compiler automatically generate a copy constructor?
** If so, are the following legal?
*** CryptDevice cdev_4(cdev_1);
*** CryptDevice cdev_5 = cdev_1;

giesbert

it will try to create it, but it will automatically call the base copy c'tor, which is private --> compiler error