I would like to build a case class DataObject.
case class DataObject(parameter: Double)
I want to be able to extend this if necessary with the functionality to call a function. For that I want to be able to extend it with a trait DataObjectFunctionable to make it functionable. This functionality should only be assignable to DataObject because it only makes sense there.
trait DataObjectFunctionable {
this: DataObject =>
def unimportantfunction(): Double = parameter + 1
protected val aFunction: AFunction
}
The exact implementation shall be defined later, thus I keep the Function abstract. Since the extra functionality shall only be a trait for DataObject and a DataObject with the functionality would be DataObjectFunctionable, I give DataObjectFunctionable as input type for the function.
trait AFunction {
def value(in: DataObjectFunctionable)
}
Now I am going to define my concrete Function.This is all good and well, until I want to excess the inputs parameters.
object MyFunction extends AFunction {
def value(in: DataObjectFunctionable) = in.parameter + 2
}
Now I am told that in.parameter cannot be resolved. Why is that? this: DataObject => makes sure that DataObject's members are also available inside DataObjectFunctionable (as seen with unimportantfunction). Why is it that though this is the case, I don't have parameter at my disposal in MyFunction? Is it just language design or am I doing something wrong?
What should I do instead? I found that
trait DataObjectFunctionable extends DataObject {
this: DataObject =>
def unimportantfunction(): Double = parameter + 1
protected val aFunction: AFunction
}
solves the issue, but is this really the way to go?
As far as I understand, trait DataObjectFunctionable extends DataObject means "the trait DataObjectFunctionable can only be extended by an DataObject or a subclass of it". However, as far as I understand this: DataObject => means the same... Maybe there is a misunderstanding here that led to my issue.
By the way, this is what I hoped for:
val myObject1 = new DataObject(parameter = 5) extends DataObjectFunctionable {
override protected val aFunction: AFunction = MyFunction
}
val myObject2 = new DataObject(parameter = 5)
myObject1.value // returns 5
myObject2.value // that should not be possible, since myObject2 does not get the functionality. I want this to throw a compiler error
Self-reference is akin to "private inheritance".
If you don't want the inherited parameters to be "private" to the trait, why don't you make it inherit from DataObject rather than self-reference it?
Alternatively, you can "export" the self-referenced parameter from the trait with something like def param = parameter.
Also, a word of caution: don't extend case classes, not even with traits. It is almost always a bad idea.
Related
I have the following setup:
trait A
{
def doSomething(): Unit;
}
object B extends A
{
override def doSomething(): Unit =
{
// Implementation
}
}
class B(creator: String) extends A
{
override def doSomething(): Unit =
{
B.doSomething() // Now this is just completely unnecessary, but the compiler of course insists upon implementing the method
}
}
Now you may wonder why I even do this, why I let the class extend the trait as well.
The problem is, that somewhere in the Program there is a Collection of A.
So somewhere:
private val aList: ListBuffer[A] = new ListBuffer[A]
and in there, I also have to put Bs (among other derivates, namely C and D)
So I can't just let the B-class not extend it.
As the implementation is the same for all instances, I want to use an Object.
But there is also a reason I really need this Object. Because there is a class:
abstract class Worker
{
def getAType(): A
def do(): Unit =
{
getAType().doSomething()
}
}
class WorkerA
{
def getAType(): A =
{
return B
}
}
Here the singleton/object of B gets returned. This is needed for the implementation of do() in the Worker.
To summarize:
The object B is needed because of the generic implementation in do() (Worker-Class) and also because doSomething() never changes.
The class B is needed because in the collection of the BaseType A there are different instances of B with different authors.
As both the object and the class have to implement the trait for above reasons I'm in kind of a dilemma here. I couldn't find a satisfying solution that looks neater.
So, my question is (It turns out as a non-native-speaker I should've clarified this more)
Is there any way to let a class extend a trait (or class) and say that any abstract-method implementation should be looked up in the object instead of the class, so that I must only implement "doSomething()" (from the trait) once (in the object)? As I said, the trait fulfills two different tasks here.
One being a BaseType so that the collection can get instances of the class. The other being a contract to ensure the doSomething()-method is there in every object.
So the Object B needs to extend the trait, because a trait is like a Java interface and every (!) Object B (or C, or D) needs to have that method. (So the only option I see -> define an interface/trait and make sure the method is there)
edit: In case anyone wonders. How I really solved the problem: I implemented two traits.
Now for one class (where I need it) I extend both and for the other I only extend one. So I actually never have to implement any method that is not absolutely necessary :)
As I wrote in the comment section, it's really unclear to me what you're asking.
However, looking at your code examples, it seems to me that trait A isn't really required.
You can use the types that already come with the Scala SDK:
object B extends (()=>Unit) {
def apply() { /* implementation */ }
}
Or, as a variant:
object B {
val aType:()=>Unit = {() => /* implementation */ }
}
In the first case, you can access the singleton instance with B, in the second case with B.aType.
In the second case, no explicit declaration of the apply method is needed.
Pick what you like.
The essential message is: You don't need a trait if you just define one simple method.
That's what Scala functions are for.
The list type might look like this:
private val aList:ListBuffer[()=>Unit] = ???
(By the way: Why not declare it as Seq[()=>Unit]? Is it important to the caller that it is a ListBuffer and not some other kind of sequence?)
Your worker might then look like this:
abstract class Worker {
def aType:()=>Unit // no need for the `get` prefix here, or the empty parameter list
def do() {aType()}
}
Note that now the Worker type has become a class that offers a method that invokes a function.
So, there is really no need to have a Worker class.
You can just take the function (aType) directly and invoke it, just so.
If you always want to call the implementation in object B, well - just do that then.
There is no need to wrap the call in instances of other types.
Your example class B just forwards the call to the B object, which is really unnecessary.
There is no need to even create an instance of B.
It does have the private member variable creator, but since it's never used, it will never be accessed in any way.
So, I would recommend to completely remove the class B.
All you need is the type ()=>Unit, which is exactly what you need: A function that takes no parameters and returns nothing.
If you get tired of writing ()=>Unit all the time, you can define a type alias, for example inside the package object.
Here is my recommentation:
type SideEffect = ()=>Unit
Then you can use SideEffect as an alias for ()=>Unit.
That's all I can make of it.
It looks to me that this is probably not what you were looking for.
But maybe this will help you a little bit along the way.
If you want to have a more concrete answer, it would be nice if you would clarify the question.
object B doesn't really have much to do with class B aside from some special rules.
If you wish to reuse that doSomething method you should just reuse the implementation from the object:
class B {
def doSomething() = B.doSomething()
}
If you want to specify object B as a specific instance of class B then you should do the following:
object B extends B("some particular creator") {
...
}
You also do not need override modifiers although they can be handy for compiler checks.
The notion of a companion object extending a trait is useful for defining behavior associated with the class itself (e.g. static methods) as opposed to instances of the class. In other words, it allows your static methods to implement interfaces. Here's an example:
import java.nio.ByteBuffer
// a trait to be implemented by the companion object of a class
// to convey the fixed size of any instance of that class
trait Sized { def size: Int }
// create a buffer based on the size information provided by the
// companion object
def createBuffer(sized: Sized): ByteBuffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(sized.size)
class MyClass(x: Long) {
def writeTo(buffer: ByteBuffer) { buffer.putLong(x) }
}
object MyClass extends Sized {
def size = java.lang.Long.SIZE / java.lang.Byte.SIZE
}
// create a buffer with correct sizing for MyClass whose companion
// object implements Sized. Note that we don't need an instance
// of MyClass to obtain sizing information.
val buf = createBuffer(MyClass)
// write an instance of MyClass to the buffer.
val c = new MyClass(42)
c.writeTo(buf)
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)).
I have a trait that defines a function--I don't want to specify how it will work until later. This trait is mixed in with several case classes, like so:
trait AnItem
trait DataFormatable {
def render():String = "" // dummy implementation
}
case class Person(name:String, age:Int) extends DataFormatable with AnItem
case class Building(numFloors:Int) extends DataFormatable with AnItem
Ok, so now I want includable modules that pimp specific implementations of this render behavior. Trying to use value classes here:
object JSON {
implicit class PersonRender( val p:Person ) extends AnyVal {
def render():String = {
//render json
}
}
// others
}
object XML {
implicit class PersonRender( val p:Person ) extends AnyVal {
def render():String = {
//render xml
}
}
// others
}
The ideal use would look like this (presuming JSON output desired):
import JSON._
val p:AnItem = Person("John",24)
println(p.render())
All cool--but it doesn't work. Is there a way I can make this loadable-implementation thing work? Am I close?
The DataFormatable trait is doing nothing here but holding you back. You should just get rid of it. Since you want to swap out render implementations based on the existence of implicits in scope, Person can't have it's own render method. The compiler will only look for an implicit conversion to PersonRender if Person doesn't have a method named render in the first place. But because Person inherits (or is forced to implement) render from DataFormatable, there is no need to look for the implicit conversion.
Based on your edit, if you have a collection of List[AnItem], it is also not possible to implicitly convert the elements to have render. While each of the sub-classes may have an implicit conversion that gives them render, the compiler doesn't know that when they are all piled into a list of a more abstract type. Particularly an empty trait such as AnItem.
How can you make this work? You have two simple options.
One, if you want to stick with the implicit conversions, you need to remove DataFormatable as the super-type of your case classes, so that they do not have their own render method. Then you can swap out XML._ and JSON._, and the conversions should work. However, you won't be allowed mixed collections.
Two, drop the implicits altogether and have your trait look like this:
trait DataFormatable {
def toXML: String
def toJSON: String
}
This way, you force every class that mixes in DataFormatable to contain serialization information (which is the way it should be, rather than hiding them in implicits). Now, when you have a List[DataFormatable], you can prove all of the elements can both be converted to JSON or XML, so you can convert a mixed list. I think this would be much better overall, as the code should be more straightforward. What imports you have shouldn't really be defining the behavior of what follows. Imagine the confusion that can arise because XML._ has been imported at the top of the file instead of JSON._.
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
I'm trying to figure out how to .clone my own objects, in Scala.
This is for a simulation so mutable state is a must, and from that arises the whole need for cloning. I'll clone a whole state structure before moving the simulation time ahead.
This is my current try:
abstract trait Cloneable[A] {
// Seems we cannot declare the prototype of a copy constructor
//protected def this(o: A) // to be defined by the class itself
def myClone= new A(this)
}
class S(var x: String) extends Cloneable[S] {
def this(o:S)= this(o.x) // for 'Cloneable'
def toString= x
}
object TestX {
val s1= new S("say, aaa")
println( s1.myClone )
}
a. Why does the above not compile. Gives:
error: class type required but A found
def myClone= new A(this)
^
b. Is there a way to declare the copy constructor (def this(o:A)) in the trait, so that classes using the trait would be shown to need to provide one.
c. Is there any benefit from saying abstract trait?
Finally, is there a way better, standard solution for all this?
I've looked into Java cloning. Does not seem to be for this. Also Scala copy is not - it's only for case classes and they shouldn't have mutable state.
Thanks for help and any opinions.
Traits can't define constructors (and I don't think abstract has any effect on a trait).
Is there any reason it needs to use a copy constructor rather than just implementing a clone method? It might be possible to get out of having to declare the [A] type on the class, but I've at least declared a self type so the compiler will make sure that the type matches the class.
trait DeepCloneable[A] { self: A =>
def deepClone: A
}
class Egg(size: Int) extends DeepCloneable[Egg] {
def deepClone = new Egg(size)
}
object Main extends App {
val e = new Egg(3)
println(e)
println(e.deepClone)
}
http://ideone.com/CS9HTW
It would suggest a typeclass based approach. With this it is possible to also let existing classes be cloneable:
class Foo(var x: Int)
trait Copyable[A] {
def copy(a: A): A
}
implicit object FooCloneable extends Copyable[Foo] {
def copy(foo: Foo) = new Foo(foo.x)
}
implicit def any2Copyable[A: Copyable](a: A) = new {
def copy = implicitly[Copyable[A]].copy(a)
}
scala> val x = new Foo(2)
x: Foo = Foo#8d86328
scala> val y = x.copy
y: Foo = Foo#245e7588
scala> x eq y
res2: Boolean = false
a. When you define a type parameter like the A it gets erased after the compilation phase.
This means that the compiler uses type parameters to check that you use the correct types, but the resulting bytecode retains no information of A.
This also implies that you cannot use A as a real class in code but only as a "type reference", because at runtime this information is lost.
b & c. traits cannot define constructor parameters or auxiliary constructors by definition, they're also abstract by definition.
What you can do is define a trait body that gets called upon instantiation of the concrete implementation
One alternative solution is to define a Cloneable typeclass. For more on this you can find lots of blogs on the subject, but I have no suggestion for a specific one.
scalaz has a huge part built using this pattern, maybe you can find inspiration there: you can look at Order, Equal or Show to get the gist of it.