Scalatra file organisation - scala

How should I manage my files in Scalatra . After encountering the following error my fundamental understanding of "code separation" in Scala has been destroyed .
Working in Scalatra I defined an class in one file and received an in an error after attempting to define a class with the same name in another file . I was somewhat confused about the error because I was working under the impression that there was some degree of isolation afforded to each file ( Node JS inspired assumption).
I cam currently working on an application that requires : Actors, Routes, Classes, etc . How should I organize these things ?

Classes of the same name need to be in different packages. You can use imports to avoid having to type the full path (packagename.ClassName), but if you don't create separate packages there is no way to unambiguously refer to the class you mean. That quickly grows unworkable in code bases of more than moderate size.
So, no, separate files are not enough.

Related

Absolute and relative path conflict in Modelica

I want to build up a tests library and keep it separated from the libraries under development. My first thought is to go for a structure like the following:
PensLib
--Variants
----BallPoint
----FountainPen
----Tests
------TB_BallPoint
HammocksLib
--Variants
----SingleHammock
----DoubleHammock
----Tests
------TB_DoubleHammock
--Systems
----IndoorWalls
----OutdoorWallAndTree
----CoconutPalms
----Tests
------TB_IndoorWalls
Tests
--PensLib
----Variants
------Test_BallPoint // extends PensLib.Variants.Tests.TB_BallPoint
--HammocksLib
----Variants
------Test_DoubleHammock // extends HammocksLib.Variants.Tests.TB_DoubleHammock
----Systems
------Test_IndoorWalls // extends HammocksLib.Systems.Tests.TB_IndoorWalls
For now let's assume that the way I structure my libraries make sense (which most likely doesn't). I will soon ask more questions on good practices in setting up the testing environment in Dymola and with the Testing Library.
My question is about the correct way to handle relative and absolute paths within models, if possible at all.
The model PensLib.Variants.Tests.TB_BallPoint is used for developing the variant BallPoint
The model Tests.PensLib.Variants.Tests_BallPoint is used for automated testing
I want the model Test_BallPoint to extend the model TB_BallPoint, but I cannot link them. I guess the absolute path PensLib.Variants.Tests.TB_BallPoint is treated as a relative one, since PensLib is found "on the way out" of the Tests library, and from there it goes looking for the rest of the path. Is there perhaps a way to control the path, kind of ..\..\..\PensLib\Variants\Tests\TB_BallPoint?
As you already noted such a setup makes troubles. There are ways around that, namely global name lookup and imports, which I explain briefly further below.
Both solutions are nice when you have such a case in a few situations. But if you have to use it all the time, you make your setup unnecessarily complicated.
Hence, I suggest to make yourself the live easier and change your package structure:
Either create a dedicated test library for every library, maybe PensLib_Tests and HammocksLib_Tests
Or rename the packages in the Tests library and don't use the exact library names
Global name lookup
You can use absolute class paths. They are denoted with a leading ., so this should work:
extends .PensLib.Variants.Tests.TB_BallPoint;
See Modelica Specification chapter 5: Scoping, Name Lookup, and Flattening for details, especially 5.3.3 Global Name Lookup
Importing
You can simply import the library. Lookup of imports is always performed globally.
import PensLib;
extends PensLib.Variants.Tests.TB_BallPoint;

zend framework own functions and classes

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).

Problems compiling routes after migrating to Play 2.1

After migrating to Play-2.1 I stuck into problem that routes compiler stopped working for my routes file. It's been completely fine with Play-2.0.4, but now I'm getting the build error and can't find any workaround for it.
In my project I'm using cake pattern, so controller actions are visible not through <package>.<controller class>.<action>, but through <package>.<component registry>.<controller instance>.<action>. New Play routes compiler is using all action path components except for the last two to form package name that will be used in managed sources (as far as I can get code in https://github.com/playframework/Play20/blob/2.1.0/framework/src/routes-compiler/src/main/scala/play/router/RoutesCompiler.scala). In my case it leads to situation when <package>.<component registry> is chosen as package name, which results in error during build:
[error] server/target/scala-2.10/src_managed/main/com/grumpycats/mmmtg/componentsRegistry/routes.java:5: componentsRegistry is already defined as object componentsRegistry
[error] package com.grumpycats.mmmtg.componentsRegistry;
I made the sample project to demonstrate this problem: https://github.com/rmihael/play-2.1-routes-problem
Is it possible to workaround this problem somehow without dropping cake pattern for controllers? It's the pity that I can't proceed with Play 2.1 due to this problem.
Because of reputation I can not create a comment.
The convention is that classes and objects start with upper case. This convention is applied to pattern matching as well. Looking at a string there seems to be no difference between a package object and normal object (appart from the case). I am not sure how Play 2.1 handles things, that's why this is not an answer but a comment.
You could try the new # syntax in the router. That allows you to create an instance from the Global class. You would still specify <package>.<controller class>.<action>, but in the Global you get it from somewhere else (for example a component registry).
You can find a bit of extra information here under the 'Managed Controller classes instantiation': http://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.1.0/Highlights
This demo project shows it's usage: https://github.com/guillaumebort/play20-spring-demo

Duplicate controller names from different plugins

I have a question regarding the file loading system from Cakephp2.3.
I have two plugins - let's call them "Contacts" and "Managers", loaded like this:
CakePlugin::load('Contacts');
CakePlugin::load('Managers');
Each of them has a controller called "DashboardController.php" with an index() action.
When I try to access the dashboard page for "Contacts", sometimes I see the following error:
Error: Class "ManagersAppController" not found
even though the url looks like this:
http://mysite.com/contacts/dashboard
I read that Cakephp2.3 doesn't support namespaces and this might happen because I have two php classes (DashboardController.php) with the same name. At the same time, I know that Cake should map the plugin name first, so it should be able to handle duplicate file names.
Do you have any idea why I'm seeing this random error?
Thanks for your help.
I just found the answer from the guys the developed CakePHP. Indeed, you can't have two controllers or models with the same name, even though they are located in different plugins.
This happens only in CakePHP2.x and I quote:
This is a known limitation of Cake2.x and the lazy loading approach
using App::uses()
You can see my question and their answer here: http://cakephp.lighthouseapp.com/projects/42648-cakephp/tickets/3558-loading-file-from-a-different-plugin
The solution is to rename the controllers/models with conflicting names and/or name all controllers and models from a plugin using the plugin name (ex. DashboardController.php will become ContactsDashboardController.php)

Where to add i18n files in a project (for my case GWT)?

I can't find a good answer to this simple question:
Where can I add my i18n files in a GWT project ?
I see two solutions:
- create a module and add all i18n files for this module in this module
- create a complete different structure to put all i18n files (no matter what module) in the same directory (and so, easy to create a new language)
My feeling is that the second approach is better but in gwt samples, it's the first approach which is generally used.
And you, what do you do with yours i18n files ?
Thanks
1) Create a separate package in your module. Dump all message files there along with the property files.
2) As a best practice create a base message class and EXTEND other message interfaces from the base one. You can reference base message class in code and depending on which instance of message class you point too, your actual value will change.
Another approach, create a new i18n module and inherit that in your actual model.
1) Allows all messages to be in one place.
2) Easy to hand over to localization people for translation.
I usually put the i18n files (*.properties) in the same package as the Constants (or any other i18n related class) derived interface that's using them (less hassle with setup) - usually the package is named i18n.