Instantiating traits generically in scala - scala

I'm attempting to make a system which allows users to chain together multiple processors. The difficulty I have is that each processor actually has two bits of information it cares about and I want these handled in a type-safe way. I've boiled it down to this problem:
Given:
//First family of stuff
trait A {
def doA {}
}
trait B {
def doB {}
}
//Second family of stuff
trait X {
def doX {}
}
trait Y {
def doY {}
}
I can combine elements from the two families together in 4 flavors:
var f = new A with X {}
f.doA
d.doX
var g = new A with Y {}
//...
Great. The problem is that I want each of the functions (doA, etc) to return a combination of the two types so that I can chain stuff together. Essentially I want to do:
trait A {
def doThing = {
new A with ThingThatImMixedInWithLikeXOrY {}
}
}
Each processor needs to return an anonymous class which consists of 1) A type known to the processor 2) The type which it was mixed in with.
My first stab was to use generics, something like this:
trait A {
this : {def makeWithT[TOther]} =>
def doA = makeWithT[B]
}
trait B {
this : {def makeWithT[TOther]} =>
def doB = makeWithT[A]
}
trait X {
this : {def makeWithS[TOther]} =>
def doX = makeWithT[Y]
}
trait Y {
this : {def makeWithS[TOther]} =>
def doY = makeWithT[Y]
}
class Foo[T, S] extends S with T {
def makeWithT[OtherT] = new T with OtherT
def makeWithS[OtherT] = new S with OtherT
}
var f = new Foo[A, X]
f.doA.doB
f.doX.doA
f.doX.doY
...
Obviously, I've run into a catalog of problems:
I can't make a generic class which extends from the type parameters
I can't instantiate my anonymous class via a generic parameter
I can't define the return type of the functions in the trait because I
don't know the type until it's mixed in with something.
I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to scala, and I get the feeling that I'm going about this in totally the wrong way and maybe I should be using implicits and the CanBuildFrom pattern. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers

The most known solution for stackable processors is stackable trait
http://www.artima.com/scalazine/articles/stackable_trait_pattern.html
trait StackableRoot {
def StackablePass (x:Int) : x
}
trait StackableDouble extends StackableRoot {
def internalPass (x:Int) = 2*x
abstract override def StackablePass(x:Int) = super.StackablePass(internalPass(x))
}
trait StackableIncrement extends StackableRoot {
def internalPass (x:Int) = x+1
abstract override def StackablePass(x:Int) = super.StackablePass(internalPass(x))
}
there is some boilerplate with
abstract override def StackablePass(x:Int) = super.StackablePass(internalPass(x))
that can't be avoided by packing into parametrized trait since it will require scala to inherit some trait with different parameters multiple times that is prohibited by famous type erasure

Related

Summoning Scala implicits for subclasses of sealed abstract trait

I'm using two Scala libraries that both rely on implicit parameters to supply codecs/marshallers for case classes (the libraries in question are msgpack4s and op-rabbit). A simplified example follows:
sealed abstract trait Event
case class SomeEvent(msg: String) extends Event
case class OtherEvent(code: String) extends Event
// Assume library1 needs Show and library2 needs Printer
trait Show[A] { def show(a: A): String }
trait Printer[A] { def printIt(a: A): Unit }
object ShowInstances {
implicit val showSomeEvent = new Show[SomeEvent] {
override def show(a: SomeEvent) =
s"SomeEvent: ${a.msg}"
}
implicit val showOtherEvent = new Show[OtherEvent] {
override def show(a: OtherEvent) =
s"OtherEvent: ${a.code}"
}
}
The Printer for the one library can be generic provided there's an implicit Show for the other library available:
object PrinterInstances {
implicit def somePrinter[A: Show]: Printer[A] = new Printer[A] {
override def printIt(a: A): Unit =
println(implicitly[Show[A]].show(a))
}
}
I want to provide an API that abstracts over the details of the underlying libraries - callers should only need to pass the case class, internally to the API implementation the relevant implicits should be summoned.
object EventHandler {
private def printEvent[A <: Event](a: A)(implicit printer: Printer[A]): Unit = {
print("Handling event: ")
printer.printIt(a)
}
def handle(a: Event): Unit = {
import ShowInstances._
import PrinterInstances._
// I'd like to do this:
//EventHandler.printEvent(a)
// but I have to do this
a match {
case s: SomeEvent => EventHandler.printEvent(s)
case o: OtherEvent => EventHandler.printEvent(o)
}
}
}
The comments in EventHandler.handle() method indicate my issue - is there a way to have the compiler select the right implicits for me?.
I suspect the answer is no because at compile time the compiler doesn't know which subclass of Event handle() will receive, but I wanted to see if there's another way. In my actual code, I control & can change the PrinterInstances code, but I can't change the signature of the printEvent method (that's provided by one of the libraries)
*EDIT: I think this is the same as Provide implicits for all subtypes of sealed type. The answer there is nearly 2 years old, I'm wondering if it's still the best approach?
You have to do the pattern matching somewhere. Do it in the Show instance:
implicit val showEvent = new Show[Event] {
def show(a: Event) = a match {
case SomeEvent(msg) => s"SomeEvent: $msg"
case OtherEvent(code) => s"OtherEvent: $code"
}
}
If you absolutely need individual instances for SomeEvent and OtherEvent, you can provide them in a different object so they can be imported separately.
If Show is defined to be contravariant (i.e. as trait Show[-A] { ... }, with a minus on the generic type) then everything works out of the box and a Show[Event] is usable as a Show[SomeEvent] (and as a Show[OtherEvent] for that matter).
If Show is unfortunately not written to be contravariant, then we might have to do a little bit more juggling on our end than we'd like. One thing we can do is declare all of our SomeEvent values as simply Events, vis a vis val fooEvent: Event = SomeEvent("foo"). Then fooEvent will be showable.
In a more extreme version of the above trick, we can actually hide our inheritance hierarchy:
sealed trait Event {
def fold[X]( withSomeEvent: String => X,
withOtherEvent: String => X ): X
}
object Event {
private case class SomeEvent(msg: String) extends Event {
def fold[X]( withSomeEvent: String => X,
withOtherEvent: String => X ): X = withSomeEvent(msg)
}
private case class OtherEvent(code: String) extends Event {
def fold[X]( withSomeEvent: String => X,
withOtherEvent: String => X ): X = withOtherEvent(code)
}
def someEvent(msg: String): Event = SomeEvent(msg)
def otherEvent(code: String): Event = OtherEvent(code)
}
Event.someEvent and Event.otherEvent allow us to construct values, and fold allows us to pattern match.

Scala abstract types implement trait that extends from generic trait

I am new to scala and thus my question might be due to a lack of understanding of abtract types and traits.
I currently have a Sensor trait which is generic and defines a value and newValue method.
trait Sensor[T] {
def value: T
def newValue(): Unit = {}
}
One concrete implementation of Sensor is MemorySensor, which just uses a variable to store the value and has a set value method which sets the value and fires the newValue method.
class MemorySensor[T] extends Sensor[T] {
var internalValue: T = null.asInstanceOf[T]
def setValue(newVal: T): Unit = {
internalValue = newVal
newValue()
}
def value: T = internalValue
}
There is also an AbstractSO (SO = subject + Observer) class which uses abstract types to implement Subject/Observer pairs.
class AbstractSO {
type O <: AbstractObserver
type S <: AbstractSubject
trait AbstractSubject {
this: S =>
def register(observer: O) = {
//we could use mutable collection here too
observers = observer :: observers
}
var observers: List[O] = List[O]()
def notifyObservers() = {
observers.foreach(o => o.notifyObserver(this))
}
}
trait AbstractObserver {
def notifyObserver(subject: S)
}
}
One example of a concrete Subject/Observer is the ActionSO
object ActionSO extends AbstractSO {
type S = ActionSubject
type O = ActionObserver
trait ActionSubject extends AbstractSubject {
def action() = {
notifyObservers()
}
}
trait ActionObserver extends AbstractObserver {
override def notifyObserver(actionSubject: ActionSubject) = {
println("action observer called")
}
}
}
Now I want to implement a concrete Subject/Observer-Pair for Sensors with the requirement that the SensorSubject should be a mixin trait for sensors.
So I guess the target would be to use the SensorSubject like this:
val x = new MemorySensor[Int] with SensorSubject[Int]
However whatever I try to implement the SensorSO, I always get either some kind of "illegal inheritance" error or "self-type does not conform to..".
As far as I know this cannot be done without creating an extra class that extends from AbstractSO, but uses generic types. (but I don´t know how this helps me to achieve my target anyways)
It would be very nice if someone could help me out!
EDIT:
As SergGr wanted to see my SensorSubject (which is what I don´t know how to implement, I will post one of my various tries)
Note however that this does NOT COMPILE
object SensorSO extends AbstractSensorSO {
//TODO: i shouldn´t use "Any" here - this won´t work
override type S = SensorSubject[Any]
trait SensorSubject[T] extends AbstractSensorSubject with Sensor[T] {
this: S => //this generates problems as well
}
}
Here is my AbstractSensorSO
class AbstractSensorSO extends AbstractSO {
type S <: AbstractSensorSubject
type O <: AbstractSensorObserver
trait AbstractSensorSubject extends AbstractSubject {
this: S =>
}
trait AbstractSensorObserver extends AbstractObserver {
}
}
As you can see the AbstractSensorSO basically doesn´t do anything, I just added it because it was mentioned in a hint to the solution that one needs an subclass of AbstractSO, before creating the concrete SensorSO object.
One problem I am facing is that the Sensor trait is generic so for the SensorSubject to use the Sensor trait AFAIK i have to make the SensorSubject generic too.
Normally this wouldn´t be a problem, but as i use abstract types I would have to define the "S" type in the SensorSO with generics too (e.g.
type S = SensorSubject[T]
But as the generic type "T" is not known in that context it obviously gives an error (as the generic "T" is only available the context of the generic trait SensorSubject)
If I try to drop the generic paramater when defining the type S, I also get an error message that the generic type parameter is missing.
And just writing
type S = SensorSubject[Any]
doesn´t solve the problem either
EDIT2:
To clarify what my target is:
SensorSubject should be an Mixin Trait, such that i can use normal Sensors(not only MemorySensors) and that if I want I can add "with SensorSubject[Int]" to the creation of the Sensor and then it functions as a SensorSubject
Which means i can register an observer and the observer is notified when i change the value of the Sensors(that now functions as SensorSubject)
Here is an example how I would like to use the SensorSubject[T] Trait:
//creating a sensor WITH the SensorSubject Trait
val sensorWithSubject= new MemorySensor[Int] with SensorSubject[Int]
sensorWithSubject.registerObserver(..)
//creating a normal Sensor WITHOUT SensorSubject
val normalMemSensor = new MemorySensor[Int]
You didn't provide any example of expected usage so my guess might be wrong. Still here is my attempt:
trait Sensor[T] {
def value: T
def newValue(): Unit = {}
}
class MemorySensor[T] extends Sensor[T] {
var internalValue: T = null.asInstanceOf[T]
def setValue(newVal: T): Unit = {
internalValue = newVal
newValue()
}
def value: T = internalValue
}
//////////////////////////////////
trait AbstractSubject[S <: AbstractSubject[S, O], O <: AbstractObserver[S, O]] {
this: S =>
def register(observer: O) = {
//we could use mutable collection here too
observers = observer :: observers
}
private var observers: List[O] = List[O]()
def notifyObservers() = {
observers.foreach(o => o.notifyObserver(this))
}
}
trait AbstractObserver[S <: AbstractSubject[S, O], O <: AbstractObserver[S, O]] {
def notifyObserver(subject: S)
}
//////////////////////////////////
trait SensorSubject[T, S <: SensorSubject[T, S, O], O <: SensorObserver[T, S, O]] extends Sensor[T] with AbstractSubject[S, O] {
this: S =>
}
trait SensorObserver[T, S <: SensorSubject[T, S, O], O <: SensorObserver[T, S, O]] extends AbstractObserver[S, O]
//////////////////////////////////
class MemorySensorSubject[T] extends MemorySensor[T] with AbstractSubject[MemorySensorSubject[T], MemorySensorObserver[T]] {
override def setValue(newVal: T): Unit = {
super.setValue(newVal)
notifyObservers()
}
}
trait MemorySensorObserver[T] extends AbstractObserver[MemorySensorSubject[T], MemorySensorObserver[T]]
and with that you can do
def test(): Unit = {
val sensor = new MemorySensorSubject[Int]
val observer = new MemorySensorObserver[Int] {
override def notifyObserver(subject: MemorySensorSubject[Int]): Unit = {
println(s"New value of $subject is ${subject.value}")
}
}
sensor.register(observer)
sensor.setValue(42)
}
and the output will be
New value of so.Main$MemorySensorSubject#363ee3a2 is 42
Probably the most important thing here is that MemorySensorSubject is an explicitly named type that thus can be used as S in F-bound generic constraint

Override implicit vals from trait

I need overriding implicit in object res defing one from trait. The purpose is to define custom implicits in one place (trait B). Trait a is defined in external library. Is it possible?
trait t {
}
object m extends t
object q extends t
trait a {
implicit val o: t = m
}
trait b {
implicit val o: t = q
}
trait c {
def action(implicit v: t): Unit = {}
}
object res extends c with a with b {
//i need smth like override val o = super[b].o
val ololo= action
}
It is not possible to mix-in two unrelated traits that both contain a member with the same identifier. The Scala compiler has no way to resolve which one would take precedence in this scenario. Since types A and B are related, o does not even need to have the same type in both of them. Trait B needs to extend A and override o. There isn't any other way to override a member without using inheritance.
trait T
case object M extends T
case object Q extends T
trait A {
implicit val o: T = M
}
trait B extends A {
override implicit val o: T = Q
}
trait C {
def action(implicit v: T): Unit = println(v)
}
object Res extends C with B {
def call() = action
}
scala> Res.call()
Q
Since you are already mixing A into Res anyway, it is assumed that A is not difficult to extend, since Res must implement any other unmentioned abstract members.

Add a trait to parametric type in a class

I have a library where an abstract class Base[T] is over a type T supplied by the user. There are many specific Base[T] sub-classes, some are over types T and S, like Specific[T, S], but this is irrelevant. The user might specify any T of course while creating and instance, but I want to treat it as T with a trait AdditionalAbilities or in other words I want to 'gift' the user's type with AdditionalAbilities. How can I do that in Scala? I hope the title is correct for this question.
Example (might not be syntactically correct)
class Specific[T **with trait Additional**]() extends Base[T](){
def doSomething() : T = {
val something = new T()
something.ability(2)
println(something.additional)
something
}
}
trait Additional{
var additional : Integer
def ability(i : Integer) : Unit = {
additional = i
}
}
Would work with any T.
When you define a parametric class you can require the parameter type to descend from a certain type:
trait AdditionalAbilities {
def doStuff(): Unit = println("Hey There")
}
object NoAbility extends AdditionalAbilities {
override def doStuff(): Unit = ()
}
abstract class Base[T] { ... }
class Specific[T <: AdditionalAbilities] extends Base[T] {
def f(t: T): Unit = t.doStuff()
}
Then when you try to instantiate a Specific type:
scala> new Specific[Int] {}
<console>:13: error: type arguments [Int] do not conform to class Specific's type parameter bounds [T <: AdditionalAbilities]
scala> val b = new Specific[NoAbility.type] {}
b: Specific[NoAbility.type] = $anon$1#517cd4b
scala> b.f(NoAbility)
//did nothing
Also, if you want to add a behaviour to an existing concrete class, you can do so at the time of instantiation:
trait CoolAbilities { def doStuff(): Unit = println("Hey there") }
class A { }
scala> val a = new A with CoolAbilities
a: A with CoolAbilities = $anon$1#6ad3381f
scala> a.doStuff()
Hey there
Perhaps implicit classes could help? Implicit classes allow you to add functionality to an existing type without needing to modify the existing type, or be the one instantiating it (so that you could mix in a trait).
The following compiles, and prints: 3
class Specific[T] {
implicit class TAdditional(t: T) {
var additional: Integer = 0
def ability(i: Integer) = {
additional = i
}
}
def doSomething(t: T) = {
doSomethingAdditional(t)
}
private def doSomethingAdditional(t: TAdditional) = {
t.ability(3)
println(t.additional)
}
}
val s = new Specific[Int]
s.doSomething(5)
Note: We need to do something to make sure we are accessing the same instance
of TAdditional, that's why I made the private doSomethingAdditional method that takes a TAdditional as an argument. If we call ability and additional in 'doSomething', separate instances of TAdditional would be created when we try to access #ability and #additional, and '0' would be printed.

Write generic code in scala without inheritance hierarchy

I have few classes which do not derive from any superclass. They all have bunch of same methods defined. For example,
class A {
def getMsgNum = 1
}
class B {
def getMsgNum = 2
}
I would like to write a generic function that will return message num based on object function is called with. So something like,
def getMsgNum[T](t: T) = t.getMsgNum
I think that because of type erasure I cannot expect that to work but I was looking at view bound and context bound with ClassTag but that still does not work.
def getType[T: ClassTag](msg: T) = {
msg.getMsgNum
}
I come from C++ background and I am trying to achieve something to the effect of template compilation for every type.
Thanks for your time!
I personally prefer adhoc polymorphism with TypeClass (http://danielwestheide.com/blog/2013/02/06/the-neophytes-guide-to-scala-part-12-type-classes.html) pattern. I think it will be much more "true scala way" solution for this kind of problem. Also structural typing more expensive at runtime because it use reflection for field access.
class A
class B
trait ToMsgNum[T] {
def getMsgNum: Int
}
implicit object AToMsgNum extends ToMsgNum[A] {
def getMsgNum = 1
}
implicit object BToMsgNum extends ToMsgNum[B] {
def getMsgNum = 2
}
def getMsgNum[T: ToMsgNum](t: T) =
implicitly[ToMsgNum[T]].getMsgNum
println(getMsgNum(new A))
println(getMsgNum(new B))
def getMsgNum[T](t: T)(implicit ev: T => { def getMsgNum: Int }) = t.getMsgNum
where { def getMsgNum: Int } is a structural type. From the documentation:
A structural type is a type of the form Parents { Decls } where Decls contains declarations of new members that do not override any member in Parents.
and
Structural types provide great flexibility because they avoid the need to define inheritance hierarchies a priori
Please note that the above solution uses an implicit reflective call to access the field of the structural type, a language feature that has to be explicitly enabled by adding the import
import scala.language.reflectiveCalls
This is not too different from Eugene's solution but I think it's a bit clearer:
// predefined classes you have no access to
class Foo { def someMethod = "foo" }
class Bar { def someMethod = "bar" }
there's no way in Scala other than reflection or structural types (which is reflection in disguise) to generically call someMethod on these types. The way this can be made to work though, is by defining adapter objects that know how to deal with each type individually, and you then make generic calls on those instead:
trait HasSomeMethod[T] { def someMethod(x: T): String }
object FooHasSomeMethod extends HasSomeMethod[Foo] { def someMethod(x: Foo) = x.someMethod }
object BarHasSomeMethod extends HasSomeMethod[Bar] { def someMethod(x: Bar) = x.someMethod }
now you can pass one of those adapter objects into the method that needs generic access to Foo#someMethod and Bar#someMethod:
def invokeSomeMethod[T](x: T)(adapter: HasSomeMethod[T]) =
adapter.someMethod(x)
invokeSomeMethod(new Foo)(FooHasSomeMethod) // returns "foo"
invokeSomeMethod(new Bar)(BarHasSomeMethod) // returns "bar"
(we could have used a single parameter list here but later we'll nede 2 lists anyway)
however, this is obviously not as useful as we'd like as we have to pass in the adapter manually. Let's introduce implicits to make Scala automatically look up the right adapter object and pass that in to our generic but inheritance'less method:
implicit object FooHasSomeMethod extends HasSomeMethod[Foo] { ... }
implicit object BarHasSomeMethod extends HasSomeMethod[Bar] { ... }
def invokeSomeMethod[T](x: T)(implicit adapter: HasSomeMethod[T]) =
adapter.someMethod(x)
now these work:
invokeSomeMethod(new Foo) // returns "foo"
invokeSomeMethod(new Bar) // returns "bar"
The above 2 calls get translated automatically to the longer calls in the previous version; Scala looks up suitable values for the implicit adapter parameter automatically from the implicit objects (and also vals and defs, to be precise) available in the "environment" of the call.
You can also define invokeSomeMethod like this, which is just syntactic sugar over the above definition:
def invokeSomeMethod[T: HasSomeMethod](x: T) =
implicitly[HasSomeMethod[T]].someMethod(x)
or, since T: HasSomeMethod auto-generates a second parameter list implicit evidence$1: HasSomeMethod[T], this also works:
def invokeSomeMethod[T: HasSomeMethod](x: T) =
evidence$1.someMethod(x)
The above "pattern" is known as Type Classes. So for example the T: HasSomeMethod bit can be read as "some type T that belongs to the type class HasSomeMethod" (or "...has been made an instance of the type class HasSomeMethod").
For more on Type Classes, see e.g. http://danielwestheide.com/blog/2013/02/06/the-neophytes-guide-to-scala-part-12-type-classes.html.
You can also define the HasSomeMethod type class instance for classes that don't even have someMethod nor bear no other resemblance to Foo and Bar whatsoever, if needed:
implicit object IntHasSomeMethod extends HasSomeMethod[Int] {
def someMethod(x: Int) = "this is an int: " + x
}
invokeSomeMethod(3) // returns "this is an int: 3"
If you need to define an instance of that type class for many classes, you can have a helper (with a name that matches the type class, for niceness):
def HasSomeMethod[T](fn: T => String) = new HasSomeMethod[T] {
def someMethod(x: T) = fn(x)
}
now you can define type class instances (adapters) very concisely:
implicit val FooHasSomeMethod = HasSomeMethod[Foo](_.someMethod)
implicit val BarHasSomeMethod = HasSomeMethod[Bar](_.someMethod)
implicit val IntHasSomeMethod = HasSomeMethod[Int]("this is an int: " + _)
implicit val PersonHasSomeMethod = HasSomeMethod[Person](_.name)
// etc
If you dont want to use structural type (reflection) and implicit, how about create Adaptor on top of it, so you own method getMsgNum will implement based on the Adaptor instead of already existing class.
class A {
def getMsgNum = 1
}
class B {
def getMsgNum = 2
}
class C {
def getMsgNum = 3
}
trait Adaptor[T] {
def getMsgNum: Int
}
class AdaptorA(t: A) extends Adaptor[A] {
def getMsgNum = t.getMsgNum
}
class AdaptorB(t: B) extends Adaptor[B] {
def getMsgNum = t.getMsgNum
}
class AdaptorC(t: C) extends Adaptor[C] {
def getMsgNum = t.getMsgNum
}
def getMsgNum[T](t: Adaptor[T]) = t.getMsgNum
getMsgNum(new AdaptorA(new A)) //1
getMsgNum(new AdaptorB(new B)) //2
getMsgNum(new AdaptorC(new C)) //3