Scala in Depth demonstrates the Loaner Pattern:
def readFile[T](f: File)(handler: FileInputStream => T): T = {
val resource = new java.io.FileInputStream(f)
try {
handler(resource)
} finally {
resource.close()
}
}
Example usage:
readFile(new java.io.File("test.txt")) { input =>
println(input.readByte)
}
This code appears simple and clear. What is an "anti-pattern" of the Loaner pattern in Scala so that I know how to avoid it?
Make sure that whatever you compute is evaluated eagerly and no longer depends on the resource. Scala makes lazy computation fairly easy. For instance, if you wrap scala.io.Source.fromFile in this way, you might try
readFile("test.txt")(_.getLines)
Unfortunately, this doesn't work because getLines is lazy (returns an iterator). And Scala doesn't have any great way to indicate which methods are lazy and which are not. So you just have to know (docs will tend to tell you), and you have to actually do the work before returning:
readFile("test.txt")(_.getLines.toVector)
Overall, it's a very useful pattern. Just make sure that all accesses to the resource are completed before exiting the block (so no uncompleted futures, no lazy vals that depend on the resource, no iterators, no returning the resource itself, no streams that haven't been fully read, etc.; of course any of these things are okay if they do not depend on the open resource but only on some fully-computed quantity based upon the resource).
With the Loan pattern it is important to know when the "bit" of code that is going to actually call your loaned resource is going to use it.
If you want to return a future from a loan pattern I advise to not create it inside the function that is passed to the loan pattern function.
Don't write
readFile("text.file")(future { doSomething })
but do:
future { readFile("text.file")( doSomething ) }
what I usually do is that I define two types of loan pattern functions: Synchronous and Async
So in your case I would have:
def asyncReadFile[T](f: File)(handler: FileInputStream => T): Future[T] = {
future{
readFile(f)(handler)
}
}
This way you avoid calling closed resources. And you reuse your already tested and hopefully correct code of the Synchronous function.
Related
I understand that generally speaking there is a lot to say about deciding what one wants to model as effect This discussion is introduce in Functional programming in Scala on the chapter on IO.
Nonethless, I have not finished the chapter, i was just browsing it end to end before takling it together with Cats IO.
In the mean time, I have a bit of a situation for some code I need to deliver soon at work.
It relies on a Java Library that is just all about mutation. That library was started a long time ago and for legacy reason i don't see them changing.
Anyway, long story short. Is actually modeling any mutating function as IO a viable way to encapsulate a mutating java library ?
Edit1 (at request I add a snippet)
Readying into a model, mutate the model rather than creating a new one. I would contrast jena to gremlin for instance, a functional library over graph data.
def loadModel(paths: String*): Model =
paths.foldLeft(ModelFactory.createOntologyModel(new OntModelSpec(OntModelSpec.OWL_MEM)).asInstanceOf[Model]) {
case (model, path) ⇒
val input = getClass.getClassLoader.getResourceAsStream(path)
val lang = RDFLanguages.filenameToLang(path).getName
model.read(input, "", lang)
}
That was my scala code, but the java api as documented in the website look like this.
// create the resource
Resource r = model.createResource();
// add the property
r.addProperty(RDFS.label, model.createLiteral("chat", "en"))
.addProperty(RDFS.label, model.createLiteral("chat", "fr"))
.addProperty(RDFS.label, model.createLiteral("<em>chat</em>", true));
// write out the Model
model.write(system.out);
// create a bag
Bag smiths = model.createBag();
// select all the resources with a VCARD.FN property
// whose value ends with "Smith"
StmtIterator iter = model.listStatements(
new SimpleSelector(null, VCARD.FN, (RDFNode) null) {
public boolean selects(Statement s) {
return s.getString().endsWith("Smith");
}
});
// add the Smith's to the bag
while (iter.hasNext()) {
smiths.add(iter.nextStatement().getSubject());
}
So, there are three solutions to this problem.
1. Simple and dirty
If all the usage of the impure API is contained in single / small part of the code base, you may just "cheat" and do something like:
def useBadJavaAPI(args): IO[Foo] = IO {
// Everything inside this block can be imperative and mutable.
}
I said "cheat" because the idea of IO is composition, and a big IO chunk is not really composition. But, sometimes you only want to encapsulate that legacy part and do not care about it.
2. Towards composition.
Basically, the same as above but dropping some flatMaps in the middle:
// Instead of:
def useBadJavaAPI(args): IO[Foo] = IO {
val a = createMutableThing()
mutableThing.add(args)
val b = a.bar()
b.computeFoo()
}
// You do something like this:
def useBadJavaAPI(args): IO[Foo] =
for {
a <- IO(createMutableThing())
_ <- IO(mutableThing.add(args))
b <- IO(a.bar())
result <- IO(b.computeFoo())
} yield result
There are a couple of reasons for doing this:
Because the imperative / mutable API is not contained in a single method / class but in a couple of them. And the encapsulation of small steps in IO is helping you to reason about it.
Because you want to slowly migrate the code to something better.
Because you want to feel better with yourself :p
3. Wrap it in a pure interface
This is basically the same that many third party libraries (e.g. Doobie, fs2-blobstore, neotypes) do. Wrapping a Java library on a pure interface.
Note that as such, the amount of work that has to be done is way more than the previous two solutions. As such, this is worth it if the mutable API is "infecting" many places of your codebase, or worse in multiple projects; if so then it makes sense to do this and publish is as an independent module.
(it may also be worth to publish that module as an open-source library, you may end up helping other people and receive help from other people as well)
Since this is a bigger task is not easy to just provide a complete answer of all you would have to do, it may help to see how those libraries are implemented and ask more questions either here or in the gitter channels.
But, I can give you a quick snippet of how it would look like:
// First define a pure interface of the operations you want to provide
trait PureModel[F[_]] { // You may forget about the abstract F and just use IO instead.
def op1: F[Int]
def op2(data: List[String]): F[Unit]
}
// Then in the companion object you define factories.
object PureModel {
// If the underlying java object has a close or release action,
// use a Resource[F, PureModel[F]] instead.
def apply[F[_]](args)(implicit F: Sync[F]): F[PureModel[F]] = ???
}
Now, how to create the implementation is the tricky part.
Maybe you can use something like Sync to initialize the mutable state.
def apply[F[_]](args)(implicit F: Sync[F]): F[PureModel[F]] =
F.delay(createMutableState()).map { mutableThing =>
new PureModel[F] {
override def op1: F[Int] = F.delay(mutableThing.foo())
override def op2(data: List[String]): F[Unit] = F.delay(mutableThing.bar(data))
}
}
I am a new to Scala coming from Java background, currently confused about the best practice considering Option[T].
I feel like using Option.map is just more functional and beautiful, but this is not a good argument to convince other people. Sometimes, isEmpty check feels more straight forward thus more readable. Is there any objective advantages, or is it just personal preference?
Example:
Variation 1:
someOption.map{ value =>
{
//some lines of code
}
} orElse(foo)
Variation 2:
if(someOption.isEmpty){
foo
} else{
val value = someOption.get
//some lines of code
}
I intentionally excluded the options to use fold or pattern matching. I am simply not pleased by the idea of treating Option as a collection right now, and using pattern matching for a simple isEmpty check is an abuse of pattern matching IMHO. But no matter why I dislike these options, I want to keep the scope of this question to be the above two variations as named in the title.
Is there any objective advantages, or is it just personal preference?
I think there's a thin line between objective advantages and personal preference. You cannot make one believe there is an absolute truth to either one.
The biggest advantage one gains from using the monadic nature of Scala constructs is composition. The ability to chain operations together without having to "worry" about the internal value is powerful, not only with Option[T], but also working with Future[T], Try[T], Either[A, B] and going back and forth between them (also see Monad Transformers).
Let's try and see how using predefined methods on Option[T] can help with control flow. For example, consider a case where you have an Option[Int] which you want to multiply only if it's greater than a value, otherwise return -1. In the imperative approach, we get:
val option: Option[Int] = generateOptionValue
var res: Int = if (option.isDefined) {
val value = option.get
if (value > 40) value * 2 else -1
} else -1
Using collections style method on Option, an equivalent would look like:
val result: Int = option
.filter(_ > 40)
.map(_ * 2)
.getOrElse(-1)
Let's now consider a case for composition. Let's say we have an operation which might throw an exception. Additionaly, this operation may or may not yield a value. If it returns a value, we want to query a database with that value, otherwise, return an empty string.
A look at the imperative approach with a try-catch block:
var result: String = _
try {
val maybeResult = dangerousMethod()
if (maybeResult.isDefined) {
result = queryDatabase(maybeResult.get)
} else result = ""
}
catch {
case NonFatal(e) => result = ""
}
Now let's consider using scala.util.Try along with an Option[String] and composing both together:
val result: String = Try(dangerousMethod())
.toOption
.flatten
.map(queryDatabase)
.getOrElse("")
I think this eventually boils down to which one can help you create clear control flow of your operations. Getting used to working with Option[T].map rather than Option[T].get will make your code safer.
To wrap up, I don't believe there's a single truth. I do believe that composition can lead to beautiful, readable, side effect deferring safe code and I'm all for it. I think the best way to show other people what you feel is by giving them examples as we just saw, and letting them feel for themselves the power they can leverage with these sets of tools.
using pattern matching for a simple isEmpty check is an abuse of pattern matching IMHO
If you do just want an isEmpty check, isEmpty/isDefined is perfectly fine. But in your case you also want to get the value. And using pattern matching for this is not abuse; it's precisely the basic use-case. Using get allows to very easily make errors like forgetting to check isDefined or making the wrong check:
if(someOption.isEmpty){
val value = someOption.get
//some lines of code
} else{
//some other lines
}
Hopefully testing would catch it, but there's no reason to settle for "hopefully".
Combinators (map and friends) are better than get for the same reason pattern matching is: they don't allow you to make this kind of mistake. Choosing between pattern matching and combinators is a different question. Generally combinators are preferred because they are more composable (as Yuval's answer explains). If you want to do something covered by a single combinator, I'd generally choose them; if you need a combination like map ... getOrElse, or a fold with multi-line branches, it depends on the specific case.
It seems similar to you in case of Option but just consider the case of Future. You will not be able to interact with the future's value after going out of Future monad.
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.concurrent.Promise
import scala.util.{Success, Try}
// create a promise which we will complete after sometime
val promise = Promise[String]();
// Now lets consider the future contained in this promise
val future = promise.future;
val byGet = if (!future.value.isEmpty) {
val valTry = future.value.get
valTry match {
case Success(v) => v + " :: Added"
case _ => "DEFAULT :: Added"
}
} else "DEFAULT :: Added"
val byMap = future.map(s => s + " :: Added")
// promise was completed now
promise.complete(Try("PROMISE"))
//Now lets print both values
println(byGet)
// DEFAULT :: Added
println(byMap)
// Success(PROMISE :: Added)
Often I find myself wanting to chain a side-effecting function to the end of another method call in a more functional-looking way, but I don't want to transform the original type to Unit. Suppose I have a read method that searches a database for a record, returning Option[Record].
def read(id: Long): Option[Record] = ...
If read returns Some(record), then I might want to cache that value and move on. I could do something like this:
read(id).map { record =>
// Cache the record
record
}
But, I would like to avoid the above code and end up with something more like this to make it more clear as to what's happening:
read(id).withSideEffect { record =>
// Cache the record
}
Where withSideEffect returns the same value as read(id). After searching high and low, I can't find any method on any type that does something like this. The closest solution I can come up with is using implicit magic:
implicit class ExtendedOption[A](underlying: Option[A]) {
def withSideEffect(op: A => Unit): Option[A] = {
underlying.foreach(op)
underlying
}
}
Are there any Scala types I may have overlooked with methods like this one? And are there are any potential design flaws from using such a method?
Future.andThen (scaladoc) takes a side-effect and returns a future of the current value to facilitate fluent chaining.
The return type is not this.type.
See also duplicate questions about tap.
You can use scalaz for "explicit annotation" of side-effectful functions. In scalaz 7.0.6 it's IO monad: http://eed3si9n.com/learning-scalaz/IO+Monad.html
It's deprecated in scalaz 7.1. I would do something like that with Task
val readAndCache = Task.delay(read(id)).map(record => cacheRecord(record); record)
readAndCache.run // Run task for it's side effects
Does Scala have an equivelent to golangs defer?
from:
http://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#defer
Go's defer statement schedules a function call (the deferred function) to be run immediately before the function executing the defer returns. It's an unusual but effective way to deal with situations such as resources that must be released regardless of which path a function takes to return. The canonical examples are unlocking a mutex or closing a file.
Scala does not offer defer by design, however you can create it yourself by wrapping
your function in another function, passing an object which keeps track of functions to call.
Example:
class DeferTracker() {
class LazyVal[A](val value:() => A)
private var l = List[LazyVal[Any]]()
def apply(f: => Any) = { l = new LazyVal(() => f) :: l }
def makeCalls() = l.foreach { x => x.value() }
}
def Deferrable[A](context: DeferTracker => A) = {
val dt = new DeferTracker()
val res = context(dt)
dt.makeCalls
res
}
In this example, Deferable would be the wrapping function which calls context and
returns it contents, giving it an object which tracks defer calls.
You can use this construct like this:
def dtest(x:Int) = println("dtest: " + x)
def someFunction(x:Int):Int = Deferrable { defer =>
defer(dtest(x))
println("before return")
defer(dtest(2*x))
x * 3
}
println(someFunction(3))
The output would be:
before return
dtest: 6
dtest: 3
3
I'm aware that this can be solved differently but it is really just an example that
Scala supports the concept of defer without too much fuss.
I can't think of a Scala specific way, but wouldn't this be equivalent (though not as pretty):
try {
// Do stuff
} finally {
// "defer"
}
No. Go has this construct precisely because it doesn't support exceptions and has no try...finally syntax.
Personally, I think it invites a maintenance nightmare; calls to defer can be buried anywhere in a function. Even where responsible coders put the defers right beside the thing to be cleaned up, I think it's less clear than a finally block and as for what it lets the messy coders do... at least finally blocks put all the clean-up in one place.
defer is the opposite of idiomatic Scala. Scala offers monadic ways to control program flow and defer magic does not contribute at all. Monads offer a functional improvement over try...finally which let you
Define your own error handling flow
Manipulate defined flows functionally
Make a function's anticipated errors part of its signature
defer has no place in this.
I am working my way through a book on Scala Actors, and I am running into a bit of a syntactical hangup. In practice, I tend to assign my variables and function definitions as such:
val v: String = "blahblahblah"
def f(n: Int): Int = n+1
including the (return)type of the item after its name. While I know this is not necessary, I have grown comfortable with this convention and find that it makes the code more easily understood by myself.
That being said, observe the below example:
class Server extends Actor {
def act() = {
while (true) {
receive {
case Message(string) => reply("Good,very good.")
}
}
}
}
def sendMsg(m: Message, s: Server): Future[String] = {
s !! m
}
The above code produces an error at compile time, complaining that the server returned a Future[Any], as opposed to a Future[String]. I understand that this problem can be circumvented by removing the return type from sendMsg:
def sendMsg(m: Message,s: Server) = s !! m
However, this is not consistant with my style. Is there a way that I can specify the type of Future that the server generates (as opposed to Future[Any])?
Your problem is a lot deeper than just style: you get a Future[Any] because the compiler cannot statically know better—with the current Akka actors as well as with the now deprecated scala.actors. In the absence of compile-time checks you need to resort to runtime checks instead, as idonnie already commented:
(actorRef ? m).mapTo[String]
This will chain another Future to the original one which is filled either with a String result, a ClassCastException if the actor was naughty, or with a TimeoutException if the actor did not reply, see the Akka docs.
There might be a way out soon, I’m working on an Akka extension to include statically typed channels, but that will lead to you having to write your code a little differently, with more type annotations.