The following code is valid Kotlin code:
abstract class A {
protected lateinit var v: X
abstract fun f(): X
class SubA : A() {
override fun f(): X {
return SubX()
}
init {
v = f()
}
}
}
It defines an abstract class which has a lateinit var field and an abstract method that sets the value of that field. The reason behind this is that that method may be called later again, and its behavior should be defined in the subclasses that extend the original class.
This code is a simplification of a real-world code, and even though it works, I feel like it is messy since the developer of the subclass could choose not to (or forget) to call v = f() inside an init block. And we cannot do that in A either because then it will show a warning that we are calling a non-final method in the constructor. What I propose is the following:
abstract class A {
private lateinit var v: X
abstract fun f(): X
class SubA : A() {
override fun f(): X {
return SubX()
}
}
lateinit { // this does not exist
v = f()
}
}
The benefits of this is that now the field can be private instead of protected, and the developer does not have to manually call v = f() in each of their subclasses (or the subclasses of their subclasses), and the naming fits with the nomenclature of Kotlin since lateinit is already a keyword and init is already a block. The only difference between an init and a lateinit block would be that the contents of a lateinit block are executed after the subclass constructors, not before like init.
My question is, why isn't this a thing? Is this already possible with some other syntax that I do not know about? If not, do you think it's something that should be added to Kotlin? How and where can I make this suggestion so that the developers would most likely see it?
There are three options, and you can implement your lateinit block in two ways
don't lazy init - just have a normal construction parameter
use a delegated lazy property
add a lambda construction parameter to the superclass class A
All of these solves the problem of requiring subclasses of A having to perform some initialization task. The behaviour is encapsulated within class A.
Normal construction parameter
Normally I'd prefer this approach, and don't lazy init. It's usually not needed.
abstract class A(val v: X)
class SubA : A(SubX())
interface X
class SubX : X
fun f() can be replaced entirely by val v.
This has many advantages, primarily that it's easier to understand, manage because it's immutable, and update as your application changes.
Delegated lazy property
Assuming lazy initialization is required, and based on the example you've provided, I prefer the delegated lazy property approach.
The existing equivalent of your proposed lateinit block is a lazy property.
abstract class A {
protected val v: X by lazy { f() }
abstract fun f(): X
}
class SubA : A() {
override fun f(): X {
return SubX()
}
}
interface X
class SubX : X
The superclass can simply call the function f() from within the lazy {} block.
The lazy block will only run once, if it is required.
Construction parameter
Alternatively the superclass can define a lambda as construction parameter, which returns an X.
Using a lambda as a construction parameter might be preferred if the providers are independent of implementations of class A, so they can be defined separately, which helps with testing and re-used.
fun interface ValueProvider : () -> X
abstract class A(
private val valueProvider: ValueProvider
) {
protected val v: X get() = valueProvider()
}
class SubA : A(ValueProvider { SubX() })
interface X
class SubX : X
The construction parameter replaces the need for fun f().
To make things crystal clear I've also defined the lambda as ValueProvider. This also makes it easier to find usages, and to define some KDoc on it.
For some variety, I haven't used a lazy delegate here. Because val v has a getter defined (get() = ...), valueProvider will always be invoked. But, if needed, a lazy property can be used again.
abstract class A(
private val valueProvider: ValueProvider
) {
protected val v: X by lazy(valueProvider)
}
Related
In Kotlin, I want to add a "namespace" to a class that has a set of related functions. Clients of my class will use that namespace to help classify what type of operation they want to do. (I know you're thinking the functions should be in different classes, problem solved. But for other reasons, it's convenient to house all the functions in a single class).
So, I might have a class Uber that contains fooInsert fooOpen fooDispose along with barInsert barTerminate and barHop. As you can see there's no common interface. Just a bunch of functions that for some reason belong in the same class. Some have an affinity with others (i.e. the fooXXX functions "belong" together, as do the "barYYY" functions).
What I've come up with is:
class Uber {
inner class FooNamespace {
fun insert(): Unit {}
fun open(): Unit {}
fun dispose(): Unit {}
}
val foo = FooNamespace()
inner class BarNamespace {
fun insert(): Unit {}
fun terminate(): Unit {}
fun hop(): Unit {}
}
val bar = BarNamespace()
}
Users of the class can do something like this:
val uber = Uber()
uber.foo.insert()
uber.bar.hop()
What I'd like is something that combines the inner class ... and val xxx = XxxNamespace() into one expression. Something like:
// This doesn't actually compile
val foo = object: inner class {
fun insert(): Unit {}
fun open(): Unit {}
fun dispose(): Unit {}
}
The problem here is that you need a properly defined type if you to want to access these members publicly.
For private properties, the syntax val foo = object { ... } is sufficient, but for publicly exposed properties these are inferred as Any and it makes them unusable.
One option is obviously to define an interface for these types, but it's even more boilerplate than what you came up with already, so I am pretty sure this won't suit your needs:
interface FooNamespace {
fun insert()
fun open()
fun dispose()
}
class Uber {
val foo = object : FooNamespace {
override fun insert(): Unit {}
override fun open(): Unit {}
override fun dispose(): Unit {}
}
}
I know you're thinking the functions should be in different classes, problem solved. But for other reasons, it's convenient to house all of the functions in a single class
I'm indeed really thinking that, and would love to hear more about what makes it so convenient to put everything in the same class :) Since the classes are inner classes, I'm assuming this has to do with accessing private state from Uber, but that could also be done by wrapping this private state into another class that's passed to foo and bar.
I believe this is not possible, at least for now.
The main technical problem here is that uber.foo.insert() is really interpreted as chaining uber.foo and then .insert(). So for this to work, uber.foo needs to have an explicitly defined type. It can't be anonymous class/object, because then there is no way to describe what is the type of uber.foo.
That being said, I've always wondered why Kotlin does not support this syntax:
val foo = object Foo {}
This is consistent with the object declaration where the name of the singleton is at the same time the name of the class. And the compiler even understands this above syntax, because it throws the error: "An object expression cannot bind a name". So Kotlin authors seem to intentionally disallow such use.
I found an issue in the YouTrack, so we can at least upvote it: https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-21329
I'm looking for an example that can cause a problem when using out in class declaration and the class has a method that get the parameter type as argument.
Also I'm looking for an example that can cause a problem when using in in class declaration and the parameter type is a var member of the class?
I think that i will be able to understand the rules only by examples
Suppose these are the classes we are working with:
open class Animal
class Cat: Animal() {
fun meow() = println("meow")
}
If we create a class like this with covariant out type and the compiler allowed us to use the type as a function parameter:
class Foo<out T: Animal> {
private var animal: T? = null
fun consumeValue(x: T) { // NOT ALLOWED
animal = x
}
fun produceValue(): T? {
return animal
}
}
Then if you do this, it will be lead to an impossible situation where we are trying to call meow on an Animal that doesn't have a meow function:
val catConsumer = Foo<Cat>()
val animalConsumer: Foo<Animal> = catConsumer // upcasting is valid for covariant type
animalConsumer.consumeValue(Animal())
catConsumer.produceValue()?.meow() // can't call `meow` on plain Animal
And if we create a class like this with contravariant in type and the compiler allowed us to use the type as a return value:
class Bar<in T: Animal>(private val library: List<T>) {
fun produceValue(): T { // NOT ALLOWED
return library.random()
}
}
Then if you do this, it will lead to the compiler impossibly casting a return type to a subtype.
val animalProducer: Bar<Animal> = Bar(List(5) { Animal() })
val catProducer: Bar<Cat> = animalProducer // downcasting is valid for contravariant type
catProducer.produceValue().meow() // can't call `meow` on plain Animal
A property has a getter which is just like a function that returns a value, and a var property additionally has a setter, which is just like a function that takes a parameter. So val properties are not compatible with contravariance (in) and var properties are not compatible with contravariance or covariance (out). Private properties aren't encumbered by these restrictions because within the class's inner workings, the type is invariant. All the class can know about its own type is its bounds. Variance just affects how the class can be cast (viewed) by the outside world.
So an example with val is enough to show why any property is incompatible with contravariance. You could replace val with var below and it would be no different.
class Bar<in T: Animal>(
val animal: T // NOT ALLOWED
)
val animalProducer: Bar<Animal> = Bar(Animal())
val catProducer: Bar<Cat> = animalProducer // downcasting is valid for contravariant type
catProducer.animal.meow() // can't call `meow` on plain Animal
Small reminder about variance
When you have a generic class G<T> (parameterized type), the variance is about defining a relationship between the hierarchy of the types G<T> for different Ts, and the hierarchy of the different Ts themselves.
For instance, if child class C extends a parent P then:
does List<C> extend List<P>? (List<T> would be covariant in T)
or the reverse? (contravariant)
or is there no relationship between List<C> and List<P>? (invariant).
Example
Now, consider List<out T>, which means that List is covariant in T.
As we've just seen, declaring list as such means that the following holds: "if C extends P, then List<C> extends List<P>".
Let's assume the following class declarations here:
open class Parent {
fun doParentStuff()
}
class Child : Parent() {
fun doChildStuff()
}
The covariance of List<out T> means that this is possible:
val listOfChild: List<Child> = listOf<Child>(Child(), Child())
// this is ok because List is covariant in T (out T)
// so List<Child> is a subtype of List<Parent>, and can be assigned to listOfParent
val listOfParent: List<Parent> = listOfChild
So what would happen if we could declare a method in the List class that accepts a parameter T?
class List<out T> {
fun add(element: T) {
// I can guarantee here that I have an instance of T, right?
}
}
The rules of most languages (including Kotlin) state that if a method accepts a parameter of type T, you can technically get an instance of T or any subclass of T (this is the point of subclassing), but you have at least all the API of T available to you.
But remember that we declared List<out T>, which means I can do:
val listOfChild: List<Child> = listOf<Child>(Child(), Child())
// this is ok because List is covariant in T (out T)
val listOfParent: List<Parent> = listOfChild
// listOfChild and listOfParent point to the same list instance
// so here we are effectively adding a Parent instance to the listOfChild
listOfParent.add(Parent())
// oops, the last one is not an instance of Child, bad things will happen here
// we could fail right here at runtime because Parent cannot be cast to Child
val child: Child = listOfChild.last
// even worse, look at what looks possible, but is not:
child.doChildThing()
Here you can see that from within the List<Child> instance, we actually could receive an instance of Parent which is not a subclass of Child in a method that had declared a parameter of type Child.
I'm trying to create a Map that contains generic-parameterized types. For example:
abstract class Foo {
companion object {
val fooInjectors = HashMap<Class<T: Foo>, Injector<T: Foo>>()
}
}
The idea is to have fooInjectors (which would be static in Java or in a companion object in Kotlin) contain a cache of sub-classes of Foo and their corresponding Injector.
Unfortunately, I can't get this to compile. I'd very much appreciate it if someone would help me figure out the syntax for this!
As far as I know, you are trying to do something that is impossible in Kotlin. The companion object is a singleton and it doesn't make sense to generify a singleton as there will not be any further objects created hence generic types are irrelevant. So you can't generify the property you declared because it's in the companion object.
However, one way you could make this working is using a backing function. This backing function should annotate with declaration-site variance.
This simply means we tell the compiler that we only return a type T from the method (and don't consume). That allows us to use subtypes and the supertype of the T if required. This is called covariance.
You can look at the docs to understand it further - https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/generics.html#declaration-site-variance
Here's what I meant.
interface Injector<T>
class InjectorImpl<T> : Injector<T>
abstract class Foo {
companion object {
val fooInjectors = createMap<Foo>()
private fun <T> createMap(): HashMap<Class<out T>, Injector<out T>> {
return HashMap()
}
}
}
class Bar: Foo()
object Runner {
#JvmStatic
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
Foo.fooInjectors[Bar::class.java] = InjectorImpl<Bar>()
Foo.fooInjectors[Foo::class.java] = InjectorImpl<Bar>()
}
}
While developing for android I sometimes come across something that looks like this:
var someModel: someViewModel by notNullAndObservable { vm ->
...
}
I don't understand what the significance of the by keyword is.
In simple words, you can understand by keyword as provided by.
From the perspective of property consumer, val is something that has getter (get) and var is something that has getter and setter (get, set). For each var property there is a default provider of get and set methods that we don't need to specify explicitly.
But, when using by keyword, you are stating that this getter/getter&setter is provided elsewhere (i.e. it's been delegated). It's provided by the function that comes after by.
So, instead of using this built-in get and set methods, you are delegating that job to some explicit function.
One very common example is the by lazy for lazy loading properties.
Also, if you are using dependency injection library like Koin, you'll see many properties defined like this:
var myRepository: MyRepository by inject() //inject is a function from Koin
In the class definition, it follows the same principle, it defines where some function is provided, but it can refer to any set of methods/properties, not just get and set.
class MyClass: SomeInterface by SomeImplementation, SomeOtherInterface
This code is saying:
'I am class MyClass and I offer functions of interface SomeInterface which are provided by SomeImplementation.
I'll implement SomeOtherInterface by myself (that's implicit, so no by there).'
In the Kotlin reference you will find two uses for by, the first being Delegated Properties which is the use you have above:
There are certain common kinds of properties, that, though we can implement them manually every time we need them, would be very nice to implement once and for all, and put into a library. Examples include lazy properties: the value gets computed only upon first access,
observable properties: listeners get notified about changes to this property,
storing properties in a map, not in separate field each.
Here you delegate the getter/setter to another class that does the work and can contain common code. As another example, some of the dependency injectors for Kotlin support this model by delegating the getter to receiving a value from a registry of instances managed by the dependency injection engine.
And Interface/Class delegation is the other use:
The Delegation pattern has proven to be a good alternative to implementation inheritance, and Kotlin supports it natively requiring zero boilerplate code. A class Derived can inherit from an interface Base and delegate all of its public methods to a specified object
Here you can delegate an interface to another implementation so the implementing class only needs to override what it wants to change, while the rest of the methods delegate back to a fuller implementation.
A live example would be the Klutter Readonly/Immutable collections where they really just delegate the specific collection interface to another class and then override anything that needs to be different in the readonly implementation. Saving a lot of work not having to manually delegate all of the other methods.
Both of these are covered by the Kotlin language reference, start there for base topics of the language.
The syntax is:
val/var <property name>: <Type> by <expression>.
The expression after by is the delegate
if we try to access the value of property p, in other words, if we call get() method of property p, the getValue() method of Delegate instance is invoked.
If we try to set the value of property p, in other words, if we call set() method of property p, the setValue() method of Delegate instance is invoked.
Delegation for property:
import kotlin.reflect.KProperty
class Delegate {
// for get() method, ref - a reference to the object from
// which property is read. prop - property
operator fun getValue(ref: Any?, prop: KProperty<*>) = "textA"
// for set() method, 'v' stores the assigned value
operator fun setValue(ref: Any?, prop: KProperty<*>, v: String) {
println("value = $v")
}
}
object SampleBy {
var s: String by Delegate() // delegation for property
#JvmStatic fun main(args: Array<String>) {
println(s)
s = "textB"
}
}
Result:
textA
value = textB
Delegation for class:
interface BaseInterface {
val value: String
fun f()
}
class ClassA: BaseInterface {
override val value = "property from ClassA"
override fun f() { println("fun from ClassA") }
}
// The ClassB can implement the BaseInterface by delegating all public
// members from the ClassA.
class ClassB(classA: BaseInterface): BaseInterface by classA {}
object SampleBy {
#JvmStatic fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val classB = ClassB(ClassA())
println(classB.value)
classB.f()
}
}
Result:
property from ClassA
fun from ClassA
Delegation for parameters:
// for val properties Map is used; for var MutableMap is used
class User(mapA: Map<String, Any?>, mapB: MutableMap<String, Any?>) {
val name: String by mapA
val age: Int by mapA
var address: String by mapB
var id: Long by mapB
}
object SampleBy {
#JvmStatic fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val user = User(mapOf("name" to "John", "age" to 30),
mutableMapOf("address" to "city, street", "id" to 5000L))
println("name: ${user.name}; age: ${user.age}; " +
"address: ${user.address}; id: ${user.id}")
}
}
Result:
name: John; age: 30; address: city, street; id: 5000
Kotlin enables me to implement an interface by delegating to a primary constructor argument like so:
class Foo(xs : ArrayList<Int>) : List<Int> by xs { }
But this exhibits the backing implementer to the user. Delegating to an anonymous also seems to be ok:
class Foo() : List<Int> by ArrayList<Int>() { }
This hides the implementation details, but we loose access to features not provided by the interface, which in this case is mutability.
I would therefore like to delegate the implementation to a property that is not in the primary constructor. What I would like to have is similar to
class Foo() : List<Int> by xs {
val xs : List<Int> = ArrayList<Int>()
}
which doesn't compile.
Is it possible to have a property defined explicitly in the class body and still be able to delegate implementation to it?
This is not currently possible. The expression in the by-clause is computed only once before the construction of the class, so you cannot reference symbols of that class.
There is a request in the issue tracker to allow this, although it's almost definitely not going to be supported in Kotlin 1.0.
One funny workaround that sometimes works is to make the property which you want to be a delegate, a constructor parameter with the default value instead. That way it'll be accessible both in the by-clause and in the class body:
class Foo(val xs: List<Int> = ArrayList<Int>()) : List<Int> by xs {
fun bar() {
println(xs)
}
}
Keep in mind though that xs in by xs is still calculated only once here, so even if xs is a var property, only the default value provided in the constructor will be used. It's not a universal solution, but sometimes it can help.
Expanding on the answer of Alexander Udalov, I came up with a solution using a private base class
private open class FooBase(protected val xs : MutableList<Int>) : List<Int> by xs { }
class Foo() : FooBase(ArrayList()) {
fun bar() {
xs.add(5)
}
}
Now I can have access to the property backing my interface implementation but am not restricted to operations provided by that interface while still hiding the actual implementation from the user.
Note: Although it works, I get the following warning from IntelliJ IDEA 15 CE which arises from EXPOSED_SUPER_CLASS inspection: Deprecated: subclass effective visibility 'public' should be the same or less permissive than its superclass effective visibility 'private'. I'm not quite sure what the deprecated part here means – whether the warning will be removed in the future or this won't compile at some point. Anyway, we don't really have to use a private open class, abstract or simply open will do, because even if the user is allowed to create an instance of FooBase, there is not much he can do with it.
Update:
There is actualy a simple and compact solution that does not use any suspicious behaviour:
class Foo private constructor(private val xs: ArrayList<Int>) : List<Int> by xs {
constructor() : this(ArrayList<Int>()) { }
}