When you see code that follows this pattern:
def index = Action { request =>
// ..
}
Action trait: https://github.com/playframework/playframework/blob/master/framework/src/play/src/main/scala/play/api/mvc/Action.scala#L65
When looking at this code, how would you know that the request object is available to use within the code block? (is there a intellij shortcut for this?)
Can someone please create a miniature example of where you can mimic this pattern so I can understand how this works, and if you can explain in technical terms what is going on?
The Action trait is not of interest here. Instead, because the body of the index method must be a value, not a type, you are looking at the Action object. You can learn more about objects here. Let's first simplify the syntax by removing syntactic sugar, i.e. making the program behave the same but with simpler constructs. If you try to call an object as if it were a method, what really happens is that .apply is inserted for you by the compiler:
def index = Action.apply((request) => {
// ..
})
This may be more familiar; the apply method is being called on the Action object, passing a lambda function that takes a request. And obviously, an argument to a lambda is always available within that lambda. That's the point of them.
The lambda in this case is also known as a callback. A simple example that clarifies these features follows:
object WithAnswer {
def apply(f: Int => Unit): Unit =
f(42)
}
def printAnswer() = WithAnswer { answer =>
println(answer)
}
This is called as Loan pattern
withWriter creates a writer for the user and then ensures the resource (writer) is properly closely after using.
All that user has to do is just use the writer and write something to the file
def withWriter(file: File)(f: Writer => Unit): Unit = {
val writer = new PrintWriter(file)
try {
f(writer)
} finally {
writer close
}
}
Usage:
withWriter(new File("some_fix.txt") { writer =>
writer println("write something")
}
Related
What is still unclear for is what's the advantage by-name parameters over anonymous functions in terms of lazy evaluation and other benefits if any:
def func1(a: => Int)
def func2(a: () => Int)
When should I use the first and when the second one?
This is not the copy of What's the difference between => , ()=>, and Unit=>
Laziness is the same in the both cases, but there are slight differences. Consider:
def generateInt(): Int = { ... }
def byFunc(a: () => Int) { ... }
def byName(a: => Int) { ... }
// you can pass method without
// generating additional anonymous function
byFunc(generateInt)
// but both of the below are the same
// i.e. additional anonymous function is generated
byName(generateInt)
byName(() => generateInt())
Functions with call-by-name however is useful for making DSLs. For instance:
def measured(block: ⇒ Unit): Long = {
val startTime = System.currentTimeMillis()
block
System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime
}
Long timeTaken = measured {
// any code here you like to measure
// written just as there were no "measured" around
}
def func1(a: => Int) {
val b = a // b is of type Int, and it`s value is the result of evaluation of a
}
def func2(a: () => Int) {
val b = a // b is of type Function0 (is a reference to function a)
}
An example might give a pretty thorough tour of the differences.
Consider that you wanted to write your own version of the veritable while loop in Scala. I know, I know... using while in Scala? But this isn't about functional programming, this is an example that demonstrates the topic well. So hang with me. We'll call our own version whyle. Furthermore, we want to implement it without using Scala's builtin while. To pull that off we can make our whyle construct recursive. Also, we'll add the #tailrec annotation to make sure that our implementation can be used as a real-world substitute for the built-in while. Here's a first go at it:
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def whyle(predicate: () => Boolean)(block: () => Unit): Unit = {
if (predicate()) {
block()
whyle(predicate)(block)
}
}
Let's see how this works. We can pass in parameterized code blocks to whyle. The first is the predicate parameterized function. The second is the block parameterized function. How would we use this?
What we want is for our end user to use the whyle just like you would the while control structure:
// Using the vanilla 'while'
var i = 0
while(i < args.length) {
println(args(i))
i += 1
}
But since our code blocks are parameterized, the end-user of our whyle loop must add some ugly syntactic sugar to get it to work:
// Ouch, our whyle is hideous
var i = 0
whyle( () => i < args.length) { () =>
println(args(i))
i += 1
}
So. It appears that if we want the end-user to be able to call our whyle loop in a more familiar, native looking style, we'll need to use parameterless functions. But then we have a really big problem. As soon as you use parameterless functions, you can no longer have your cake and eat it too. You can only eat your cake. Behold:
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def whyle(predicate: => Boolean)(block: => Unit): Unit = {
if (predicate) {
block
whyle(predicate)(block) // !!! THIS DOESN'T WORK LIKE YOU THINK !!!
}
}
Wow. Now the user can call our whyle loop the way they expect... but our implementation doesn't make any sense. You have no way of both calling a parameterless function and passing the function itself around as a value. You can only call it. That's what I mean by only eating your cake. You can't have it, too. And therefore our recursive implementation now goes out the window. It only works with the parameterized functions which is unfortunately pretty ugly.
We might be tempted at this point to cheat. We could rewrite our whyle loop to use Scala's built-in while:
def whyle(pred: => Boolean)(block: => Unit): Unit = while(pred)(block)
Now we can use our whyle exactly like while, because we only needed to be able to eat our cake... we didn't need to have it, too.
var i = 0
whyle(i < args.length) {
println(args(i))
i += 1
}
But we cheated! Actually, here's a way to have our very own tail-optimized version of the while loop:
def whyle(predicate: => Boolean)(block: => Unit): Unit = {
#tailrec
def whyle_internal(predicate2: () => Boolean)(block2: () => Unit): Unit = {
if (predicate2()) {
block2()
whyle_internal(predicate2)(block2)
}
}
whyle_internal(predicate _)(block _)
}
Can you figure out what we just did?? We have our original (but ugly) parameterized functions in the inner function here. We have it wrapped with a function that takes as arguments parameterless functions. It then calls the inner function and converts the parameterless functions into parameterized functions (by turning them into partially applied functions).
Let's try it out and see if it works:
var i = 0
whyle(i < args.length) {
println(args(i))
i += 1
}
And it does!
Thankfully, since in Scala we have closures we can clean this up big time:
def whyle(predicate: => Boolean)(block: => Unit): Unit = {
#tailrec
def whyle_internal: Unit = {
if (predicate) {
block
whyle_internal
}
}
whyle_internal
}
Cool. Anyways, those are some really big differences between parameterless and parameterized functions. I hope this gives you some ideas!
The two formats are used interchangeably, but there are some cases where we can use only one of theme.
let's explain by example, suppose that we need to define a case class with two parameters :
{
.
.
.
type Action = () => Unit;
case class WorkItem(time : Int, action : Action);
.
.
.
}
as we can see, the second parametre of the WorkItem class has a type Action.
if we try to replace this parameter with the other format =>,
case class WorkItem1(time : Int, s : => Unit) the compiler will show a message error :
Multiple markers at this line:
`val' parameters may not be call-by-name Call-by-name parameter
creation: () ⇒
so as we have see the format ()=> is more generic and we can use it to define Type, as class field or method parameter, in the other side => format can used as method parameter but not as class field.
A by-name type, in which the empty parameter list, (), is left out, is only
allowed for parameters. There is no such thing as a by-name variable or a
by-name field.
You should use the first function definition if you want to pass as the argument an Int by name.
Use the second definition if you want the argument to be a parameterless function returning an Int.
I am developing Play application and I've just started with Scala. I see that there is this word Action after the equals sign in the function below and before curly brace.
def index = Action {
Ok(views.html.index("Hi there"))
}
What does this code do? I've seen it used with def index = { but not with the word before the curly brace.
I would assume that the name of the function is index. But I do not know what the word Action does in this situation.
This word is a part of Play Framework, and it's an object, which has method apply(block: ⇒ Result), so your code is actually:
def index: Action[AnyContent] = Action.apply({
Ok.apply(views.html.index("Hi there"))
})
Your index method returns an instance of the class Action[AnyContent].
By the way, you're passing a block of code {Ok(...)} to apply method, which (block of code) is actually acts as anonymous function here, because the required type for apply's input is not just Result but ⇒ Result, which means that it takes an anonymous function with no input parameters, which returns Result. So, your Ok-block will be executed when container, received your instance of class Action (from index method), decided to execute this block. Which simply means that you're just describing an action here - not executing - it will be actually executed when Play received your request - and find binding to your action inside routing file.
Also, you don't have to use def here as you always return same action - val or lazy val is usually enough. You will need a def only if you actually want to pass some parameter from routing table (for instance):
GET /clients/:id controllers.SomeController.index(id: Long)
def index(id: Long) = Action { ... } // new action generated for every new request here
Another possible approach is to choose Action, based on parameter:
def index(id: Long) = {
if (id == 0) Action {...} else Action{...}
}
But uasually you can use routing table itself for that, which is better for decoupling. This example just shows that Action is nothing more than return value.
Update for #Kazuya
val method1 = Action{...} //could be def too, no big difference here
// this (code inside Action) gonna be called separately after "index" (if method2 is requested of course)
// notice that it needs the whole request, so it (request) should be completely parsed at the time
val method2 = Action{ req => // you can extract additional params from request
val param1 = req.headers("header1")
...
}
//This is gonna be called first, notice that Play doesn't need the whole request body here, so it might not even be parsed on this stage
def index(methodName: String) = methodName match {
case "method1" => method1
case "method2" => method2
}
GWT/Scala.js use simillar approach for client-server interaction. This is just one possible solution to explain importance of the parameter "methodName" passed from routing table. So, action could be thought as a wrapper over function that in its turn represents a reference to OOP-method, which makes it useful for both REST and RPC purposes.
The other answers deal with your specific case. You asked about the general case, however, so I'll attempt to answer from that perspective.
First off, def is used to define a method, not a function (better to learn that difference now). But, you're right, index is the name of that method.
Now, unlike other languages you might be familiar with (e.g., C, Java), Scala lets you define methods with an expression (as suggested by the use of the assignment operator syntax, =). That is, everything after the = is an expression that will be evaluated to a value each time the method is invoked.
So, whereas in Java you have to say:
public int three() { return 3; }
In Scala, you can just say:
def three = 3
Of course, the expression is usually more complicated (as in your case). It could be a block of code, like you're more used to seeing, in which case the value is that of the last expression in the block:
def three = {
val a = 1
val b = 2
a + b
}
Or it might involve a method invocation on some other object:
def three = Numbers.add(1, 2)
The latter is, in fact, exactly what's going on in your specific example, although it requires a bit more explanation to understand why. There are two bits of magic involved:
If an object has an apply method, then you can treat the object as if it were a function. You can say, for example, Add(1, 2) when you really mean Add.apply(1,2) (assuming there's an Add object with an apply method, of course). And just to be clear, it doesn't have to be an object defined with the object keyword. Any object with a suitable apply method will do.
If a method has a single by-name parameter (e.g., def ifWaterBoiling(fn: => Tea)), then you can invoke the method like ifWaterBoiling { makeTea }. The code in that block is evaluated lazily (and may not be evaluated at all). This would be equivalent to writing ifWaterBoiling({ makeTea }). The { makeTea } part just defines an expression that gets passed in, unevaluated, for the fn parameter.
Its the Action being called on with an expression block as argument. (The apply method is used under the hood).
Action.apply({
Ok("Hello world")
})
A simple example (from here) is as follows (look at comments in code):
case class Logging[A](action: Action[A]) extends Action[A] {
def apply(request: Request[A]): Result = {// apply method which is called on expression
Logger.info("Calling action")
action(request) // action being called on further with the request provided to Logging Action
}
lazy val parser = action.parser
}
Now you can use it to wrap any other action value:
def index = Logging { // Expression argument starts
Action { // Action argument (goes under request)
Ok("Hello World")
}
}
Also, the case you mentioned for def index = { is actually returning Unit like: def index: Unit = {.
I try to feel the advantage of implicit parameters in Scala. (EDITED: special case when anonymous function is used. Please look at the links in this question)
I try to make simple emulation based on this post. Where explained how Action works in PlayFramework. This also related to that.
The following code is for that purpose:
object ImplicitArguments extends App {
implicit val intValue = 1 // this is exiting value to be passed implicitly to everyone who might use it
def fun(block: Int=>String): String = { // we do not use _implicit_ here !
block(2) // ?? how to avoid passing '2' but make use of that would be passed implicitly ?
}
// here we use _implicit_ keyword to make it know that the value should be passed !
val result = fun{ implicit intValue => { // this is my 'block'
intValue.toString // (which is anonymous function)
}
}
println(result) // prints 2
}
I want to get "1" printed.
How to avoid passing magic "2" but use "1" that was defined implicitly?
Also see the case where we do not use implicit in definition, but it is there, because of anonymous function passing with implicit.
EDITED:
Just in case, I'm posting another example - simple emulation of how Play' Action works:
object ImplicitArguments extends App {
case class Request(msg:String)
implicit val request = Request("my request")
case class Result(msg:String)
case class Action(result:Result)
object Action {
def apply(block:Request => Result):Action = {
val result = block(...) // what should be here ??
new Action(result)
}
}
val action = Action { implicit request =>
Result("Got request [" + request + "]")
}
println(action)
}
Implicits don't work like this. There is no magic. They are just (usually) hidden parameters and are therefore resolved when invoking the function.
There are two ways to make your code work.
you can fix the implicit value for all invocations of fun
def fun(block: Int=>String): String = {
block(implicitly[Int])
}
implicitly is a function defined in Predef. Again no magic. Here's it's definition
def implicitly[A](implicit value: A) = value
But this means it will resolve the implicit value when declaring the fun and not for each invocation.
If you want to use different values for different invocations you will need to add the implicit paramter
def fun(block: Int=>String)(implicit value: Int): String = {
block(value)
}
This will now depend on the implicit scope at the call site. And you can easily override it like this
val result = fun{ _.toString }(3)
and result will be "3" because of the explicit 3 at the end. There is, however, no way to magically change the fun from your declaration to fetch values from implicit scope.
I hope you understand implicits better now, they can be a bit tricky to wrap your head around at first.
It seems that for that particular case I asked, the answer might be like this:
That this is not really a good idea to use implicit intValue or implicit request along with implicitly() using only one parameter for the function that accept (anonymous) function.
Why not, because:
Say, if in block(...) in apply() I would use implicitly[Request], then
it does not matter whether I use "implicit request" or not - it will use
request that is defined implicitly somewhere. Even if I would pass my
own request to Action { myOwnRequest =Result }.
For that particular case is better to use currying and two arguments and.. in the second argument - (first)(second) to use implicit
Like this:
def apply(block:Request => Result)(implicit request:Request):Action2
See my little effort around this example/use case here.
But, I don't see any good example so far in regards to how to use implicit by passing the (anonymous) function as argument (my initial question):
fun{ implicit intValue => {intValue.toString}
or that one (updated version):
val action = Action { implicit request =>
Result("Got request [" + request + "]")
}
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. ;)