I'm newbie to Scala, and I have years of experience programming in Java.
Usually there are two patterns passing some config:
Using a global object sounds like "ConfigManager". And every time I
needs a config I get directly from it.
Passing the config through parameter. The config param may exists in
many layers in the program.
I choose one pattern depends on how the config will be used when I'm writing Java.
But in Scala, many people talks about eliminating side effects. This makes me wonder if I should use the second patterns at any costs.
Which pattern is better in Scala?
Global objects are bad: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/148108/why-is-global-state-so-evil
Make each component take it's configuration (individual pieces) as constructor parameters (possibly with some defaults). That prevents the creation of invalid components or components that have not been configured.
You can collect the initial processing of configuration values in a single class to centralize configuration code and to fail-fast when things are missing. But don't make your components (classes needing the configuration) depend on a global object or take in an entire configuration as a parameter. Just what they need as constructor params.
Example:
// centralize the parsing of configuration
case class AppConfig (config: Config) {
val timeInterval = config.getInt("type_interval")
val someOtherSetting = config.getString("some_other_setting")
}
...
// don't depend on global objects
class SomeComponent (timeInterval: Int) {
...
}
object SomeApplication extends App {
val config = AppConfig(ConfigFactory.load())
val component = new SomeComponent(config.timeInterval)
}
Use global object (this object stores only read-only immutable data, so no issues) which loads configuration object and config variables at once. This has many benefits over loading the configuration deep inside the code.
object ConfigParams {
val config = ConfigFactory.load()
val timeInterval = config.getInt("time_interval")
....
}
Benefits:
Prevents runtime errors (Fail fast approach).
If you have miss spelt any property name your app fails during startup as you are trying to fetch the data eagerly. If this were to be deep inside the codebase then it would be hard to know and it fails when the control of the program goes to that line. So, it cannot be easily detected unless rigorous testing is done.
Central place for all configuration logic and configuration transformations if any.
This serves as a central place for all config logic. easy to change and maintain.
Transformations can be done without need for refactoring the code.
Maintainable and readable.
Easy refactoring.
Functional programming point of view
Yes, loading the config file eagerly is great idea from Fail fast point of view but its not a good functional programming practice.
But important thing is you are not mixing the side effect with any other logic and keeping it separate during the loading of the app. So, as you are isolating the side effect and side effecting at the starting of your project, this would not be a program.
Once the side effecting is done and app has started. Your pure code base will not effected from this and remains pure and clean. So, though it is side effecting, it is isolated and does not effect your codebase. Benefits you again from this are worth experiencing, So go ahead.
Related
Now I have some experience in using the Zend Framework. I want to go deeper in the topic and rewrite some old php projects.
What is the best place to save own functions and classes?
And how do I tell Zend where they are? Or is there already a folder for own stuff? May I have different folders for different files?
For example I want to save a php document with the name math_b.php which includes several special functions to calculate and another one date_b.php which has abilities for datetime stuff. Is that possible or shall I have different files for every function?
I would also like to reuse the functions in other projects and then just copy the folders.
There is no single "right" answer for this. However, there are several general guidelines/principles that I commonly employ.
Do not pollute global scope
Namespace your code and keep all functions is classes. So, rather than:
function myFunction($x) {
// do stuff with $x and return a value
}
I would have:
namespace MyVendorName\SomeComponent;
class SomeUtils
{
public static function myFunction($x)
{
// do stuff with $x and return a value
}
}
Usage is then:
use MyVendorName\SomeComponent\SomeUtils;
$val = SomeUtils::myFunction($x);
Why bother with all this? Without this kind of namespacing, as you bring more code into your projects from other sources - and as you share/publish your code for others to consume in their projects - you will eventually encounter name conflicts between their functions/variables and yours. Good fences make good neighbors.
Use an autoloader
The old days of having tons of:
require '/path/to/class.php';
in your consumer code are long gone. A better approach is to tell PHP - typically during some bootstrap process - where to find the class MyVendor\MyComponent\MyClass. This process is called autoloading.
Most code these days conforms to the PSR-0/PSR-4 standard that maps name-spaced classnames to file-paths relative to a file root.
In ZF1, one typically adds the ./library folder to the PHP include_path in ./public/index.php and then add your vendor namespace into the autoloaderNameSpaces array in ./application/config.ini:
autoloaderNameSpaces[] = 'MyVendor';
and places a class like MyVendor\MyComponent\MyClass in the file:
./library/MyVendor/MyComponent/MyClass.php
You can then reference a class of the form MyVendor\MyComponent\MyClass simply with:
// At top of consuming file
use MyVendor\MyComponent\MyClass;
// In the consuming page/script/class.
$instance = new MyClass(); // instantiation
$val = MyClass::myStaticMethod(); // static method call
Determine the scope of usage
If I have functionality is required only for a particular class, then I keep that function as a method (or a collection of methods) in the class in which it is used.
If I have some functionality that will be consumed in multiple places in a single project, then I might break it out into a single class in my own library namespace, perhaps MyVendor.
If I think that a function/class will be consumed by multiple projects, then I break it out into its own project with its own repo (on Github, for example), make it accessible via Composer, optimally registering it with Packagist, and pay close attention to semantic versioning so that consumers of my package receive a stable and predictable product.
Copying folders from one project into another is do-able, of course, but it often runs into problems as you fix bugs, add functionality, and (sometimes) break backward-compatibility. That's why it is usually preferable to have those functions/classes in a separate, semantically-versioned project that serves as a single source-of-truth for that code.
Conclusion
Breaking functionality out into separate, namespaced classes that are autoloaded in a standard way gives plenty of "space" in which to develop custom functionality that is more easily consumed, more easily re-used, and more easily tested (a large topic for another time).
Typesafe Config documentation and library examples make a point that type safety can be achieved by making a configuration object or nested objects with getter methods mapped to Config.getType(key) methods.
If I wrap config calls in something like this:
class MyConfig (cfg:Config) {
val language = cfg.getString("app.language")
val database = new {
val url = cfg.getString("db.url")
val port = cfg.getInt("db.port")
...
}
}
I can do decent looking calls like config.database.url. Neat. (That dot looks so much greater than underscore)
What I don't quite get is how to allow modifying properties and saving them - quoting documentation, config is immutable. My attempts so far turned into either a gross spaghetti (closures with var config) or horrendous boilerplate (modifying a plain object and creating a new config from it to save), so I turned here for help.
I'd appreciate if someone showed me a good pattern for programmatically modifiable configuration using Typesafe Config.
It is possible that Typesafe Config just isn't a right tool for the job. I have little use for it's powerful merging and inheritance capabilities, instead I mostly need a simple, concise, unicode-friendly and type-safe way to load and store properties. I already do have one, a reflection-based java lib working with annotated POJOs. Doesn't seem to be a lot of variety with configuration libraries in Scala. I may have been too eager to throw away my trusty java tools.
I have a use case where I need to create a class based on user input.
For example, the user input could be : "(Int,fieldname1) : (String,fieldname2) : .. etc"
Then a class has to be created as follows at runtime
Class Some
{
Int fieldname1
String fieldname2
..so..on..
}
Is this something that Scala supports? Any help is really appreciated.
Your scenario doesn't seem to make sense. It's not so much an issue of runtime instantiation (the JVM can certainly do this with reflection). Really, what you're asking is to dynamically generate a class, which is only useful if your code makes use of it later on. But how can your code make use of it later on if you don't know what it looks like? For example, how would your later code know which fields it could reference?
No, not really.
The idea of a class is to define a type that can be checked at compile time. You see, creating it at runtime would somewhat contradict that.
You might want to store the user input in a different way, e.g. a map.
What are you trying to achieve by creating a class at runtime?
I think this makes sense, as long as you are using your "data model" in a generic manner.
Will this approach work here? Depends.
If your data coming from a file that is read at runtime but available at compile time, then you're in luck and type-safety will be maintained. In fact, you will have two options.
Split your project into two:
In the first run, read the file and write the new source
programmatically (as Strings, or better, with Treehugger).
In the second run, compile your generated class with the rest of your project and use it normally.
If #1 is too "manual", then use Macro Annotations. The idea here is that the main sub-project's compile time follows the macro sub-project's runtime. Therefore, if we provide the main sub-project with an "empty" class, members can be added to it dynamically at compile time using data that the macro sees at runtime. - To get started, Modify the macro to read from a file in this example
Else, if you're data are truly only knowable at runtime, then #Rob Starling's suggestion may work for you as it did me. I'll share my attempt if you want to be a guinea pig. For debugging, I've got an App.scala in there that shows how to pass strings to a runtime class generator and access it at runtime with Java reflection, even define a Scala type alias with it. So the question is, will your new dynamic class serve as a type-parameter in Slick, or fail to, as it sometimes does with other libraries?
As a simplest example, say I'm starting my application in a certain mode (e.g. test), then I want to be able to check in other parts of the application what mode I'm running in. This should be extremely simple, but I'm looking for the right Scala replacement for global variables. Please give me a bit more than : "Scala objects are like global variables"
The ideal solution is that at start-up, the application will create an object, and at creation time, that object's 'mode' is set. After that, other parts of the application will just be able to read the state of 'mode'. How can I do this without passing a reference to an object all over the application?
My real scenario actually includes things such as selecting the database name, or singleton database object at start-up, and not allowing anything else to change that object afterwards. The one problem is that I'm trying to achieve this without passing around that reference to the database.
UPDATE:
Here is a simple example of what I would like to do, and my current solution:
object DB{
class PDB extends ProductionDB
class TDB extends TestComplianceDB
lazy val pdb = new PDB
lazy val tdb = new TDB
def db = tdb //(or pdb) How can I set this once at initialisation?
}
So, I've created different database configurations as traits. Depending on whether I'm running in Test or Production mode, I would like to use the correct configuration where configurations look something like:
trait TestDB extends DBConfig {
val m = new Model("H2", new DAL(H2Driver),
Database.forURL("jdbc:h2:mem:testdb", driver = "org.h2.Driver"))
// This is an in-memory database, so it will not yet exist.
dblogger.info("Using TestDB")
m.createDB
}
So now, whenever I use the database, I could use it like this:
val m = DB.db.m
m.getEmployees(departmentId)
My question really is, is this style bad, good or ok (using a singleton to hold a handle to the database). I'm using Slick, and I think this relates to having just one instance of Slick running. Could this lead to scalability issues.
Is there a better way to solve the problem?
You can use the typesafe config library, this is also used in projects like Play and Akka. Both the Play and Akka documentation explain basic parts of it's usage. From the Play documentation (Additional configuration)
Specifying alternative configuration file
The default is to load the application.conf file from the classpath. You can specify an alternative configuration file if needed:
Using -Dconfig.resource
-Dconfig.resource=prod.conf
Using -Dconfig.file
-Dconfig.file=/opt/conf/prod.conf
Using -Dconfig.url
-Dconfig.url=http://conf.mycompany.com/conf/prod.conf
Note that you can always reference the original configuration file in a new prod.conf file using the include directive, such as:
include "application.conf"
key.to.override=blah
I've done some searching on this, but I cannot find info. I'm building an application inside sinatra, and using the coffeescript templating engine. By default the compiled code is wrapped as such:
(function() {
// code
}).call(this);
I'd like to remove that using the --bare flag, so different files can access classes and so forth that I'm defining. I realize that having it more contained helps against variable conflicts and so forth, but I'm working on two main pieces here. One is the business logic, and arrangement of data in class structures. The other is the view functionality using raphaeljs. I would prefer to keep these two pieces in separate files. Since the two files wrapped as such cannot access the data, it obviously won't work. However, if you can think of a better solution than using the --bare option, I'm all ears.
Bare compilation is simply a bad practice. Each file should export to the global scope only the public objects that matter to the rest of your app.
# foo.coffee
class Foo
constructor: (#abc) ->
privateVar = 123
window.Foo = Foo # export
Foo is now globally available. Now if that pattern isn't practical, maybe you should rethink your structure a bit. If you have to export too may things, you nest and namespace things better, so that more data can be exposed through fewer global variables.
I support Alex's answer, but if you absolutely must do this, I believe my answer to the same question for Rails 3.1 is applicable here as well: Put the line
Tilt::CoffeeScriptTemplate.default_bare = true
somewhere in your application.