#groovy.transform.TypeChecked
abstract class Entity {
...
double getMass() {
...
}
...
}
#groovy.transform.TypeChecked
abstract class Location {
...
Entity[] getContent() {
...
}
...
}
#groovy.transform.TypeChecked
abstract class Container {...} //inherits, somehow, from both Location and Entity
#groovy.transform.TypeChecked
class Main {
void main() {
double x
Container c = new Chest() //Chest extends Container
Entity e = c
x = e.mass
Location l = c
x = l.content //Programmer error, should throw compile-time error
}
}
Essentially, is there a way to achieve this, without sacrificing any of the three properties outlines in main():
Direct access to fields, even virtual fields
Assigning to both super-classes
Typechecking (at compile-time)
I don't think you can do that with classes. Maybe you'd wanted traits (under discussion update: available in Groovy 2.3 and already rocking!) or, for a pure dynamic solution, #Mixin, which you'd back up with a good test suite.
My guess: #Delegate is your best friend here, but, as it stands, you can only store a Chest object in a Container type variable. So you'd need some interfaces.
Even if the superclass is not under your control, you can use groovy as operator to make it implement an interface.
First, i rewrote your classes to remove the abstract and add interfaces:
import groovy.transform.TypeChecked as TC
interface HasMass { double mass }
interface HasContent { Entity[] getContent() }
#TC class Entity implements HasMass { double mass }
#TC class Location {
Entity[] getContent() {
[new Entity(mass: 10.0), new Entity(mass: 20.0)] as Entity[]
}
}
Note i didn't added HasContent to Location, to show the usage of as.
Second, comes the Container and Chest. #Delegate is added and it auto-inherits the interfaces of the delegates:
#TC
abstract class Container {
#Delegate Location location = new Location()
#Delegate Entity entity = new Entity()
}
#TC class Chest extends Container { }
Last, it becomes type-checkable, as long as you stick to interfaces:
#TC class Mult {
static main(args) {
def x // use 'def' for flow-typing
Container c = new Chest() //Chest extends Container
HasMass e = c
x = e.mass
def l = c as HasContent
x = l.content //Programmer error, should throw compile-time error
assert c.content.collect { Entity it -> it.mass } == [10.0, 20.0]
}
}
Related
How can i use class instance in another class like a pointer in C++ to class instance functions?
Example:
class A {
constructor()
{
this.block = [];
}
method()
{
return this.blocks.length;
}
}
another class:
class B {
constructor(instance)
{
this.instance = instance;
}
method()
{
this.instance.method(); // here i'm getting cannot get length of undefined
}
}
If i'm trying to to like that i'm getting problems to call it
You can try this. Here, when creating B class's instance I give into it an A class's instance as argument. Then inside B we can call A instance's methods, and access its properties.
Also, as #ViaTech posted you can use static methods to access them without needing to initialize an object of the class. That is what static methods is. Refer Static Methods
class B {
constructor(instance)
{
this.instance = instance;
}
method()
{
this.instance.method();
}
}
class A {
constructor()
{
}
method()
{
console.log("A's method");
}
}
var a = new A();
var b = new B(a);
b.method(); // A's method
You can easily do this in JS by calling a static method like so:
class A {
static write(){ //static method
console.log("Called write from A");
}
}
class B {
doIt(){
A.write();
}
}
let b = new B();
b.doIt();
Option 2, you instantiate the class in the constructor of the other like so:
class A {
write(){
console.log("Non-static write() called from class A");
}
}
class B {
constructor() {
this.a = new A();
}
doIt(){
this.a.write();
}
}
let b = new B();
b.doIt();
There are a few ways:
I accidentally switched between PHP and Javascript, but the principles are the same for both)
Use static functions:
Normally, you have a this in the class. Say you have this code:
class Car {
let color;
public function setColor(newColor){ this.color = newColor;}
}
let car = new Car();
car->setColor('green')`
The setColor function's this refers to that car. You can make let anotherCar = new Car(), then when you do anotherCar->setColor('red') you only change that car, not the first one. Simplistic: You can create multiple instances.
If you do not need that, but need the class once, you can make it static. A simple way to explain would be "you have a collection of seperate functions, just put into a wrapping class (which doesn't do a lot really)". For instance, you might have some sanatizing methods:
class Sanitize {
static function makeHtmlSave(input){
return doYourMagicHere(input);
}
static function removeXssCode(input){
return doMoreMagicHere(input);
}
}
This way, you can reuse it multiple times. If you want to use it, you do Sanitize::makeHtmlSave(someCode) where you need it. There isn't a Sanitize thing, it's just a wrapper to access the frunctions inside it.
Use extend:
You can extend a class. Say you have a generic class Vehicle, which has some properties (eg a motor, numberWeels, color) and you can extend that with more specific classes:
class Vehicle {
let color;
public function setColor(newColor){ this.color = newColor}
}
class Car extends Vehicle {
let hasAirco = false;
public function hasAirco(newValue){ this.hasAirco = newValue};
}
If you do let car = new Car(), you get a Car object, that extends/enlarges/complements the Vehicle class, so you can use both its (public) functions. Internally, Car can use the functions of Vehicle too.
Just pass it
class One {
// some stuff
}
class Two{
let otherObject;
construct(givenObject){
this.otherObject = givenObject;
}
}
You can now do this let a = new One(); let b = new Two(a);. You can not use the functions of One inside Two, but you can still use a->doSomething(). This solution feels like the easiest, but it almost never is. Classes/objects are tricky stuff, but I've rarely uses this solutions. There are use cases, but often it's a bad smell indicator.
In java we can write thead-safe singletons using double Checked Locking & volatile:
public class Singleton {
private static volatile Singleton instance;
public static Singleton getInstance(String arg) {
Singleton localInstance = instance;
if (localInstance == null) {
synchronized (Singleton.class) {
localInstance = instance;
if (localInstance == null) {
instance = localInstance = new Singleton(arg);
}
}
}
return localInstance;
}
}
How we can write it in kotlin?
About object
object A {
object B {}
object C {}
init {
C.hashCode()
}
}
I used kotlin decompiler to get that
public final class A {
public static final A INSTANCE;
private A() {
INSTANCE = (A)this;
A.C.INSTANCE.hashCode();
}
static {
new A();
}
public static final class B {
public static final A.B INSTANCE;
private B() {
INSTANCE = (A.B)this;
}
static {
new A.B();
}
}
public static final class C {
public static final A.C INSTANCE;
private C() {
INSTANCE = (A.C)this;
}
static {
new A.C();
}
}
}
All of object have constructor invoke in static block. Based on it, we can think that it's not lazy.
Сlose to the right answer.
class Singleton {
companion object {
val instance: Singleton by lazy(LazyThreadSafetyMode.PUBLICATION) { Singleton() }
}
}
Decompiled:
public static final class Companion {
// $FF: synthetic field
private static final KProperty[] $$delegatedProperties = new KProperty[]{(KProperty)Reflection.property1(new PropertyReference1Impl(Reflection.getOrCreateKotlinClass(Singleton.Companion.class), "instance", "getInstance()Lru/example/project/tech/Singleton;"))};
#NotNull
public final Singleton getInstance() {
Lazy var1 = Singleton.instance$delegate;
KProperty var3 = $$delegatedProperties[0];
return (Singleton)var1.getValue();
}
private Companion() {
}
// $FF: synthetic method
public Companion(DefaultConstructorMarker $constructor_marker) {
this();
}
}
I hope Kotlin developers will make non reflection implementation in future...
Kotlin has an equivalent of your Java code, but more safe. Your double lock check is not recommended even for Java. In Java you should use an inner class on the static which is also explained in Initialization-on-demand holder idiom.
But that's Java. In Kotlin, simply use an object (and optionally a lazy delegate):
object Singletons {
val something: OfMyType by lazy() { ... }
val somethingLazyButLessSo: OtherType = OtherType()
val moreLazies: FancyType by lazy() { ... }
}
You can then access any member variable:
// Singletons is lazy instantiated now, then something is lazy instantiated after.
val thing = Singletons.something // This is Doubly Lazy!
// this one is already loaded due to previous line
val eager = Singletons.somethingLazyButLessSo
// and Singletons.moreLazies isn't loaded yet until first access...
Kotlin intentionally avoids the confusion people have with singletons in Java. And avoids the "wrong versions" of this pattern -- of which there are many. It instead provides the simpler and the safest form of singletons.
Given the use of lazy(), if you have other members each would individually be lazy. And since they are initialized in the lambda passed to lazy() you can do things that you were asking about for about customizing the constructor, and for each member property.
As a result you have lazy loading of Singletons object (on first access of instance), and then lazier loading of something (on first access of member), and complete flexibility in object construction.
See also:
lazy() function
Lazy thread safe mode options
Object declarations
As a side note, look at object registry type libraries for Kotlin that are similar to dependency injection, giving you singletons with injection options:
Injekt - I'm the author
Kodein - Very similar and good
Object declaration is exactly for this purpose:
object Singleton {
//singleton members
}
It is lazy and thread-safe, it initializes upon first call, much as Java's static initializers.
You can declare an object at top level or inside a class or another object.
For more info about working with objects from Java, please refer to this answer.
As to the parameter, if you want to achieve exactly the same semantics (first call to getInstance takes its argument to initialize the singleton, following calls just return the instance, dropping the arguments), I would suggest this construct:
private object SingletonInit { //invisible outside the file
lateinit var arg0: String
}
object Singleton {
val arg0: String = SingletonInit.arg0
}
fun Singleton(arg0: String): Singleton { //mimic a constructor, if you want
synchronized(SingletonInit) {
SingletonInit.arg0 = arg0
return Singleton
}
}
The main flaw of this solution is that it requires the singleton to be defined in a separate file to hide the object SingletonInit, and you cannot reference Singleton directly until it's initialized.
Also, see a similar question about providing arguments to a singleton.
I recently wrote an article on that topic.
TL;DR Here's the solution I came up to:
1) Create a SingletonHolder class. You only have to write it once:
open class SingletonHolder<out T, in A>(creator: (A) -> T) {
private var creator: ((A) -> T)? = creator
#Volatile private var instance: T? = null
fun getInstance(arg: A): T {
val i = instance
if (i != null) {
return i
}
return synchronized(this) {
val i2 = instance
if (i2 != null) {
i2
} else {
val created = creator!!(arg)
instance = created
creator = null
created
}
}
}
}
2) Use it like this in your singletons:
class MySingleton private constructor(arg: ArgumentType) {
init {
// Init using argument
}
companion object : SingletonHolder<MySingleton, ArgumentType>(::MySingleton)
}
The singleton initialization will be lazy and thread-safe.
I came across a lot of code in our company codebase with the following structure
class Base
{
public Base (var a, var b)
{
base_a = a;
base_b = b;
}
var base_a;
var base_b;
}
class Derived:Base
{
publc Derived (var a,b,c,d): base (a,d)
{
der_c = c;
der_d = d;
}
var der_c;
var der_d;
var der_e;
}
class Ref
{
Base _ref;
public Ref( var a,b,c,d)
{
_ref = new Derived (a,b,c,d)
}
public void method( )
{
_ref.der_e = 444; // won't compile
}
}
What is the correct way to initialize der_e ? What is the advantages of having a reference of base class and using an object derived class for _ref ? Just the fact that using a base class reference can hold multiple derived class objects ? If that's the case, should all the member variables of derived class be initialized during construction itself (like this: _ref = new Derived (a,b,c,d) ). What if I want to initialize _ref.der_e later in a method ? I know I can do this (var cast_ref = _ref as Derived; cast_ref.der_e = 444) but this look doesn't seem to the best practice. What is the idea of having such a structure and what is the correct of initializing a member of a derived class object after it has been constructed ?
Those are too many questions in a single post.
What is the correct way to initialize der_e ?
For initializing der_e you will have to have Reference of Derived class as it knows about the der_e property and not Base class.
What is the advantages of having a reference of base class and using
an object derived class for _ref ?
Yes that's called Polymorphism which is the essence of Object Oriented Programming. It allows us to hold various concrete implementations without knowing about the actual implementation.
If that's the case, should all the member variables of derived class
be initialized during construction itself (like this: _ref = new
Derived (a,b,c,d) )
There is no such rule. It depends on your scenario. If the values are not meant to be changed after the creation of the object and the values are known before hand during construction of the object then they should be initialized during construction.
Again if there are various scenarios like sometimes values are known and sometimes not then there can be Overloaded Constructors, which take different arguments.
What if I want to initialize _ref.der_e later in a method ?
That is perfectly fine, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. The question is not a concrete one but an abstract one in which it is difficult to comment on what you are trying to achieve.
I know I can do this (var cast_ref = _ref as Derived; cast_ref.der_e =
444) but this look doesn't seem to the best practice.
I am sharing some Java code which is similar to C# as I am from Java background
//This class knows about Base and nothing about the Derived class
class UserOfBase{
Base ref;
//Constructor of UserOfBase gets passed an instance of Base
public UserOfBase(Base bInstance){
this.ref = bInstance;
}
//Now this class should not cast it into Derived class as that would not be a polymorphic behavior. In that case you have got your design wrong.
public void someMethod(){
Derived derivedRef = (Derived)ref; //This should not happen here
}
}
I am sharing some references which would help you with this, as I think the answer can be very long to explain.
Factory Pattern
Dependency Injection
Head First Design Patterns
Posts on SO regarding polymorphism
You can create a constructor in your derived class and map the objects or create an extension method like this:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void FillPropertiesFromBaseClass<T1, T2>(this T2 drivedClass, T1 baseClass) where T2 : T1
{
//Get the list of properties available in base class
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo[] properties = typeof(T1).GetProperties();
properties.ToList().ForEach(property =>
{
//Check whether that property is present in derived class
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo isPresent = drivedClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name);
if (isPresent != null && property.CanWrite)
{
//If present get the value and map it
object value = baseClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name).GetValue(baseClass, null);
drivedClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name).SetValue(drivedClass, value, null);
}
});
}
}
for example when you have to class like this:
public class Fruit {
public float Sugar { get; set; }
public int Size { get; set; }
}
public class Apple : Fruit {
public int NumberOfWorms { get; set; }
}
you can initialize derived class by this code:
//constructor
public Apple(Fruit fruit)
{
this.FillPropertiesFromBaseClass(fruit);
}
I have a class that I've defined, and I have a number of child classes derived from it. The parent class has an enum (let's call it 'Barf'). Each descendant ALSO has an enum with the same name but not the same values. What I'm trying to figure out how to do is write a method in the ancestor class that gets the version of Barf for the actual class of the instantiated object. So if I create an instance of Ancestor, I'd like to have this method process the entries for Ancestor.Barf . If I create an instance of one of the child classes of Ancestor, I'd like to have the method process Childx.Barf values.
Obviously this is going to be a Reflection solution, but my reflection skills are pretty sparse. Any help?
Just for the fun of it, here is a possible approach:
public class Ancestor {
public enum Caffeine {
Tea,
Coffee
}
public void ProcessValues() {
var type = GetType();
var nestedEnums = from t in type.GetNestedTypes()
where t.IsEnum
select t;
var nestedEnum = nestedEnums.Single();
foreach(var val in Enum.GetValues(nestedEnum)) {
Console.WriteLine("Drinking {0}", val);
}
}
}
public class Descendant : Ancestor {
public new enum Caffeine {
Jolt,
RedBull
}
}
// The following prints:
// Drinking Jolt
// Drinking RedBull
Ancestor x = new Descendant();
x.ProcessValues();
Of course, you could achieve the same thing using polymorphism:
public class Ancestor {
public enum Caffeine {
Tea,
Coffee
}
protected virtual Type GetNestedEnum() {
return typeof(Ancestor.Caffeine);
}
public void ProcessValues() {
var nestedEnum = GetNestedEnum();
foreach(var val in Enum.GetValues(nestedEnum)) {
Console.WriteLine("Drinking {0}", val);
}
}
}
public class Descendant : Ancestor {
public new enum Caffeine {
Jolt,
RedBull
}
protected override Type GetNestedEnum() {
return typeof(Descendant.Caffeine);
}
}
As Justin Morgan has pointed out however, having the need for such a construct may be an indication of an underlying design issue in your code.
Using ExpandoMetaClass Static Methods can be added dynamically, how can i use this ExpandoMetaClass in Singleton object, with overloaded static function in it, let say the sample program need to be re written using ExpandoMetaClass whats needs to changed in the below program
#Singleton
class testA {
def static zMap = [:]
static def X() {
Y()
}
static def Y() {
}
static def X(def var) {
Y(var)
}
static def Y(def var) {
zMap.put(var)
}
}
One of the reasons to use a singleton is to avoid having static state and methods in a class. If you're using #Singleton, there's no reason to have static methods or fields. The way to use a singleton is like this:
#Singleton class TestA {
def someField = "hello"
def methodX() {
someField
}
}
println TestA.instance.methodX()
You can extend the singleton using ExpandoMetaClass like so:
TestA.instance.metaClass.newMethod = { -> "foo" }
TestA.instance.metaClass.methodX = { -> "goodbye" }
println TestA.instance.newMethod()
println TestA.instance.methodX()
If you really want a static method, you can do something like this:
TestA.metaClass.static.methodY = { -> "I am static" }
println TestA.methodY()
Note that if you override the class metaClass, rather than the instance metaClass, it won't apply to the instance if the instance has already been created. To get around this use #Singleton(lazy = true) and override the metaClass before accessing the instance.