I am reading online about cross cutting concerns since I just implemented Log4j into my code. Some people are saying using AspectJ is okay, while others point out that it breaks functional programming. That mixins are Scala's solution for cross cutting concerns.
However, I cringe when I think I will extend a trait to an object/ class that is not related itself.
e.g. new Database with Logger
Here Logger has nothing to do with Database, but its how to mixing to provide logging. I would prefer to do it the Scala way, so I want to find out this is what people mean by mixins.
Can someone please show me a quick example of how to go about this in Scala?
This is a big topic with lots of potential "correct" answers. My personal favourite would be using either "by name parameters" or higher order functions.
A a very simple example of this:
object Logging {
def logCall[T](name: String)(block: => T): T = {
log.info(s"Invoking: $name")
block
}
}
Which would allow you to apply it both in an object that itself knows about the cross cutting concern (something like annotating wrapping a method call with something in java):
class DB {
import Logging._
def insert(item: Something) = logCall("insert") {
???
}
}
Or at the call site:
import Logging._
def businessLogic() {
val user = ???
val result = logCall("insert user")(DB.insert(user))
println(result)
}
The nice thing with this is that it is very explicit and self explanatory (which, again, are things you might value high or not).
We are pretty familiar with implicits in Scala for now, but macros are pretty undiscovered area (at least for me) and, despite the presence of some great articles by Eugene Burmako, it is still not an easy material to just dive in.
In this particular question I'd like to find out if there is a possibility to achieve the analogous to the following code functionality using just macros:
implicit class Nonsense(val s: String) {
def ##(i:Int) = s.charAt(i)
}
So "asd" ## 0 will return 'a', for example. Can I implement macros that use infix notation? The reason to this is I'm writing a DSL for some already existing project and implicits allow making the API clear and concise, but whenever I write a new implicit class, I feel like introducing a new speed-reducing factor. And yes, I do know about value classes and stuff, I just think it would be really great if my DSL transformed into the underlying library API calls during compilation rather than in runtime.
TL;DR: can I replace implicits with macros while not changing the API? Can I write macros in infix form? Is there something even more suitable for this case? Is the trouble worth it?
UPD. To those advocating the value classes: in my case I have a little more than just a simple wrapper - they are often stacked. For example, I have an implicit class that takes some parameters, returns a lambda wrapping this parameters (i.e. partial function), and the second implicit class that is made specifically for wrapping this type of functions. I can achieve something like this:
a --> x ==> b
where first class wraps a and adds --> method, and the second one wraps the return type of a --> x and defines ==>(b). Plus it may really be the case when user creates considerable amount of objects in this fashion. I just don't know if this will be efficient, so if you could tell me that value classes cover this case - I'd be really glad to know that.
Back in the day (2.10.0-RC1) I had trouble using implicit classes for macros (sorry, I don't recollect why exactly) but the solution was to use:
an implicit def macro to convert to a class
define the infix operator as a def macro in that class
So something like the following might work for you:
implicit def toNonsense(s:String): Nonsense = macro ...
...
class Nonsense(...){
...
def ##(...):... = macro ...
...
}
That was pretty painful to implement. That being said, macro have become easier to implement since.
If you want to check what I did, because I'm not sure that applies to what you want to do, refer to this excerpt of my code (non-idiomatic style).
I won't address the relevance of that here, as it's been commented by others.
How do I create a properly functional configurable object in Scala? I have watched Tony Morris' video on the Reader monad and I'm still unable to connect the dots.
I have a hard-coded list of Client objects:
class Client(name : String, age : Int){ /* etc */}
object Client{
//Horrible!
val clients = List(Client("Bob", 20), Client("Cindy", 30))
}
I want Client.clients to be determined at runtime, with the flexibility of either reading it from a properties file or from a database. In the Java world I'd define an interface, implement the two types of source, and use DI to assign a class variable:
trait ConfigSource {
def clients : List[Client]
}
object ConfigFileSource extends ConfigSource {
override def clients = buildClientsFromProperties(Properties("clients.properties"))
//...etc, read properties files
}
object DatabaseSource extends ConfigSource { /* etc */ }
object Client {
#Resource("configuration_source")
private var config : ConfigSource = _ //Inject it at runtime
val clients = config.clients
}
This seems like a pretty clean solution to me (not a lot of code, clear intent), but that var does jump out (OTOH, it doesn't seem to me really troublesome, since I know it will be injected once-and-only-once).
What would the Reader monad look like in this situation and, explain it to me like I'm 5, what are its advantages?
Let's start with a simple, superficial difference between your approach and the Reader approach, which is that you no longer need to hang onto config anywhere at all. Let's say you define the following vaguely clever type synonym:
type Configured[A] = ConfigSource => A
Now, if I ever need a ConfigSource for some function, say a function that gets the n'th client in the list, I can declare that function as "configured":
def nthClient(n: Int): Configured[Client] = {
config => config.clients(n)
}
So we're essentially pulling a config out of thin air, any time we need one! Smells like dependency injection, right? Now let's say we want the ages of the first, second and third clients in the list (assuming they exist):
def ages: Configured[(Int, Int, Int)] =
for {
a0 <- nthClient(0)
a1 <- nthClient(1)
a2 <- nthClient(2)
} yield (a0.age, a1.age, a2.age)
For this, of course, you need some appropriate definition of map and flatMap. I won't get into that here, but will simply say that Scalaz (or Rúnar's awesome NEScala talk, or Tony's which you've seen already) gives you all you need.
The important point here is that the ConfigSource dependency and its so-called injection are mostly hidden. The only "hint" that we can see here is that ages is of type Configured[(Int, Int, Int)] rather than simply (Int, Int, Int). We didn't need to explicitly reference config anywhere.
As an aside, this is the way I almost always like to think about monads: they hide their effect so it's not polluting the flow of your code, while explicitly declaring the effect in the type signature. In other words, you needn't repeat yourself too much: you say "hey, this function deals with effect X" in the function's return type, and don't mess with it any further.
In this example, of course the effect is to read from some fixed environment. Another monadic effect you might be familiar with include error-handling: we can say that Option hides error-handling logic while making the possibility of errors explicit in your method's type. Or, sort of the opposite of reading, the Writer monad hides the thing we're writing to while making its presence explicit in the type system.
Now finally, just as we normally need to bootstrap a DI framework (somewhere outside our usual flow of control, such as in an XML file), we also need to bootstrap this curious monad. Surely we'll have some logical entry point to our code, such as:
def run: Configured[Unit] = // ...
It ends up being pretty simple: since Configured[A] is just a type synonym for the function ConfigSource => A, we can just apply the function to its "environment":
run(ConfigFileSource)
// or
run(DatabaseSource)
Ta-da! So, contrasting with the traditional Java-style DI approach, we don't have any "magic" occurring here. The only magic, as it were, is encapsulated in the definition of our Configured type and the way it behaves as a monad. Most importantly, the type system keeps us honest about which "realm" dependency injection is occurring in: anything with type Configured[...] is in the DI world, and anything without it is not. We simply don't get this in old-school DI, where everything is potentially managed by the magic, so you don't really know which portions of your code are safe to reuse outside of a DI framework (for example, within your unit tests, or in some other project entirely).
update: I wrote up a blog post which explains Reader in greater detail.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
So far implicit parameters in Scala do not look good for me -- it is too close to global variables, however since Scala seems like rather strict language I start doubting in my own opinion :-).
Question: could you show a real-life (or close) good example when implicit parameters really work. IOW: something more serious than showPrompt, that would justify such language design.
Or contrary -- could you show reliable language design (can be imaginary) that would make implicit not neccessary. I think that even no mechanism is better than implicits because code is clearer and there is no guessing.
Please note, I am asking about parameters, not implicit functions (conversions)!
Updates
Global variables
Thank you for all great answers. Maybe I clarify my "global variables" objection. Consider such function:
max(x : Int,y : Int) : Int
you call it
max(5,6);
you could (!) do it like this:
max(x:5,y:6);
but in my eyes implicits works like this:
x = 5;
y = 6;
max()
it is not very different from such construct (PHP-like)
max() : Int
{
global x : Int;
global y : Int;
...
}
Derek's answer
This is great example, however if you can think of as flexible usage of sending message not using implicit please post an counter-example. I am really curious about purity in language design ;-).
In a sense, yes, implicits represent global state. However, they are not mutable, which is the true problem with global variables -- you don't see people complaining about global constants, do you? In fact, coding standards usually dictate that you transform any constants in your code into constants or enums, which are usually global.
Note also that implicits are not in a flat namespace, which is also a common problem with globals. They are explicitly tied to types and, therefore, to the package hierarchy of those types.
So, take your globals, make them immutable and initialized at the declaration site, and put them on namespaces. Do they still look like globals? Do they still look problematic?
But let's not stop there. Implicits are tied to types, and they are just as much "global" as types are. Does the fact that types are global bother you?
As for use cases, they are many, but we can do a brief review based on their history. Originally, afaik, Scala did not have implicits. What Scala had were view types, a feature many other languages had. We can still see that today whenever you write something like T <% Ordered[T], which means the type T can be viewed as a type Ordered[T]. View types are a way of making automatic casts available on type parameters (generics).
Scala then generalized that feature with implicits. Automatic casts no longer exist, and, instead, you have implicit conversions -- which are just Function1 values and, therefore, can be passed as parameters. From then on, T <% Ordered[T] meant a value for an implicit conversion would be passed as parameter. Since the cast is automatic, the caller of the function is not required to explicitly pass the parameter -- so those parameters became implicit parameters.
Note that there are two concepts -- implicit conversions and implicit parameters -- that are very close, but do not completely overlap.
Anyway, view types became syntactic sugar for implicit conversions being passed implicitly. They would be rewritten like this:
def max[T <% Ordered[T]](a: T, b: T): T = if (a < b) b else a
def max[T](a: T, b: T)(implicit $ev1: Function1[T, Ordered[T]]): T = if ($ev1(a) < b) b else a
The implicit parameters are simply a generalization of that pattern, making it possible to pass any kind of implicit parameters, instead of just Function1. Actual use for them then followed, and syntactic sugar for those uses came latter.
One of them is Context Bounds, used to implement the type class pattern (pattern because it is not a built-in feature, just a way of using the language that provides similar functionality to Haskell's type class). A context bound is used to provide an adapter that implements functionality that is inherent in a class, but not declared by it. It offers the benefits of inheritance and interfaces without their drawbacks. For example:
def max[T](a: T, b: T)(implicit $ev1: Ordering[T]): T = if ($ev1.lt(a, b)) b else a
// latter followed by the syntactic sugar
def max[T: Ordering](a: T, b: T): T = if (implicitly[Ordering[T]].lt(a, b)) b else a
You have probably used that already -- there's one common use case that people usually don't notice. It is this:
new Array[Int](size)
That uses a context bound of a class manifests, to enable such array initialization. We can see that with this example:
def f[T](size: Int) = new Array[T](size) // won't compile!
You can write it like this:
def f[T: ClassManifest](size: Int) = new Array[T](size)
On the standard library, the context bounds most used are:
Manifest // Provides reflection on a type
ClassManifest // Provides reflection on a type after erasure
Ordering // Total ordering of elements
Numeric // Basic arithmetic of elements
CanBuildFrom // Collection creation
The latter three are mostly used with collections, with methods such as max, sum and map. One library that makes extensive use of context bounds is Scalaz.
Another common usage is to decrease boiler-plate on operations that must share a common parameter. For example, transactions:
def withTransaction(f: Transaction => Unit) = {
val txn = new Transaction
try { f(txn); txn.commit() }
catch { case ex => txn.rollback(); throw ex }
}
withTransaction { txn =>
op1(data)(txn)
op2(data)(txn)
op3(data)(txn)
}
Which is then simplified like this:
withTransaction { implicit txn =>
op1(data)
op2(data)
op3(data)
}
This pattern is used with transactional memory, and I think (but I'm not sure) that the Scala I/O library uses it as well.
The third common usage I can think of is making proofs about the types that are being passed, which makes it possible to detect at compile time things that would, otherwise, result in run time exceptions. For example, see this definition on Option:
def flatten[B](implicit ev: A <:< Option[B]): Option[B]
That makes this possible:
scala> Option(Option(2)).flatten // compiles
res0: Option[Int] = Some(2)
scala> Option(2).flatten // does not compile!
<console>:8: error: Cannot prove that Int <:< Option[B].
Option(2).flatten // does not compile!
^
One library that makes extensive use of that feature is Shapeless.
I don't think the example of the Akka library fits in any of these four categories, but that's the whole point of generic features: people can use it in all sorts of way, instead of ways prescribed by the language designer.
If you like being prescribed to (like, say, Python does), then Scala is just not for you.
Sure. Akka's got a great example of it with respect to its Actors. When you're inside an Actor's receive method, you might want to send a message to another Actor. When you do this, Akka will bundle (by default) the current Actor as the sender of the message, like this:
trait ScalaActorRef { this: ActorRef =>
...
def !(message: Any)(implicit sender: ActorRef = null): Unit
...
}
The sender is implicit. In the Actor there is a definition that looks like:
trait Actor {
...
implicit val self = context.self
...
}
This creates the implicit value within the scope of your own code, and it allows you to do easy things like this:
someOtherActor ! SomeMessage
Now, you can do this as well, if you like:
someOtherActor.!(SomeMessage)(self)
or
someOtherActor.!(SomeMessage)(null)
or
someOtherActor.!(SomeMessage)(anotherActorAltogether)
But normally you don't. You just keep the natural usage that's made possible by the implicit value definition in the Actor trait. There are about a million other examples. The collection classes are a huge one. Try wandering around any non-trivial Scala library and you'll find a truckload.
One example would be the comparison operations on Traversable[A]. E.g. max or sort:
def max[B >: A](implicit cmp: Ordering[B]) : A
These can only be sensibly defined when there is an operation < on A. So, without implicits we’d have to supply the context Ordering[B] every time we’d like to use this function. (Or give up type static checking inside max and risk a runtime cast error.)
If however, an implicit comparison type class is in scope, e.g. some Ordering[Int], we can just use it right away or simply change the comparison method by supplying some other value for the implicit parameter.
Of course, implicits may be shadowed and thus there may be situations in which the actual implicit which is in scope is not clear enough. For simple uses of max or sort it might indeed be sufficient to have a fixed ordering trait on Int and use some syntax to check whether this trait is available. But this would mean that there could be no add-on traits and every piece of code would have to use the traits which were originally defined.
Addition:
Response to the global variable comparison.
I think you’re correct that in a code snipped like
implicit val num = 2
implicit val item = "Orange"
def shopping(implicit num: Int, item: String) = {
"I’m buying "+num+" "+item+(if(num==1) "." else "s.")
}
scala> shopping
res: java.lang.String = I’m buying 2 Oranges.
it may smell of rotten and evil global variables. The crucial point, however, is that there may be only one implicit variable per type in scope. Your example with two Ints is not going to work.
Also, this means that practically, implicit variables are employed only when there is a not necessarily unique yet distinct primary instance for a type. The self reference of an actor is a good example for such a thing. The type class example is another example. There may be dozens of algebraic comparisons for any type but there is one which is special.
(On another level, the actual line number in the code itself might also make for a good implicit variable as long as it uses a very distinctive type.)
You normally don’t use implicits for everyday types. And with specialised types (like Ordering[Int]) there is not too much risk in shadowing them.
Based on my experience there is no real good example for use of implicits parameters or implicits conversion.
The small benefit of using implicits (not needing to explicitly write a parameter or a type) is redundant in compare to the problems they create.
I am a developer for 15 years, and have been working with scala for the last 1.5 years.
I have seen many times bugs that were caused by the developer not aware of the fact that implicits are used, and that a specific function actually return a different type that the one specified. Due to implicit conversion.
I also heard statements saying that if you don't like implicits, don't use them.
This is not practical in the real world since many times external libraries are used, and a lot of them are using implicits, so your code using implicits, and you might not be aware of that.
You can write a code that has either:
import org.some.common.library.{TypeA, TypeB}
or:
import org.some.common.library._
Both codes will compile and run.
But they will not always produce the same results since the second version imports implicits conversion that will make the code behave differently.
The 'bug' that is caused by this can occur a very long time after the code was written, in case some values that are affected by this conversion were not used originally.
Once you encounter the bug, its not an easy task finding the cause.
You have to do some deep investigation.
Even though you feel like an expert in scala once you have found the bug, and fixed it by changing an import statement, you actually wasted a lot of precious time.
Additional reasons why I generally against implicits are:
They make the code hard to understand (there is less code, but you don't know what he is doing)
Compilation time. scala code compiles much slower when implicits are used.
In practice, it changes the language from statically typed, to dynamically typed. Its true that once following very strict coding guidelines you can avoid such situations, but in real world, its not always the case. Even using the IDE 'remove unused imports', can cause your code to still compile and run, but not the same as before you removed 'unused' imports.
There is no option to compile scala without implicits (if there is please correct me), and if there was an option, none of the common community scala libraries would have compile.
For all the above reasons, I think that implicits are one of the worst practices that scala language is using.
Scala has many great features, and many not so great.
When choosing a language for a new project, implicits are one of the reasons against scala, not in favour of it. In my opinion.
Another good general usage of implicit parameters is to make the return type of a method depend on the type of some of the parameters passed to it. A good example, mentioned by Jens, is the collections framework, and methods like map, whose full signature usually is:
def map[B, That](f: (A) ⇒ B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[GenSeq[A], B, That]): That
Note that the return type That is determined by the best fitting CanBuildFrom that the compiler can find.
For another example of this, see that answer. There, the return type of the method Arithmetic.apply is determined according to a certain implicit parameter type (BiConverter).
It's easy, just remember:
to declare the variable to be passed in as implicit too
to declare all the implicit params after the non-implicit params in a separate ()
e.g.
def myFunction(): Int = {
implicit val y: Int = 33
implicit val z: Double = 3.3
functionWithImplicit("foo") // calls functionWithImplicit("foo")(y, z)
}
def functionWithImplicit(foo: String)(implicit x: Int, d: Double) = // blar blar
Implicit parameters are heavily used in the collection API. Many functions get an implicit CanBuildFrom, which ensures that you get the 'best' result collection implementation.
Without implicits you would either pass such a thing all the time, which would make normal usage cumbersome. Or use less specialized collections which would be annoying because it would mean you loose performance/power.
I am commenting on this post a bit late, but I have started learning scala lately.
Daniel and others have given nice background about implicit keyword.
I would provide me two cents on implicit variable from practical usage perspective.
Scala is best suited if used for writing Apache Spark codes. In Spark, we do have spark context and most likely the configuration class that may fetch the configuration keys/values from a configuration file.
Now, If I have an abstract class and if I declare an object of configuration and spark context as follows :-
abstract class myImplicitClass {
implicit val config = new myConfigClass()
val conf = new SparkConf().setMaster().setAppName()
implicit val sc = new SparkContext(conf)
def overrideThisMethod(implicit sc: SparkContext, config: Config) : Unit
}
class MyClass extends myImplicitClass {
override def overrideThisMethod(implicit sc: SparkContext, config: Config){
/*I can provide here n number of methods where I can pass the sc and config
objects, what are implicit*/
def firstFn(firstParam: Int) (implicit sc: SparkContext, config: Config){
/*I can use "sc" and "config" as I wish: making rdd or getting data from cassandra, for e.g.*/
val myRdd = sc.parallelize(List("abc","123"))
}
def secondFn(firstParam: Int) (implicit sc: SparkContext, config: Config){
/*following are the ways we can use "sc" and "config" */
val keyspace = config.getString("keyspace")
val tableName = config.getString("table")
val hostName = config.getString("host")
val userName = config.getString("username")
val pswd = config.getString("password")
implicit val cassandraConnectorObj = CassandraConnector(....)
val cassandraRdd = sc.cassandraTable(keyspace, tableName)
}
}
}
As we can see the code above, I have two implicit objects in my abstract class, and I have passed those two implicit variables as function/method/definition implicit parameters.
I think this is the best use case that we can depict in terms of usage of implicit variables.
In Scala, if I define a method called apply in a class or a top-level object, that method will be called whenever I append a pair a parentheses to an instance of that class, and put the appropriate arguments for apply() in between them. For example:
class Foo(x: Int) {
def apply(y: Int) = {
x*x + y*y
}
}
val f = new Foo(3)
f(4) // returns 25
So basically, object(args) is just syntactic sugar for object.apply(args).
How does Scala do this conversion?
Is there a globally defined implicit conversion going on here, similar to the implicit type conversions in the Predef object (but different in kind)? Or is it some deeper magic? I ask because it seems like Scala strongly favors consistent application of a smaller set of rules, rather than many rules with many exceptions. This initially seems like an exception to me.
I don't think there's anything deeper going on than what you have originally said: it's just syntactic sugar whereby the compiler converts f(a) into f.apply(a) as a special syntax case.
This might seem like a specific rule, but only a few of these (for example, with update) allows for DSL-like constructs and libraries.
It is actually the other way around, an object or class with an apply method is the normal case and a function is way to construct implicitly an object of the same name with an apply method. Actually every function you define is an subobject of the Functionn trait (n is the number of arguments).
Refer to section 6.6:Function Applications of the Scala Language Specification for more information of the topic.
I ask because it seems like Scala strongly favors consistent application of a smaller set of rules, rather than many rules with many exceptions.
Yes. And this rule belongs to this smaller set.