I want to use ArmeriaCatsBackend as sttp backend with Cats effects.
The following code does not compile:
object Main extends IOApp {
val backend = ArmeriaCatsBackend[IO]()
// ...
}
could not find implicit value for evidence parameter of type cats.effect.kernel.Async[cats.effect.IO]
Error occurred in an application involving default arguments.
Documentation
What am I missing?
Dang. I was using scala-effects v2.x and sttp-ameria for v3.
After upgrading to scala-effects v3.x everything is ok.
Related
I am migrating from play 2.4.x to play 2.5.8
While migrating I am getting a lot of deprecation related warning that I am trying to resolve. Once such error is method current in object Play is deprecated: This is a static reference to application, use DI instead
below is the object
object Foo{
def testURL= {
val test = Play.current.configuration.getString("test.url")
}
If I try to use config = Configuration.load() I get the error overloaded method value load with alternatives:
(environment: play.api.Environment)play.api.Configuration
(environment: play.api.Environment,devSettings:
Map[String,AnyRef])play.api.Configuration cannot be applied to ()
I there a way to use the play.api.configuration here ? I don't want to convert object into singleton class.
I'm basing this answer on this group post because it's about as good an answer as you'll get for this topic.
What you're trying to do is an anti-pattern, because something is an object it should not depend on external state. Technically, configuration is based on the state of a file on the filesystem, so it is state in that sense.
To do this cleanly, you should use a class.
I am currently on Play 2.4.2 and have successfully created thread pools using the following below:
package threads
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext
import play.api.libs.concurrent.Akka
import play.api.Play.current
object Contexts {
implicit val db: ExecutionContext = Akka.system.dispatchers.lookup("contexts.db-context")
implicit val pdf: ExecutionContext = Akka.system.dispatchers.lookup("contexts.pdf-context")
implicit val email: ExecutionContext = Akka.system.dispatchers.lookup("contexts.email-context")
}
and then in the code with...
Future{....}(threads.Contexts.db)
We are ready to upgrade to Play 2.5 and having trouble understanding the documentation. The documentation for 2.4.2 uses Akka.system.dispatchers.lookup, which we use without issue. The documentation for 2.5.x uses app.actorSystem.dispatchers.lookup. As far as I know, I have to inject the app into a Class, not an Object. Yet the documentation clearly uses an Object for the example!
Has anyone successfully created thread pools in Play 2.5.x that can help out? Is it as simple as changing Contexts to a class, then injecting it wherever I would like to use this threading? Seems odd since to use the default ExecutionContext I just have to make an implicit import.
Also, we are using Play scala.
If you simply change your Contexts to a class, then you will have to deal with how to get an instance of that class.
In my opinion, if you have a number of thread pools that you want to make use of, named bindings are the way to go. In the below example, I will show you how you could accomplish this with guice.
Note that guice injects depedencies at runtime, but it is also possible to inject dependencies at compile time.
I'm going to show it with the db context as an example. First, this is how you will be using it:
class MyService #Inject() (#Named("db") dbCtx: ExecutionContext) {
// make db access here
}
And here's how you could define the binding:
bind[ExecutionContext].qualifiedWith("db").toProvider[DbExecutionContextProvider]
And somewhere define the provider:
class DbExecutionContextProvider #Inject() (actorSystem: ActorSystem) extends Provider[ExecutionContext] {
override def get(): ExecutionContext = actorSystem.dispatchers.lookup("contexts.db-context")
}
You will have to do this for each of your contexts. I understand this may be a little cumbersome and there may actually be more elegant ways to define the bindings in guice.
Note that I have not tried this out. One issue you might stumble upon could be that you'll end up with conflicts, because play already defines a binding for the ExecutionContext in their BuiltinModule. You may need to override the binding to work around that.
I have an Play 2.5.3 application which uses Slick for reading an object from DB.
The service classes are built in the following way:
class SomeModelRepo #Inject()(protected val dbConfigProvider: DatabaseConfigProvider) {
val dbConfig = dbConfigProvider.get[JdbcProfile]
import dbConfig.driver.api._
val db = dbConfig.db
...
Now I need some standalone Scala scripts to perform some operations in the background. I need to connect to the DB within them and I would like to reuse my existing service classes to read objects from DB.
To instantiate a SomeModelRepo class' object I need to pass some DatabaseConfigProvider as a parameter. I tried to run:
object SomeParser extends App {
object testDbProvider extends DatabaseConfigProvider {
def get[P <: BasicProfile]: DatabaseConfig[P] = {
DatabaseConfigProvider.get("default")(Play.current)
}
}
...
val someRepo = new SomeModelRepo(testDbProvider)
however I have an error: "There is no started application" in the line with "(Play.current)". Moreover the method current in object Play is deprecated and should be replaced with DI.
Is there any way to initialize my SomeModelRepo class' object within the standalone object SomeParser?
Best regards
When you start your Play application, the PlaySlick module handles the Slick configurations for you. With it you have two choices:
inject DatabaseConfigProvider and get the driver from there, or
do a global lookup via DatabaseConfigProvider.get[JdbcProfile](Play.current), which is not preferred.
Either way, you must have your Play app running! Since this is not the case with your standalone scripts you get the error: "There is no started application".
So, you will have to use Slick's default approach, by instantiating db directly from config:
val db = Database.forConfig("default")
You have lot's of examples at Lightbend's templates.
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't read the whole question. Do you really need to have it as another application? You can run your background operations when your app starts, like here. In this example, InitialData class is instantiated as eager singleton, so it's insert() method is run immediately when app starts.
I'm trying to get this tutorial to work but they seem to have an issue. I get an error in this piece of code:
(helloActor ? SayHello(name)).mapTo[String].map { message => Ok(message) }
not found: value SayHello
It seems that SayHello(name) is not in the scope of the Application class.
You need to import the SayHello class. Since the class is defined in the companion object of HelloActor, it is not visible by default outside that object.
I was searching a way of doing dependency injection in Scala kind of like Spring or Unity in C# and I found nothing really interesting.
MacWire: I don't understand the benefit as we have to give the class in wire[CASS]. So what's the point if you give the implementation when you call wire? I can do new CASS it will be the same.
Cake pattern with self type: Seems to not answer what I'm searching for.
So I decided to make my implementation and ask you what do you think because it's surprising me that nothing like this has been done before. Maybe my implementation have lot's of issues in real life also.
So here is an example:
trait Messenger {
def send
}
class SkypeMessenger extends Messenger {
def send = println("Skype")
}
class ViberMessenger extends Messenger {
def send = println("Viber")
}
I want here to inject everywhere in my app the implementation configured in only one place:
object App {
val messenger = Inject[Messenger]
def main(args: Array[String]) {
messenger.send
}
}
Note the Inject[Messenger] that I define like below with the config I want (prod or dev):
object Inject extends Injector with DevConfig
trait ProdConfig {
this: Injector =>
register[Messager](new SkypeMessager)
register[Messager](new ViberMessager, "viber")
}
trait DevConfig {
this: Injector =>
register[Messager](new ViberMessager)
register[Messager](new ViberMessager, "viber")
}
And finally here is the Injector which contains all methods apply and register:
class Injector {
var map = Map[String, Any]()
def apply[T: ClassTag] =
map(classTag[T].toString).asInstanceOf[T]
def apply[T: ClassTag](id: String) =
map(classTag[T].toString + id).asInstanceOf[T]
def register[T: ClassTag](instance: T, id: String = "") = {
map += (classTag[T].toString + id -> instance)
instance
}
}
To summaries:
I have a class Injector which is a Map between interfaces/traits (eventually also an id) and an instance of the implementation.
We define a trait for each config (dev, prod...) which contains the registers. It also have a self reference to Injector.
And we create an instance of the Injector with the Config we want
The usage is to call the apply method giving the Interface type (eventually also an id) and it will return the implementation's instance.
What do you think?
You code looks a lot like dependency injection in Lift web framework. You can consult Lift source code to see how it's implemented or just use the framework. You don't have to run a Lift app to use its libraries. Here is a small intro doc. Basically you should be looking at this code in Lift:
package net.liftweb.http
/**
* A base trait for a Factory. A Factory is both an Injector and
* a collection of FactorMaker instances. The FactoryMaker instances auto-register
* with the Injector. This provides both concrete Maker/Vender functionality as
* well as Injector functionality.
*/
trait Factory extends SimpleInjector
You can also check this related question: Scala - write unit tests for objects/singletons that extends a trait/class with DB connection where I show how Lift injector is used.
Thanks guys,
So I make my answer but the one from Aleksey was very good.
I understand better the Cake Pattern with this sample:
https://github.com/freekh/play-slick/tree/master/samples/play-slick-cake-sample
Take a look also to the other implementations without DI and compare:
https://github.com/freekh/play-slick/tree/master/samples/
And so the cake pattern doesn't have a centralized config like we can have with my shown lift style DI. I will anyway use the Cake pattern as it fits well with Slick.
What I didn't like with Subcut is the implicits everywhere. I know there is a way to avoid them but it looks like a fix to me.
Thanks
To comment on MacWire, you are right that you could just use new - and that's the whole point :). MacWire is there only to let you remove some boilerplate from your code, by not having to enumerate all the dependencies again (which is already done in the constructor).
The main idea is that you do the wiring at "the end of the world", where you assemble your application (or you could divide that into trait-modules, but that's optional). Otherwise you just use constructors to express dependencies. No magic, no frameworks.