I have a trait that's implemented by a large number of classes, and I'd like to use the names of the classes that implement this trait at runtime, but with as much code centralized as possible.
Specifically, in my code, I'm using tokens to represent classes to be initialized at runtime. The tokens carry configuration, and the actual class is instantiated as needed via the token, combined with run-time information. For linking with resources outside of my app, I want to be able to access the name of the class for which a token is defined. See the example:
trait Token[Cls] {
val className = ???
// Example generic method depending on final class name
def printClassName = println(className)
}
case class ClassA(t: ClassAToken, runtimeContext: String) {
// a bunch of other code
}
object ClassA {
case class ClassAToken(configParam: String) extends Token[ClassA]
}
So, I'm trying to implement className. Ideally, I can pull this information once at compile time. How can I do this, while keeping boilerplate code out of ClassA? Although, if I can drop the type parameter and get the name of the class implementing the Token trait at runtime, that's great too.
Due to Type Erasure Cls is not available on runtime anymore. To get the informations at runtime, you need to use a TypeTag (in your case a ClassTag).
Your code could look like this:
import scala.reflect._
trait Token[Cls] {
def className(implicit ct: ClassTag[Cls]) = ct.runtimeClass.getName
// Example generic method depending on final class name
def printClassName(implicit ct: ClassTag[Cls]) = println(className)
}
case class ClassA(t: ClassAToken, runtimeContext: String) {
// a bunch of other code
}
object ClassA {
case class ClassAToken(configParam: String) extends Token[ClassA]
}
or if it is possible for you to let Token be an class, you could use the ClassTag context bounds:
import scala.reflect._
class Token[Cls: ClassTag] {
def className = classTag[Cls].runtimeClass.getName
// Example generic method depending on final class name
def printClassName = println(className)
}
case class ClassA(t: ClassAToken, runtimeContext: String) {
// a bunch of other code
}
object ClassA {
case class ClassAToken(configParam: String) extends Token[ClassA]
}
For more informations on TypeTags/ClassTags see Scala: What is a TypeTag and how do I use it?
Related
Suppose I have two classes, Person and Business, that are extended by the trait Entity.
trait Entity
case class Person(name: String) extends Entity
case class Business(id: String) extends Entity
Assuming I cannot change Entity, Person and Business (they are in a different file and not to be changed) how can I define a function, say a printEntity, that prints the field name or id, depending on the entity? For example, given instances of Person and Business, how can I do something like this:
object Main extends App {
val person1: Person = Person("Aaaa Bbbb")
val business1: Business = Business("0001")
// How can I do something like this?
person1.printEntity // would call a function that executes println(id)
business1.printEntity // would call a function that executes println(name)
}
Any ideas are appreciated! Sorry for the lack of context, I am still learning!
This is done via so called "extension methods". In scala 2 this is achieved using implicit wrapper class:
trait Entity
case class Person(name: String) extends Entity
case class Business(id: String) extends Entity
implicit class PersonWrapper(val p: Person) extends AnyVal {
def printEntity(): Unit = {
println(p.name)
}
}
implicit class BusinessWrapper(val b: Business) extends AnyVal {
def printEntity(): Unit = {
println(b.id)
}
}
val person1: Person = Person("Aaaa Bbbb")
val business1: Business = Business("0001")
person1.printEntity()
business1.printEntity()
// prints:
//Aaaa Bbbb
//0001
Note, x.printEntity can be called without parentheses, but, by convention, methods with Unit result type and side effects should be called with explicit empty parentheses.
UPD: As #DmytroMitin pointed out, you should extend implicit wrapper classes from AnyVal. This allows the compiler to avoid actually allocating wrapper class instances at runtime, improving performance.
I need to access a companion class with a specified trait -- from a trait intended for case classes. I am almost certain that the Scala reflection library can accomplish this but I haven't quite been able to piece it together.
I created test code below that requires one section of ??? be filled in with some reflection magic. The code compiles and runs as is -- with a notification due to the missing functionality.
Some related answers that I have seen on StackOverflow were from 2.10. Scala 2.12 compatible please.
import scala.reflect.{ClassTag, classTag}
//for companion object
//accesses Fields of the associated case class to ensure the correctness
//note: abstract class -- not a trait due to issues using ClassTag on a trait
abstract class SupportsField1Companion[T: ClassTag] {
//gets the names of all Fields on the associated case class
val fieldNamesOfInstancedClass: Array[String] =
classTag[T].runtimeClass.getDeclaredFields.map(_.getName)
//prints the name and fields of the associated case class -- plus extra on success
def printFieldNames(extra: String = ""): Unit = {
val name = classTag[T].runtimeClass.getCanonicalName
val fields = fieldNamesOfInstancedClass.reduceLeft(_ + ", " + _)
println(s"Fields of $name: $fields" + extra)
}
}
//for case classes
//IMPORTANT -- please do not parameterize this if possible
trait SupportsField1 {
//some data for printing
val field1: String = this.getClass.getCanonicalName + ": field1"
//should get a reference to the associated companion object as instance of SupportsFieldsCompanion
def getSupportsFieldsCompanion: SupportsField1Companion[this.type] = //this.type may be wrong
??? //TODO reflection magic required -- need functionality to retrieve companion object cast as type
//calls a function on the associated Companion class
def callPrintFuncOnCompanion(): Unit =
getSupportsFieldsCompanion.printFieldNames(s" -- from ${this.getClass.getCanonicalName}")
}
//two case classes with the SupportsFieldsCompanion trait to ensure data is accessed correctly
object ExampleA extends SupportsField1Companion[ExampleA] {}
case class ExampleA() extends SupportsField1 {
val fieldA: String = "ExampleA: fieldA"
}
object ExampleB extends SupportsField1Companion[ExampleB] {}
case class ExampleB() extends SupportsField1 {
val fieldB: String = "ExampleB: fieldB"
}
object Run extends App {
//create instanced classes and print some test data
val exampleA = ExampleA()
println(exampleA.field1) //prints "ExampleA: field1" due to trait SupportsFields
println(exampleA.fieldA) //prints "ExampleA: fieldA" due to being of class ExampleA
val exampleB = ExampleB()
println(exampleB.field1) //prints "ExampleB: field1" due to trait SupportsFields
println(exampleB.fieldB) //prints "ExampleB: fieldB" due to being of class ExampleB
//via the SupportsFieldsCompanion trait on the companion objects,
//call a function on each companion object to show that each companion is associated with the correct case class
ExampleA.printFieldNames() //prints "Fields of ExampleA: fieldA, field1"
ExampleB.printFieldNames() //prints "Fields of ExampleB: fieldB, field1"
//test access of printFieldNames on companion object from instanced class
try {
exampleA.callPrintFuncOnCompanion() //on success, prints "Fields of ExampleA: fieldA, field1 -- from ExampleA"
exampleB.callPrintFuncOnCompanion() //on success, prints "Fields of ExampleB: fieldB, field1 -- from ExampleB"
} catch {
case _: NotImplementedError => println("!!! Calling function on companion(s) failed.")
}
}
There are lots of ways you can do this, but the following is probably one of the simplest that doesn't involve making assumptions about how Scala's companion object class name mangling works:
def getSupportsFieldsCompanion: SupportsField1Companion[this.type] =
scala.reflect.runtime.ReflectionUtils.staticSingletonInstance(
this.getClass.getClassLoader,
this.getClass.getCanonicalName
).asInstanceOf[SupportsField1Companion[this.type]]
This works as desired, but I'd probably type it as SupportsField1Companion[_], and ideally I'd probably avoid having public methods on SupportsField1 that refer to SupportsField1Companion—actually ideally I'd probably avoid this approach altogether, but if you're committed I think the ReflectionUtil solution above is probably reasonable.
Scala throws "reassignment to val" error for the following code.
abstract case class Gun(var bulletCount:Int)
class Pistol(bulletCount:Int) extends Gun(bulletCount){
def fire() { bulletCount=bulletCount-1 }
}
Anything I missed here?
For starters, you should consider case class as final, and not extend them.
Second, do not use var with case class, you should rather create a copy of a case class to get one of its field changed.
Third, if you want a common type, you can use a base trait.
All in one, here's what it could look like:
sealed trait Gun {
def bulletCount: Int
}
case class Pistol(bulletCount: Int) extends Gun {
def fire(): Pistol = copy(bulletCount=bulletCount)
}
You're referring to bulletCount field generated by Pistol primary constructor parameter. To set base class variable, you need to directly call field using super:
class Pistol(bulletCount: Int) extends Gun(bulletCount) {
def fire(): Unit = {
super.bulletCount = super.bulletCount - 1
}
}
Alternatively, you can label parameter-generated field with override var:
class Pistol(override var bulletCount: Int) extends Gun(bulletCount) {
def fire(): Unit = {
bulletCount = bulletCount - 1
}
}
On a side note, as Frederic A. suggested in his answer, you should avoid inheriting case classes. They are syntactic sugar, and code generation don't work over inheritance - you'll need to implement all the fancy stuff like apply or unapply methods in companion class all by yourself. Scala compiler team tried to support case class to case class inheritance, but discovered that it breaks structural equality and lots of other things.
For a project of mine I have implemented a Enum based upon
trait Enum[A] {
trait Value { self: A =>
_values :+= this
}
private var _values = List.empty[A]
def values = _values
}
sealed trait Currency extends Currency.Value
object Currency extends Enum[Currency] {
case object EUR extends Currency
case object GBP extends Currency
}
from Case objects vs Enumerations in Scala. I worked quite nice, till I run into the following problem. Case objects seem to be lazy and if I use Currency.value I might actually get an empty List. It would have been possible to make a call against all Enum Values on startup so that the value list would be populated, but that would be kind of defeating the point.
So I ventured into the dark and unknown places of scala reflection and came up with this solution, based upon the following SO answers. Can I get a compile-time list of all of the case objects which derive from a sealed parent in Scala?
and How can I get the actual object referred to by Scala 2.10 reflection?
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
abstract class Enum[A: TypeTag] {
trait Value
private def sealedDescendants: Option[Set[Symbol]] = {
val symbol = typeOf[A].typeSymbol
val internal = symbol.asInstanceOf[scala.reflect.internal.Symbols#Symbol]
if (internal.isSealed)
Some(internal.sealedDescendants.map(_.asInstanceOf[Symbol]) - symbol)
else None
}
def values = (sealedDescendants getOrElse Set.empty).map(
symbol => symbol.owner.typeSignature.member(symbol.name.toTermName)).map(
module => reflect.runtime.currentMirror.reflectModule(module.asModule).instance).map(
obj => obj.asInstanceOf[A]
)
}
The amazing part of this is that it actually works, but it is ugly as hell and I would be interested if it would be possible to make this simpler and more elegant and to get rid of the asInstanceOf calls.
Here is a simple macro based implementation:
import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros.blackbox
abstract class Enum[E] {
def values: Seq[E] = macro Enum.caseObjectsSeqImpl[E]
}
object Enum {
def caseObjectsSeqImpl[A: c.WeakTypeTag](c: blackbox.Context) = {
import c.universe._
val typeSymbol = weakTypeOf[A].typeSymbol.asClass
require(typeSymbol.isSealed)
val subclasses = typeSymbol.knownDirectSubclasses
.filter(_.asClass.isCaseClass)
.map(s => Ident(s.companion))
.toList
val seqTSymbol = weakTypeOf[Seq[A]].typeSymbol.companion
c.Expr(Apply(Ident(seqTSymbol), subclasses))
}
}
With this you could then write:
sealed trait Currency
object Currency extends Enum[Currency] {
case object USD extends Currency
case object EUR extends Currency
}
so then
Currency.values == Seq(Currency.USD, Currency.EUR)
Since it's a macro, the Seq(Currency.USD, Currency.EUR) is generated at compile time, rather than runtime. Note, though, that since it's a macro, the definition of the class Enum must be in a separate project from where it is used (i.e. the concrete subclasses of Enum like Currency). This is a relatively simple implementation; you could do more complicated things like traverse multilevel class hierarchies to find more case objects at the cost of greater complexity, but hopefully this will get you started.
A late answer, but anyways...
As wallnuss said, knownDirectSubclasses is unreliable as of writing and has been for quite some time.
I created a small lib called Enumeratum (https://github.com/lloydmeta/enumeratum) that allows you to use case objects as enums in a similar way, but doesn't use knownDirectSubclasses and instead looks at the body that encloses the method call to find subclasses. It has proved to be reliable thus far.
The article "“You don’t need a macro” Except when you do" by Max Afonov
maxaf describes a nice way to use macro for defining enums.
The end-result of that implementation is visible in github.com/maxaf/numerato
Simply create a plain class, annotate it with #enum, and use the familiar val ... = Value declaration to define a few enum values.
The #enum annotation invokes a macro, which will:
Replace your Status class with a sealed Status class suitable for acting as a base type for enum values. Specifically, it'll grow a (val index: Int, val name: String) constructor. These parameters will be supplied by the macro, so you don't have to worry about it.
Generate a Status companion object, which will contain most of the pieces that now make Status an enumeration. This includes a values: List[Status], plus lookup methods.
Give the above Status enum, here's what the generated code looks like:
scala> #enum(debug = true) class Status {
| val Enabled, Disabled = Value
| }
{
sealed abstract class Status(val index: Int, val name: String)(implicit sealant: Status.Sealant);
object Status {
#scala.annotation.implicitNotFound(msg = "Enum types annotated with ".+("#enum can not be extended directly. To add another value to the enum, ").+("please adjust your `def ... = Value` declaration.")) sealed abstract protected class Sealant;
implicit protected object Sealant extends Sealant;
case object Enabled extends Status(0, "Enabled") with scala.Product with scala.Serializable;
case object Disabled extends Status(1, "Disabled") with scala.Product with scala.Serializable;
val values: List[Status] = List(Enabled, Disabled);
val fromIndex: _root_.scala.Function1[Int, Status] = Map(Enabled.index.->(Enabled), Disabled.index.->(Disabled));
val fromName: _root_.scala.Function1[String, Status] = Map(Enabled.name.->(Enabled), Disabled.name.->(Disabled));
def switch[A](pf: PartialFunction[Status, A]): _root_.scala.Function1[Status, A] = macro numerato.SwitchMacros.switch_impl[Status, A]
};
()
}
defined class Status
defined object Status
I've looked at example of logging in Scala, and it usually looks like this:
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory
trait Loggable {
private lazy val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass)
protected def debug(msg: => AnyRef, t: => Throwable = null): Unit =
{...}
}
This seems independent of the concrete logging framework. While this does the job, it also introduces an extraneous lazy val in every instance that wants to do logging, which might well be every instance of the whole application. This seems much too heavy to me, in particular if you have many "small instances" of some specific type.
Is there a way of putting the logger in the object of the concrete class instead, just by using inheritance? If I have to explicitly declare the logger in the object of the class, and explicitly refer to it from the class/trait, then I have written almost as much code as if I had done no reuse at all.
Expressed in a non-logging specific context, the problem would be:
How do I declare in a trait that the implementing class must have a singleton object of type X, and that this singleton object must be accessible through method def x: X ?
I can't simply define an abstract method, because there could only be a single implementation in the class. I want that logging in a super-class gets me the super-class singleton, and logging in the sub-class gets me the sub-class singleton. Or put more simply, I want logging in Scala to work like traditional logging in Java, using static loggers specific to the class doing the logging. My current knowledge of Scala tells me that this is simply not possible without doing it exactly the same way you do in Java, without much if any benefits from using the "better" Scala.
Premature Optimization is the root of all evil
Let's be clear first about one thing: if your trait looks something like this:
trait Logger { lazy val log = Logger.getLogger }
Then what you have not done is as follows:
You have NOT created a logger instance per instance of your type
You have neither given yourself a memory nor a performance problem (unless you have)
What you have done is as follows:
You have an extra reference in each instance of your type
When you access the logger for the first time, you are probably doing some map lookup
Note that, even if you did create a separate logger for each instance of your type (which I frequently do, even if my program contains hundreds of thousands of these, so that I have very fine-grained control over my logging), you almost certainly still will neither have a performance nor a memory problem!
One "solution" is (of course), to make the companion object implement the logger interface:
object MyType extends Logger
class MyType {
import MyType._
log.info("Yay")
}
How do I declare in a trait that the
implementing class must have a
singleton object of type X, and that
this singleton object must be
accessible through method def x: X ?
Declare a trait that must be implemented by your companion objects.
trait Meta[Base] {
val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass)
}
Create a base trait for your classes, sub-classes have to overwrite the meta method.
trait Base {
def meta: Meta[Base]
def logger = meta.logger
}
A class Whatever with a companion object:
object Whatever extends Meta[Base]
class Whatever extends Base {
def meta = Whatever
def doSomething = {
logger.log("oops")
}
}
In this way you only need to have a reference to the meta object.
We can use the Whatever class like this.
object Sample {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val whatever = new Whatever
whatever.doSomething
}
}
I'm not sure I understand your question completely. So I apologize up front if this is not the answer you are looking for.
Define an object were you put your logger into, then create a companion trait.
object Loggable {
private val logger = "I'm a logger"
}
trait Loggable {
import Loggable._
def debug(msg: String) {
println(logger + ": " + msg)
}
}
So now you can use it like this:
scala> abstract class Abstraction
scala> class Implementation extends Abstraction with Loggable
scala> val test = new Implementation
scala> test.debug("error message")
I'm a logger: error message
Does this answer your question?
I think you cannot automatically get the corresponding singleton object of a class or require that such a singleton exists.
One reason is that you cannot know the type of the singleton before it is defined. Not sure, if this helps or if it is the best solution to your problem, but if you want to require some meta object to be defined with a specific trait, you could define something like:
trait HasSingleton[Traits] {
def meta: Traits
}
trait Log {
def classname: String
def log { println(classname) }
}
trait Debug {
def debug { print("Debug") }
}
class A extends HasSingleton[Log] {
def meta = A // Needs to be defined with a Singleton (or any object which inherits from Log}
def f {
meta.log
}
}
object A extends Log {
def classname = "A"
}
class B extends HasSingleton[Log with Debug] { // we want to use Log and Debug here
def meta = B
def g {
meta.log
meta.debug
}
}
object B extends Log with Debug {
def classname = "B"
}
(new A).f
// A
(new B).g
// B
// Debug