Just starting to learn scala for a new project. Have got to the point where I would like to define different properties files for the different environments the app is going to run on, ideally in a similar way to Rails - very lightweight, just one different properties file per environment that is loaded based on its name. I don't really care if it's a java properties file, YML or scala code.
In the spirit of not reinventing the wheel I've been looking to see if there is some accepted standard Scala way of doing this but I can't find one, I've found a few similar but not identical questions here where people suggest using system properties in the startup script but this feels like it would end up being a nightmare.
I could obviously implement it if needs be but feels like the sort of thing that should already exist. So - does it?
I'm using sbt if that makes a difference.
I know of Configgy. Also, Akka/Play 2.0 will be using Config, which looks nice too. See blog about the latter.
Basically, Configgy has been used for a while now, but has been deprecated, while Config will be all-new. However, having Config as the default Typesafe Stack configuration tool will probably make it the preferred tool for that pretty fast.
I have written a Configgy replacement called Configrity. It can use different input formats (like YAML), it's immutable, supports functional patterns and uses type class to convert automatically the values to the desired type.
I have written BeeConfig, a replacement for java.util.Properties except that it is a Scala API and uses UTF-encoded configuration files. It supports string interpolation, chaining and a bunch of other features. But its main objective is simplicity.
Bitbucket | Blog post
Rick
Related
I am using TreeHugger to generate code at runtime. I could not find many documents related to it. My question is, if I generate classes using treehugger, will I be able to access those classes in future?
To be precise: I want to read data coming from files like CSV and create classes at runtime . Can I use that class in future, say in the next class generated at runtime.
I am really new to scala, please forgive if I am not clear in explaining.
Thanks a lot!
I've done something similar, so I'll share what I've learned:
Treehugger ultimately generates code (strings) at runtime to be used in a subsequent, separate run (or I suppose to be eval'd at runtime, but I never got that to work).
So the course of action depends on what you mean by "runtime":
Are your .csv files only available at runtime? If you have access to the files at compile time (as is often the case), then are examples of your two options: experimental (scala macros) or traditional (sbt plugin) -- both approaches are similar but have subtle pros and cons.
If you only have access to the files at runtime, but still need to generate and "type" the classes and make the compiler expect them, then it seems to me that somebody has made a bad design mistake! But if you find yourself stuck in this circumstance, then it is possible to define and load classes at runtime with a bytecode-engineering library and some type-checker black magic (runtime type provider).
I'm building a tool that will receive unpredictable data structure, and I want to generate case class to accomplish the structure of the received data.
I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to generate case class at runtime? This structure will be know only at runtime.
It's something similar to what macro does, but in runtime.
I've found this project on the internet
mars
Which is very close to what I want to do ,but I couldn't find if it was successful of not.
Another way of doing it is generate the code, compile and put the result in the classpath, like IScala is doing to use the code in an iterative way. But I don't think that this will scale.
Does anybody has already done something like runtime code generation?
This question was also posted in scala-user mailing list
UPDATE: (as per the comments)
If all you want is throw-away code generated at runtime to be fed into to a library that cannot work with just lists and maps, and not code to be stored and used later, it would make sense to look for solutions to this problem for Java or JVM. That is, unless the library requires some Scala specific features not available to vanilla JVM bytecode (Scala adds some extras to the bytecode, which Java code doesn't need/have).
what is the benefit of generating statically typed code dynamically? as opposed to using a dynamic data structure.
I would not attempt that at all. Just use a structure such as nested lists and maps.
Runtime code generation is one of the purposes of the Mars Project. Mars is under development, at the moment there is no release version. Mars requires its own toolchain to expand macros at runtime and should use several features unique to scala.meta (http://scalameta.org/), for example, AST interpretation and AST persistence. Currently we are working on ASTs typechecking in scala-reflect, required for runtime macros expansion.
I've used lettuce for python in the past. It is a simple BDD framework where specs are written in an external plain text file. Implementation uses regex to identify each step, proving reusable code for each sentence in the specification.
Using scala, either with specs2 or scalatest I'm being forced to write the the specification alongside the implementation, making it impossible to reuse the implementation in another test (sure, we could implement it in a function somewhere) and making it impossible to separate the test implementation from the specification itself (something that I used to do, providing acceptance tests to clients for validation).
Concluding, I raise my question: Considering the importance of validating tests by clients, is there a way in BDD frameworks for scala to load the tests from an external file, raising an exception if a sentence in the test is not implemented yet and executing the test normally if all sentences have been implemented?
I've just discovered a cucumber plugin for sbt. Tests would be implemented under test/scala and specifications would be kept in test/resources as plain txt files. I'm just not sure on how reliable the library is and if it will have support in the future.
Edit:
The above is a wrapper for the following plugin wich solves perfectly the problem and supports Scala.
https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-jvm
This is all about trade-offs. The cucumber-style of specifications is great because it is pure text, that easily editable and readable by non-coders.
However they are also pretty rigid as specifications because they impose a strict format based on features and Given-When-Then. In specs2 for example we can write any text we want and annotate only the lines which are meant to be actions on the system or verification. The drawback is that the text becomes annotated and that pending must be explicitly specified to indicate what hasn't been implemented yet. Also the annotation is just a reference to some code, living somewhere, and you can of course use the usual programming techniques to get reusability.
BTW, the link above is an interesting example of trade-off: in this file, the first spec is "uglier" but there are more compile-time checks that the When step uses the information from a Given step or that we don't have a sequence of Then -> When steps. The second specification is nicer but also more error-prone.
Then there is the issue of maintaining the regular expressions. If there is a strict separation between the people writing the features and the people implementing them, then it's very easy to break the implementation even if nothing substantial changes.
Finally, there is the question of version control. Who owns the document? How can we be sure that the code is in sync with the spec? Who refactors the specification when required?
There is no, by far, perfect solution. My own conclusion is that BDD artifacts should be in the hand of developers and verified by the other stakeholders, reading the code directly if it's readable or reading an html/pdf output. And if the BDD artifacts are owned by developers they might as well use their own tools to make their life easier with verification (using a compiler when possible) and maintenance (using automated refactorings).
You said yourself that it is easy to make the implementation reusable by the normal methods Scala provides for this kind of stuf (methods, functions, traits, classes, types ...), so there isn't really a problem there.
If you want to give a version without code to your customer, you can still give them the code files, and if they can't ignore a little syntax, you probably could write a custom reporter writing all the text out to a file, maybe even formatted with as html or something.
Another option would be to use JBehave or any other JVM based framework, they should work with Scala without a problem.
Eric's main design criteria was sustainability of executable specification development (through refactoring) and not initial convenience due to "beauty" of simple text.
see http://etorreborre.github.io/specs2/
The features of specs2 are:
Concurrent execution of examples by default
ScalaCheck properties
Mocks with Mockito
Data tables
AutoExamples, where the source code is extracted to describe the example
A rich library of matchers
Easy to create and compose
Usable with must and should
Returning "functional" results or throwing exceptions
Reusable outside of specs2 (in JUnit tests for example)
Forms for writing Fitnesse-like specifications (with Markdown markup)
Html reporting to create documentation for acceptance tests, to create a User Guide
Snippets for documenting APIs with always up-to-date code
Integration with sbt and JUnit tools (maven, IDEs,...)
Specs2 is quite impressive in both design and implementation.
If you look closely you will see the DSL can be extended while you keep the typesafe-ty and strong command of domain code under development.
He who leaves aside the "is more ugly" argument and tries this seriously will find power.
Checkout the structured forms and snippets
I have just finished the first version of a Java 6 compiler plugin, that automatically generates wrappers (proxy, adapter, delegate, call it what you like) based on an annotation.
Since I am doing mixed Java/Scala projects, I would like to be able to use the same annotation inside my Scala code, and get the same generated code (except of course in Scala). That basically means starting from scratch.
What I would like to do, and for which I haven't found an example yet, is how do I generate the code inside a Scala compiler plugin in the same way as in the Java compiler plugin. That is, I match/find where my annotation is used, get the AST for the annotated interface, and then ask the API to give me a Stream/Writer in which I output the generated Scala source code, using String manipulation.
That last part is what I could not find. So how do I tell the API to create a new Scala source file, and give me a Stream/Writer/File/Handle, so I can just write in it, and when I'm done, the Scala compiler compiles it, within the same run in which the plugin was invoked?
Why would I want to do that? Firstly, because than both plugins have the same structure, so maintenance is easy. Secondly, I want to open source it, and there is just no way to support every option that anyone would want, so I expect potential users to want to extend the generation with their own code. This will be a lot easier for them if they just have to do some printf(), instead of learning the AST API (this also applies to me).
Short answer:
It can't be done
Long answer:
You could conceivably generate your source file and push that through a parser instance within your plugin. But not in any way that's likely to be of any use to you, because you'd now have a bigger problem to contend with:
In order to grab all the type/name information for generating the delagate/proxy, you'll have to pick up the annotated type's AST after it has run through both the namer and typer phases (which are inseperable). The catch is that any attempts to call your generated code will already have failed typechecking, the compiler will have thrown an error, and any further bets are off.
Method synthesis is possible in limited cases, so long as you can somehow fool the typechecker for just long enough to get your code generated, which is the trick I pulled with my Autoproxy 'lite' plugin. Even then, you're far better off working with TreeDSL to generate code instead of pumping out raw source.
Kevin is entirely correct, but just for completeness it's worth mentioning that there is another alternative - write a compiler plugin that generates source. This is the approach that I've adopted in Borachio. It's not a very satisfactory solution, but it can be made to work.
Edit - I just reread your question and realised that you're actually asking about generating source anyway
So there is no support for this directly, but it's basically just a question of opening a file and writing the relevant "print" statements. There's no way to invoke the compiler "inside" a plugin AFAIK, but I've written an sbt plugin which hides most of the complexity of invoking the compiler twice.
I was a little surprised when I started using Lift how heavily it uses reflection (or appears to), it was a little unexpected in a statically-typed functional language. My experience with JSP was similar.
I'm pretty new to web development, so I don't really know how these tools work, but I'm wondering,
What aspects of web development encourage using reflection?
Are there any tools (in statically typed languages) that handle (1) referring to code from a template page (2) object-relational mapping, in a way that does not use reflection?
Please see lift source. It doesn't use reflection for most of the code that I have studied. Almost everything is statically typed. If you are referring to lift views they are processed as Xml nodes, that too is not reflection.
Specifically referring to the <lift:Foo.bar/> issue:
When <lift:Foo.bar/> is encountered in the code, Lift makes a few guesses, how the original name should have been (different naming conventions) and then calls java.lang.Class.forName to get the class. (Relevant code in LiftSession.scala and ClassHelpers.scala.) It will only find classes registered with addToPackages during boot.
Note that it is also possible (and common) to register classes and methods manually. Convention is still that all transformations must be of the form NodeSeq => NodeSeq because that is the only thing which makes sense for an untyped HTML/XHTML output.
So, what you have is Lift‘s internal registry of node transformations on one side, and on the other side the implicit registry of the module. Both types use a simple string lookup to execute a method. I guess it is arguable if one is more reflection based than the other.