Review Request 121831: libksysguard: process.h: encapsulate private fields

[Thomas Lübking]

> On Jan. 21, 2015, 10:10 vorm., Dominik Haumann wrote:
> > processcore/process.h, line 40
> > <https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121831/diff/3/?file=343193#file343193line40>
> >
> >     Is virtual needed here?
> 
> Gregor Mi wrote:
>     Does it hurt here to have it virtual? I thought, if in doubt 'virtual' should be used.
> 
> Thomas Lübking wrote:
>     No. But it's not required either.
>     It's a matter of preference to indicate the virtuality in a non-root class.
>     The better solution is Q_DECL_OVERRIDE
> 
> Dominik Haumann wrote:
>     How is Q_DECL_OVERRIDE related to having a virtual destructor in the base class?
>     
>     Typically, you make the pimpl class FooPrivate virtual if there are other classes Bar that derive from Foo and also require the pimpl idion, i.e. class BarPrivate : public FooPrivate. This way you still have only one d-Pointer allocation independent of the deepness of the class hierarchy. In KDE, we seldom need that, and therefore we can put FooPrivate into the cpp file and make it have a non-virtual destructor.
>     However, in Qt itselv the d-pointer classes inherit other d-pointer classes, therefore you typically have a e.g. a qpushbutton_p.h, which itself probably includes qwidget_p.h etc...
>     
>     I dont think we need a virtual destructor here. only adds a vtable that is not required ;)

sorry - from the discussion i just assumed this was a leaf to qobject.
no. introducing a vtable to a private class makes no sense and indeed does harm (performance)
and q_decl_override is of course entirely wrong in a base class.


- Thomas


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121831/#review74463
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 25, 2015, 10:27 nachm., Gregor Mi wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121831/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 25, 2015, 10:27 nachm.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Base Apps, Dominik Haumann, Eike Hein, and John Tapsell.
> 
> 
> Repository: libksysguard
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> In process.h there are several public fields. This RR introduces a d-ptr.
> 
> 
> (In a separate commit I would add the .reviewboardrc file)
> 
> What is the current policy on using small C++ macros as done in this RR? Use it (code is more compact and readable) or don't use it (better for debugging)?
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   processui/scripting.h 2445c0ab0d81af3283c0f6e9c5f349a3d70b0de9 
>   processui/scripting.cpp 76291b0ae0a26e486aa81a4ca3976ff4a47cb3c0 
>   processcore/processes_solaris_p.cpp f054df4b1e762e9cbec1ff8dea78f467b878bee0 
>   processui/ProcessFilter.cpp ec520593fb67c777d56817f2493d40dc5ade0347 
>   processui/ProcessModel.cpp 53bc041110c9cdb686fef783895104969b661889 
>   processui/ksysguardprocesslist.cpp 4dc142e864d8353ceafc3a6735ffa81e48291420 
>   processcore/processes.cpp 580df8db152040f1ad075430fdce08fe7ad4ae2d 
>   processcore/processes_atop_p.cpp 24c76e3e35f62bd8e9e705ad32cc11cbd3662601 
>   processcore/processes_base_p.h 71b8a9cc6ee14bf7934a0a9d3199b257b5ce1be7 
>   processcore/processes_linux_p.cpp 898d4fa491873fe95a8b32a5c1b85642b2e46ad5 
>   processcore/processes.h d09c3265333fe7e2702deaa910c5fbe4bc3ac9e6 
>   tests/processtest.cpp f9b36e9a3a3c2048b51f1d935f8c40de2ad8a9b8 
>   .reviewboardrc PRE-CREATION 
>   CMakeLists.txt cefc86f12be684e195bd148641483e9e1734e636 
>   processcore/process.h b6695c0ed301dc5f0fad8ba847da811f19ebfd9a 
>   processcore/process.cpp a38b8be71da1a51cb87f636664ebac817b1d20ab 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121831/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Compiles and runs. Data is still shown; no visible error. Unit tests succeed.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gregor Mi
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20150126/6e577c31/attachment.htm>