I've written a number of networking systems and have a good idea of how networking works. However I always end up having a packet receive function which is a giant switch statement. This is beginning to get to me. I'd far rather a nice elegant object-oriented way to handle receiving packets but every time I try to come up with a good solution I always end up coming up short.
For example lets say you have a network server. It is simply waiting there for responses. A packet comes in and the server needs to validate the packet and then it needs to decide how to handle it.
At the moment I have been doing this by switching on the packet id in the header and then having a huge bunch of function calls that handle each packet type. With complicated networking systems this results in a monolithic switch statement and I really don't like handling it this way. One way I've considered is to use a map of handler classes. I can then pass the packet to the relevant class and handle the incoming data. The problem I have with this is that I need some way to "register" each packet handler with the map. This means, generally, I need to create a static copy of the class and then in the constructor register it with the central packet handler. While this works it really seems like an inelegant and fiddly way of handling it.
Edit: Equally it would be ideal to have a nice system that works both ways. ie a class structure that easily handles sending the same packet types as receiving them (through different functions obviously).
Can anyone point me towards a better way to handle incoming packets? Links and useful information are much appreciated!
Apologies if I haven't described my problem well as my inability to describe it well is also the reason I've never managed to come up with a solution.
About the way to handle the packet type: for me the map is the best. However I'd use a plain array (or a vector) instead of a map. It would make access time constant if you enumerate your packet types sequentially from 0.
As to the class structure. There are libraries that already do this job: Available Game network protocol definition languages and code generation. E.g. Google's Protocol Buffer seems to be promising. It generates a storage class with getters, setters, serialization and deserialization routines for every message in the protocol description. The protocol description language looks more or less rich.
A map of handler instances is pretty much the best way to handle it. Nothing inelegant about it.
In my experience, table driven parsing is the most efficient method.
Although std::map is nice, I end up using static tables. The std::map cannot be statically initialized as a constant table. It must be loaded during run-time. Tables (arrays of structures) can be declared as data and initialized at compile time. I have not encountered tables big enough where a linear search was a bottleneck. Usually the table size is small enough that the overhead in a binary search is slower than a linear search.
For high performance, I'll use the message data as an index into the table.
When you are doing OOP, you try to represent every thing as an object, right? So your protocol messages become objects too; you'll probably have a base class YourProtocolMessageBase which will encapsulate any message's behavior and from which you will inherit your polymorphically specialized messages. Then you just need a way to turn every message (i.e. every YourProtocolMessageBase instance) into a string of bytes, and a way to do reverse. Such methods are called serialization techniques; some metaprogramming-based implementations exist.
Quick example in Python:
from socket import *
sock = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM)
sock.bind(("localhost", 1234))
rsock, addr = sock.accept()
Server blocks, fire up another instance for a client:
from socket import *
clientsock = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM)
clientsock.connect(("localhost", 1234))
Now use Python's built-in serialization module, pickle; client:
import pickle
obj = {1: "test", 2: 138, 3: ("foo", "bar")}
clientsock.send(pickle.dumps(obj))
Server:
>>> import pickle
>>> r = pickle.loads(rsock.recv(1000))
>>> r
{1: 'test', 2: 138, 3: ('foo', 'bar')}
So, as you can see, I just sent over link-local a Python object. Isn't this OOP?
I think the only possible alternative to serializing is maintaining the bimap IDs ⇔ classes. This looks really inevitable.
You want to keep using the same packet network protocol, but translate that into an Object in programming, right ?
There are several protocols that allow you to treat data as programming objects, but it seems, you don't want to change the protocol, just the way its treated in your application.
Does the packets come with something like a "tag" or metadata or any "id" or "data type" that allows you to map to an specific object class ? If it does, you may create an array that stores the id. and the matching class, and generate an object.
A more OO way to handle this is to build a state machine using the state pattern.
Handling incoming raw data is parsing where state machines provide an elegant solution (you will have to choose between elegant and performance)
You have a data buffer to process, each state has a handle buffer method that parses and processes his part of the buffer (if already possible) and sets the next state based on the content.
If you want to go for performance, you still can use a state machine, but leave out the OO part.
I would use Flatbuffers and/or Cap’n Proto code generators.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4937263/object-oriented-networking