I am trying to understand Anonymous subclass in Scala. I have written the below code:
package com.sudipta.practice.chapter8
class Person(val name: String) {
def printMyName = println("Name: " + name)
}
class AnonymousSubclass(val name: String) {
val anonymousSubclass = new Person(name){
def sayHello = "Hello, " + name
def sayBye = "Bye, " + name
override def printMyName = println("My name is: " + name)
}
}
object testPerson extends App {
def printAnonDetails (myObject: AnonymousSubclass) = {
myObject.anonymousSubclass.printMyName
}
val personObject = new Person("Sudipta")
personObject.printMyName
val anonObject = new AnonymousSubclass("Sudipta")
printAnonDetails(anonObject)
}
But what I am not able to understand what are the usages/advantages of Anonymous Subclass in Scala. If you have any points, please share here. Thanks.
Regadrs,
Sudipta
The use of anonymous subclasses in Scala is no different than the use of anonymous subclasses in Java. The most common use in Java is probably in the observer pattern as shown in the first link.
The example directly translates to Scala:
button.addActionListener(new ActionListener() {
def actionPerformed(e: ActionEvent) {
// do something.
}
});
However, in Scala you would probably rather use an anonymous function for that (if the library allows you to):
button.addActionListener(e => /* do something */)
In Scala you might use anonymous subclasses in this case, if:
Your client requires you to extend a given interface
You register for multiple events at a time (for example a java.awt.MouseListener)
These are of course only examples. In any location where not naming a class makes sense to you, you may use an anonymous (sub)class.
Anonymous classes in Scala, Java, and pretty much any other language that supports them are useful in cases where you need to pass an instance of some interface or base class as an argument to a function, and you will never need to use the same implementation anywhere else in your code.
Note that only members and methods that are defined by the interface or base class that your anonymous class implements/extends will be visible outside the anonymous class. In your example, this means that your sayHello and sayBye methods can only be called by anonymous's overrided printMyName (if this method need to call them), or the anonymous class's constructor, since nobody else outside the anonymous class will be able to know about them, as they are Not declared in the base class (Person).
Related
I have written the following code:
class a {
object c {
var a = "STATIC"
def m() = print("STATIC METHOD")
var f = () => print("STATIC FUNCTION")
}
}
object m {
def main(args: Array[String]) = {
var o = new a()
o.c.m()
}
}
Can I say that the variables, functions and methods that are declared in object c can be static?
If I change name of object c with a then will the object becomes a companion object?
Scala has no true meaning of 'static' that Java does.
The fact that objects have a backing on the JVM that uses static methods / fields is a leaking implementation detail that you only need to deal with if using Java/JVM interop.
Unless you explicitly need that interop, you need to stop thinking of declared objects as 'static' and instead think of them as singletons within their given scope.
An inner object nested under a class, means that there is only ever going to be 1 instance of that object, for each class instance, unlike inner classes which could have multiple instances.
This applies at the top level as well, except that Scala can do additional compatibility with other JVM languages, and mark some of the methods/members as static.
Fields and methods in an object are how Scala declares things that you would have used static for in Java. I guess you can, for intuition sake, say that those fields are usually static (as in only one of those in a JVM at once).
However, in your example, you put an object inside a class, making it no longer static. You can easily check this with a few lines of code (that you can find here on Scastie).
class MyClass {
object Embedded {
val a = "field"
def m = println("method")
}
}
val a = new MyClass().Embedded
val b = new MyClass().Embedded
// prints "a and b are different objects"
if (a eq b)
println("a and b are the same object")
else
println("a and b are different objects")
Regarding your second question: no, class and object must be in the same scope in order for it to be a companion object. You can find more details on the Scala Language Specification.
I quote from there:
Generally, a companion module of a class is an object which has the same name as the class and is defined in the same scope and compilation unit. Conversely, the class is called the companion class of the module.
To answer you questions:
The methods and fields in a.c are not globally static because they need an instance of a to exist. If a were an object, a.c would be static too.
If you want to have a companion object with static fields and methods for your class a it has to be defined outside of a's code block, like this:
class a {
/* non-static stuff goes here */
}
object a {
/* static stuff goes there */
def m() = print("STATIC METHOD")
}
You must keep both in the same file, defining the object or the
class first doesn't matter, so it generally depend on a convention or what makes most sense depending on use case.
If you want to call the static method a.m inside the class a, you will still need to call it a.m and not just m. But the class a will be able to use private fields and methods of object a, because they are companions.
As others already said, static doesn't really exist in Scala, but the concept transpires from Java since Scala is in most cases compiled into java bytecode.
Last advice, the convention is usually the same in Scala and in Java for classes and object: the first-letter of their name should be uppercase (except in some advanced Scala cases)
I have the following setup:
trait A
{
def doSomething(): Unit;
}
object B extends A
{
override def doSomething(): Unit =
{
// Implementation
}
}
class B(creator: String) extends A
{
override def doSomething(): Unit =
{
B.doSomething() // Now this is just completely unnecessary, but the compiler of course insists upon implementing the method
}
}
Now you may wonder why I even do this, why I let the class extend the trait as well.
The problem is, that somewhere in the Program there is a Collection of A.
So somewhere:
private val aList: ListBuffer[A] = new ListBuffer[A]
and in there, I also have to put Bs (among other derivates, namely C and D)
So I can't just let the B-class not extend it.
As the implementation is the same for all instances, I want to use an Object.
But there is also a reason I really need this Object. Because there is a class:
abstract class Worker
{
def getAType(): A
def do(): Unit =
{
getAType().doSomething()
}
}
class WorkerA
{
def getAType(): A =
{
return B
}
}
Here the singleton/object of B gets returned. This is needed for the implementation of do() in the Worker.
To summarize:
The object B is needed because of the generic implementation in do() (Worker-Class) and also because doSomething() never changes.
The class B is needed because in the collection of the BaseType A there are different instances of B with different authors.
As both the object and the class have to implement the trait for above reasons I'm in kind of a dilemma here. I couldn't find a satisfying solution that looks neater.
So, my question is (It turns out as a non-native-speaker I should've clarified this more)
Is there any way to let a class extend a trait (or class) and say that any abstract-method implementation should be looked up in the object instead of the class, so that I must only implement "doSomething()" (from the trait) once (in the object)? As I said, the trait fulfills two different tasks here.
One being a BaseType so that the collection can get instances of the class. The other being a contract to ensure the doSomething()-method is there in every object.
So the Object B needs to extend the trait, because a trait is like a Java interface and every (!) Object B (or C, or D) needs to have that method. (So the only option I see -> define an interface/trait and make sure the method is there)
edit: In case anyone wonders. How I really solved the problem: I implemented two traits.
Now for one class (where I need it) I extend both and for the other I only extend one. So I actually never have to implement any method that is not absolutely necessary :)
As I wrote in the comment section, it's really unclear to me what you're asking.
However, looking at your code examples, it seems to me that trait A isn't really required.
You can use the types that already come with the Scala SDK:
object B extends (()=>Unit) {
def apply() { /* implementation */ }
}
Or, as a variant:
object B {
val aType:()=>Unit = {() => /* implementation */ }
}
In the first case, you can access the singleton instance with B, in the second case with B.aType.
In the second case, no explicit declaration of the apply method is needed.
Pick what you like.
The essential message is: You don't need a trait if you just define one simple method.
That's what Scala functions are for.
The list type might look like this:
private val aList:ListBuffer[()=>Unit] = ???
(By the way: Why not declare it as Seq[()=>Unit]? Is it important to the caller that it is a ListBuffer and not some other kind of sequence?)
Your worker might then look like this:
abstract class Worker {
def aType:()=>Unit // no need for the `get` prefix here, or the empty parameter list
def do() {aType()}
}
Note that now the Worker type has become a class that offers a method that invokes a function.
So, there is really no need to have a Worker class.
You can just take the function (aType) directly and invoke it, just so.
If you always want to call the implementation in object B, well - just do that then.
There is no need to wrap the call in instances of other types.
Your example class B just forwards the call to the B object, which is really unnecessary.
There is no need to even create an instance of B.
It does have the private member variable creator, but since it's never used, it will never be accessed in any way.
So, I would recommend to completely remove the class B.
All you need is the type ()=>Unit, which is exactly what you need: A function that takes no parameters and returns nothing.
If you get tired of writing ()=>Unit all the time, you can define a type alias, for example inside the package object.
Here is my recommentation:
type SideEffect = ()=>Unit
Then you can use SideEffect as an alias for ()=>Unit.
That's all I can make of it.
It looks to me that this is probably not what you were looking for.
But maybe this will help you a little bit along the way.
If you want to have a more concrete answer, it would be nice if you would clarify the question.
object B doesn't really have much to do with class B aside from some special rules.
If you wish to reuse that doSomething method you should just reuse the implementation from the object:
class B {
def doSomething() = B.doSomething()
}
If you want to specify object B as a specific instance of class B then you should do the following:
object B extends B("some particular creator") {
...
}
You also do not need override modifiers although they can be handy for compiler checks.
The notion of a companion object extending a trait is useful for defining behavior associated with the class itself (e.g. static methods) as opposed to instances of the class. In other words, it allows your static methods to implement interfaces. Here's an example:
import java.nio.ByteBuffer
// a trait to be implemented by the companion object of a class
// to convey the fixed size of any instance of that class
trait Sized { def size: Int }
// create a buffer based on the size information provided by the
// companion object
def createBuffer(sized: Sized): ByteBuffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(sized.size)
class MyClass(x: Long) {
def writeTo(buffer: ByteBuffer) { buffer.putLong(x) }
}
object MyClass extends Sized {
def size = java.lang.Long.SIZE / java.lang.Byte.SIZE
}
// create a buffer with correct sizing for MyClass whose companion
// object implements Sized. Note that we don't need an instance
// of MyClass to obtain sizing information.
val buf = createBuffer(MyClass)
// write an instance of MyClass to the buffer.
val c = new MyClass(42)
c.writeTo(buf)
I've got a class from a library (specifically, com.twitter.finagle.mdns.MDNSResolver). I'd like to extend the class (I want it to return a Future[Set], rather than a Try[Group]).
I know, of course, that I could sub-class it and add my method there. However, I'm trying to learn Scala as I go, and this seems like an opportunity to try something new.
The reason I think this might be possible is the behavior of JavaConverters. The following code:
class Test {
var lst:Buffer[Nothing] = (new java.util.ArrayList()).asScala
}
does not compile, because there is no asScala method on Java's ArrayList. But if I import some new definitions:
class Test {
import collection.JavaConverters._
var lst:Buffer[Nothing] = (new java.util.ArrayList()).asScala
}
then suddenly there is an asScala method. So that looks like the ArrayList class is being extended transparently.
Am I understanding the behavior of JavaConverters correctly? Can I (and should I) duplicate that methodology?
Scala supports something called implicit conversions. Look at the following:
val x: Int = 1
val y: String = x
The second assignment does not work, because String is expected, but Int is found. However, if you add the following into scope (just into scope, can come from anywhere), it works:
implicit def int2String(x: Int): String = "asdf"
Note that the name of the method does not matter.
So what usually is done, is called the pimp-my-library-pattern:
class BetterFoo(x: Foo) {
def coolMethod() = { ... }
}
implicit def foo2Better(x: Foo) = new BetterFoo(x)
That allows you to call coolMethod on Foo. This is used so often, that since Scala 2.10, you can write:
implicit class BetterFoo(x: Foo) {
def coolMethod() = { ... }
}
which does the same thing but is obviously shorter and nicer.
So you can do:
implicit class MyMDNSResolver(x: com.twitter.finagle.mdns.MDNSResolver) = {
def awesomeMethod = { ... }
}
And you'll be able to call awesomeMethod on any MDNSResolver, if MyMDNSResolver is in scope.
This is achieved using implicit conversions; this feature allows you to automatically convert one type to another when a method that's not recognised is called.
The pattern you're describing in particular is referred to as "enrich my library", after an article Martin Odersky wrote in 2006. It's still an okay introduction to what you want to do: http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=179766
The way to do this is with an implicit conversion. These can be used to define views, and their use to enrich an existing library is called "pimp my library".
I'm not sure if you need to write a conversion from Try[Group] to Future[Set], or you can write one from Try to Future and another from Group to Set, and have them compose.
I would like to know if there is any specific rule or if there is a rule of thumb to be followed on using actual objects in scala vs singleton objects in scala
say i have a class like this
class GetDataInput {
def getNameInput() {
println("Enter the name value: ")
}
def getTypeInput() {
println("Enter the type value: ")
}
def getBothInput() {
println("Enter the name value: ")
println("Enter the type value: ")
}
}
is it better to use it in regular terms like
val someval = new GetDataInput()
someval.getNameInput()
or is it good to create a singleton object for this class and access the methods using that
object GetDataInput {
def getNameInp() = getNameInput()
}
Any pointers on this?
Generally you make an object when:
It makes absolutely no sense of having different instances of a potential class, for example, to enclose several pure functions (like methematical functions, factory methods)
You want to write the equivalent of java static method or static final constants. (see Companion objects).
You want a simpler alternative for enum values (a sealed trait extended by objectinstances).
In your example, all the functions are pure, and the class is stateless. Therefore all instances will be strictly equal. It makes sense to turn it into an object:
object GetDataInput {
def getNameInput() {
println("Enter the name value: ")
}
...
}
If you made the wrong choice, don't worry, it is easy to refactor. Usually you can keep all existing calls to the object, simply by extracting the methods in a trait:
trait GetDataInput {
def getNameInput() {
println("Enter the name value: ")
}
}
object GetDataInput extends GetDataInput //Bring all traits methods into the object
// to keep previous behaviour
class MyGetDataInput( whatever: Foo ) extends GetDataInput {
...
}
The question is rather: "Do you need different instances of a type?" If so, then go for a class (or a trait), if not go for a singleton. And btw there are no specific guidelines for the language you are using only because it has the singleton pattern built into it.
In scala, one primary use of objects is to fill the role of singletons. If you want to use a class as a singleton, just declare the class itself as an object. Then you could do:
GetDataInput.getNameInput()
Internally, scala will lazily create a single instance of your class and keep it alive for the duration of the program, so anytime you call a method on the object, you're really calling methods of a singleton instance of the class managed by the scala runtime.
I know that objects are treated pretty much like singletons in scala. However, I have been unable to find an elegant way to specify default behavior on initial instantiation. I can accomplish this by just putting code into the body of the object declaration but this seems overly hacky. Using an apply doesn't really work because it can be called multiple times and doesn't really make sense for this use case.
Any ideas on how to do this?
Classes and objects both run the code in their body upon instantiation, by design. Why is this "hacky"? It's how the language is supposed to work. If you like extra braces, you can always use them (and they'll keep local variables from being preserved and world-viewable).
object Initialized {
// Initalization block
{
val someStrings = List("A","Be","Sea")
someStrings.filter(_.contains('e')).foreach(s => println("Contains e: " + s))
}
def doSomething { println("I was initialized before you saw this.") }
}
scala> Initialized.doSomething
Contains e: Be
Contains e: Sea
I was initialized before you saw this.
scala> Initialized.someStrings
<console>:9: error: value someStrings is not a member of object Initialized
Initialized.someStrings
Rex has it right, I just wanted to point out a pattern I use a lot, that saves you from having to use vars, while avoiding namespace pollution by intermediate values.
object Foo {
val somethingFooNeeds = {
val intermediate = expensiveCalculation
val something = transform(intermediate)
something
}
}
If it makes you feel better, you can create some class with protected constructor and object will create singleton of this class:
sealed class MyClass protected (val a: String, b: Int) {
def doStuff = a + b
}
object MyObject extends MyClass("Hello", b = 1)
Also notice, that sealed stops other classes and objects to extend MyClass and protected will not allow creation of other MyClass instances.
But I personally don't see any problems with some code in the body of the object. You can also create some method like init and just call it:
object MyObject {
init()
def init() {
...
}
}
The body of object and class declarations IS the default constructor and any code placed in there will be executed upon first reference, so that is exactly the way to do it.