I have the impression that closures run as the actual class being called (instead of the implementing super class) and thus break when some variables are not visible (e.g. private in the super class).
For example
package comp.ds.GenericTest2
import groovy.transform.CompileStatic
#CompileStatic
class ClosureScopeC {
private List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>()
private int accessThisPrivateVariable = 0;
void add(String a) {
list.add(a)
println("before ${accessThisPrivateVariable} ${this.class.name}")
// do something with a closure
list.each {String it ->
if (it == a) {
// accessThisPrivateVariable belongs to ClosureScopeC
accessThisPrivateVariable++
}
}
println("after ${accessThisPrivateVariable}")
}
}
// this works fine
a = new ClosureScopeC()
a.add("abc")
a.add("abc")
// child class
class ClosureScopeD extends ClosureScopeC {
void doSomething(String obj) {
this.add(obj)
}
}
b = new ClosureScopeD()
// THIS THROWS groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: accessThisPrivateVariable for class: comp.ds.GenericTest2.ClosureScopeD
b.doSomething("abc")
The last line throws a MissingPropertyException: the child class calls the "add" method of the super class, which executes the "each" closure, which uses the "accessThisPrivateVariable".
I am new to groovy, so I think there must be an easy way to do this, because otherwise it seems that closures completely break the encapsulation of the private implementation done in the super class ... this seems to be a very common need (super class implementation referencing its own private variables)
I am using groovy 2.1.3
I found this to be a good reference describing how Groovy variable scopes work and applies to your situation: Closure in groovy cannot use private field when called from extending class
From the above link, I realized that since you have declared accessThisPrivateVariable as private, Groovy would not auto-generate a getter/setter for the variable. Remember, even in Java, private variables are not accessible directly by sub-classes.
Changing your code to explicitly add the getter/setters, solved the issue:
package com.test
import groovy.transform.CompileStatic
#CompileStatic
class ClosureScopeC {
private List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>()
private int accessThisPrivateVariable = 0;
int getAccessThisPrivateVariable() { accessThisPrivateVariable }
void setAccessThisPrivateVariable(int value ){this.accessThisPrivateVariable = value}
void add(String a) {
list.add(a)
println("before ${accessThisPrivateVariable} ${this.class.name}")
// do something with a closure
list.each {String it ->
if (it == a) {
// accessThisPrivateVariable belongs to ClosureScopeC
accessThisPrivateVariable++
}
}
println("after ${accessThisPrivateVariable}")
}
}
// this works fine
a = new ClosureScopeC()
a.add("abc")
a.add("abc")
// child class
class ClosureScopeD extends ClosureScopeC {
void doSomething(String obj) {
super.add(obj)
}
}
b = new ClosureScopeD()
b.doSomething("abc")
There is a simpler way, just make the access modifier (should rename the property really) to protected, so the sub-class has access to the property.. problem solved.
protected int accessThisProtectedVariable
To clarify on your statement of concern that Groovy possibly has broken encapsulation: rest assured it hasn't.
By declaring a field as private, Groovy is preserving encapsulation by intentionally suspending automatic generation of the public getter/setter. Once private, you are now responsible and in full control of how or if there is a way for sub-classes (protected) or all classes of objects (public) to gain access to the field by explicitly adding methods - if that makes sense.
Remember that by convention, Groovy ALWAYS calls a getter or setter when your codes references the field. So, a statement like:
def f = obj.someField
will actually invoke the obj.getSomeField() method.
Likewise:
obj.someField = 5
will invoke the obj.setSomeField(5) method.
Related
I have two immutable groovy classes that have a few shared values that I'm trying to abstract to a parent class. However when I create the following, the second test case always fails. Although everything compiles correctly and no error is thrown at runtime, when I assign the parent property int he constructor, it is never set, resulting in a null value. I havent found any documentation that forbids this, but I'm wondering is this even possible? I've tried a number of configuration of Annotations and class-types (e.g. removing abstract from the parent) but nothing seems to work short of just removing the #Immutable tag altogether.
abstract class TestParent {
String parentProperty1
}
#ToString(includeNames = true)
#Immutable
class TestChild extends TestParent {
String childProperty1
String childProperty2
}
class TestCase {
#Test
void TestOne() {
TestChild testChild = new TestChild(
childProperty1: "childOne",
childProperty2: "childTwo",
parentProperty1: "parentOne"
)
assert testChild
assert testChild.parentProperty1
}
}
Based on the code for the ImmutableASTTransformation, the Map-arg constructor added by the createConstructorMapCommon method does not include a call to super(args) in the method body.
which means that immutable classes are self contained by default
Now if you want to do it you need to use composition instead of inheritance and this is an example of how you can do it :
import groovy.transform.*
#TupleConstructor
class A {
String a
}
#Immutable(knownImmutableClasses=[A])
class B {
#Delegate A base
String b
}
def b = new B(base: new A("a"), b: "b")
assert b.a
i hope this will help :)
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 wrote the following Java classes:
package com.example;
class MySet extends java.util.AbstractSet {
#Override public java.util.Iterator iterator() { return null; }
#Override public int size() { return 0; }
}
interface ToSet { MySet toSet(); }
public class MyList extends java.util.AbstractList implements ToSet {
#Override public Object get(int index) { return null; }
#Override public int size() { return 0; }
public MySet toSet() {
return new MySet();
}
}
and a test in Groovy:
package com.example
class MyTest {
#org.junit.Test
public void test() {
MySet set = new MyList().toSet();
println(set.class);
println(new MyList().toSet().class);
def set2 = new MyList().toSet();
println(set2.class);
}
}
The test run results in:
class com.example.MySet
class java.util.HashSet
class java.util.HashSet
My guess is that in the latter two cases the expression toSet() invokes the GDK's toSet method instead of MyList#toSet, but what is the exact rule about this behavior? Does Groovy's method selection depend not only on receiver and arguments, but also on the context?
One more subtle thing is that if I remove implements ToSet from the Java code above, the test prints class com.example.MySet for all three cases. So I got confused.
In the three examples you mention, your toSet method is never invoked. This is easily verified by adding a print statement to your toSet method in MyList. The reason the first class is printed as MySet is because of the assignment to a variable of the type MySet - Groovy will implicitly cast the HashSet to MySet upon assignment (magic!).
The rest of the behavior is more subtle. When no interface implementation is declared (you remove implements ToSet), Groovy method dispatcher will pick the method implementation on the MyList class, i.e. the method you defined. Apparently, when the interface implementation is defined, the method dispatcher has to choose between the interface implementation (MyList toSet) and the superclass implementation (GDK toSet), and it's choosing the latter (they both have no arguments).
// What is the technical reason behind this scenarios..?
You're trying to use a statement other than a declaration directly inside the class - rather than within a method. When did you expect the method to get called?
Basically all you can have directly within a type is a bunch of declarations - methods, variables, constructors, events, nested types etc. Method calls (or any other statements) which aren't part of a declaration have to be written within methods, constructors etc.
Method call statement can not be part of a class declaration, but only within Function members declarations scope, such as Methods, Properties, Constructors etc.
For example:
public class ExampleClass
{
private void SayHelloWorld()
{
Console.Writeline("Hello World!");
}
public void CallSayHelloWorldMethod()
{
this.SayHelloWorld();
}
}
At the above example you can see that I call the SayHelloWorld method within the CallSayHelloWorldMethod metod.
Update:
The closest thing I can think of in your case is to use the class's constructor where your method call will be executed as soon as you'll instantiate your class:
public class ExampleClass
{
//The class constructor
public ExampleClass()
{
this.SayHelloWorld();
}
private void SayHelloWorld()
{
Console.Writeline("Hello World!");
}
}
And when you instantiating it, it will be immediately called:
//Your method call will be executed here
ExampleClass exampleClass = new ExampleClass();
You have a few problems... This won't even compile as you are trying to call the method obj.m1() in the class definition.
A obj = new A();
obj.m1(); // Why this code wont work??? --> This must be inside a method
When you create an instance of a class it will create a new member variable called obj which is an instance of A --> A obj = newA() above;
You will now be able to call obj's methods as in your second example.
Also, in order to get this to compile you will need to fix the m2 method:
public void m2() { //--> should have a curly brace
obj.m1(); // But This will work.
}
I've developed a Class that has some methods that augment Integer, it mainly lets me do this:
def total = 100.dollars + 50.euros
Now I have to extend Integer.metaClass doing something like this:
Integer.metaClass.getDollars = {->
Money.Dollar(delegate)
}
I tried putting that at the bottom of the file, before the Money class declaration, but the compiler says that a class Named Money already exists, I know why it happens (because groovy creates a class with the name of the file with an empty static void main to run this code).
I also tried using a static block inside the class like this:
static {
Integer.metaClass.getDollars = {->
Money.Dollar(delegate)
}
}
This neither works.
A third solution would be to change the file name (like MoneyClass.groovy) and keep the class name (class Money) but that seems a bit weird.
Is there anything else I can do? Thanks.
Just put it in any method of any class maybe a bean TypeEnhancer.groovy:
public class TypeEnhancer {
public void start() {
Integer.metaClass.getDollars() = {-> Money.Dollar(delegate) }
}
public void stop() {
Integer.metaClass = null
}
}
Just create and initalize by calling start(): new TypeEnhancer().start();.
To disable the enhancement, call new TypeEnhancer().stop();. The bean can also used as Spring bean.