Static or Dynamic !!

Hi all,
The question below deals with OOP and QT concepts together..
I am in an initial phase of developing a GUI using Graphics View Framework..i have created many class whose parents classes are Widget,View,Scene and item for now...my question is as i want my scene to be visible in view i include a scene in the view class and either make a static object of it or a dynamic one..what factors decide this ??..
Thanks to all
-Muhammad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmanmanekia

... either make a static object of it or a dynamic one ...

---

What do YOU understand with static and dynamic?
Unless you explain what static and dynamic mean to you, it's senseless to give a good answer

what i mean to say here is dynamicly allocated memory or a static memory...continuing from the question above ,for eg should i create

Code:

---

Scene *myScene

---

or

Code:

---

Scene myScene

---

in the View class as in this class later i wud use the addScene function to add the scene i have declared..
i hope i am able to explain the problem:)..Thanks

I had to ask what you meant with static because it has a whole other meaning.

In this case it doesn't really matter.
You can use either one.

Note though, if you do use a pointer, set the parent of the scene.

Scene *myScene - creates a pointer of type Scene and initialises it to point at myScene
Scene myScene - creates an instance of the class Scene and calls it myScene

these are both what you appear to term dynamic.

I do not think that C++ supports a 'static class' as such, do you mean a class with static members perhaps?

Thanks for the reply guys...
First ,i was wondering about the performance issue using either of them....i thought in some case pointers can be good and in other case no pointers....the no pointer case is what i am refering to static and that seems to be a confusing term ...but what i meant by static is memory allocation on the stack ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmanmanekia

...
First ,i was wondering about the performance issue using either of them....i thought in some case pointers can be good and in other case no pointers....the no pointer case is what i am refering to static and that seems to be a confusing term ...but what i meant by static is memory allocation on the stack ...

---

No, it's not really static vs. dynamic.

In C++, the member definition is either a pointer (with the *), in which case it has to be allocated separately, or an instance (as related above), in which case the instance gets allocated along with the class. So, the distinction is really a pointer vs. an instance member.

The nice thing about declaring it as an instance member is you don't have to allocate it, and you don't have to destroy it - that happens when then owning class is constructed or destroyed.

The downside is that if the instance member is large, it can have implications if you create the owner on the stack vs. allocate it (or declare it in static memory). For instance:

Code:

---

class Scene
{
   ... stuff...
};
 
class SceneOwner
{
  Scene scene;      // instance member
};
 
somefunction()
{
   SceneOwner so;
}

---

In this scenario, both 'so' (SceneOwner) and scene (Scene) get pushed onto the stack as one continuous blob.

If instead you had declared Scene as a pointer:

Code:

---

class Scene
{
   ... stuff...
};
 
class SceneOwner
{
  Scene *scene;    // pointer member
 
  SceneOwner()
    {
        scene = new Scene;
    }
 
   ~SceneOwner()
   {
       delete scene;
   }
};
 
somefunction()
{
   SceneOwner so;
}

---

Now, 'so' (SceneOwner) is created on the stack, but 'scene' (Scene) is created on the heap.

Finally, if you declared 'so' as a pointer, only the pointer (4/8 bytes) gets pushed on the stack in either scenario:

Code:

---

somefunction()
{
  SceneOwner *so = new SceneOwner();
}

---

In terms of pure performance, declaring it as an instance is faster, since you don't have to call the allocator. In practice, heap allocation functions are pretty blazingly fast, anymore, so you'd probably be pretty hard pressed to see any difference unless you're creating and destroying a zillion 'so's.


In general, you want to watch how much stuff you're pushing on the stack. A big determination is the size of the contained object (or the instantiated object, for that matter) - if it's tiny (like a tuple or an RGB value or some such thing), it's not a big deal to push it on the stack. If it's got a whole bunch of 100k bytes in it, you're probably better off allocating it on the heap. If you're on a limited resource device (like a cell phone), you can get a stack over-run if you're too careless, especially if you're recursing into a nested set of calls.


(BTW, most Qt classes are thin 'container' classes, with the 'd' pointer created on the heap. So, it's not expensive stackwise to create Qt classes on the stack. This is also fundamental to how the classes that use 'implicit sharing' work.)


There are other considerations: if 'scene' comes in from the outside, it is easier to declare it as a pointer - all you have to do is set the pointer. If it's an instance, you likely will have to furnish copy constructors and/or assignment operators. OTOH, if it's a pointer, you need to establish ownership policy - who's responsible for deleting it when the container class is deleted (if they're both QObject-derived, you can set one as the parent of the other, in which the parent assumes ownership of the child and will delete it on destruction - see the QObject behavior for details.)

Thanks..it was very useful:)