I have java class with protected static method:
package parent;
public class Parent {
protected static void parentMethod() {
System.out.println("I'm in parent static method");
}
}
Before Scala 2.12.4 (2.12.3) I could call this method from another package like this:
package child
import parent.Parent
class Child extends Parent {
def childMethod = {
println("I'm in child method and calling parentMethod")
Parent.parentMethod()
}
}
But Scala 2.12.4 does not compile this code. I'm getting the error:
Error:(9, 12) method parentMethod in object Parent cannot be accessed
in object parent.Parent Access to protected method parentMethod not
permitted because prefix type parent.Parent.type does not conform to
object Child in package child where the access takes place
Parent.parentMethod()
This access pattern was very important for me because JOOQ code generation uses this.
What happened?
Nice catch, this is most likely a regression introduced by this PR, as part of a solution to this issue.
I've already opened a ticket for this that you can track. In the meanwhile, if this kind of access pattern is vital for your application, unfortunately I don't think you have much choice but to stick to Scala 2.12.3 for the time being.
Edit
The issue was already known and a fix has been already merged. As of the time of writing the patch is bound to be part of the 2.12.5 release.
Related
Trying to clean up some nasty code, for which we dont have the source code. Imagine something like this:
public class Driver{
private String paramA;
private String paramB;
new Driver(HugeAndOverbloatedObject object)
{
paramA = object.getSubObject4711().getParamX();
paramB = object.getSubObject4712().getParamY();
}
}
This third library has this all over the place: tight coupling via constructors, eventhough the classes are hardly related. The rude combination of private members and forced constructor inheritance make the extension of the code virtually impossible without creating "sloppy" constructor parameter objects.
So I am trying to manipulate the classes via AspectJ and compile time weaving, so I can slim down on the constructors, to something like this:
Driver driver = new Driver("paramA", "paramB");
I think this should be possible, and I have made some progress. If I have something like this:
public aspect NewConstructor {
Driver.new(String parameterA, String parameterB){
//New Constructor Code
}
}
and run this through the weaver I actually find a new constructor in the driver, but not quite as I expected.
Issue: Unexpected third Parameter in the woven class
I was hoping I can invoke it with two parameters:
new Driver("paramA", "paramB")
Instead I need to invoke it with three parameters:
new Driver("paramA", "paramB", new NewConstructor())
Why do I need to instantiate a new instance of the aspect and pass it as an argument? Can this be prevented?
Something odd is going on here. You should not need to add the aspect as a third argument to the constructor. In fact, when I try this myself using the following class and aspect, I do not get any compile errors:
Java class:
package pack;
public class Driver {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Driver("paramA", "paramB");
}
}
Aspect:
package pack;
public aspect NewConstructor {
public pack.Driver.new(String parameterA, String parameterB){
}
}
Are your Java class and aspect in different projects? Are you using an aspect path and/or in path? Are you using load time weaving?
If after doing a full build of your project you still see the probem, it's worth raising a bug for AspectJ.
I am using Guava's EventBus in my Scala project.
I have a parameterized event like so:
class MyEvent[T]
And a simple event listener:
class MyEventListener {
#Subscribe
def onStringEvent(event: MyEvent[String]) {
println("String event caught")
}
#Subscribe
def onIntEvent(event: MyEvent[Int]) {
println("Int event caught")
}
}
I can create my com.google.common.eventbus.EventBus, register MyEventListener, and fire an event:
val eventBus = new EventBus
eventBus.register(new MyEventListener)
eventBus.post(new MyEvent[String])
But, as you may have guessed already, both onStringEvent and onIntEvent get called as a result. The issue is that Java's/Scala's type erasure drops off the parameter type at runtime and both subscriptions appear to Guava as event: MyEvent.
Ok, my question:
Due to erasure, using the same Event object for different types of Guava events in this manner wouldn't be possible in Java and isn't possible in Scala. However, Scala proves to have a number of nice ways to circumvent Java's erasure problems. Does anybody see another way to achieve this, perhaps using some Scala wizardry?
The problem is in Guava: it cannot see the type parameter, and so it will not distinguish between the two methods. The only possible solution is to create a new class for each type.
That can be really easy:
class MyEvent[T] protected () { /* Your methods here */ }
class MyEventInt extends MyEvent[Int] {}
class MyEventString extends MyEvent[String] {}
and then whenever you need to do anything in your code, just use MyEvent[Int]. But Guava will require at least this much boilerplate.
Note that I've made the MyEvent[T] constructor protected so you have to instantiate one of the de-generified classes. I'm not sure whether that will work for your use-case; I'll assume so. You can get around that also (with type classes), but it adds more boilerplate.
UPDATE:
I have somewhat resolved the issue. Just in case if anyone runs in the same problem, here is the simplest solution: Looking at the MTApplcation source code, I have discovered that the initialize() method can be overloaded, taking a String parameter for the name of the class to instantiate. So if I create a separate class that extends MTApplication and pass it's name there, everything works correctly.
END OF UPDATE
I have a situation in Scala while trying to use a java library (MT4j, which is based on Processing). The library wants to instantiate the main class of the app (the caller-class):
Class<?> c = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().loadClass(name);
applet = (PApplet) c.newInstance();
So as to refer it later in it's works.
However, it fails because, I guess, the main Scala class is not a class, but an object and due to library structure, it is necessary to call a static method initialize() of the main library class MTApplication. In Java static fields are located in classes, but in Scala - in objects. So it is impossible to instantiate an object and the library fails. In contrast to MT4j, Processing itself makes no calls to static methods on startup and successfully passes that phase.
If I just create a companion class, everything works fine except that the companion class does not get its fields initialized because the static initialize() method is called in companion object, the class instance just gets dead-born and the library becomes unusable.
At least that is how I understand this problem.
I get this error:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.RuntimeException: java.lang.IllegalAccessException: Class processing.core.PApplet can not access a member of class main.Main$ with modifiers "private"
at processing.core.PApplet.runSketch(PApplet.java:9103)
at processing.core.PApplet.main(PApplet.java:9292)
at org.mt4j.MTApplication.initialize(MTApplication.java:311)
at org.mt4j.MTApplication.initialize(MTApplication.java:263)
at org.mt4j.MTApplication.initialize(MTApplication.java:254)
at main.Main$.main(Main.scala:26)
at main.Main.main(Main.scala)
It is hard for me to explain also because I do not fully understand what is going on here. But anyone who has these libs can reproduce the situation in a couple of minutes, trying to launch the main class.
The abstract startUp() method which should be implemented to start the app, makes everything look even more sad. It initializes the object, but what the library tries to work with is an instance of the companion class which does not get initialized because in Scala the method belongs to the object.
My code:
object Main extends MTApplication {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
MTApplication.initialize()
new Main().startUp()
}
//this method is abstarct so it MUST be implemented,
override def startUp(){
}
}
class Main extends MTApplication {
override def startUp(){
//startup here
}
}
I am sorry if my explanations are vague, I just do not get it all completely. Probably to understand it is easier to repeat the experiment with MT4j library with Processing source code instead of the pre-linked 'core.jar' there to see what is happening inside. Doeas anyone have ideas on any workaround here?
Problem solved. Here is the solution:
object Main {
var current: MainC = _
def main(args: Array[String]) {
MTApplication.initialize("org.mttablescreen.main.MainC")
}
}
class MainC extends MTApplication {
//cons
Main.current = this
//cons ends
override def startUp(){
prepare
}
def prepare () {...}
}
I am writing a Scala class to inherit from a Java class, and I must override a method that takes a protected Java inner class as a parameter. The Java dependency comes as a jar without source code.
I have the exact same setup as found in https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-3120 except that I do not have the Java source code available, so scalac only knows about the Java dependency by looking at the byte code (in jar or class files).
This is basically what I'm trying to do:
// javapkg/JavaSuperClass.java
package javapkg;
public class JavaSuperClass {
protected class JavaInnerClass {
}
public void method(JavaInnerClass javaInnerclass) {
System.out.println("hello");
}
}
// scalapkg/ScalaSubClass.scala
package scalapkg
import javapkg.JavaSuperClass
class ScalaSubClass extends JavaSuperClass {
override def method(javaInnerClass: JavaSuperClass#JavaInnerClass) {
println("world")
}
}
I have Java Sun JDK Hotspot 1.6.0_24 and Scala 2.9.0.1 on Linux. This is what happens:
$ cd javapkg
$ javac JavaSuperClass.java
$ cd ../scalapkg
$ scalac -cp .. ScalaSubClass.scala
ScalaSubClass.scala:6: error: class JavaInnerClass in class JavaSuperClass cannot be accessed in javapkg.JavaSuperClass
Access to protected class JavaInnerClass not permitted because
prefix type javapkg.JavaSuperClass does not conform to
class ScalaSubClass in package scalapkg where the access take place
override def method(javaInnerclass: JavaSuperClass#JavaInnerClass) {
^
one error found
Note, if I change JavaSuperClass#JavaInnerClass to simply JavaInnerClass, I get this:
ScalaSubClass.scala:6: error: method method overrides nothing
override def method(javaInnerClass: JavaInnerClass) {
^
one error found
Note: I know this sounds very similar to the common "protected static inner class" Java-compatibility issue in Scala, but I believe this is unrelated because there are no statics anywhere in my example.
I feel like something is wrong, because when I put the same code into a mixed java/scala project in Eclipse, it seemed to compile fine (with the latter JavaInnerClass syntax); it's only when I compile the Scala code with only the Java byte code (and no Java source code) that I cannot get it to work. Am I just completely missing the correct syntax to refer to a Java inner class, is this a known defect, or should I file a compiler bug? I couldn't find anything about this exact use case in my searching.
This is an excellent article that discuss the topic.
EDIT-1
My bad, I answered to quickly. This actually may be a bug Mike, I'm trying to see if I can find a hack around. I'll let you know if I find one.
EDIT-2
I've tried different things but I can't find a way to make it work. Mike I'd suggest you to file a bug report.
GWT.create() is the reflection equivalent in GWT,
But it take only class literals, not fully qualified String for the Class name.
How do i dynamically create classes with Strings using GWT.create()?
Its not possible according to many GWT forum posts but how is it being done in frameworks like Rocket-GWT (http://code.google.com/p/rocket-gwt/wiki/Ioc) and Gwittir (http://code.google.com/p/gwittir/wiki/Introspection)
It is possible, albeit tricky. Here are the gory details:
If you only think as GWT as a straight Java to JS, it would not work. However, if you consider Generators - Special classes with your GWT compiler Compiles and Executes during compilation, it is possible. Thus, you can generate java source while even compiling.
I had this need today - Our system deals with Dynamic resources off a Service, ending into a String and a need for a class. Here is the solutuion I've came up with - btw, it works under hosted, IE and Firefox.
Create a GWT Module declaring:
A source path
A Generator (which should be kept OUTSIDE the package of the GWT Module source path)
An interface replacement (it will inject the Generated class instead of the interface)
Inside that package, create a Marker interface (i call that Constructable). The Generator will lookup for that Marker
Create a base abstract class to hold that factory. I do this in order to ease on the generated source code
Declare that module inheriting on your Application.gwt.xml
Some notes:
Key to understanding is around the concept of generators;
In order to ease, the Abstract base class came in handy.
Also, understand that there is name mandling into the generated .js source and even the generated Java source
Remember the Generator outputs java files
GWT.create needs some reference to the .class file. Your generator output might do that, as long as it is referenced somehow from your application (check Application.gwt.xml inherits your module, which also replaces an interface with the generator your Application.gwt.xml declares)
Wrap the GWT.create call inside a factory method/singleton, and also under GWT.isClient()
It is a very good idea to also wrap your code-class-loading-calls around a GWT.runAsync, as it might need to trigger a module load. This is VERY important.
I hope to post the source code soon. Cross your fingers. :)
Brian,
The problem is GWT.create doen't know how to pick up the right implementation for your abstract class
I had the similar problem with the new GWT MVP coding style
( see GWT MVP documentation )
When I called:
ClientFactory clientFactory = GWT.create(ClientFactory.class);
I was getting the same error:
Deferred binding result type 'com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactory' should not be abstract
All I had to do was to go add the following lines to my MyWebapp.gwt.xml file:
<!-- Use ClientFactoryImpl by default -->
<replace-with class="com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactoryImpl">
<when-type-is class="com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactory"/>
</replace-with>
Then it works like a charm
I ran into this today and figured out a solution. The questioner is essentially wanting to write a method such as:
public <T extends MyInterface> T create(Class<T> clz) {
return (T)GWT.create(clz);
}
Here MyInterface is simply a marker interface to define the range of classes I want to be able to dynamically generate. If you try to code the above, you will get an error. The trick is to define an "instantiator" such as:
public interface Instantiator {
public <T extends MyInterface> T create(Class<T> clz);
}
Now define a GWT deferred binding generator that returns an instance of the above. In the generator, query the TypeOracle to get all types of MyInterface and generate implementations for them just as you would for any other type:
e.g:
public class InstantiatorGenerator extends Generator {
public String generate(...) {
TypeOracle typeOracle = context.getTypeOracle();
JClassType myTYpe= typeOracle.findType(MyInterface.class.getName());
JClassType[] types = typeOracle.getTypes();
List<JClassType> myInterfaceTypes = Collections.createArrayList();
// Collect all my interface types.
for (JClassType type : types) {
if (type.isInterface() != null && type.isAssignableTo(myType)
&& type.equals(myType) == false) {
myInterfaceTypes.add(type);
}
for (JClassType nestedType : type.getNestedTypes()) {
if (nestedType.isInterface() != null && nestedType.isAssignableTo(myType)
&& nestedType.equals(myTYpe) == false) {
myInterfaceTypes.add(nestedType);
}
}
}
for (JClassType jClassType : myInterfaceTypes) {
MyInterfaceGenerator generator = new MyInterfaceGenerator();
generator.generate(logger, context, jClassType.getQualifiedSourceName());
}
}
// Other instantiator generation code for if () else if () .. constructs as
// explained below.
}
The MyIntefaceGenerator class is just like any other deferred binding generator. Except you call it directly within the above generator instead of via GWT.create. Once the generation of all known sub-types of MyInterface is done (when generating sub-types of MyInterface in the generator, make sure to make the classname have a unique pattern, such as MyInterface.class.getName() + "_MySpecialImpl"), simply create the Instantiator by again iterating through all known subtypes of MyInterface and creating a bunch of
if (clz.getName().equals(MySpecialDerivativeOfMyInterface)) { return (T) new MySpecialDerivativeOfMyInterface_MySpecialImpl();}
style of code. Lastly throw an exception so you can return a value in all cases.
Now where you'd call GWT.create(clz); instead do the following:
private static final Instantiator instantiator = GWT.create(Instantiator.class);
...
return instantiator.create(clz);
Also note that in your GWT module xml, you'll only define a generator for Instantiator, not for MyInterface generators:
<generate-with class="package.rebind.InstantiatorGenerator">
<when-type-assignable class="package.impl.Instantiator" />
</generate-with>
Bingo!
What exactly is the question - i am guessing you wish to pass parameters in addition to the class literal to a generator.
As you probably already know the class literal passed to GWT.create() is mostly a selector so that GWT can pick and execute a generator which in the end spits out a class. The easist way to pass a parameter to the generator is to use annotations in an interface and pass the interface.class to GWT.create(). Note of course the interface/class must extend the class literal passed into GWT.create().
class Selector{
}
#Annotation("string parameter...")
class WithParameter extends Selector{}
Selector instance = GWT.create( WithParameter.class )
Everything is possible..although may be difficult or even useless. As Jan has mentioned you should use a generator to do that. Basically you can create your interface the generator code which takes that interface and compile at creation time and gives you back the instance. An example could be:
//A marker interface
public interface Instantiable {
}
//What you will put in GWT.create
public interface ReflectionService {
public Instantiable newInstance(String className);
}
//gwt.xml, basically when GWT.create finds reflectionservice, use reflection generator
<generate-with class="...ReflectionGenerator" >
<when-type-assignable class="...ReflectionService" />
</generate-with>
//In not a client package
public class ReflectionGenerator extends Generator{
...
}
//A class you may instantiate
public class foo implements Instantiable{
}
//And in this way
ReflectionService service = GWT.create(ReflectionService.class);
service.newInstance("foo");
All you need to know is how to do the generator. I may tell you that at the end what you do in the generator is to create Java code in this fashion:
if ("clase1".equals(className)) return new clase1();
else if ("clase2".equals(className)) return new clase2();
...
At the final I thought, common I can do that by hand in a kind of InstanceFactory...
Best Regards
I was able to do what I think you're trying to do which is load a class and bind it to an event dynamically; I used a Generator to dynamically link the class to the event. I don't recommend it but here's an example if it helps:
http://francisshanahan.com/index.php/2010/a-simple-gwt-generator-example/
Not having looked through the code of rocket/gwittir (which you ought to do if you want to find out how they did it, it is opensource after all), i can only guess that they employ deferred binding in such a way that during compile time, they work out all calls to reflection, and statically generate all the code required to implement those call. So during run-time, you cant do different ones.
What you're trying to do is not possible in GWT.
While GWT does a good job of emulating Java at compile time the runtime is of course completely different. Most reflection is unsupported and it is not possible to generate or dynamically load classes at runtime.
I had a brief look into code for Gwittir and I think they are doing their "reflection stuff" at compile time. Here: http://code.google.com/p/gwittir/source/browse/trunk/gwittir-core/src/main/java/com/totsp/gwittir/rebind/beans/IntrospectorGenerator.java
You might be able to avoid the whole issue by doing it on the server side. Say with a service
witch takes String and returns some sort of a serializable super type.
On the server side you can do
return (MySerializableType)Class.forName("className").newInstance();
Depending on your circumstances it might not be a big performance bottleneck.