I am new to Scala and trying to explore how I can use Java functionalities with Scala.
I am having stream of LocalDate which is a Java class and I am trying to find maximum date out of my list.
var processedResult : Stream[LocalDate] =List(javaList)
.toStream
.map { s => {
//some processing
LocalDate.parse(str, formatter)
}
}
I know we can do easily by using .compare() and .compareTo() in Java but I am not sure how do I use the same thing over here.
Also, I have no idea how Ordering works in Scala when it comes to sorting.
Can anyone suggest how can get this done?
First of all, a lot of minor details that I will point out since it seems you are pretty new to the language and I expect those to help you with your learning path.
First, avoid var at all costs, especially when learning.
While mutability has its place and is not always wrong, forcing you to avoid it while learning will help you. Particularly, avoid it when it doesn't provide any value; like in this case.
Second, this List(javaList) doesn't do what you think it does. It creates a single element Scala List whose unique element is a Java List. What you probably want is to transform that Java List into a Scala one, for that you can use the CollectionConverters.
import scala.jdk.CollectionConverters._ // This works if you are in 2.13
// if you are in 2.12 or lower use: import scala.collection.JavaConverters._
val scalaList = javaList.asScala.toList
Third, not sure why you want to use a Scala Stream, a Stream is for infinite or very large collections where you want all the transformations to be made lazily and only produce elements as they are consumed (also, btw, it was deprecated in 2.13 in favour of LazyList).
Maybe, you are confused because in Java you need a "Stream" to apply functional operations like map? If so, note that in Scala all collections provide the same rich API.
Fourth, Ordering is a Typeclass which is a functional pattern for Polymorphism. On its own, this is a very broad question so I won't answer it here, but I hope the two links provide insight.
The TL;DR; is simple, it is just that an Ordering for a type T knows how to order (sort) elements of type T. Thus operations like max will work for any collection of any type if, and only if, the compiler can prove the existence of an Ordering for that type if it can then it will pass such value implicitly to the method call for you; again the implicits topic is very broad and deserves its own question.
Now for your particular question, you can just call max or maxOption in the List or Stream and that is all.
Note that max will throw if the List is empty, whereas maxOption returns an Option which will be empty (None) for an empty input; idiomatic Scala favour the latter over the former.
If you really want to use compareTo then you can provide your own Ordering.
scalaList.maxOption(Ordering.fromLessThan[LocalDate]((d1, d2) => d1.compareTo(d2) < 0))
Ordering[A] is a type class which defines how to compare 2 elements of type A. So to compare LocalDates you need Ordering[LocalDate] instance.
LocalDate extends Comparable in Java and Scala conveniently provides instances for Comparables so when you invoke:
Ordering[java.time.LocalDate]
in REPL you'll see that Scala is able to provide you the instance without you needing to do anything (you could take a look at the list of methods provided by this typeclass).
Since you have and Ordering in implicit scope which types matches the Stream's type (e.g. Stream[LocalDate] needs Ordering[LocalDate]) you can call .max method... and that's it.
val processedResult : Stream[LocalDate] = ...
val newestDate: LocalDate = processedResult.max
Related
Why is Scala designed with the following irritating form of boilerplate?
It would be convenient to write
def doStuffWithInts(ints: BaseIterable[Int]): Unit = ints foreach doStuffWithInt
for a common superclass BaseIterable of Iterable and ParIterable so that we can write both
val sequentialInts: Vector[Int] = getSomeHugeVector()
doStuffWithInts(sequentialInts)
and
val parInts: ParVector[Int] = getSomeHugeParVector()
doStuffWithInts(parInts)
Yet Scala forces us to copy and paste our doStuff method, once for Iterable and once for ParIterable. Why does Scala thrust such boilerplate on us by failing to have a common superclass BaseIterator of both Iterator and ParIterator?
You can use IterableOnce but that would force you to get an Iterator which is always sequential.
This is a conscious decision from the maintainers, you can read all the related discussions by starting here: https://github.com/scala/scala-parallel-collections/issues/101
The TL;DR; is that the maintainers agree that it is a bad idea to provide an abstraction between two; mainly because parallel collections should not be used as general collections but rather as localized optimizations. Also, the point out how easy it would be to introduce errors if you could abstract over the two (as was the case in 2.12).
Now, if you insist you want to abstract over the two, you may create your own typeclass.
Finally, I may suggest looking at using Future.traverse instead of parallel collections.
I have heard that it is a good practice in Scala to eliminate for loops and do things "the Scala way". I even found a Scala style checker at http://www.scalastyle.org. Are for loops a no-no in Scala? In a course at https://www.udemy.com/course/apache-spark-with-scala-hands-on-with-big-data/learn/lecture/5363798#overview I found this example, which makes me thing that for looks are okay to use, but using the Scala format and syntax of course, in a single line and not like the traditional Java for looks in multiple lines of code. See this example I found from that Udemy course:
val shipList = List("Enterprise", "Defiant", "Voyager", "Deep Space Nine")
for (ship <- shipList) {println(ship)}
That for loop prints this result, as expected:
Enterprise Defiant Voyager Deep Space Nine
I was wondering if using for as in the example above is acceptable Scala style code, or it if is a no-no and why. Thank you!
There is no problem in this for loop, but you can use functions form List object for your work in more functional way.
e.g. instead of using
val shipList = List("Enterprise", "Defiant", "Voyager", "Deep Space Nine")
for (ship <- shipList) {println(ship)}
You can use
val shipList = List("Enterprise", "Defiant", "Voyager", "Deep Space Nine")
shipList.foreach(element => println(element) )
or
shipList.foreach(println)
You can use for loops in Scala, there is no problem with that. But the difference is that this for-loop is not an expression and does not return a value, so you need to use a variable in order to return any value. Scala gives preference to work with immutable types.
In your example you print messages in the console, you need to perform a "side effect" to extract the value breaking the referencial transparency, I mean, you depend on the IO operation to extract a value, or you have mutate a variable which is in the scope which maybe is being accessed by another thread or another concurrent task thereby there is no guarantee that the value that you collect wont be what you are expecting. Obviously, all these hypothesis are related to concurrent/parallel programming and there is where Scala and the immutable style help.
To show the elements of a collection you can use a for loop, but if you want to count the total number of chars in Scala you do that using a expression like:
val chars = shipList.foldLeft(0)((a, b) => a + b.length)
To sum up, most of the times the Scala code that you will read uses immutable style of programming although not always because Scala supports the other way of coding too, but it is weird to find something using a classic Java OOP style, mutating object instances and using getters and setters.
What is the best way to convert a tuple into an array in Scala? Here "best" means in as few lines of code as possible. I was shocked to search Google and StackOverflow only to find nothing on this topic, which seems like it should be trivial and common. Lists have a a toArray function; why don't tuples?
Use productIterator, immediately followed by toArray:
(42, 3.14, "hello", true).productIterator.toArray
gives:
res0: Array[Any] = Array(42, 3.14, hello, true)
The type of the result shows the main reason why it's rarely used: in tuples, the types of the elements can be heterogeneous, in arrays they must be homogeneous, so that often too much type information is lost during this conversion. If you want to do this, then you probably shouldn't have stored your information in tuples in the first place.
There is simply almost nothing you can (safely) do with an Array[Any], except printing it out, or converting it to an even more degenerate Set[Any]. Instead you could use:
Lists of case classes belonging to a common sealed trait,
shapeless HLists,
a carefully chosen base class with a bit of inheritance,
or something that at least keeps some kind of schema at runtime (like Apache Spark Datasets)
they would all be better alternatives.
In the somewhat less likely case that the elements of the "tuples" that you are processing frequently turn out to have an informative least upper bound type, then it might be because you aren't working with plain tuples, but with some kind of traversable data structure that puts restrictions on the number of substructures in the nodes. In this case, you should consider implementing something like Traverse interface for the structure, instead of messing with some "tuples" manually.
In groovy one can do:
class Foo {
Integer a,b
}
Map map = [a:1,b:2]
def foo = new Foo(map) // map expanded, object created
I understand that Scala is not in any sense of the word, Groovy, but am wondering if map expansion in this context is supported
Simplistically, I tried and failed with:
case class Foo(a:Int, b:Int)
val map = Map("a"-> 1, "b"-> 2)
Foo(map: _*) // no dice, always applied to first property
A related thread that shows possible solutions to the problem.
Now, from what I've been able to dig up, as of Scala 2.9.1 at least, reflection in regard to case classes is basically a no-op. The net effect then appears to be that one is forced into some form of manual object creation, which, given the power of Scala, is somewhat ironic.
I should mention that the use case involves the servlet request parameters map. Specifically, using Lift, Play, Spray, Scalatra, etc., I would like to take the sanitized params map (filtered via routing layer) and bind it to a target case class instance without needing to manually create the object, nor specify its types. This would require "reliable" reflection and implicits like "str2Date" to handle type conversion errors.
Perhaps in 2.10 with the new reflection library, implementing the above will be cake. Only 2 months into Scala, so just scratching the surface; I do not see any straightforward way to pull this off right now (for seasoned Scala developers, maybe doable)
Well, the good news is that Scala's Product interface, implemented by all case classes, actually doesn't make this very hard to do. I'm the author of a Scala serialization library called Salat that supplies some utilities for using pickled Scala signatures to get typed field information
https://github.com/novus/salat - check out some of the utilities in the salat-util package.
Actually, I think this is something that Salat should do - what a good idea.
Re: D.C. Sobral's point about the impossibility of verifying params at compile time - point taken, but in practice this should work at runtime just like deserializing anything else with no guarantees about structure, like JSON or a Mongo DBObject. Also, Salat has utilities to leverage default args where supplied.
This is not possible, because it is impossible to verify at compile time that all parameters were passed in that map.
I'm using a library (JXPath) to query a graph of beans in order to extract matching elements. However, JXPath returns groups of matching elements as an instance of java.lang.Iterator and I'd rather like to convert it into an immutable scala list. Is there any simpler way of doing than iterating over the iterator and creating a new immutable list at each iteration step ?
You might want to rethink the need for a List, although it feels very familiar when coming from Java, and List is the default implementation of an immutable Seq, it often isn't the best choice of collection.
The operations that list is optimal for are those already available via an iterator (basically taking consecutive head elements and prepending elements). If an iterator doesn't already give you what you need, then I can pretty much guarantee that a List won't be your best choice - a vector would be more appropriate.
Having got that out the way... The recommended technique to convert between Java and Scala collections (since Scala 2.8.1) is via scala.collection.JavaConverters. This gives you more control than JavaConversions and avoids some possible implicit conflicts.
You won't have a direct implicit conversion this way. Instead, you get asScala and asJava methods pimped onto collections, allowing you to perform the conversions explicitly.
To convert a Java iterator to a Scala iterator:
javaIterator.asScala
To convert a Java iterator to a Scala List (via the scala iterator):
javaIterator.asScala.toList
You may also want to consider converting toSeq instead of toList. In the case of iterators, this'll return a Stream - allowing you to retain the lazy behaviour of iterators within the richer Seq interface.
EDIT:
There's no toVector method, but (as Daniel pointed out) there's a toIndexedSeq method that will return a Vector as the default IndexedSeq subclass (just as List is the default Seq).
javaIterator.asScala.toIndexedSeq
EDIT: You should probably look at Kevin Wright's answer, which provides a better solution available since Scala 2.8.1, with less implicit magic.
You can import the implicit conversions from scala.collection.JavaConversions and then create a new Scala collection seamlessly, e.g. like this:
import collection.JavaConversions._
println(List() ++ javaIterator)
Your Java iterator is converted to a Scala iterator by JavaConversions.asScalaIterator. A Scala iterator with elements of type A implements TraversableOnce[A], which is the argument type needed to concatenate collections with ++.
If you need another collection type, just change List() to whatever you need (e.g., IndexedSeq() or collection.mutable.Seq(), etc.).