I am trying to override a method of trait in my case class which want to display all the members of case class. I am using it for debugging purpose.
trait A{
def myMethod(employee:Emp):Unit
}
case class Emp(id:String,name:String) extends A {
override def myMethod(employee: Emp): Unit =
emp.productIterator.toList.foreach(println)
}
other possible way to do this is
emp.productIterator.toList.mkString("\n")
to declare Emp("10","abc"). I am new to Scala, not sure how to call the override method of trait.
I am not sure if any other generic way to achieve this functionality
to get string form of case class members.
Efficient way to use trait and case class to achieve this
functionality.I want to understand how apply method and companion
objects can be implemented .
I want to implement logging instead of using println. Can anyone
suggest a tutorial for it?
Previous answer was because i didn't understood your question right. This should answer your question:
If you want this only for debugging purposes you can use it like that:
trait A{
def myMethod(employee:Emp):Unit
}
case class Emp(id:String,name:String) extends A {
override def myMethod(employee: Emp): Unit =
this.productIterator.toList.foreach(println)
}
Emp("1", "2").myMethod(None.orNull)
But more logical would be to use object with this nonGeneric method:
case class Emp(id:String,name:String)
object A{
def myMethod(employee: Emp):Unit = {
employee.productIterator.toList.foreach(println)
}
}
A.myMethod(Emp("1", "2"))
For logging purposes you can use just apache log4j
Related
Scala throws "reassignment to val" error for the following code.
abstract case class Gun(var bulletCount:Int)
class Pistol(bulletCount:Int) extends Gun(bulletCount){
def fire() { bulletCount=bulletCount-1 }
}
Anything I missed here?
For starters, you should consider case class as final, and not extend them.
Second, do not use var with case class, you should rather create a copy of a case class to get one of its field changed.
Third, if you want a common type, you can use a base trait.
All in one, here's what it could look like:
sealed trait Gun {
def bulletCount: Int
}
case class Pistol(bulletCount: Int) extends Gun {
def fire(): Pistol = copy(bulletCount=bulletCount)
}
You're referring to bulletCount field generated by Pistol primary constructor parameter. To set base class variable, you need to directly call field using super:
class Pistol(bulletCount: Int) extends Gun(bulletCount) {
def fire(): Unit = {
super.bulletCount = super.bulletCount - 1
}
}
Alternatively, you can label parameter-generated field with override var:
class Pistol(override var bulletCount: Int) extends Gun(bulletCount) {
def fire(): Unit = {
bulletCount = bulletCount - 1
}
}
On a side note, as Frederic A. suggested in his answer, you should avoid inheriting case classes. They are syntactic sugar, and code generation don't work over inheritance - you'll need to implement all the fancy stuff like apply or unapply methods in companion class all by yourself. Scala compiler team tried to support case class to case class inheritance, but discovered that it breaks structural equality and lots of other things.
In my specific case I have a (growing) library of case classes with a base trait (TKModel)
Then I have an abstract class (TKModelFactory[T <: TKModel]) which is extended by all companion objects.
So my companion objects all inherently know the type ('T') of "answers" they need to provide as well as the type of objects they "normally" accept for commonly implemented methods. (If I get lazy and cut and paste chunks of code to search and destroy this save my bacon a lot!) I do see warnings on the Internet at large however that any form of CompanionObject.method(caseClassInstance: CaseClass) is rife with "code smell" however. Not sure if they actually apply to Scala or not?
There does not however seem to be any way to declare anything in the abstract case class (TKModel) that would refer to (at runtime) the proper companion object for a particular instance of a case class. This results in my having to write (and edit) a few method calls that I want standard in each and every case class.
case class Track(id: Long, name: String, statusID: Long) extends TKModel
object Track extends TKModelFactory[Track]
How would I write something in TKModel such that new Track(1, "x", 1).someMethod() could actually call Track.objectMethod()
Yes I can write val CO = MyCompanionObject along with something like implicit val CO: ??? in the TKModel abstract class and make all the calls hang off of that value. Trying to find any incantation that makes the compiler happy for that however seems to be mission impossible. And since I can't declare that I can't reference it in any placeholder methods in the abstract class either.
Is there a more elegant way to simply get a reference to a case classes companion object?
My specific question, as the above has been asked before (but not yet answered it seems), is there a way to handle the inheritance of both the companion object and the case classes and find the reference such that I can code common method calls in the abstract class?
Or is there a completely different and better model?
If you change TKModel a bit, you can do
abstract class TKModel[T <: TKModel] {
...
def companion: TKModelFactory[T]
def someMethod() = companion.objectMethod()
}
case class Track(id: Long, name: String, statusID: Long) extends TKModel[Track] {
def companion = Track
}
object Track extends TKModelFactory[Track] {
def objectMethod() = ...
}
This way you do need to implement companion in each class. You can avoid this by implementing companion using reflection, something like (untested)
lazy val companion: TKModelFactory[T] = {
Class.forName(getClass.getName + "$").getField("MODULE$").
get(null).asInstanceOf[TKModelFactory[T]]
}
val is to avoid repeated reflection calls.
A companion object does not have access to the instance, but there is no reason the case class can't have a method that calls the companion object.
case class Data(value: Int) {
def add(data: Data) = Data.add(this,data)
}
object Data {
def add(d1: Data, d2: Data): Data = Data(d1.value + d2.value)
}
It's difficult. However you can create an implicit method in companion object. whenever you want to invoke your logic from instance, just trigger implicit rules and the implicit method will instantiate another class which will invoke whatever logic you desired.
I believe it's also possible to do this in generic ways.
You can implement this syntax as an extension method by defining an implicit class in the top-level abstract class that the companion objects extend:
abstract class TKModelFactory[T <: TKModel] {
def objectMethod(t: T)
implicit class Syntax(t: T) {
def someMethod() = objectMethod(t)
}
}
A call to new Track(1, "x", 1).someMethod() will then be equivalent to Track.objectMethod(new Track(1, "x", 1)).
Given the following example of two traits with one extending another with no implementation of def a in each:
scala> trait A { def a: String }
defined trait A
scala> trait B extends A { abstract override def a: String }
defined trait B
Is the construct useful at all? What are the use cases?
I think the answer is essentially the same as the one linked in your comment. In Scala, the abstract keyword for methods isn't required, since the compiler can figure out whether it's abstract or not based on whether or not it has an implementation. So it's usage here is superfluous.
The override keyword is also not required for methods that are implementing an abstract method (or I guess not doing anything at all, in this case). So really, B is equivalent to:
trait B extends A { def a: String }
Or really just (since B will be assumed to be abstract):
trait B extends A
Similarly to the linked answer, I can imagine once scenario where using override might be useful for readability. If I were making the return type of a in B more specific than A, I could use override as a hint that I'm modifying the behavior in some way:
trait A {
def a: Any
}
trait B extends A {
override def a: String
}
In this case, I'm hinting that a in B might be slightly different than the inherited signature from A. Of course, this is only useful if it's known to the reader and used in a consistent manner. But I could still do the same thing without the override.
Short answer: abstract override is not useful in this case. It's basically like giving a type annotation where none would be needed.
The value added use of abstract override is for decorating an implementation that will be mixed in later, sometimes known as the "stackable trait pattern". See Why is "abstract override" required not "override" alone in subtrait?.
Abstract override indicates that you wish to override an 'abstract' method. Others address why it's useless here, so I'll focus on an example. Abstract override is best used for mixins. A simple example would be a Pollable trait:
trait Pollable{def poll:Double}
Lets say we want to weight this pollable. This trait will be a mixin for our trait. Our weighted pollable will have a weight field, which it will multiply a poll by to get a result. For example:
class OnePollable extends Pollable{
def poll:Double=1
}
val myWeightedOne=new OnePollable with WeightedPollable;
Lets try and write this trait:
//Does not compile
trait WeightedPollable extends Pollable{
var weight=1
def poll:Double=super.poll*weight
}
If you look, you'll see clearly why this doesn't work. Our trait tries to call a super type method that isn't implemented! One solution is to add a default to the super trait, Pollable:
//Don't do this!
trait Pollable{def poll:Double=1}
This sorta works here, but is sorta dumb in a lot of real world applications. The better way is this:
trait WeightedPollable extends Pollable{
var weight=1
abstract override def poll:Double=super.poll*weight
}
It's our friend the abstract override modifier! This tells the compiler that we are overriding an abstract method, but we want to use super to refer to an object we are being mixed into. This also disallows the trait being used as an interface.
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?
I'm having trouble finding an elegant way of designing a some simple classes to represent HTTP messages in Scala.
Say I have something like this:
abstract class HttpMessage(headers: List[String]) {
def addHeader(header: String) = ???
}
class HttpRequest(path: String, headers: List[String])
extends HttpMessage(headers)
new HttpRequest("/", List("foo")).addHeader("bar")
How can I make the addHeader method return a copy of itself with the new header added? (and keep the current value of path as well)
Thanks,
Rob.
It is annoying but the solution to implement your required pattern is not trivial.
The first point to notice is that if you want to preserve your subclass type, you need to add a type parameter. Without this, you are not able to specify an unknown return type in HttpMessage
abstract class HttpMessage(headers: List[String]) {
type X <: HttpMessage
def addHeader(header: String):X
}
Then you can implement the method in your concrete subclasses where you will have to specify the value of X:
class HttpRequest(path: String, headers: List[String])
extends HttpMessage(headers){
type X = HttpRequest
def addHeader(header: String):HttpRequest = new HttpRequest(path, headers :+header)
}
A better, more scalable solution is to use implicit for the purpose.
trait HeaderAdder[T<:HttpMessage]{
def addHeader(httpMessage:T, header:String):T
}
and now you can define your method on the HttpMessage class like the following:
abstract class HttpMessage(headers: List[String]) {
type X <: HttpMessage
def addHeader(header: String)(implicit headerAdder:HeaderAdder[X]):X = headerAdder.add(this,header) }
}
This latest approach is based on the typeclass concept and scales much better than inheritance. The idea is that you are not forced to have a valid HeaderAdder[T] for every T in your hierarchy, and if you try to call the method on a class for which no implicit is available in scope, you will get a compile time error.
This is great, because it prevents you to have to implement addHeader = sys.error("This is not supported")
for certain classes in the hierarchy when it becomes "dirty" or to refactor it to avoid it becomes "dirty".
The best way to manage implicit is to put them in a trait like the following:
trait HeaderAdders {
implicit val httpRequestHeaderAdder:HeaderAdder[HttpRequest] = new HeaderAdder[HttpRequest] { ... }
implicit val httpRequestHeaderAdder:HeaderAdder[HttpWhat] = new HeaderAdder[HttpWhat] { ... }
}
and then you provide also an object, in case user can't mix it (for example if you have frameworks that investigate through reflection properties of the object, you don't want extra properties to be added to your current instance) (http://www.artima.com/scalazine/articles/selfless_trait_pattern.html)
object HeaderAdders extends HeaderAdders
So for example you can write things such as
// mixing example
class MyTest extends HeaderAdders // who cares about having two extra value in the object
// import example
import HeaderAdders._
class MyDomainClass // implicits are in scope, but not mixed inside MyDomainClass, so reflection from Hiberante will still work correctly
By the way, this design problem is the same of Scala collections, with the only difference that your HttpMessage is TraversableLike. Have a look to this question Calling map on a parallel collection via a reference to an ancestor type