How can I do this?
Alternative 1
One approach would be to create a type which has a boost::scoped_lock:
class t_scope_lock {
public:
t_scope_lock(MyClass& myClass);
...
private:
boost::scoped_lock d_lock;
};
and for MyClass to grant access to the mutex for this type. If this class is written specifically for MyClass, then I'd just add it as an inner class MyClass::t_scoped_lock.
Alternative 2
Another approach would be to create an intermediate type for use with the scope lock which could be convertible to a (custom) scope lock's constructor. Then the types could opt in as they see fit. A lot of people may not like the custom scope lock, but it would allow you to easily specify the access as you desire, and with a good degree of control.
Alternative 3
Sometimes it's better to add an abstraction layer for MyClass. If the class is complex, this is not likely a good solution because you will need to provide a lot of variants which look like:
{
boost::scoped_lock lock(f->GetScopedLock());
f->LockedFunc1();
f->LockedFunc2();
}
Alternative 4
Sometimes you can use another lock (e.g. internal and external).
Alternative 5
Similar to #4, you can use a recursive or readwrite lock in some cases.
Alternative 6
You can use a locked wrapper type to selectively grant access to portions of the type's interface.
class MyClassLockedMutator : StackOnly {
public:
MyClassLockedMutator(MyClass& myClass);
// ...
void LockedFunc1() { this->myClass.LockedFunc1(); }
void LockedFunc2() { this->myClass.LockedFunc2(); }
private:
MyClass& myClass;
boost::scoped_lock d_lock; // << locks myClass
};
MyClass f;
MyClassLockedMutator a(f);
a.LockedFunc1();
a.LockedFunc2();
Is this sensible?
Keep in mind that I have no idea what the exact constraints of your program are (hence, multiple alternatives).
Alternatives #1, #2, #3, and #6 have (virtually) no performance overhead, and have marginal additional complexity in many cases. They are, however, syntactically noisy for a client. IMO, forced correctness which the compiler can check (as needed) is more important than minimizing syntactical noise.
Alternatives #4 and #5 are good ways to introduce additional overhead/contention or locking/concurrent errors and bugs. In some cases, it is a simple substitution worth consideration.
When correctness, performance, and/or other restrictions are critical, I think it makes perfect sense to abstract or encapsulate those complexities, even if it costs some syntactical noise or an abstraction layer. I do this because it's too easy introduce breaking changes - even if I have written and maintained the entire program. To me, it's a more elaborate case of visibility, and perfectly sensible if used correctly.
Some Examples
Scroll down to main - this sample is rather disorganized because it demonstrates several approaches in one:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
class MyClass;
class MyClassOperatorBase {
public:
/* >> public interface */
bool bazzie(bool foo);
protected:
MyClassOperatorBase(MyClass& myClass) : d_myClass(myClass) {
}
virtual ~MyClassOperatorBase() {
}
operator boost::mutex & ();
MyClass& getMyClass() {
return this->d_myClass;
}
const MyClass& getMyClass() const {
return this->d_myClass;
}
protected:
/* >> required overrides */
virtual bool imp_bazzie(bool foo) = 0;
private:
MyClass& d_myClass;
private:
/* >> prohibited */
MyClassOperatorBase(const MyClassOperatorBase&);
MyClassOperatorBase& operator=(const MyClassOperatorBase&);
};
class MyClass {
public:
MyClass() : mLock() {
}
virtual ~MyClass() {
}
void LockedFunc1() {
std::cout << "hello ";
}
void LockedFunc2() {
std::cout << "world\n";
}
bool bizzle(bool foo) {
boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(this->mLock);
return this->imp_bizzle(foo);
}
protected:
virtual bool imp_bizzle(bool foo) {
/* would be pure virtual if we did not need to create it for other tests. */
return foo;
}
private:
class t_scope_lock {
public:
t_scope_lock(MyClass& myClass) : d_lock(myClass.mLock) {
}
private:
boost::mutex::scoped_lock d_lock;
};
protected:
friend class MyClassOperatorBase;
private:
boost::mutex mLock;
};
MyClassOperatorBase::operator boost::mutex & () {
return this->getMyClass().mLock;
}
bool MyClassOperatorBase::bazzie(bool foo) {
MyClass::t_scope_lock lock(this->getMyClass());
return this->imp_bazzie(foo);
}
class TheirClassOperator : public MyClassOperatorBase {
public:
TheirClassOperator(MyClass& myClass) : MyClassOperatorBase(myClass) {
}
virtual ~TheirClassOperator() {
}
bool baz(bool foo) {
boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(*this);
return this->work(foo);
}
boost::mutex& evilClientMove() {
return *this;
}
protected:
virtual bool imp_bazzie(bool foo) {
return this->work(foo);
}
private:
bool work(bool foo) {
MyClass& m(this->getMyClass());
m.LockedFunc1();
m.LockedFunc2();
return foo;
}
};
class TheirClass : public MyClass {
public:
TheirClass() : MyClass() {
}
virtual ~TheirClass() {
}
protected:
virtual bool imp_bizzle(bool foo) {
std::cout << "hallo, welt!\n";
return foo;
}
};
namespace {
/* attempt to restrict the lock's visibility to MyClassOperatorBase types. no virtual required: */
void ExampleA() {
MyClass my;
TheirClassOperator their(my);
their.baz(true);
// boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(my); << error inaccessible
// boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(my.mLock); << error inaccessible
// boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(their); << error inaccessible
boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(their.evilClientMove());
}
/* restrict the lock's visibility to MyClassOperatorBase and call through a virtual: */
void ExampleB() {
MyClass my;
TheirClassOperator their(my);
their.bazzie(true);
}
/* if they derive from my class, then life is simple: */
void ExampleC() {
TheirClass their;
their.bizzle(true);
}
}
int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) {
ExampleA();
ExampleB();
ExampleC();
return 0;
}
