<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE language SYSTEM "klayout_doc.dtd">

<doc>

  <title>The Ruby Language Binding</title>
  <keyword name="Ruby"/>
  <keyword name="RBA"/>

  <h2-index/>

  <p>
  This article covers the basics of the Ruby binding provided by KLayout.
  The Ruby binding is basically a way to access the native code classes of KLayout through a
  Ruby interface. KLayout is written in C++, hence the topic covered here is the interface
  between C++ and Ruby objects. The Ruby API (RBA) is based on the Ruby binding of a 
  selection of C++ classes. RBA is also the framework that implements the Ruby side of
  the binding. The C++ side is a more generic form which is not strictly confined to 
  a certain programming language. The C++ side of the framework is referred to as GSI (generic
  scripting interface) in the KLayout sources.
  </p>

  <h2>Joining Two Worlds: Ruby and C++</h2>

  <p>
  The usual and most simple case of a Ruby/C++ binding is a Ruby wrapper over a C++ object.
  When Ruby code likes to access a C++ object, the first thing that happens is that a 
  Ruby proxy object is created that is linked to the C++ object. That link can be unidirectional
  (the Ruby object knows about the C++ object, but the C++ object does not know about the
  Ruby object) or bidirectional (each know of each other). The kind of linking is important
  because a bidirectional link is stronger than a unidirectional link and allows lifetime tracking of the 
  other object. For performance reason, not all objects implement the ability of bidirectional links, 
  in particular not the ones that live in the layout database. That has certain consequences
  we will discuss in the lifetime management section below.
  </p>

  <p>
  The Ruby proxy object serves as a connection point to the C++ object. It defines methods that correspond
  to methods in the C++ object. When one of these methods is called, their implementation collects
  the arguments of the method call and converts them to a binary representation that C++ understands. 
  That process is usually called marshalling. Having done so, the execution continues in C++ space 
  where the GSI framework will use the binary representation of the arguments to call the target
  method of the C++ object. After the call has returned the same happens on the way back, this time
  with the return value instead of the arguments. Having converted the return value back into Ruby
  objects the execution returns to the Ruby script.
  </p>

  <p>The following image illustrates the relationship:</p>

  <p>
  <img src="/programming/ruby_binding_basic.png"/>
  </p>

  <p>
  While that operation is simple in theory there are some pitfalls when implementing that
  scheme. One of them is the inherent compatibility issue between C++ and Ruby's lifetime 
  management. In Ruby, the interpreter knows about all references to a Ruby object. When 
  there are no more references to an object, the object is marked as "no longer used" and
  deleted. In other words: as long as any reference exists, the object is valid and
  a reference will never become invalid.
  </p>

  <p>
  In C++, it is responsibility of the code to explicitly delete an object when it
  is no longer used. In other words: as long as any reference exists, the object is valid and
  a reference will never become invalid. 
  Often there is a clear ownership: an object belongs to another object
  which controls the lifetime of the owned object (aggregation). That scheme is more efficient
  and predictable but it bears the danger of holding references to objects which are deleted
  already.
  </p>

  <p>
  That raises the question how the lifetime of the Ruby proxy object is controlled and how 
  the lifetime of the C++ object is related to that.
  </p>

  <h2>Lifetime management</h2>

  <p>
  RBA/GSI follows a simple principle that significantly simplifies the implementation: who created
  an object is responsible for cleaning it up. In other words: a ownership of an object is usually 
  not transferred between C++ and Ruby space.  Thus we have to consider two cases: The 
  object is created in Ruby or the object is created in C++ code. Literally the object "lives" in Ruby
  space or in C++ space. In both cases, there is a pair of objects, but one of them is controlling
  the other.
  </p>

  <h3>Case 1: The object lives in Ruby space</h3>

  <p>
  When the object is created in Ruby, the Ruby proxy owns the C++ object and
  when the Ruby object goes out of scope, not only the Ruby object but also the C++
  object is deleted. That means, that except if that case is handled by special measures, 
  a reference to such an object must not be stored in C++ space, because we will never 
  know when Ruby will delete the object. A reference can be passed safely as an argument
  of a method however, provided the method does not store the reference somewhere.
  </p>

  <p>
  But then: how do we then permanently store an object we have created in Ruby?
  The answer is simply by creating a copy on the C++ side. That is exactly what happens in that
  piece of code:
  </p>

  <pre># creates an object that lives in Ruby space:
box = RBA::Box.new(0, 0, 10, 20)
# insert creates a copy of the box:
cell.shapes(layer).insert(box)</pre>
  
  <p>
  That is not an option for heavy objects such as layouts. If such objects need to be stored in C++ space, they are not created
  in Ruby code. Instead, several methods are provided to create objects that live in C++ space.
  For example a LayoutView object is not created in Ruby, but rather created inside the 
  MainWindow object with create_layout. After that, the reference is obtained with MainWindow::current_view or MainWindow::view.
  </p>

  <p>
  An exception to the lifetime control rule given above are Qt objects: a common pattern is to create Qt objects 
  and add them to a container (i.e. widgets to a dialog). This implies a lifetime control transfer from
  Ruby to C++. RBA handles that case by explicitly transferring control when a QObject or one of the
  derived objects is created with a parent reference in Ruby code. Qt implements it's own mechanism of controlling
  the lifetime which includes monitoring of the lifetime of child objects. This feature makes transferring the
  control feasible for these kind of objects. For some Qt methods which are know to transfer the ownership 
  of an object, the ownership is transferred explicitly.
  </p>

  <p>
  An object living in Ruby space can be explicitly deleted to free resources for example. For this, the 
  "_destroy" method is provided. This method will only deleted the C++ object and not the Ruby object. However,
  the Ruby object will become invalid and calling a method on such an object will result in an error.
  </p>
  
  <h3>Case 2: the object lives in C++ space</h3>

  <p>
  In that case, the Ruby proxy object simply acts as a pointer to a C++ object. An issue arises when the 
  Ruby object is still alive but the C++ object is deleted. In that case, the flavor of the link between
  the Ruby proxy and C++ object is important: if the link is bidirectional, the C++ object will inform the
  Ruby proxy that the reference will become invalid. The Ruby proxy will mark itself as being invalid and
  will block further calls to methods. Object supporting this reference binding are the API classes
  and "bigger" database objects such as Cell or Layout.
  </p>

  <p>
  For example:
  </p>

  <pre>main_window = ... # the RBA::MainWindow object
# returns a reference to a RBA::LayoutView object living in C++ space:
view = main_window.current_view
# deletes all views and also the object we have a reference to
main_window.close_all 
# this will fail, because the view is a Ruby proxy that knows that the C++ object 
# has been deleted:
view.load_layout(...)
# You can check this by asking "_destroyed?". This will return "true":
view._destroyed?</pre>

  <p>
  For "lightweight" objects such as the geometry primitives (Box, Polygon etc.), the link is unidirectional 
  and lifetime monitoring is not possible. This situation
  bears the danger of invalid references with fatal consequences if an attempt is made to call a method 
  then. Fortunately this case is rare and usually mitigated by providing an object clone.
  </p>

  <p>
  Calling "_destroy" on an object living in C++ space is not safe in general. In some cases, this can have
  fatal consequences (i.e. destroying the MainWindow object). An exception from that rule are Qt objects
  because Qt does lifetime monitoring internally and destroying an object from the outside (Ruby) is 
  a valid operation in most cases (although there are exceptions).
  </p>

  <h2>Transfer Of Ownership And Object Lifetime</h2>

  <p>
  Some C++ methods accept pointers to objects and take over ownership over this object.
  This happens specifically inside the Qt methods. In that case, the Ruby object has 
  to release ownership over that object. For example, "QApplication::postEvent" takes
  over the ownership over the event object passed to it and will finally destroy this
  object:
  </p>

  <pre>event = RBA::QKeyEvent::new
# takes over ownership over the event object:
RBA::QApplication::postEvent(RBA::MainWindow::instance, event)
...
# later on, when "event" goes out of scope, the GC will try to 
# delete the QKeyEvent object and without further provisions, the 
# application will crash!
</pre>

  <p>
  Luckily, there are such provisions. The "postEvent" method is tagged specially, 
  so the interpreter knows that it has to transfer ownership of the event object
  to Qt. 
  </p>

  <p>
  If that was not the case, one could use "_unmanage" to mark the event object
  no longer being managed by the script:
  </p>

  <pre>event = RBA::QKeyEvent::new
event._unmanage
# Now, somebody else is responsible for managing the object's lifetime
</pre>

  <p>
  The reverse is true for methods delivering new objects which the
  Ruby interpreter is supposed to manage. For example "QLayout::takeAt" returns
  a free objects which the caller is responsible for deleting. Without further
  provisions this would lead to a memory leak, because Ruby does not delete
  the borrowed object:
  </p>

  <pre>layout = ... # A RBA::QLayout object
child = layout.takeAt(0)
# later on, when child goes out of scope, Ruby needs to delete the object.
# Here is does, because it knows that "takeAt" delivers a free object.
</pre>

  <p>
  If the declaration of "takeAt" was not aware of the return mode, one could use "_manage" to mark the event object
  as to be managed by the script:
  </p>

  <pre>obj = createObjectForMe()
event._manage
# Now, when event goes out of scope, the object will be destroyed too.
</pre>

  <h2>Static And Local Methods, Access</h2>

  <p>
  Static C++ methods is simply implemented as class methods while local methods are implemented 
  as instance methods. 
  </p>

  <p>
  RBA also supports binding of protected methods. A Ruby class derived from a C++ class exposed to
  Ruby can call those methods while code outside that class cannot access those methods.
  Public methods can be called from anywhere.
  </p>

  <h2>Data types, Arguments and Return values</h2>

  <p>
  Ruby and C++ feature different types of data. While in Ruby, a variable is of any type, in C++
  a variable has a fixed type. This also is the case for arguments of methods and return values.
  A C++ method requires an argument to be of a certain type. In addition, C++ features pointers, references
  and a variety of containers. 
  Therefore a mapping of Ruby types to C++ types is required. The following table summarizes the
  mapping for the simple types:
  </p>

  <table>
    <tr><td><b>C++</b></td><td><b>Ruby</b></td><td><b>Comment</b></td></tr>
    <tr><td><tt>(signed, unsigned) char, int, short, long, long long</tt></td><td><tt>FixNum</tt></td><td></td></tr>
    <tr><td><tt>float, double</tt></td><td><tt>Float</tt></td><td></td></tr>
    <tr><td><tt>const char *, std::string, QString, QByteArray</tt></td><td><tt>String</tt></td><td>KLayout uses UTF-8 encoding for std::string. Binary strings can be passed to and from QByteArray.</td></tr>
    <tr><td><tt>bool</tt></td><td><tt>nil, true, false</tt></td><td>When passing a Ruby value to a bool parameter, the Ruby's nil and false values are converted to false. All other values are converted to true. This follows the usual Ruby semantics.</td></tr>
    <tr><td><tt>void *</tt></td><td><tt>FixNum</tt></td><td>Passing pointers between Ruby and C++ is not possible. But often, a "void *" value is used as a handle or as an arbitrary value. The Ruby binding allows storing of such values as FixNum.</td></tr>
    <tr><td><tt>QVariant, tl::Variant (KLayout)</tt></td><td><tt>any</tt></td><td>Any simple Ruby type that can be mapped to a C++ value can be stored in a QVariant. tl::Variant also supports a selection of complex types (i.e. RBA::Point, RBA::DPoint, RBA::Box, RBA::DBox etc.).</td></tr>
  </table>

  <p>
  Arguments that expect objects of classes known to RBA can be passed references from Ruby objects.
  The linear containers (std::vector, QList etc.) are mapped to Ruby arrays. Their values can be any 
  scalar type and objects of known classes. Nested arrays are not supported currently. Since the declaration
  is uniform in C++ (all members of an array must be of the same type), all members of a Ruby array must be convertible
  to the target type.
  </p>

  <p>
  Pointers and references are a special topic for C++ to Ruby binding. Ruby does not have the concept of
  a reference. Instead, all object values are references by definition. RBA can convert between Ruby variables
  and pointers/references and also supports "out" parameters.
  </p>

  <h3>References and pointers to simple types (FixNum, Float, String)</h3>

  <p>
  Simple types can be passed as values to arguments expecting pointers and references. RBA will convert
  the value to a pointer to that value and pass that pointer to the method. Pointer arguments also 
  support the "nil" value which is converted to a null pointer. Beware that not all C++ methods expecting
  a pointer argument are aware of null pointers and may have trouble digesting that value.
  </p>

  <p>
  Often, (non-const) reference and pointer arguments are used as "out" parameters, i.e. the method
  alters the value of the memory location passed by the pointer value. That imposes a problem for the 
  Ruby binding: since Ruby does not pass references for simple types, the value of a variable cannot be
  altered and the following code does not work as expected:
  </p>

  <pre>//  C++: use x as an "out" parameter:
void A::f(int &amp;x) { x = 5; }

# Ruby:
x = 1
A::new.f(x)
# x is NOT 5!</pre>

  <p>
  RBA solves that problem by providing a "boxing" mechanism: a value is stored inside an object
  which is passed by reference. RBA provides the class <class_doc href="Value"/> for that purpose.
  This class serves as a container for any type and can be used to solve the "out" parameter problem this way:
  </p>

  <pre>//  C++: use x as an "out" parameter:
void A::f(int &amp;x) { x = 5; }

# Ruby:
x = RBA::Value.new(1)
A::new.f(x)
# x.value is 5 now</pre>

  <p>
  The RBA::Value object has a attribute "value" which can hold any type. RBA will convert that member into
  the value required by the method's argument. The method will receive a pointer or reference to that
  value and can modify that memory location. After the method has returned, the modified value can be
  accessed by reading the "value" attribute.
  </p>

  <p>
  Reference and pointer return values are simply converted to copies of the value. 
  </p>

  <h3>Special pointers: const char *, void *</h3>

  <p>
  "const char *" pointers are mapped to Ruby strings. The same is true for 
  "const unsigned char *". The non-const versions "char *" and "unsiged char *"
  are somewhat ambiguous and are mapped to strings currently.
  </p>

  <p>
  "void *" is mapped to an integer value representing the address the pointer
  points at. Since it is not possible to address a value by a pointer in Ruby 
  as well as getting the address of a value, there is noch much use for the
  "void *" values expect if those values are delivered and digested by 
  C++ methods. This is the case for some "handle" values (i.e. Windows object
  handles) and some cases, where "void *" stands for "some arbitrary value which
  can be a pointer or an integer".
  </p>

  <h3>Pointers as arrays</h3>

  <p>
  In "C style" C++, pointers are sometimes used as the start position of an array and
  point to a number of items, not only one. Usually there is another parameter telling the
  number of items the pointer points to. Since there is no declaration for that kind of 
  calling convention, the Ruby binding cannot support that case. Only "char *" and 
  "const char *" are supported and it is assumed that arguments of these type expect
  a zero-terminated byte string in UTF-8 encoding.
  </p>

  <p>
  Fortunately that case is rare. Specifically the Qt API uses references to QByteArray, 
  QVector, QList and similar container classes which can be mapped to Ruby arrays.
  </p>

  <h3>References and pointers to complex types</h3>

  <p>
  References and pointers to complex types and objects of Ruby classes for which 
  a C++ class exists are simply converted to pointers or references to the C++ class. Pointer 
  arguments can also be passed "nil" which renders a null pointer. Again, not all method
  implementations may be prepared for that value and the application may crash in that
  case.
  </p>

  <h3>Hash arguments and return values</h3>

  <p>
  Associative containers (std::map, QHash etc.) are mapped to Ruby hashes. 
  Unlike Ruby, C++ associative containers are strictly typed, so it's important to provide the right key and value pairs.
  </p>

  <h3>Default arguments</h3>

  <p>
  Some functions provide defaults for certain arguments. If these arguments are
  omitted, the default value is used instead.
  </p>

  <h2>Constness</h2>

  <p>
  C++ has the concept of "constness". That means that if a pointer or a reference to an object 
  is declared "const", the object cannot be modified. Also, methods can be declared
  "const" meaning that such methods do no alter the (externally visible) state of an
  object. C++ ensures constness, because it only allows calling of const methods on const references
  of objects.
  </p>

  <p>
  The concept of constness is part of the contract between a caller of a method and the
  method's implementation: if a method declares an argument to be a const reference or
  pointer, it tells the caller that it will not modify the object. Similar, returning
  a const reference is a safe way to expose internal objects because the implementor
  of the method can be sure that code outside a method will not modify the state of
  the object returned. Thus, constness is a vital part of a contract and somehow needs
  to be mapped in the Ruby binding.
  </p>

  <p>
  Unfortunately that is not as easy as it may look. The problem is basically that 
  Ruby does not have the concept of constness, but it has references. Remember that 
  there is always a pair of Ruby/C++ objects. When a reference to a C++ object is
  returned into Ruby space, the Ruby counterpart of the object is created and a 
  reference to that object is returned.
  </p>
  
  <p>
  But where do we have to attach the constness of the reference?
  The answer is that there is no other place except the Ruby object. Hence, if a 
  const reference is returned, a "const Ruby object" is created. That object will
  refuse to execute non-const methods. That way, the const semantics is maintained.
  </p>

  <p>
  Trouble starts when another non-const reference is returned to the same object.
  In that case, the Ruby object needs to be reused but this time with non-const
  semantics. That is a contradiction to the previous const state. RBA solves this
  issue by switching the object to non-const state in that case and will allow
  to call non-const methods after that. 
  </p>

  <p>
  In other words: constness is part of the object identity in Ruby and it can 
  change. That actually makes some sense: when I obtained a const reference there
  may be another way to obtain a non-const reference. Once I have a non-const
  reference I can modify the object which also is behind the const reference. Thus
  keeping a const reference is no longer a safety feature and the const reference
  can be dropped.
  </p>

  <p>
  To avoid lifetime issues, RBA does not work with references a lot. Objects
  returned by a const reference are always copied. Only const pointers are kept
  as const object references in Ruby.
  </p>

  <h2>Reimplementing Virtual Methods</h2>

  <p>
  The Ruby binding supports reimplementation of virtual C++ methods in 
  derived classes. This works as expected:
  </p>

  <pre>// C++
class A {
public:
  virtual void f() { }
};

# Ruby
class B &lt; A
  def f
    # f is called when A::f is called on the C++ side
  end
end</pre>

  <p>
  Virtual methods are often used as callbacks and provide a 
  reverse call path from C++ to Ruby:
  </p>

  <p>
  <img src="/programming/ruby_binding_callback.png"/>
  </p>

  <p>
  The parameters of the Ruby implementation must match the parameters of
  the C++ method. Mapping of Ruby to C++ types applies to the Ruby method
  arguments the same way than for return values of ordinary methods. Virtual
  functions can also return values. In that case the same mapping rules than
  for ordinary method arguments apply.
  </p>

  <h2>Iterators</h2>

  <p>
  A special feature of KLayout's Ruby binding are iterators. 
  C++ iterators are mapped to Ruby iterators. For example:
  </p>

  <pre>// C++
class A {
public:
  //  begin()..end() are mapped to the "each" method in Ruby:
  iterator begin();  
  iterator end();
};

# Ruby
a = A::new
a.each { |i| ... }</pre>

  <p>
  Iterators match very well between C++ and Ruby so there are no real issues here.
  The return type of the iterators is mapped to Ruby's block arguments using the
  same rules than for values returned from C++ methods.
  </p>

  <h2>Exceptions</h2>

  <p>
  Raising an error in Ruby is a valid way to terminate the execution of the 
  method. A Ruby error is mapped to a C++ exception which usually is caught in 
  the C++ code and handled properly. There are some cases, where raising an 
  exception can crash the application. That is the case in particular in 
  event handlers of Qt objects. Usually, raising an exception is safe.
  </p>

  <h2>Events</h2>

  <p>
  Events are a special feature of KLayout's Ruby binding. Events are similar to
  reimplementations of virtual functions except that no derived class is required
  and the call is handled by a Ruby block. Events can have return values but
  using "return" inside a block does not have the expected effect. Instead, the
  value of the last expression in the block is used. That is a feature of Ruby, not
  a speciality of RBA.
  </p>

  <p>
  There is always one receiver for an event. If a new block is assigned to an 
  event, the old block will no longer be called.
  Here is an example of using events:
  </p>

  <pre>// C++
class A {
public:
  //  e is an event with an integer argument
  void f(i) { e(i); }
};

# Ruby
a = A::new
a.e { |i| puts i; }
a.f(15)  # calls the block attached to e with the argument 15</pre>

  <p>
  Events are extensively used for an alternative to Qt slots. 
  The Qt binding of KLayout maps every signal to an event. That means, that 
  it is possible to connect a block to a Qt signal directly at the sender
  object without having to create a receiver.
  For example:
  </p>

  <pre># Ruby
b = RBA::QPushButton::new
# print a message, when the button is clicked
b.clicked { puts "Ouch." }</pre>

  <p>
  There is one significant difference between Qt signals and events: A Qt signal
  can have many receivers while an event always has one block which is executed
  when the signal is emitted. Connecting signals and slots still is supported with
  the "connect" method, but it is not possible to define slots on Ruby methods. The
  events fill that gap and, in the authors opinion, in a much more convenient way.
  </p>

</doc>


