Assume I want to offer method foo on existing type A outside of my control. As far as I know, the canonical way to do this in Scala is implementing an implicit conversion from A to some type that implements foo. Now I basically see two options.
Define a separate, maybe even hidden class for the purpose:
protected class Fooable(a : A) {
def foo(...) = { ... }
}
implicit def a2fooable(a : A) = new Fooable(a)
Define an anonymous class inline:
implicit def a2fooable(a : A) = new { def foo(...) = { ... } }
Variant 2) is certainly less boilerplate, especially when lots of type parameters happen. On the other hand, I think it should create more overhead since (conceptually) one class per conversion is created, as opposed to one class globally in 1).
Is there a general guideline? Is there no difference, because compiler/VM get rid of the overhead of 2)?
Using a separate class is better for performance, as the alternative uses reflection.
Consider that
new { def foo(...) = { ... } }
is really
new AnyRef { def foo(...) = { ... } }
Now, AnyRef doesn't have a method foo. In Scala, this type is actually AnyRef { def foo(...): ... }, which, if you remove AnyRef, you should recognize as a structural type.
At compile time, this time can be passed back and forth, and everywhere it will be known that the method foo is callable. However, there's no structural type in the JVM, and to add an interface would require a proxy object, which would cause some problems such as breaking referential equality (ie, an object would not be equal with a structural type version of itself).
The way found around that was to use cached reflection calls for structural types.
So, if you want to use the Pimp My Library pattern for any performance-sensitive application, declare a class.
I believe 1 and 2 get compiled to the same bytecode (except for the class name that gets generated in case 2).
If Fooable exists only for you to be able to convert implicitly A to Fooable (and you're never going to directly create and use a Fooable), then I would go with option 2.
However, if you control A (meaning A is not a java library class that you can't subclass) I would consider using a trait instead of implicit conversions to add behaviour to A.
UPDATE:
I have to reconsider my answer. I would use variant 1 of your code, because variant 2 turns out to be using reflection (scala 2.8.1 on Linux).
I compiled these two versions of the same code, decompiled them to java with jd-gui and here are the results:
source code with named class
class NamedClass { def Foo : String = "foo" }
object test {
implicit def StrToFooable(a: String) = new NamedClass
def main(args: Array[String]) { println("bar".Foo) }
}
source code with anonymous class
object test {
implicit def StrToFooable(a: String) = new { def Foo : String = "foo" }
def main(args: Array[String]) { println("bar".Foo) }
}
compiled and decompiled to java with java-gui. The "named" version generates a NamedClass.class that gets decompiled to this java:
public class NamedClass
implements ScalaObject
{
public String Foo()
{
return "foo";
}
}
the anonymous generates a test$$anon$1 class that gets decompiled to the following java
public final class test$$anon$1
{
public String Foo()
{
return "foo";
}
}
so almost identical, except for the anonymous being "final" (they apparently want to make extra sure you won't get out of your way to try and subclass an anonymous class...)
however at the call site I get this java for the "named" version
public void main(String[] args)
{
Predef..MODULE$.println(StrToFooable("bar").Foo());
}
and this for the anonymous
public void main(String[] args) {
Object qual1 = StrToFooable("bar"); Object exceptionResult1 = null;
try {
exceptionResult1 = reflMethod$Method1(qual1.getClass()).invoke(qual1, new Object[0]);
Predef..MODULE$.println((String)exceptionResult1);
return;
} catch (InvocationTargetException localInvocationTargetException) {
throw localInvocationTargetException.getCause();
}
}
I googled a little and found that others have reported the same thing but I haven't found any more insight as to why this is the case.
Related
I've a got a trait:
trait A {
def some: Int
}
and an object mixing it in:
object B extends A {
def some = 1
}
The question is, is there a way to declare some in A in a way that all inheriting objects have to declare the some method as protected for example? Something that would make the compiler yell at the above implementation of some in B?
UPDATE:
Just a clarification on the purpose of my question: Within an organization, there are some software development standards that are agreed upon. These standards, for example 'The some method is to always be declared as private when inheriting from trait A', are in general communicated via specs or documents listing all the standards or via tools such as Jenkins, etc... I am wondering if we could go even further and have these standards right in the code, which would save a lot of time correcting issues raised by Jenkins for example.
UPDATE 2:
A solution I could think of is as follows:
abstract class A(
protected val some: Int
){
protected def none: String
}
Use an abstract class instead of a trait and have the functions or values that I need to be protected by default passed in the constructor:
object B extends A(some = 1) {
def none: String = "none"
}
Note that in this case, some is by default protected unless the developer decides to expose it through another method. However, there will be no guarantee that, by default, none will be protected as well.
This works for the use case I described above. The problem with this implementation is that if we have a hierarchy of abstract classes, we would have to add the all the constructor parameters of the parent to every inheriting child in the hierarchy. For example:
abstract class A(
protected val some: Int
)
abstract class B(
someImp: Int,
protected val none: String
) extends A(some = someImp)
object C extends B(
someImp = 1,
none = "none"
)
In contrast, using traits, we could have been able to simply write:
trait A{
protected val some: Int
}
trait B extends A{
protected val none: String
}
object C extends B{
val some = 1
val none = "none"
}
I don't see any straight way to restrict subclasses from choosing a wider visibility for inherited members.
It depends on why you want to hide the field some, but if the purpose is just to forbid end-users from accessing the field, you can use a slightly modified form of the cake pattern:
trait A {
trait A0 {
protected def some: Int
}
def instance: A0
}
object B extends A {
def instance = new A0 {
def some = 5
}
}
Yeah, it looks nasty but the compiler will yell when someone tries to do:
B.instance.some
Another version of this solution is just to do things like in your example (adding protected to the member "some" in A), but to never expose directly a reference of type B (always return references of type A instead)
EDIT I have made the example self-contained.
Suppose in java I have
src/main/java/FooFactory.java
interface FooFactory {
Foo<?> create();
<T> void enhance(Foo<T> foo, FooEnhancer<? super T> enhancer);
}
and src/main/java/Foo.java
interface Foo<T> {}
and src/main/java/FooEnhancer.java
interface FooEnhancer<T> {}
(and you can't change these interfaces because they belong to someone else.)
Then in scala you have
object DummyFooEnhancer extends FooEnhancer[Any]
trait FooHdlr {
def fooFactory: FooFactory
val foo = fooFactory.create
fooFactory.enhance(foo, DummyFooEnhancer)
}
This doesn't compile because FooEnhancer and Foo are invariant but foo is a Foo<?> whereas DummyFooEnhancer is a Foo[Any]. Changing Any to AnyRef doesn't work for the same reason.
Then I reasoned that, well, ? is a specific type that is certainly not known at compile time and that may not necessarily be AnyRef/Object, so what if I do this?
case class DummyFooEnhancer[T] extends FooEnhancer[T]
trait FooHdlr {
def fooFactory: FooFactory
val foo = fooFactory.create
fooFactory.enhance(foo, new DummyFooEnhancer)
}
But this causes scalac to stackoverflow! It's looping with
at scala.reflect.internal.Types$TypeVar.isGround(Types.scala:3082)
calling itself.
Interestingly if I replace ? super T with T it works fine, but in real life I can't do this because it's in code I don't control
Could someone explain why scala would allow a public variable, to satisfy the implementation of an abstract declared Protected item? My first assumption is that the compiler would complain, but I created a small test to see if this worked, and to my surprise it does. Is there an advantage to this? (perhaps this is normal in OOP?) Any methods to avoid the accidental pitfall?
object NameConflict extends App {
abstract class A {
protected[this] var name:String
def speak = println(name)
}
class B(var name:String) extends A { //notice we've declared a public var
}
val t = new B("Tim")
t.speak
println(t.name) // name is exposed now?
}
It's normal and as in Java. Sometimes it's desirable to increase the visibility of a member.
You can't do it the other way around and turn down visibility in a subclass, because the member can by definition be accessed through the supertype.
If invoking a method has terrible consequences, keep the method private and use a template method that can be overridden; the default implementation would invoke the dangerous method.
abstract class A {
private[this] def dangerous = ???
final protected def process: Int = {
dangerous
template
}
protected def template: Int = ???
}
class B extends A {
override def template = 5
}
In Scala, a val can override a def, but a def cannot override a val.
So, is there an advantage to declaring a trait e.g. like this:
trait Resource {
val id: String
}
rather than this?
trait Resource {
def id: String
}
The follow-up question is: how does the compiler treat calling vals and defs differently in practice and what kind of optimizations does it actually do with vals? The compiler insists on the fact that vals are stable — what does in mean in practice for the compiler? Suppose the subclass is actually implementing id with a val. Is there a penalty for having it specified as a def in the trait?
If my code itself does not require stability of the id member, can it be considered good practice to always use defs in these cases and to switch to vals only when a performance bottleneck has been identified here — however unlikely this may be?
Short answer:
As far as I can tell, the values are always accessed through the accessor method. Using def defines a simple method, which returns the value. Using val defines a private [*] final field, with an accessor method. So in terms of access, there is very little difference between the two. The difference is conceptual, def gets reevaluated each time, and val is only evaluated once. This can obviously have an impact on performance.
[*] Java private
Long answer:
Let's take the following example:
trait ResourceDef {
def id: String = "5"
}
trait ResourceVal {
val id: String = "5"
}
The ResourceDef & ResourceVal produce the same code, ignoring initializers:
public interface ResourceVal extends ScalaObject {
volatile void foo$ResourceVal$_setter_$id_$eq(String s);
String id();
}
public interface ResourceDef extends ScalaObject {
String id();
}
For the subsidiary classes produced (which contain the implementation of the methods), the ResourceDef produces is as you would expect, noting that the method is static:
public abstract class ResourceDef$class {
public static String id(ResourceDef $this) {
return "5";
}
public static void $init$(ResourceDef resourcedef) {}
}
and for the val, we simply call the initialiser in the containing class
public abstract class ResourceVal$class {
public static void $init$(ResourceVal $this) {
$this.foo$ResourceVal$_setter_$id_$eq("5");
}
}
When we start extending:
class ResourceDefClass extends ResourceDef {
override def id: String = "6"
}
class ResourceValClass extends ResourceVal {
override val id: String = "6"
def foobar() = id
}
class ResourceNoneClass extends ResourceDef
Where we override, we get a method in the class which just does what you expect. The def is simple method:
public class ResourceDefClass implements ResourceDef, ScalaObject {
public String id() {
return "6";
}
}
and the val defines a private field and accessor method:
public class ResourceValClass implements ResourceVal, ScalaObject {
public String id() {
return id;
}
private final String id = "6";
public String foobar() {
return id();
}
}
Note that even foobar() doesn't use the field id, but uses the accessor method.
And finally, if we don't override, then we get a method which calls the static method in the trait auxiliary class:
public class ResourceNoneClass implements ResourceDef, ScalaObject {
public volatile String id() {
return ResourceDef$class.id(this);
}
}
I've cut out the constructors in these examples.
So, the accessor method is always used. I assume this is to avoid complications when extending multiple traits which could implement the same methods. It gets complicated really quickly.
Even longer answer:
Josh Suereth did a very interesting talk on Binary Resilience at Scala Days 2012, which covers the background to this question. The abstract for this is:
This talk focuses on binary compatibility on the JVM and what it means
to be binary compatible. An outline of the machinations of binary
incompatibility in Scala are described in depth, followed by a set of rules and guidelines that will help developers ensure their own
library releases are both binary compatible and binary resilient.
In particular, this talk looks at:
Traits and binary compatibility
Java Serialization and anonymous classes
The hidden creations of lazy vals
Developing code that is binary resilient
The difference is mainly that you can implement/override a def with a val but not the other way around. Moreover val are evaluated only once and def are evaluated every time they are used, using def in the abstract definition will give the code who mixes the trait more freedom about how to handle and/or optimize the implementation. So my point is use defs whenever there isn't a clear good reason to force a val.
A val expression is evaluated once on variable declaration, it is strict and immutable.
A def is re-evaluated each time you call it
def is evaluated by name and val by value. This means more or less that val must always return an actual value, while def is more like a promess that you can get a value when evaluating it. For example, if you have a function
def trace(s: => String ) { if (level == "trace") println s } // note the => in parameter definition
that logs an event only if the log level is set to trace and you want to log an objects toString. If you have overriden toString with a value, then you need to pass that value to the trace function. If toString however is a def, it will only be evaluated once it's sure that the log level is trace, which could save you some overhead.
def gives you more flexibility, while val is potentially faster
Compilerwise, traits are compiled to java interfaces so when defining a member on a trait, it makes no difference if its a var or def. The difference in performance would depend on how you choose to implement it.
I've looked at example of logging in Scala, and it usually looks like this:
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory
trait Loggable {
private lazy val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass)
protected def debug(msg: => AnyRef, t: => Throwable = null): Unit =
{...}
}
This seems independent of the concrete logging framework. While this does the job, it also introduces an extraneous lazy val in every instance that wants to do logging, which might well be every instance of the whole application. This seems much too heavy to me, in particular if you have many "small instances" of some specific type.
Is there a way of putting the logger in the object of the concrete class instead, just by using inheritance? If I have to explicitly declare the logger in the object of the class, and explicitly refer to it from the class/trait, then I have written almost as much code as if I had done no reuse at all.
Expressed in a non-logging specific context, the problem would be:
How do I declare in a trait that the implementing class must have a singleton object of type X, and that this singleton object must be accessible through method def x: X ?
I can't simply define an abstract method, because there could only be a single implementation in the class. I want that logging in a super-class gets me the super-class singleton, and logging in the sub-class gets me the sub-class singleton. Or put more simply, I want logging in Scala to work like traditional logging in Java, using static loggers specific to the class doing the logging. My current knowledge of Scala tells me that this is simply not possible without doing it exactly the same way you do in Java, without much if any benefits from using the "better" Scala.
Premature Optimization is the root of all evil
Let's be clear first about one thing: if your trait looks something like this:
trait Logger { lazy val log = Logger.getLogger }
Then what you have not done is as follows:
You have NOT created a logger instance per instance of your type
You have neither given yourself a memory nor a performance problem (unless you have)
What you have done is as follows:
You have an extra reference in each instance of your type
When you access the logger for the first time, you are probably doing some map lookup
Note that, even if you did create a separate logger for each instance of your type (which I frequently do, even if my program contains hundreds of thousands of these, so that I have very fine-grained control over my logging), you almost certainly still will neither have a performance nor a memory problem!
One "solution" is (of course), to make the companion object implement the logger interface:
object MyType extends Logger
class MyType {
import MyType._
log.info("Yay")
}
How do I declare in a trait that the
implementing class must have a
singleton object of type X, and that
this singleton object must be
accessible through method def x: X ?
Declare a trait that must be implemented by your companion objects.
trait Meta[Base] {
val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass)
}
Create a base trait for your classes, sub-classes have to overwrite the meta method.
trait Base {
def meta: Meta[Base]
def logger = meta.logger
}
A class Whatever with a companion object:
object Whatever extends Meta[Base]
class Whatever extends Base {
def meta = Whatever
def doSomething = {
logger.log("oops")
}
}
In this way you only need to have a reference to the meta object.
We can use the Whatever class like this.
object Sample {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val whatever = new Whatever
whatever.doSomething
}
}
I'm not sure I understand your question completely. So I apologize up front if this is not the answer you are looking for.
Define an object were you put your logger into, then create a companion trait.
object Loggable {
private val logger = "I'm a logger"
}
trait Loggable {
import Loggable._
def debug(msg: String) {
println(logger + ": " + msg)
}
}
So now you can use it like this:
scala> abstract class Abstraction
scala> class Implementation extends Abstraction with Loggable
scala> val test = new Implementation
scala> test.debug("error message")
I'm a logger: error message
Does this answer your question?
I think you cannot automatically get the corresponding singleton object of a class or require that such a singleton exists.
One reason is that you cannot know the type of the singleton before it is defined. Not sure, if this helps or if it is the best solution to your problem, but if you want to require some meta object to be defined with a specific trait, you could define something like:
trait HasSingleton[Traits] {
def meta: Traits
}
trait Log {
def classname: String
def log { println(classname) }
}
trait Debug {
def debug { print("Debug") }
}
class A extends HasSingleton[Log] {
def meta = A // Needs to be defined with a Singleton (or any object which inherits from Log}
def f {
meta.log
}
}
object A extends Log {
def classname = "A"
}
class B extends HasSingleton[Log with Debug] { // we want to use Log and Debug here
def meta = B
def g {
meta.log
meta.debug
}
}
object B extends Log with Debug {
def classname = "B"
}
(new A).f
// A
(new B).g
// B
// Debug