I've recently started programming in Scala, coming from Python and Java I was wondering what the correct way or the accepted way is when defining objects/classes in Scala. Scala supports, just like python, to add several class or object definitions in a single file.
So purely from an accepted structure perspective, does every object need to be defined in its own file or are you allowed to choose this yourself?
There is a chapter in the official Scala Style Guide on this. It's pretty clear in itself, but I'll just leave some quotes here.
The core idea is:
As a rule, files should contain a single logical compilation unit. By “logical” I mean a class, trait or object.
There is, of course, an exception for companion objects:
One exception to this guideline is for classes or traits which have companion objects. Companion objects should be grouped with their corresponding class or trait in the same file.
There is also the fact that sealed only works within the same file.
Despite what was said above, there are some important situations which warrant the inclusion of multiple compilation units within a single file. One common example is that of a sealed trait and several sub-classes. Because of the nature of sealed superclasses (and traits), all subtypes must be included in the same file.
Most of the time, case classes are just simple data containers and can be grouped together.
Another case is when multiple classes logically form a single, cohesive group, sharing concepts to the point where maintenance is greatly served by containing them within a single file.
Finally, there is a naming convention for exempted multi-unit Scala files:
All multi-unit files should be given camelCase names with a lower-case first letter.
So: put your Scala classes and objects in separate files, unless they fall into one of the three mentioned exceptions.
In Scala, it is perfectly valid to have multiple classes within a single file AS LONG AS they are tightly related.
But not all languages encourage this convention, and I think it is worth considering the reason.
I personally dislike it when people put multiple classes into a single file because it makes it harder to find a class definition. This is magnified in code reviews where I want to be able to review code as quickly as possible without digging around.
Cons
Code reviews require me to do more searching to find a class
I don't like having to grep to find a file
A consistent naming convention allows me to use my text editor or IDE tools to quickly open a file by the class name
Pros
As Jesper pointed out, certain scenarios require it
Support classes/traits are kept hidden to minimize file structure "noise"
Sometimes you have to put several traits, classes or objects in one source file, particularly when you are using sealed traits. A sealed trait can only be extended inside the same source file.
Related
This is more of a design and readability/maintainability question rather than a technical one.
Sometimes in Scala, you get these one liner classes (often case classes), which are typically used to hold data. They're very synonymous with Java beans, but with constructor parameters actually being val members, no need for setter methods due to immutability, and no need for toString due to the nice feature of case classes, you end up with just one line consisting of constructor parameters.
I find it wasteful to put these one-liners in a separate Scala file, and I hate to put them with other more meaty Scala classes because it starts to become confusing (even in IntelliJ IDEA it starts to pollute the project source tree).
I started a new habit of putting these single liners in the Package Object package.scala file of that package. Is there any disadvantage to this from a maintainability point of view? I am just putting them there for lack of a better place. Is there any better approach?
I don't think there is a disadvantage in that, but also I don't see an immediate advantage or reason to do so.
You may have a look at this question. Basically, if you use the -Xlint compiler flag, you will be told that you should not put classes into a package object.
If you want to have several classes together because of their one-line nature, you can put them still together in one file, it doesn't have to be a package object. E.g.
// utils.scala
package foo
case class FooUtil()
case class BarUtil()
Instead of package object foo { case class FooUtil() ... }
Unlike Java, Scala supports putting multiple classes in one file. Since Scala's classes are often quite short (think case classes), this often seems to make sense.
What is considered the proper style and idiom to do this, on production code? Under what circumstances should short or associated classes be put in the same file? How should that file be named?
This is all covered in Scala style guide
Summary :
As a rule of thumb, you should have one logical compilation unit (i.e
trait, class, object) per file.
Exception made of companion objects
where you can have them as well as their original trait/class in the
same file
Another exception is sealed trait with its subclasses
Last exception is if it makes way more sense maintenance wise (i.e your logical compilation units forms a inseparable, cohesive group)
Multi-unit file should have a lowercase first letter.
When I rename a .scala file via Eclipse the class name itself is not renamed.
Is this expected behaviour? It does not seem to break anything.
I expect it to be renamed, coming from a Java background the filename/class name must equal each other.
correspondence between class name and file name is not required in scala.
You can (and usually do) define multiple types in each scala file.
The compiler will attempt to create a different .class file for each public type with the file name corresponding to the type name, for interoperability with java (for complex or nested types that don't have a direct correspondence in java, scalac will produce .class files with strange/mangled names...)
A few notes on why this correspondence is not enforced (probably not a complete list, but just to give you an idea):
it would be wasteful, given scala's terseness. case class Foo(foo:String) corresponds to a complete and somewhat sophisticated java class, but having it in its own file seems wasteful...
it would decrease code readability. Sometimes you define a hierarchy of case classes that correspond (for instance) to various messages you send to an actor. Having them together underlines their intent.
often it would be pointless. A relatively simple definition in scala, like trait Fooer {def foo="foo"} may be translated to various java-like types, that implement the "interface with a default implementation" nature of a trait. This gets worse for nested object/classes/types allowed by scala's syntax and used in some common scala patterns.
there are Scala semantics (sealed traits in particular) that actually require having multiple classes defined in a single file (credit to #DaveGriffith 's comment below)
In scala a .scala file can contain many (public) classes or packages.
The file name in scala does not have to match any of the class names in the file. You can have as many classes as you want in a scala file. The package structure also does not have to match the folder structure, although it is recommended to to be aligned.
Does any programming language provide such a thing?
Where could this be used?
For example:
note that somethingStrange is not a class, its an instance (its underlined) and this is an object diagram
Spec (section 7.3.22) says:
An instance specification is depicted using the same notation as its classifier, but in place of the classifier name appears an underlined concatenation of the instance name (if any), a colon (‘:’) and the classifier name or names.
The convention for showing multiple classifiers is to separate their names by commas.
So im stuck with "multiple classifiers".
Any language with extensional rather than intensional typing will allow such constructs.
For example, in RDF two sources could make claims about a web resource which are completely conflicting, or in a 'duck type' language an object could have all the characteristics of two otherwise unrelated types.
Extensional languages classify objects by their properties - if it has prongs it's a fork, if it's got a handle and a bowl it's a spoon, if it has both prongs and a bowl it is both a fork and a spoon.
The difference between such languages and class oriented intensional languages such as C++/Java/C# to which UML is more commonly applied, is that you don't need a spork class to define things which are both spoons and forks - whether things belong to a classifier is defined by whether they meet the requirements of the classifier.
That's multiple inheritance if you're referring to classes (except that you should use solid edges for generalization), nothing wrong with that ;)
Note that an interface is also a classifier, so also the text of your question needs a bit of refinement -- nothing wrong with generalizing more than one interface, after all.
It's is a Dependency.
Dependency is a weaker form of relationship which indicates that one class depends on another because it uses it at some point of time. One class depends on another if the latter is a parameter variable or local variable of a method of the former. This is different from an association, where an attribute of the former is an instance of the latter.
In other words your somethingStance class will use both Cat and Panzer
The below it is just an example of how it might look like
Public class SomethingStrange{
public Cat CatDependency{get;set;}
public Panzer PanzerDependency{get;set;}
}
UML does allow an object to be instance of several different classes (even if they are unrelated) at the same time. The fact that this is not the normal convention and not supported by programming languages is a different issue. UML tries to be as broad as possible even if specific technologies only can implement a subset of it.
We seems to be abstracting a lot of logic way from web pages and creating "helper" classes. Sadly, these classes are all sounding the same, e.g
ADHelper, (Active Directory)
AuthenicationHelper,
SharePointHelper
Do other people have a large number of classes with this naming convention?
I would say that it qualifies as a code smell, but remember that a code smell doesn't necessarily spell trouble. It is something you should look into and then decide if it is okay.
Having said that I personally find that a name like that adds very little value and because it is so generic the type may easily become a bucket of non-related utility methods. I.e. a helper class may turn into a Large Class, which is one of the common code smells.
If possible I suggest finding a type name that more closely describes what the methods do. Of course this may prompt additional helper classes, but as long as their names are helpful I don't mind the numbers.
Some time ago I came across a class called XmlHelper during a code review. It had a number of methods that obviously all had to do with Xml. However, it wasn't clear from the type name what the methods had in common (aside from being Xml-related). It turned out that some of the methods were formatting Xml and others were parsing Xml. So IMO the class should have been split in two or more parts with more specific names.
As always, it depends on the context.
When you work with your own API I would definitely consider it a code smell, because FooHelper indicates that it operates on Foo, but the behavior would most likely belong directly on the Foo class.
However, when you work with existing APIs (such as types in the BCL), you can't change the implementation, so extension methods become one of the ways to address shortcomings in the original API. You could choose to names such classes FooHelper just as well as FooExtension. It's equally smelly (or not).
Depends on the actual content of the classes.
If a huge amount of actual business logic/business rules are in the helper classes, then I would say yes.
If the classes are really just helpers that can be used in other enterprise applications (re-use in the absolute sense of the word -- not copy then customize), then I would say the helpers aren't a code smell.
It is an interesting point, if a word becomes 'boilerplate' in names then its probably a bit whiffy - if not quite a real smell. Perhaps using a 'Helper' folder and then allowing it to appear in the namespace keeps its use without overusing the word?
Application.Helper.SharePoint
Application.Helper.Authentication
and so on
In many cases, I use classes ending with Helper for static classes containing extension methods. Doesn't seem smelly to me. You can't put them into a non-static class, and the class itself does not matter, so Helper is fine, I think. Users of such a class won't see the class name anyway.
The .NET Framework does this as well (for example in the LogicalTreeHelper class from WPF, which just has a few static (non-extension) methods).
Ask yourself if the code would be better if the code in your helper class would be refactored to "real" classes, i.e. objects that fit into your class hierarchy. Code has to be somewhere, and if you can't make out a class/object where it really belongs to, like simple helper functions (hence "Helper"), you should be fine.
I wouldn't say that it is a code smell. In ASP.NET MVC it is quite common.