如何允许某些类的对象访问另一类的对象的受保护成员

Question

I am looking for a solution to the following problem:

I have a class X with (assuming) only protected members. And I have a set S of several classes A , B , C , ...

Assuming there is an existing instance x of class X members (which instance may be, either an instance of class X , or a subset of an instance of any suitable container/derived-class/... depending on class X ) :

• Any instance s of a class of the set S , in relation with (depending on) x , must have access to protected members of x .
• Access to protected members of x must be restricted to s (and x ).
• Creation and destruction of instance s must keep instance x alive and unaltered .

Additionally, at a given time, only one instance s [ in relation ] with x is existing.

In other words and to clarify the above requirements: I need that any instance s have access to protected members of class X , just like if (for example) classes of the set S were publicly derived from X , except that the subset of members coming from class X in inheritance must remain alive and unaltered whether instance s is created or destroyed.

In addition, the following requirements must be met:

• X must be considered non-copyable and non-movable.
• A solution involving wrapper to protected members of X , though acceptable, is not desirable due to maintenance cost.
• Making all classes of set S friends of X is obviously not acceptable (to many classes).

The currently implemented solution, that though does not fulfills requirement #5, is using composition and a parent class for classes of S friend of X , eg:

class X
{
    // public: int get_prot();        // not allowed (rq#2)
    protected: int prot;
    friend class Xaxx;
    // friend A; friend B; ...        // not acceptable (rq#6)
};

class Xacc
{
protected:
    Xacc(X& x) : x(x) {}
    int& x_prot() { return x.prot; }  // not desirable (rq#5)
    X& x;
};

class A : public Xacc
{
public:
    A(X& x) : Xacc(x) {}
    void work()  { x_prot() = 1; }
};

Another interesting solution tested, that fulfills all requirements expect #4 though:

class A : public X
{
public:
    A(const X& x) : X(x) {}            // X not copyable (rq#4)
    void work()  { prot = 1; }
};

Any solution up to C++14 is acceptable. Thanks for your help.

---

Rationale :

To clarify where this problem comes from and in which way a solution will help me improve my code:

• Every classes of the set S represent states of a state-machine (which state-machine is in some way inspired from the State pattern from the Gang of 4).
• Each state must have access to a common underlying sub-object (the instance of X ) which implements all sort of works (algorithms, i/o, and so on...)
• When a new state is entered, an object of the proper class in set S is created; when the state is exited, the object is destroyed, then replaced by a new one (a new state). The instance of X must not be altered in this switch.

Answer 1

Is making the external class a friend of the class it needs access to out of the question?

http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/inheritance/

Answer 2

If your classes in S have a uniform interface that is simple (eg a single 'work' method), you can change your current implementation to fulfill requirement #5 by making Xacc a template class and by moving the implementation of the access to the protected parts of X into the specializations of Xacc. It would look like this:

class X 
{
protected:
    int prot;
    template<typename State> friend class Xacc;
};

template<class State>
class Xacc
{
public:
    Xacc(X &x) : x(x) {}
    void work();
private:
    X &x;
};

class S1;
template<> void Xacc<S1>::work()
{
    x.prot = 1;
};

class S1: public Xacc<S1>
{
public:
    S1(X &x): Xacc<S1>(x) {}
protected:
};

Answer 3

Perhaps you could use some variant of the passkey pattern

class XKey {
    XKey(){}
    friend class Xacc;
};

class X {
public: 
    int& get_prot(XKey) { return prot; } // Only accessible to those who can construct XKey
protected:
    int prot;
};

class Xacc {
protected:
    Xacc(X& x) : x(x) {}
    X& x;    
    XKey getKey() { return XKey(); }    
};

class A : public Xacc {
public:
    A(X& x) : Xacc(x) {}
    void work()  { x.get_prot(getKey()) = 1; }
};

int main() {
    X x;
    A a(x);
    a.work();
    //x.get_prot(XKey()) = 2;  // Error: XKey::XKey() is private   
}

Answer 4

I think the solution is: you have to have a base class for your set S .

S can be your class X or a separated (new) class from X

software project is balance of requirement and design, when you listed all 6 requirements, the solution is limited to you have to have a base class Xacc which has common functionality: access your X

do you know story "castles in the air"? how do I only have 2nd floor without 1st floor?