In Scala, a class and an object can be companion(same name, same file)
I came across Scala source code, with a file having a trait and object defined in it and both having same name, but object is not extending trait.
Is this style ok?
Yes, In both the case trait or object same name object become a companion object you can see below code you can access private members in class and trait both situations
trait
trait Simple {
private def line = "Line"
}
object Simple {
val objTrait = new Simple{}
def lineObj=objTrait.line
}
Simple.lineObj
class
class Simple {
private def line = "Line"
}
object Simple {
val objTrait = new Simple{}
def lineObj=objTrait.line
}
Simple.lineObj
A typical use case for object is for methods and fields that you would mark as static in Java, if that helps.
The object doesn't extend the trait / class, it accompanies it, hence the term companion object.
Related
I need to access a companion class with a specified trait -- from a trait intended for case classes. I am almost certain that the Scala reflection library can accomplish this but I haven't quite been able to piece it together.
I created test code below that requires one section of ??? be filled in with some reflection magic. The code compiles and runs as is -- with a notification due to the missing functionality.
Some related answers that I have seen on StackOverflow were from 2.10. Scala 2.12 compatible please.
import scala.reflect.{ClassTag, classTag}
//for companion object
//accesses Fields of the associated case class to ensure the correctness
//note: abstract class -- not a trait due to issues using ClassTag on a trait
abstract class SupportsField1Companion[T: ClassTag] {
//gets the names of all Fields on the associated case class
val fieldNamesOfInstancedClass: Array[String] =
classTag[T].runtimeClass.getDeclaredFields.map(_.getName)
//prints the name and fields of the associated case class -- plus extra on success
def printFieldNames(extra: String = ""): Unit = {
val name = classTag[T].runtimeClass.getCanonicalName
val fields = fieldNamesOfInstancedClass.reduceLeft(_ + ", " + _)
println(s"Fields of $name: $fields" + extra)
}
}
//for case classes
//IMPORTANT -- please do not parameterize this if possible
trait SupportsField1 {
//some data for printing
val field1: String = this.getClass.getCanonicalName + ": field1"
//should get a reference to the associated companion object as instance of SupportsFieldsCompanion
def getSupportsFieldsCompanion: SupportsField1Companion[this.type] = //this.type may be wrong
??? //TODO reflection magic required -- need functionality to retrieve companion object cast as type
//calls a function on the associated Companion class
def callPrintFuncOnCompanion(): Unit =
getSupportsFieldsCompanion.printFieldNames(s" -- from ${this.getClass.getCanonicalName}")
}
//two case classes with the SupportsFieldsCompanion trait to ensure data is accessed correctly
object ExampleA extends SupportsField1Companion[ExampleA] {}
case class ExampleA() extends SupportsField1 {
val fieldA: String = "ExampleA: fieldA"
}
object ExampleB extends SupportsField1Companion[ExampleB] {}
case class ExampleB() extends SupportsField1 {
val fieldB: String = "ExampleB: fieldB"
}
object Run extends App {
//create instanced classes and print some test data
val exampleA = ExampleA()
println(exampleA.field1) //prints "ExampleA: field1" due to trait SupportsFields
println(exampleA.fieldA) //prints "ExampleA: fieldA" due to being of class ExampleA
val exampleB = ExampleB()
println(exampleB.field1) //prints "ExampleB: field1" due to trait SupportsFields
println(exampleB.fieldB) //prints "ExampleB: fieldB" due to being of class ExampleB
//via the SupportsFieldsCompanion trait on the companion objects,
//call a function on each companion object to show that each companion is associated with the correct case class
ExampleA.printFieldNames() //prints "Fields of ExampleA: fieldA, field1"
ExampleB.printFieldNames() //prints "Fields of ExampleB: fieldB, field1"
//test access of printFieldNames on companion object from instanced class
try {
exampleA.callPrintFuncOnCompanion() //on success, prints "Fields of ExampleA: fieldA, field1 -- from ExampleA"
exampleB.callPrintFuncOnCompanion() //on success, prints "Fields of ExampleB: fieldB, field1 -- from ExampleB"
} catch {
case _: NotImplementedError => println("!!! Calling function on companion(s) failed.")
}
}
There are lots of ways you can do this, but the following is probably one of the simplest that doesn't involve making assumptions about how Scala's companion object class name mangling works:
def getSupportsFieldsCompanion: SupportsField1Companion[this.type] =
scala.reflect.runtime.ReflectionUtils.staticSingletonInstance(
this.getClass.getClassLoader,
this.getClass.getCanonicalName
).asInstanceOf[SupportsField1Companion[this.type]]
This works as desired, but I'd probably type it as SupportsField1Companion[_], and ideally I'd probably avoid having public methods on SupportsField1 that refer to SupportsField1Companion—actually ideally I'd probably avoid this approach altogether, but if you're committed I think the ReflectionUtil solution above is probably reasonable.
I have problems understanding correctly the use of class and their companion object.
When defining a case class there is its companion object that comes with it, but what is the result of defining an object having the same name as the case class? Does it override the companion object? And how to access case class parameters?
For example in TestCaseClass.scala file I define the following :
case class TestCaseClass(att1: String, att2: Int, att4s: List[String])
object TestCaseClass {
def iWantDoSomethingWithMyParams: String = {
att1 + " " + att2
}
// Other functions
}
object AnotherTestCaseClass {
def iWantDoSomethingWithTestCaseClassParams: String = {
// How to access TestCaseClass.att1
TestCaseClass.att1 + " " + TestCaseClass.att2
}
def iWantGetAllAttr4: List[String] = {
// ???
}
}
To some extent, giving an object the same name as a class (or trait) is just a matter of convention. But it also has a bit of special meaning.
The companion object is a singleton class just like any other object. If you want a method in the companion object to interact with an instance of the class, you have to pass it an instance of the class just like in any other situation. So, to fix your first example:
case class TestCaseClass(att1: String, att2: Int, att4s: List[String])
object TestCaseClass {
def iWantDoSomethingWithMyParams(x: TestCaseClass): String =
x.att1 + " " + x.att2
}
The class and the object do not "override" or step on each other's toes in any way because classes and objects belong to different namespaces. Class names are used at the type level (and also in constructor calls), and object names are used at the term level.
There are a few relationships between a class and its companion:
It does affect how implicits are resolved - Any implicts defined in a class's companion object are automatically brought into scope.
private members of the class are visible to the object, and vice versa.
Case classes are a little bit different, because case class is actually a shorthand which, in addition to defining a class, also adds apply and unapply methods to its companion object.
I would kindly like to add one piece of information to the accepted answer that wasn't clear to me after reading it a couple of times; it's from the Scala Book (all credits to mlachkar, 0x54321 and alvinj):
A companion object in Scala is an object that’s declared in the same file as a class, and has the same name as the class. For instance, when the following code is saved in a file named Pizza.scala, the Pizza object is considered to be a companion object to the Pizza class:
class Pizza {
}
object Pizza {
}
I have a trait that's implemented by a large number of classes, and I'd like to use the names of the classes that implement this trait at runtime, but with as much code centralized as possible.
Specifically, in my code, I'm using tokens to represent classes to be initialized at runtime. The tokens carry configuration, and the actual class is instantiated as needed via the token, combined with run-time information. For linking with resources outside of my app, I want to be able to access the name of the class for which a token is defined. See the example:
trait Token[Cls] {
val className = ???
// Example generic method depending on final class name
def printClassName = println(className)
}
case class ClassA(t: ClassAToken, runtimeContext: String) {
// a bunch of other code
}
object ClassA {
case class ClassAToken(configParam: String) extends Token[ClassA]
}
So, I'm trying to implement className. Ideally, I can pull this information once at compile time. How can I do this, while keeping boilerplate code out of ClassA? Although, if I can drop the type parameter and get the name of the class implementing the Token trait at runtime, that's great too.
Due to Type Erasure Cls is not available on runtime anymore. To get the informations at runtime, you need to use a TypeTag (in your case a ClassTag).
Your code could look like this:
import scala.reflect._
trait Token[Cls] {
def className(implicit ct: ClassTag[Cls]) = ct.runtimeClass.getName
// Example generic method depending on final class name
def printClassName(implicit ct: ClassTag[Cls]) = println(className)
}
case class ClassA(t: ClassAToken, runtimeContext: String) {
// a bunch of other code
}
object ClassA {
case class ClassAToken(configParam: String) extends Token[ClassA]
}
or if it is possible for you to let Token be an class, you could use the ClassTag context bounds:
import scala.reflect._
class Token[Cls: ClassTag] {
def className = classTag[Cls].runtimeClass.getName
// Example generic method depending on final class name
def printClassName = println(className)
}
case class ClassA(t: ClassAToken, runtimeContext: String) {
// a bunch of other code
}
object ClassA {
case class ClassAToken(configParam: String) extends Token[ClassA]
}
For more informations on TypeTags/ClassTags see Scala: What is a TypeTag and how do I use it?
Scala companion objects are frequently proposed as object factories. They seem to work well for this in the production code, but what about inserting mock objects for testing? The companion object won't know about the mock object and therefore cannot instantiate it.
I'd like to do something like this:
class Foo {}
object Foo {
def create():Foo = new Foo()
}
class FooCreator(factory:Foo) {
def this() = this(Foo)
...
factory.create()
...
}
class FooMock extends Foo {}
object FooMock extends Foo {
def create():Foo = new FooMock()
}
// in a test
val fooCreator = new FooCreator(FooMock)
This won't work because a companion object cannot be extended. I'm forced to create a Factory trait for both companion objects to mixin:
trait FooFactory {
def create():Foo;
}
class Foo {}
object Foo extends FooFactory {
def create():Foo = new Foo()
}
class FooCreator(factory:FooFactory) {
def this() = this(Foo)
...
factory.create()
...
}
class FooMock extends Foo {}
object FooMock extends FooFactory {
def create():Foo = new FooMock()
}
// in a test
val fooCreator = new FooCreator(FooMock)
Is there a better way to do this? Creating the factory trait just feels wrong, since that's what the companion object is supposed to be good at. (Keep in mind that the Mock artifacts are only known to the test subsystem, so I can't solve the problem by letting object Foo create a FooMock instance - the common pattern in production code).
Use the apply method rather than the object as your factory, as detailed in the answers to my question How to use companion factory objects as strategy?
You might want to take a look at ScalaMock, a mocking framework for Scala that can (among other things) mock object creation (compiler invocation). This is exactly one of the problems it's intended to solve.
I've looked at example of logging in Scala, and it usually looks like this:
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory
trait Loggable {
private lazy val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass)
protected def debug(msg: => AnyRef, t: => Throwable = null): Unit =
{...}
}
This seems independent of the concrete logging framework. While this does the job, it also introduces an extraneous lazy val in every instance that wants to do logging, which might well be every instance of the whole application. This seems much too heavy to me, in particular if you have many "small instances" of some specific type.
Is there a way of putting the logger in the object of the concrete class instead, just by using inheritance? If I have to explicitly declare the logger in the object of the class, and explicitly refer to it from the class/trait, then I have written almost as much code as if I had done no reuse at all.
Expressed in a non-logging specific context, the problem would be:
How do I declare in a trait that the implementing class must have a singleton object of type X, and that this singleton object must be accessible through method def x: X ?
I can't simply define an abstract method, because there could only be a single implementation in the class. I want that logging in a super-class gets me the super-class singleton, and logging in the sub-class gets me the sub-class singleton. Or put more simply, I want logging in Scala to work like traditional logging in Java, using static loggers specific to the class doing the logging. My current knowledge of Scala tells me that this is simply not possible without doing it exactly the same way you do in Java, without much if any benefits from using the "better" Scala.
Premature Optimization is the root of all evil
Let's be clear first about one thing: if your trait looks something like this:
trait Logger { lazy val log = Logger.getLogger }
Then what you have not done is as follows:
You have NOT created a logger instance per instance of your type
You have neither given yourself a memory nor a performance problem (unless you have)
What you have done is as follows:
You have an extra reference in each instance of your type
When you access the logger for the first time, you are probably doing some map lookup
Note that, even if you did create a separate logger for each instance of your type (which I frequently do, even if my program contains hundreds of thousands of these, so that I have very fine-grained control over my logging), you almost certainly still will neither have a performance nor a memory problem!
One "solution" is (of course), to make the companion object implement the logger interface:
object MyType extends Logger
class MyType {
import MyType._
log.info("Yay")
}
How do I declare in a trait that the
implementing class must have a
singleton object of type X, and that
this singleton object must be
accessible through method def x: X ?
Declare a trait that must be implemented by your companion objects.
trait Meta[Base] {
val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass)
}
Create a base trait for your classes, sub-classes have to overwrite the meta method.
trait Base {
def meta: Meta[Base]
def logger = meta.logger
}
A class Whatever with a companion object:
object Whatever extends Meta[Base]
class Whatever extends Base {
def meta = Whatever
def doSomething = {
logger.log("oops")
}
}
In this way you only need to have a reference to the meta object.
We can use the Whatever class like this.
object Sample {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val whatever = new Whatever
whatever.doSomething
}
}
I'm not sure I understand your question completely. So I apologize up front if this is not the answer you are looking for.
Define an object were you put your logger into, then create a companion trait.
object Loggable {
private val logger = "I'm a logger"
}
trait Loggable {
import Loggable._
def debug(msg: String) {
println(logger + ": " + msg)
}
}
So now you can use it like this:
scala> abstract class Abstraction
scala> class Implementation extends Abstraction with Loggable
scala> val test = new Implementation
scala> test.debug("error message")
I'm a logger: error message
Does this answer your question?
I think you cannot automatically get the corresponding singleton object of a class or require that such a singleton exists.
One reason is that you cannot know the type of the singleton before it is defined. Not sure, if this helps or if it is the best solution to your problem, but if you want to require some meta object to be defined with a specific trait, you could define something like:
trait HasSingleton[Traits] {
def meta: Traits
}
trait Log {
def classname: String
def log { println(classname) }
}
trait Debug {
def debug { print("Debug") }
}
class A extends HasSingleton[Log] {
def meta = A // Needs to be defined with a Singleton (or any object which inherits from Log}
def f {
meta.log
}
}
object A extends Log {
def classname = "A"
}
class B extends HasSingleton[Log with Debug] { // we want to use Log and Debug here
def meta = B
def g {
meta.log
meta.debug
}
}
object B extends Log with Debug {
def classname = "B"
}
(new A).f
// A
(new B).g
// B
// Debug