Difference between case object and object - scala

Question

Is there any difference between case object and object in scala?

Answer 1

Here's one difference - case objects extend the Serializable trait, so they can be serialized. Regular objects cannot by default:
scala> object A
defined module A
scala> case object B
defined module B
scala> import java.io._
import java.io._
scala> val bos = new ByteArrayOutputStream
bos: java.io.ByteArrayOutputStream =
scala> val oos = new ObjectOutputStream(bos)
oos: java.io.ObjectOutputStream = java.io.ObjectOutputStream#e7da60
scala> oos.writeObject(B)
scala> oos.writeObject(A)
java.io.NotSerializableException: A$

Answer 2

Case classes differ from regular classes in that they get:
pattern matching support
default implementations of equals and hashCode
default implementations of serialization
a prettier default implementation of toString, and
the small amount of functionality that they get from automatically inheriting from scala.Product.
Pattern matching, equals and hashCode don't matter much for singletons (unless you do something really degenerate), so you're pretty much just getting serialization, a nice toString, and some methods you probably won't ever use.

Answer 3

scala> object foo
defined object foo
scala> case object foocase
defined object foocase
Serialization difference:
scala> foo.asInstanceOf[Serializable]
java.lang.ClassCastException: foo$ cannot be cast to scala.Serializable
... 43 elided
scala> foocase.asInstanceOf[Serializable]
res1: Serializable = foocase
toString difference:
scala> foo
res2: foo.type = foo$#7bf0bac8
scala> foocase
res3: foocase.type = foocase

Answer 4

A huge necro, but it is the highest result for this question in Google outside official tutorial which, as always, is pretty vague about the details. Here are some bare bones objects:
object StandardObject
object SerializableObject extends Serializable
case object CaseObject
Now, lets use the very useful feature of IntelliJ 'decompile Scala to Java' on compiled .class files:
//decompiled from StandardObject$.class
public final class StandardObject$ {
public static final StandardObject$ MODULE$ = new StandardObject$();
private StandardObject$() {
}
}
//decompiled from StandardObject.class
import scala.reflect.ScalaSignature;
#ScalaSignature(<byte array string elided>)
public final class StandardObject {
}
As you can see, a pretty straightforward singleton pattern, except for reasons outside the scope of this question, two classes are generated: the static StandardObject (which would contain static forwarder methods should the object define any) and the actual singleton instance StandardObject$, where all methods defined in the code end up as instance methods. Things get more intresting when you implement Serializable:
//decompiled from SerializableObject.class
import scala.reflect.ScalaSignature;
#ScalaSignature(<byte array string elided>)
public final class SerializableObject {
}
//decompiled from SerializableObject$.class
import java.io.Serializable;
import scala.runtime.ModuleSerializationProxy;
public final class SerializableObject$ implements Serializable {
public static final SerializableObject$ MODULE$ = new SerializableObject$();
private Object writeReplace() {
return new ModuleSerializationProxy(SerializableObject$.class);
}
private SerializableObject$() {
}
}
The compiler doesn't limit itself to simply making the 'instance' (non-static) class Serializable, it adds a writeReplace method. writeReplace is an alternative to writeObject/readObject; what it does, it serializes a different object whenether the Serializable class having this method is being serialized. On deserializention then, that proxy object's readResolve method is invoked once it is deserialized. Here, a ModuleSerializableProxy instance is serialized with a field carrying the Class[SerializableObject], so it knows what object needs to be resolved. The readResolve method of that class simply returns SerializableObject - as it is a singleton with a parameterless constructor, scala object is always structurally equal to itself between diffrent VM instances and different runs and, in this way, the property that only a single instance of that class is created per one VM instance is preserved. A thing of note is that there is a security hole here: no readObject method is added to SerializableObject$, meaning an attacker can maliciously prepare a binary file which matches standard Java serialization format for SerializableObject$ and a separate instance of the 'singleton' will be created.
Now, lets move to the case object:
//decompiled from CaseObject.class
import scala.collection.Iterator;
import scala.reflect.ScalaSignature;
#ScalaSignature(<byte array string elided>)
public final class CaseObject {
public static String toString() {
return CaseObject$.MODULE$.toString();
}
public static int hashCode() {
return CaseObject$.MODULE$.hashCode();
}
public static boolean canEqual(final Object x$1) {
return CaseObject$.MODULE$.canEqual(var0);
}
public static Iterator productIterator() {
return CaseObject$.MODULE$.productIterator();
}
public static Object productElement(final int x$1) {
return CaseObject$.MODULE$.productElement(var0);
}
public static int productArity() {
return CaseObject$.MODULE$.productArity();
}
public static String productPrefix() {
return CaseObject$.MODULE$.productPrefix();
}
public static Iterator productElementNames() {
return CaseObject$.MODULE$.productElementNames();
}
public static String productElementName(final int n) {
return CaseObject$.MODULE$.productElementName(var0);
}
}
//decompiled from CaseObject$.class
import java.io.Serializable;
import scala.Product;
import scala.collection.Iterator;
import scala.runtime.ModuleSerializationProxy;
import scala.runtime.Statics;
import scala.runtime.ScalaRunTime.;
public final class CaseObject$ implements Product, Serializable {
public static final CaseObject$ MODULE$ = new CaseObject$();
static {
Product.$init$(MODULE$);
}
public String productElementName(final int n) {
return Product.productElementName$(this, n);
}
public Iterator productElementNames() {
return Product.productElementNames$(this);
}
public String productPrefix() {
return "CaseObject";
}
public int productArity() {
return 0;
}
public Object productElement(final int x$1) {
Object var2 = Statics.ioobe(x$1);
return var2;
}
public Iterator productIterator() {
return .MODULE$.typedProductIterator(this);
}
public boolean canEqual(final Object x$1) {
return x$1 instanceof CaseObject$;
}
public int hashCode() {
return 847823535;
}
public String toString() {
return "CaseObject";
}
private Object writeReplace() {
return new ModuleSerializationProxy(CaseObject$.class);
}
private CaseObject$() {
}
}
A lot more is going on, as CaseObject$ now implements also Product0, with its iterator and accessor methods. I am unaware of a use case for this feature, it is probably done for consistency with case class which is always a product of its fields. The main practical difference here is that we get canEqual, hashCode and toString methods for free. canEqual is relevant only if you decide to compare it with a Product0 instance which is not a singleton object, toString saves us from implementing a single simple method, which is useful when case objects are used as enumeration constants without any behaviour implemented. Finally, as one might suspect, hashCode returns a constant, so it is the same for all VM instances. This matters if one serializes some flawed hash map implementation, but both standard java and scala hash maps wisely rehash all contents on deserialization, so it shouldn't matter. Note that equals is not overriden, so it is still reference equality, and that the security hole is still there. A huge caveat here: if a case object inherit equals/toString from some supertype other than Object, the corresponding methods are not generated, and the inherited definitions are used instead.
TL;DR: the only difference that matters in practice is the toString returning the unqualified name of the object.
I must make a disclamer here, though: I cannot guarantee that the compiler doesn't treat case objects specially in addition to what is actually in the bytecode. It certainly does so when patterm matching case classes, aside from them implementing unapply.

Answer 5

It's similar with case class and class ,we just use case object instead of case class when there isn't any fields representing additional state information.

Answer 6

case objects implicitly come with implementations of methods toString, equals, and hashCode, but simple objects don't.
case objects can be serialized while simple objects cannot, which makes case objects very useful as messages with Akka-Remote.
Adding the case keyword before object keyword makes the object serializable.

Answer 7

We know objects and "case class" before. But "case object" is a mix of both i.e it is a singleton similar to an object and with a lot of boilerplate as in a case class. The only difference is that the boilerplate is done for an object instead of a class.
case objects won't come with the below ones:
Apply, Un-apply methods.
here are no copy methods since this is a singleton.
No method for structural equality comparison.
No constructor as well.