I’m hacking a bit with Finch and Cats. I ended up with an issue where my Service returns a Reader of Repository and Either as Reader[Repository, Either[List[String], Entity]].
The problem is: I need to transform the Either’s Right value to a Finch’s Output in a FP way. So, using for-expr won’t work because it will evaluates to a new Reader monad.
I saw a few implementations using fold as a solution like either.fold[Output[Entity]](NotFound)(Ok) - but I am not sure if its a valid path for me with this Reader between my Either and fold.
Finch’s Endpoint is a Future, so I wonder if I encapsulate my Reader monad within a Future, I could transform the possible and eventual evaluation of Either’s Right to a Finch’s Output.
Here's what I got now:
object ItemAction {
def routes: Endpoint[String] = post("todo" :: "items" :: jsonBody[Item]) { create _ }
def create(i: Item): Output[Item] = ???
}
object ItemService {
def create(item: Item): Reader[ItemRepository, Either[String, Item]] = Reader { (repository: ItemRepository) =>
repository.create(item)
}
}
So, my idea is to transform ItemService#create output into Output[Item] on ItemAction#create. Output[Item] is a Future, so a signature like Future[Reader[?]] could fits into ItemAction but not sure if its possible and recommended.
Any ideas on this matter?
Related
As a personal project, I am writing yet another Scala library for DynamoDb. It contains many interesting aspect such as reading and writing from an AST (just as Json), handling HTTP request, streaming data…
In order to be able able to communicate with DynamoDb, one needs to be able to read from / to the DynamoDb format (the “AST”). I extracted this reading / writing from / to the AST in a minimalist library: dynamo-ast. It contains two main type classes: DynamoReads[_] and DynamoWrites[_] (deeply inspired from Play Json).
I successfully coded the reading part of the library ending with a very simple code such as :
trait DynamoRead[A] { self =>
def read(dynamoType: DynamoType): DynamoReadResult[A]
}
case class TinyImage(url: String, alt: String)
val dynamoReads: DynamoReads[TinyImage] = {
for {
url <- read[String].at(“url”)
alt <- read[String].at(“alt”)
} yield (url, alt) map (TinyImage.apply _).tupled
}
dynamoReads.reads(dynamoAst) //yield DynamoReadResult[TinyImage]
At that point, I thought I wrote the most complicated part of the library and the DynamoWrite[_] part would be a piece of cake. I am however stuck on writing the DynamoWrite part. I was a fool.
My goal is to provide a very similar “user experience” with the DynamoWrite[_] and keep it as simple as possible such as :
val dynamoWrites: DynamoWrites[TinyImage] = {
for {
url <- write[String].at(“url”)
alt <- write[String].at(“alt”)
} yield (url, alt) map (TinyImage.unapply _) //I am not sure what to yield here nor how to code it
}
dynamoWrites.write(TinyImage(“http://fake.url”, “The alt desc”)) //yield DynamoWriteResult[DynamoType]
Since this library is deeply inspired from Play Json library (because I like its simplicity) I had a look at the sources several times. I kind of dislike the way the writer part is coded because to me, it adds a lot of overhead (basically each time a field a written, a new JsObject is created with one field and the resulting JsObject for a complete class is the merge of all the JsObjects containing one field).
From my understanding, the DynamoReads part can be written with only one trait (DynamoRead[_]). The DynamoWrites part however requires at least two such as :
trait DynamoWrites[A] {
def write(a: A): DynamoWriteResult[DynamoType]
}
trait DynamoWritesPath[A] {
def write(path:String, a: A): DynamoWriteResult[(String, DynamoType)]
}
The DynamoWrites[_] is to write plain String, Int… and the DynamoWritesPath[_] is to write a tuple of (String, WhateverTypeHere) (to simulate a “field”).
So writing write[String].at(“url”) would yield a DynamoWritesPath[String]. Now I have several issues :
I have no clue how to write flatMap for my DynamoWritesPath[_]
what should yield a for comprehension to be able to obtain a DynamoWrite[TinyImage]
What I wrote so far (totally fuzzy and not compiling at all, looking for some help on this). Not committed at the moment (gist): https://gist.github.com/louis-forite/cad97cc0a47847b2e4177192d9dbc3ae
To sum up, I am looking for some guidance on how to write the DynamoWrites[_] part. My goal is to provide for the client the most straight forward way to code a DynamoWrites[_] for a given type. My non goal is to write the perfect library and keep it a zero dependency library.
Link to the library: https://github.com/louis-forite/dynamo-ast
A Reads is a covariant functor. That means it has map. It can also be seen as a Monad which means it has flatMap (although a monad is overkill unless you need the previous field in order to know how to process the next):
trait Reads[A] {
def map [B] (f: A => B): Reads[B]
def flatMap [B](f: A => Reads[B]): Reads[B] // not necessary, but available
}
The reason for this, is that to transform a Reads[Int] to a Reads[String], you need to first read the Int, then apply the Int => String function.
But a Writes is a contravariant functor. It has contramap where the direction of the types is reversed:
trait Writes[A] {
def contramap [B](f: B => A): Reads[B]
}
The type on the function is reversed because to transform a Writes[Int] to a Writes[String] you must receive the String from the caller, apply the transformation String => Int and then write the Int.
I don't think it makes sense to provide for-comprehension syntax (flatMap) for the Writes API.
// here it is clear that you're extracting a string value
url <- read[String].at(“url”)
// but what does this mean for the write method?
url <- write[String].at("url")
// what is `url`?
That's probably why play doesn't provide one either, and why they focus on their combinator syntax (using the and function, their version of applicative functor builder?).
For reference: http://blog.tmorris.net/posts/functors-and-things-using-scala/index.html
You can achieve a more consistent API by using something like the and method in play json:
(write[String]("url") and write[String]("alt"))(unlift(TinyImage.unapply))
(read[String]("url") and read[String]("alt"))(TinyImage.apply)
// unfortunately, the type ascription is necessary in this case
(write[String]("url") and write[String]("alt")) {(x: TinyImage) =>
(x.url, x.alt)
}
// transforming
val instantDynamoType: DynamoFormat[Instant] =
format[String].xmap(Instant.parse _)((_: Instant).toString)
You can still use for-comprehension for the reads, although it's a bit over-powered (sort of implies that fields must be processed in-sequence, while that's not technically necessary).
Often I find myself wanting to chain a side-effecting function to the end of another method call in a more functional-looking way, but I don't want to transform the original type to Unit. Suppose I have a read method that searches a database for a record, returning Option[Record].
def read(id: Long): Option[Record] = ...
If read returns Some(record), then I might want to cache that value and move on. I could do something like this:
read(id).map { record =>
// Cache the record
record
}
But, I would like to avoid the above code and end up with something more like this to make it more clear as to what's happening:
read(id).withSideEffect { record =>
// Cache the record
}
Where withSideEffect returns the same value as read(id). After searching high and low, I can't find any method on any type that does something like this. The closest solution I can come up with is using implicit magic:
implicit class ExtendedOption[A](underlying: Option[A]) {
def withSideEffect(op: A => Unit): Option[A] = {
underlying.foreach(op)
underlying
}
}
Are there any Scala types I may have overlooked with methods like this one? And are there are any potential design flaws from using such a method?
Future.andThen (scaladoc) takes a side-effect and returns a future of the current value to facilitate fluent chaining.
The return type is not this.type.
See also duplicate questions about tap.
You can use scalaz for "explicit annotation" of side-effectful functions. In scalaz 7.0.6 it's IO monad: http://eed3si9n.com/learning-scalaz/IO+Monad.html
It's deprecated in scalaz 7.1. I would do something like that with Task
val readAndCache = Task.delay(read(id)).map(record => cacheRecord(record); record)
readAndCache.run // Run task for it's side effects
I wanted to create a scala compiler plugin that would prevents the call of some functions. For example System.exit.
The idea behind the scene is to let people write Scala scripts that would be interpreted on the fly. But I want to ensure that some dangerous actions are prohibited - the way it is done can definitely be discussed.
I started with the example in http://www.scala-lang.org/node/140 and started to replace the Apply section.
Doing some pattern matching I was able to extract a ClassSymbol for the right part of the compilation unit.
Then I wanted to do something like in the example that would be like:
classSymbol.tpe =:= global.typeOf[System]
unfortunately they don't match I get System.type on one side and System on the other.
Of course I could compare String values but I think that there is perhaps a nicer way to achieve this.
Has anyone any advice ?
Just in case a larger part of the code:
def apply(unit: global.CompilationUnit) {
for (global.Apply(fun, _) <- unit.body) {
fun.symbol match {
case method: global.MethodSymbol =>
val classSymbol = method.owner
println(classSymbol.fullName)
println(classSymbol.tpe =:= global.typeOf[System])
case _ => ()
}
}
Perhaps,
val jls = global.findMemberFromRoot(TermName("java.lang.System"))
I've been reading about the OO 'fluent interface' approach in Java, JavaScript and Scala and I like the look of it, but have been struggling to see how to reconcile it with a more type-based/functional approach in Scala.
To give a very specific example of what I mean: I've written an API client which can be invoked like this:
val response = MyTargetApi.get("orders", 24)
The return value from get() is a Tuple3 type called RestfulResponse, as defined in my package object:
// 1. Return code
// 2. Response headers
// 2. Response body (Option)
type RestfulResponse = (Int, List[String], Option[String])
This works fine - and I don't really want to sacrifice the functional simplicity of a tuple return value - but I would like to extend the library with various 'fluent' method calls, perhaps something like this:
val response = MyTargetApi.get("customers", 55).throwIfError()
// Or perhaps:
MyTargetApi.get("orders", 24).debugPrint(verbose=true)
How can I combine the functional simplicity of get() returning a typed tuple (or similar) with the ability to add more 'fluent' capabilities to my API?
It seems you are dealing with a client side API of a rest style communication. Your get method seems to be what triggers the actual request/response cycle. It looks like you'd have to deal with this:
properties of the transport (like credentials, debug level, error handling)
providing data for the input (your id and type of record (order or customer)
doing something with the results
I think for the properties of the transport, you can put some of it into the constructor of the MyTargetApi object, but you can also create a query object that will store those for a single query and can be set in a fluent way using a query() method:
MyTargetApi.query().debugPrint(verbose=true).throwIfError()
This would return some stateful Query object that stores the value for log level, error handling. For providing the data for the input, you can also use the query object to set those values but instead of returning your response return a QueryResult:
class Query {
def debugPrint(verbose: Boolean): this.type = { _verbose = verbose; this }
def throwIfError(): this.type = { ... }
def get(tpe: String, id: Int): QueryResult[RestfulResponse] =
new QueryResult[RestfulResponse] {
def run(): RestfulResponse = // code to make rest call goes here
}
}
trait QueryResult[A] { self =>
def map[B](f: (A) => B): QueryResult[B] = new QueryResult[B] {
def run(): B = f(self.run())
}
def flatMap[B](f: (A) => QueryResult[B]) = new QueryResult[B] {
def run(): B = f(self.run()).run()
}
def run(): A
}
Then to eventually get the results you call run. So at the end of the day you can call it like this:
MyTargetApi.query()
.debugPrint(verbose=true)
.throwIfError()
.get("customers", 22)
.map(resp => resp._3.map(_.length)) // body
.run()
Which should be a verbose request that will error out on issue, retrieve the customers with id 22, keep the body and get its length as an Option[Int].
The idea is that you can use map to define computations on a result you do not yet have. If we add flatMap to it, then you could also combine two computations from two different queries.
To be honest, I think it sounds like you need to feel your way around a little more because the example is not obviously functional, nor particularly fluent. It seems you might be mixing up fluency with not-idempotent in the sense that your debugPrint method is presumably performing I/O and the throwIfError is throwing exceptions. Is that what you mean?
If you are referring to whether a stateful builder is functional, the answer is "not in the purest sense". However, note that a builder does not have to be stateful.
case class Person(name: String, age: Int)
Firstly; this can be created using named parameters:
Person(name="Oxbow", age=36)
Or, a stateless builder:
object Person {
def withName(name: String)
= new { def andAge(age: Int) = new Person(name, age) }
}
Hey presto:
scala> Person withName "Oxbow" andAge 36
As to your use of untyped strings to define the query you are making; this is poor form in a statically-typed language. What is more, there is no need:
sealed trait Query
case object orders extends Query
def get(query: Query): Result
Hey presto:
api get orders
Although, I think this is a bad idea - you shouldn't have a single method which can give you back notionally completely different types of results
To conclude: I personally think there is no reason whatsoever that fluency and functional cannot mix, since functional just indicates the lack of mutable state and the strong preference for idempotent functions to perform your logic in.
Here's one for you:
args.map(_.toInt)
args map toInt
I would argue that the second is more fluent. It's possible if you define:
val toInt = (_ : String).toInt
That is; if you define a function. I find functions and fluency mix very well in Scala.
You could try having get() return a wrapper object that might look something like this
type RestfulResponse = (Int, List[String], Option[String])
class ResponseWrapper(private rr: RestfulResponse /* and maybe some flags as additional arguments, or something? */) {
def get : RestfulResponse = rr
def throwIfError : RestfulResponse = {
// Throw your exception if you detect an error
rr // And return the response if you didn't detect an error
}
def debugPrint(verbose: Boolean, /* whatever other parameters you had in mind */) {
// All of your debugging printing logic
}
// Any and all other methods that you want this API response to be able to execute
}
Basically, this allows you to put your response into a contain that has all of these nice methods that you want, and, if you simply want to get the wrapped response, you can just call the wrapper's get() method.
Of course, the downside of this is that you will need to change your API a bit, if that's worrisome to you at all. Well... you could probably avoid needing to change your API, actually, if you, instead, created an implicit conversion from RestfulResponse to ResponseWrapper and vice versa. That's something worth considering.
I've been given a java api for connecting to and communicating over a proprietary bus using a callback based style. I'm currently implementing a proof-of-concept application in scala, and I'm trying to work out how I might produce a slightly more idiomatic scala interface.
A typical (simplified) application might look something like this in Java:
DataType type = new DataType();
BusConnector con = new BusConnector();
con.waitForData(type.getClass()).addListener(new IListener<DataType>() {
public void onEvent(DataType t) {
//some stuff happens in here, and then we need some more data
con.waitForData(anotherType.getClass()).addListener(new IListener<anotherType>() {
public void onEvent(anotherType t) {
//we do more stuff in here, and so on
}
});
}
});
//now we've got the behaviours set up we call
con.start();
In scala I can obviously define an implicit conversion from (T => Unit) into an IListener, which certainly makes things a bit simpler to read:
implicit def func2Ilistener[T](f: (T => Unit)) : IListener[T] = new IListener[T]{
def onEvent(t:T) = f
}
val con = new BusConnector
con.waitForData(DataType.getClass).addListener( (d:DataType) => {
//some stuff, then another wait for stuff
con.waitForData(OtherType.getClass).addListener( (o:OtherType) => {
//etc
})
})
Looking at this reminded me of both scalaz promises and f# async workflows.
My question is this:
Can I convert this into either a for comprehension or something similarly idiomatic (I feel like this should map to actors reasonably well too)
Ideally I'd like to see something like:
for(
d <- con.waitForData(DataType.getClass);
val _ = doSomethingWith(d);
o <- con.waitForData(OtherType.getClass)
//etc
)
If you want to use a for comprehension for this, I'd recommend looking at the Scala Language Specification for how for comprehensions are expanded to map, flatMap, etc. This will give you some clues about how this structure relates to what you've already got (with nested calls to addListener). You can then add an implicit conversion from the return type of the waitForData call to a new type with the appropriate map, flatMap, etc methods that delegate to addListener.
Update
I think you can use scala.Responder[T] from the standard library:
Assuming the class with the addListener is called Dispatcher[T]:
trait Dispatcher[T] {
def addListener(listener: IListener[T]): Unit
}
trait IListener[T] {
def onEvent(t: T): Unit
}
implicit def dispatcher2Responder[T](d: Dispatcher[T]):Responder[T] = new Responder[T} {
def respond(k: T => Unit) = d.addListener(new IListener[T] {
def onEvent(t:T) = k
})
}
You can then use this as requested
for(
d <- con.waitForData(DataType.getClass);
val _ = doSomethingWith(d);
o <- con.waitForData(OtherType.getClass)
//etc
) ()
See the Scala wiki and this presentation on using Responder[T] for a Comet chat application.
I have very little Scala experience, but if I were implementing something like this I'd look to leverage the actor mechanism rather than using callback listener classes. Actors were made for asynchronous communication, they nicely separate those different parts of your app for you. You can also have them send messages to multiple listeners.
We'll have to wait for a "real" Scala programmer to flesh this idea out, though. ;)