I understand that using something like
case class private A()
new A()#This will be a invalid call as A is private
But what I do not understand that as from an implementation perspective, what advantage does this provide while coding? Because calling A() twice will give 2 instances of the class anyways. If this syntax is not used to prevent instantiation like Java, then why would I want to not let someone instantiate my class using new?
Marking a case class constructor private is useless. As you've notices, case classes get a synthetic companion object with an apply method whose implementation is simply a call to the actual constructor.
Scala case classes have been designed to just "classes + the case modifier", meaning that everything that works on classes also works on case classes, which also include the (pointless) ability to specify access modifiers on the constructor.
Related
In Java, one of its most common usage is to define a Singleton class. However, since there are no "static" classes in Scala, what are some examples of usages of the Private Constructor?
You can access private constructors in the companion object of a class.
That allows you to create alternative ways of creating a new instance of your class without exposing the internal constructor.
I came up with a very quick example of how one might make use of this:
class Foo private(s: String)
object Foo {
def apply(list: Seq[String]): Foo = {
new Foo(list.mkString(","))
}
}
Now you can create new instances of Foo without the new keyword and without exposing the internal constructor, thereby encapsulating the internal implementation.
This can be especially important, as internal implementations might change in the future while the public facing API should remain backwards compatible
The use cases of the private constructors are mostly the same as in Java: sometimes you need a full control of how the instances of your classes are created. Consider scala.immutable.Vector. Its constructor is rather complicated:
final class Vector[+A] private(val startIndex: Int, val endIndex: Int, focus: Int)
This constructor is a complex implementation detail which is likely to be changed in the future and therefore should not be exposed to users. Instead, you provide simple factory methods which hide all that complexity of creating instances of vectors: Vector.apply(), Vector.tabulate(), Vector.fill(), ...
It seems to me that I can make just about anything using object, trait, abstract class and in rare occasions, case class. Most of this is in the form object extends trait. So, I'm wondering, when should I, if ever, use a plain, standard class?
This is not a right place to ask this question
Looks like you are new Scala
Class is a specification for something(some entity) you want to model . It contains behavior and state
There is only one way to declare so called regular class using keyword class
Both trait and abstract class are used for inheritance.
trait is used for inheritance (generally to put common behavior in there). trait is akin to interface in Java. multiple inheritance possible with traits but not abstract class.
A class can extends one class or abstract class but can mixin any number of traits. Traits can have behavior and state.
case class is a nothing but a class but compiler produces some boilerplate code for us to make things easy and look good.
object is used when you want to declare some class but you want to have single instance of the class in the JVM (remember singleton pattern).
If an object performs stateful computations on its members i.e. its members are declared with vars;
Or, even if its member are only declared with vals but those vals store mutable data structures which can be edited in place, then it should be an ordinary (mutable) class akin to a Java mutable object.
The idiomatic way of using Case classes in Scala is as immutable types i.e. all the constructor arguments are vals. We could use vars but then we lose the advantages of case classes like equality comparisons will break over time.
Some advise from Programming in Scala by Odersky et al on deciding between using traits, abstract classes and concrete classes:
If the behavior will not be reused, then make it a concrete class. It is not reusable behavior after all.
If it might be reused in multiple, unrelated classes, make it a trait.
Only traits can be mixed into different parts of the class hierarchy.
If you want to inherit from it in Java code, use an abstract class.
Since traits with code do not have a close Java analog, it tends to be
awkward to inherit from a trait in a Java class. Inheriting from a
Scala class, meanwhile, is exactly like inheriting from a Java class.
As one exception, a Scala trait with only abstract members translates
directly to a Java interface, so you should feel free to define such
traits even if you expect Java code to inherit from it. See Chapter 29
for more information on working with Java and Scala together.
If you plan to distribute it in compiled form, and you expect outside
groups to write classes inheriting from it, you might lean towards
using an abstract class. The issue is that when a trait gains or loses
a member, any classes that inherit from it must be recompiled, even if
they have not changed. If outside clients will only call into the
behavior, instead of inheriting from it, then using a trait is fine.
If efficiency is very important, lean towards using a class. Most Java
runtimes make a virtual method invocation of a class member a faster
operation than an interface method invocation. Traits get compiled to
interfaces and therefore may pay a slight performance overhead.
However, you should make this choice only if you know that the trait
in question constitutes a performance bottleneck and have evidence
that using a class instead actually solves the problem.
If you still do not know, after considering the above, then start by
making it as a trait. You can always
change it later, and in general using a trait keeps more options open.
I have a case class like this
case class MyModel(category:Option[String],deploymentId:Option[String],key:Option[String],metaInfo:Option[String],name:Option[String],version:Option[Int],tenantId:Option[String])
There is a Java library, our app is interacting with which returns Java Bean. Now on many occasions have to populate Java Bean from MyModel case class e.g.
val javaModel = repositoryService.newModel()
myModel.category.map(javaModel.setCategory(_))
myModel.deploymentId.map(javaModel.setDeploymentId(_))
myModel.key.map(javaModel.setKey(_))
myModel.metaInfo.map(javaModel.setMetaInfo(_))
myModel.name.map(javaModel.setName(_))
myModel.tenantId.map(javaModel.setTenantId(_))
myModel.version.map(javaModel.setVersion(_))
repositoryService.saveModel(javaModel)
Above is shorten snippet but it gets quite versbose with a ton of other properties in MyModel which corrosponds to javaModel. I am trying to come up with a generic function which iterates through case class (MyModel) and finds property names from case class members and calls appropriate setter on javaModel Java bean.
I know I can use Shapeless for getting all keys (property names) from case class as follow
val modelLabel = LabelledGeneric[MyModel]
val modelKeys = Keys[modelLabel.Repr].apply
Now I am wondering if there is a way to use modelKey e.g. say when it finds category, when mapping over modelKeys, call appropriate set method on javaModel. e.g. for category it'll be calling setCategory and likewise for other properties (this may sound odd but preferably without using reflection? )
I'm puzzled to choose a trait or class when writing scala code.
At first, I have a controller which with several traits:
class MyController extends Controller
with TransactionSupport
with JsonConverterSupport
with LoggerSupport
In these traits, I defined some methods and fields which can be used in MyController directly.
But my friend says: when you extends or with a trait, it should be a that trait.
Look at the MyController, it is a Controller, but it isn't a TransactionSupport, not a JsonConverterSupport, not a LoggerSupport, so it should not with them.
So the code becomes:
class MyController(tranSupport: TransactionSupport,
jsonConverter: JsonConverterSupport,
loggerSupport: LoggerSupport) extends Controller
But I don't feel good about this code, it just seems strange.
I see traits used heavily in scala code, when should I use it or use classes to inject?
I'll refer you to Interfaces should be Adjectives. Though some traits may play the part of a class (and, therefore, be nouns and respect the "is-a" relationship), when used as mixins they'll tend to play the part of interfaces.
As an "adjective", the trait will add a qualifying property to whatever they are extending. For example, they may be Comparable or Serializable.
It can be a bit hard to find an adjective to fit -- what adjective would you use for LoggerSupport? -- so don't feel overly constrained by that. Just be aware that it is completely wrong to thing of traits as necessarily an "is-a" relationship.
I would try to avoid using traits to replace "has-a" relationships, though.
My opinion is that it doesn't have to be it. Mixing-in is a different concept than inheritance. Even though syntactically it is the same, it doesn't mean the same. Typical use case for mixing-in is logging just like you wrote. It doesn't mean that if your service class mixes-in a Logging trait that it is a logger. It's just a yet another way how to compose functionality into working objects.
Odersky proposes that if you are not sure and you can, use traits because they are more flexible. You can change trait to class in the future if you need.
Sometime when I feel that mixing-in trait doesn't look good, I use module pattern like this:
trait JsonConverterModule {
protected def jsonConverter: JsonConverter
protected trait JsonConverter {
def convert(in: Json): Json
}
}
class MyController extends Controller with JsonConverterModule {
private doSmth = jsonConverter.convert(...)
}
MyController in this case looks more like a Controller, and all Json-related stuff is hidden from MyController 'client'
Your first example with traits is the "cake pattern" and your second example is "constructor injection". Both are perfectly valid ways to do dependency injection in Scala. The cake pattern is powerful, you can inject type members, the different traits can easily talk to each other (we don't have to create separate objects and pass them to each other object, often requiring setter injection rather than simple constructor injection), etc. However, the type has to be realized at compile-time, and a separate class must be realized for every combination of traits. Constructor injection lets you build your object at run-time and scales better for a large number of combinations.
I'm defining a Scala class today, and I think "I need an equals method and a hashCode method; and a copy method would be handy too. I'll turn this into a case class." My class already has a bunch of other code, and is in no way trivial.
So fine, it all works and everything, but when the text books deal with case classes, all of the examples define them for use as value classes or 'data transfer objects'. Is it appropriate to define a non-trivial case class? Is the thought process described above OK, or do I need to think of case classes differently?
A case class provides, equals, hashCode and toString methods based on the main constructor parameters, all of which are turned into val too. In addition, the object companion gets an apply and an unapply methods, again based on the main constructor parameters.
Also, a case class inherits from Serializable and from Product, and should not be extended by other classes.
If all of these things are appropriate for your class, then feel free to declare it as a `case class'.
Feel free, provided it doesn't have descendants. Extending case classes is a bad idea.