I am building an application using Scala 2.10, Salat and Play frmework 2.1-RC2 (will upgrade to 2.1 release soon) and MongoDB.
This is a faceless application where JSON web services are exposed for consumers. Up until now JSON was converted into Model object directly using Play's Json API and implicit converters. I have to refactor some case classes to avoid 22 tuples limit and now instead of flat case class I'm now refactoring to have an embedded case(and embedded MongoDB collection).
Web service interface should remain same where client should still be passing in JSON data as they were before in a flat structure but application needs to map them into proper case class(es) structure. What's the best way to handle this kind of situation. I fear of writing a lot of conversion code <-> Flat JSON <-> complex case class structure <-> from complex case classes to flat JSON output again.
How would you approach such a requirement? I assume case class 22 tuple limit may have had been faced by many others to handle this kind of requirements? How would you approach this
The Play 2.1 json library relies heavily on combinators (path1 and path2). These combinators all have the same 22 restriction. That gives you two options:
Don't use combinators and construct your objects the hard way: path(json) will give you the value at that point in the path. Searching for 'Accessing value of JsPath' at ScalaJsonCombinators will give more examples.
First transform the json into a structure that does not have more than 22 values in a single object and then use the normal combinators. More information about transforming can be found here: ScalaJsonTransformers
Related
In my project, I need to ship plenty of existing Java objects to Spark workers, most of them are not extended from java.io.Serializable. I also want the ability to control the variables/attributes included in the objects. I only want to serialize the useful attributes, not everything in a object.
Spark documentation indicates that there are two ways to serialize an object in Spark, using java.io.Serializable or Kryo. I think both ways need to rewrite a bunch of wrappers or extra code for every business objects. However, my current code base has already implemented protocol-buffers serialization. I am wondering if there is any way to embed this serialization mechanism into Spark.
I'm working on my first Scala application, where we use an ActiveRecord style to retrieve data from MongoDB.
I have models like User and Category, which all have a companion object that uses the trait:
class MongoModel[T <: IdentifiableModel with CaseClass] extends ModelCompanion[T, ObjectId]
ModelCompanion is a Salat class which provide common MongoDB crud operations.
This permits to retrieve data like this:
User.profile(userId)
I never had any experience with this ActiveRecord query style. But I know Rails people are using it. And I think I saw it on Play documentation (version 1.2?) to deal with JPA.
For now it works fine, but I want to be able to run integration tests on my MongoDB.
I can run an "embedded" MongoDB with a library. The big deal is that my host/port configuration are actually kind of hardcoded on the MongoModel class which is extended by all the model companions.
I want to be able to specify a different host/port when I run integration tests (or any other "profile" I could create in the future).
I understand well dependency injection, using Spring for many years in Java, and the drawbacks of all this static stuff in my application. I saw that there is now a scala-friendly way to configure a Spring application, but I'm not sure using Spring is appropriate in Scala.
I have read some stuff about the Cake pattern and it seems to do what I want, being some kind of typesafe, compile-time-checked spring context.
Should I definitely go to the Cake pattern, or is there any other elegant alternative in Scala?
Can I keep using an ActiveRecord style or is it a total anti-pattern for testability?
Thanks
No any static references - using Cake pattern you got 2 different classes for 2 namespaces/environments, each overriding "host/port" resource on its own. Create a trait containing your resources, inherit it 2 times (by providing actual information about host/port, depending on environment) and add to appropriate companion objects (for prod and for test). Inside MongoModel add self type that is your new trait, and refactor all host/port references in MongoModel, to use that self type (your new trait).
I'd definitely go with the Cake Pattern.
You can read the following article with show an example of how to use the Cake Pattern in a Play2 application:
http://julien.richard-foy.fr/blog/2011/11/26/dependency-injection-in-scala-with-play-2-it-s-free/
I'm working on a project with Scala, Salat, Casbah, Mongo, Play2, BackboneJS... But it's quite a lot of new things to learn in the same time... I'm ok with Scala but I find my code crappy and I don't really know what's the solution to improve it.
Basically my usecase is:
A MongoDB object is sent to the browser's JS code by Play2
The JS code update the object data (through a Backbone model)
The JS send back the the updated JSON to the server (sent by Backbone save method, and received by Play with a json bodyparser)
The JSON received by Play should update the object in MongoDB
Some fields should not be updatable for security reasons (object id, creationDate...)
My problem is the last part.
I'm using case classes with Salat as a representation of the objects stored in MongoDB.
I don't really know how to handle the JSON i receive from the JS code.
Should I bind the JSON into the Salat case class and then ask Mongo to override the previous object data by the full new case class object?
If so is there a way with Play2 or Salat to automatically create back the case class from the received JSON?
Should I handle my JSON fields individually with $set for the fields I want to update?
Should i make the elements of my case class mutable? It's what we actually do in Java with Hibernate for exemple: get the object from DB, change its state, and save it. But it doesn't seem to be the appropriate way to do with Scala...
If someone can give me some advices for my usecase it would be nice because I really don't know what to do :(
Edit: I asked a related question here: Should I represent database data with immutable or mutable data structures?
Salat handles JSON using lift-json - see https://github.com/novus/salat/wiki/SalatWithPlay2.
Play itself uses Jerkson, which is another way to decode your model objects - see http://blog.xebia.com/2012/07/22/play-body-parsing-with-jerkson/ for an example.
Feel free to make a small sample Github project that demonstrates your issue and post to the Salat mailing list at https://groups.google.com/group/scala-salat for help.
There are really two problems in your question:
How do I use Play Salat.
How do I prevent updates to certain fields.
The answer to your first question lies in the Play Salat documentation. Your second question could be answered a few ways.
a. When the update is pushed to the server from Backbone, you could grab the object id and find it in the database. At that point you have both copies of the object. At that point, you can fire a business rule to make sure the sender didn't attempt to change those fields.
or
b. You could put some of your fields in another document of an embedded document. The client would have access to them for rendering purposes but your API wouldn't allow them to be pushed back to Mongo.
or
c. You could write a custom update query that ignores the fields you don't want changed.
Actually the answer is pretty simple: I didn't know there was a built-in copy method on case classes that allows to copy an immutable case class while changing some data.
I don't have nested case class structures but the Tony Morris suggestion of using Lenses seems nice too.
I need to store Scala class in Morphia. With annotations it works well unless I try to store collection of _ <: Enumeration
Morphia complains that it does not have serializers for that type, and I am wondering, how to provide one. For now I changed type of collection to Seq[String], and fill it with invoking toString on every item in collection.
That works well, however I'm not sure if that is right way.
This problem is common to several available layers of abstraction on the top of MongoDB. It all come back to a base reason: there is no enum equivalent in json/bson. Salat for example has the same problem.
In fact, MongoDB Java driver does not support enums as you can read in the discussion going on here: https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/JAVA-268 where you can see the problem is still open. Most of the frameworks I have seen to use MongoDB with Java do not implement low-level functionalities such as this one. I think this choice makes a lot of sense because they leave you the choice on how to deal with data structures not handled by the low-level driver, instead of imposing you how to do it.
In general I feel that the absence of support comes not from technical limitation but rather from design choice. For enums, there are multiple way to map them with their pros and their cons, while for other data types is probably simpler. I don't know the MongoDB Java driver in detail, but I guess supporting multiple "modes" would have required some refactoring (maybe that's why they are talking about a new version of serialization?)
These are two strategies I am thinking about:
If you want to index on an enum and minimize space occupation, you will map the enum to an integer ( Not using the ordinal , please can set enum start value in java).
If your concern is queryability on the mongoshell, because your data will be accessed by data scientist, you would rather store the enum using its string value
To conclude, there is nothing wrong in adding an intermediate data structure between your native object and MongoDB. Salat support it through CustomTransformers, on Morphia maybe you would need to do the conversion explicitely. Go for it.
I am very new to Scala and trying to understand its various constructs and their use-cases, so coming down to case-classes, They are great for pattern matching etc.
So looking at MVC point of view, should our all our Models be case classes to leverage this feature ?
I looked at the play framework's sample code snippets and found an example where a model class was defined as a case class.
If you have models as in swing component models, e.g., table models, in mind, then case classes might not be the best choice. Case classes are a good choice when they are (observationally) immutable, which is usually the case if you use them to represent data retrieved from a data base. For swing models, how ever, this might not be the case, e.g., if the user is allowed to change the table data.
It's not uncommon. There are various libraries, e.g. Salat for MongoDB, that will store and retrieve case class instances from your datastore of choice.