zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marios Hadjieleftheriou <mha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: C API question
Date Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:14:51 GMT
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Marshall McMullen
<marshall.mcmullen@gmail.com> wrote:
> And obviously you could layer a reinterpet_cast on the const_cast to get it
> from a void* to whatever your object type really is.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Marshall McMullen <
> marshall.mcmullen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> IMO I think this is correct behavior from zookeeper's perspective. By
>> marking the parameter as a const void* the C API is promising that *it*
>> will not modify the contents of memory referred to by the pointer. That is
>> absolutely the correct contract for zookeeper to make. If it were not const
>> then the C API would not be able to guarantee that. Moreover, as a client
>> building on top of the C API looking at the C API I can easily tell looking
>> at these functions that it is promising not not modify that data. I don't
>> see any problems with this.
>>

In other words you are saying that when I pass the data parameter to
zookeeper through a get_children call let's say, I am passing it as
const void and hence it is also stored within Zookeeper as const void.
So when Zookeeper calls my callback it has no other choice but to pass
it as const void again.

Ok. That makes sense and answers my original question:
"Is there any reason why this parameter needs to be const?"

>> As to the problem in your callback, that is easily solvable since you own
>> the memory in the callback so you know you can safely const-cast away the
>> const. You mentioned reinterpet_cast, so in c++ this would be:
>>
>> void* data = const_cast<void *>(data_ptr);
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Marios Hadjieleftheriou <
>> mhadji@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mohammad.
>>>
>>> The parameter is a const void * (reading from right to left: a pointer
>>> to a void that is const). Hence the data pointed to cannot be changed.
>>>
>>> Moreover, it does not make sense to pass a void* const (right to left:
>>> a const pointer to a void) as a function argument, because the pointer
>>> itself ("data" in this case) is passed by value, hence it is
>>> meaningless for it to be const or not.
>>>
>>> In any case, in my callback function I tried to reinterpret_cast my
>>> data to a non-const instance and the compiler complained that it needs
>>> to be const. I cannot change my data.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Mohammad Shamma
>>> <mohammadshamma@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I think the const in this case would cause the pointer to be fixed. The
>>> > data referred to by the pointer can still be updated.
>>> >
>>> > This is a similar question on stackoverflow:
>>> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6407041/constant-pointer
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Marios Hadjieleftheriou
>>> > <mhadji@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The string_completiion_t callback signature of the Zookeeper C API is:
>>> >>
>>> >> typedef void(* string_completion_t)(int rc, const char *value, const
>>> void
>>> >> *data)
>>> >>
>>> >> That means that when the callback is called, the user provided data
is
>>> >> returned as a const void and cannot be modified by client code, which
>>> >> kind of defeats the purpose of passing any data in the first place.
>>> >>
>>> >> Is there any reason why this parameter needs to be const?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Mohammad Shamma
>>>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message