Abstract fields for dependency injection - scala

Question

In Scala, is there there anything wrong with using the below method of dependency injection.
// Define an interface
trait FileStorage {
def readFile(filename:String):OutputStream
}
// And an implementation
class S3FileStorage extends FileStorage {
def readFile(filename:String):OutputStream = ???
}
// Define our service as a trait with abstract fields that need to be
// injected in order to construct. All implementation details go here.
trait FileHTTPServer {
val fileStorage:FileStorage
def fetchFile( session:Session, filename:String ) = ???
}
Now we wire things up
// Wire up a concrete file service that we actually use in code
// No implementation details should go here, we're simply wiring up a FileHttpServerl
// An entire project could be wired up this way in a central location if desired.
object S3FileHttpServer extends FileHTTPServer {
val fileStorage = new S3FileStorage
}
// We could also do this anonymously
val myHttpServer = new FileHttpServer {
val fileStorage = new S3FileStorage
}
// Or create a mocked version for testing
val mockedHttpServer = new FileHttpServer {
val fileStorage = mock[FileStorage]
}
Obviously the Cake pattern provides more flexibility (particularly around self-types), however for simpler use cases this has much less boilerplate, while still providing compile time checking and a clean unambiguous interface.

Answer 1

Yes, this is absolutely fine approach. And yes, sometimes you can use constructor injection, nothing wrong with that too. But with constructor injection you have to propagate your dependencies manually, while with cake pattern your dependencies are propagated automatically via self-type annotations. So for big projects constructor injection actually lead to more boilerplate than cake pattern, especially at the construction site (where you create all your objects and set up dependencies between them).
However, what you have presented is not full-fledged cake pattern. In real cake pattern there is an additional layer around business logic classes, so-called components, and you do not wire up logic classes directly but components instead.
trait FileStorageComponent {
def fileStorage: FileStorage
trait FileStorage {
def readFile(filename: String): OutputStream
}
}
trait S3FileStorageComponent extends FileStorageComponent {
val fileStorage = new S3FileStorage
class S3FileStorage extends FileStorage {
def readFile(filename: String): OutputStream = ???
}
}
trait FileHttpServerComponent {
self: FileStorageComponent =>
val fileHttpServer = new FileHttpServer
class FileHttpServer {
def fetchFile(session: Session, filename: String) = ???
}
}
// Wiring
object S3FileHttpServer extends FileHttpServerComponent with S3FileStorageComponent
// Anonymous
val server = new FileHttpServerComponent with S3FileStorageComponent
// Mocking
object TestFileHttpServer extends FileHttpServerComponent with FileStorageComponent {
val fileStorage = mock[FileStorage]
}
In this approach there are more boilerplate in traits definitions, but in return you have greater flexibility and very clear dependency management on the use place. For example, here is how program entry point in one of my projects looks like:
object Main
extends MainUI
with DefaultActorsManagerComponent
with DefaultPreferencesAccessComponent
with DefaultModelComponent
with DefaultMainWindowViewComponent
with DefaultMainWindowControllerComponent
with MainWindowReporterComponent
with DefaultClientActorComponent
with DefaultResponseParserActorComponent
with DefaultArchiverActorComponent
with DefaultMainWindowAccessActorComponent
with DefaultUrlParserComponent
with DefaultListenerActorComponent
with DefaultXmlPrettifierComponent
All main program components are in one place. Pretty neat IMO.