I declared an inline class
#JvmInline
value class Creator<T>(val type: KClass<T>);
, and declared an interface
interface Itf {
fun <T> creator(type: KClass<T>): Creator<T>;
}
I want to implement this interface by generating the bytecode by asm(https://asm.ow2.io/ 1).
I found java method decompiled from bytecode is
public KClass<T> creator-9k1ZQyY();
The java method name is “creator-9k1ZQyY”. the suffix “-9k1ZQyY” is added by kotlin compiler and I know why kotlin compiler did it.
This suffix is very important for bytecode generator.
My question:
If the interface and inline class are stable, can kotlin compiler guarantee that suffix is stable too? Does that suffix have nothing to do with the version of kotlin-compiler?
The docs seem to suggest the mangling is stable:
functions using inline classes are mangled by adding some stable hashcode to the function name
As noted in the same doc, the mangling scheme has changed once with the version 1.4.30 of the Kotlin compiler, but I would consider it quite stable nonetheless. They even provided a flag to use the old scheme to generate binary compatible code, so I'm assuming it's not only unlikely to change again, but even if it does, it will surely be done with some way to keep compatibility.
Related
For String.strip() I get warning 'strip(): String!' is deprecated. This member is not fully supported by Kotlin compiler, so it may be absent or have different signature in next major version"
Why is it? "strip" comes from Java String
What should I use?
First of all: String.strip() is a new function in Java 11. Kotlin targets JVM 6 by default, so I was unable to reproduce your issue at first, I got a compilation error. Using JVM 11 as target in Android Studio worked with your compiler warning.
Kotlin's string class (kotlin.String) is not the same as Java's string class (java.lang.String). The Kotlin type is however mapped to the Java type (quote):
Kotlin types such as List, MutableList, String, CharSequence etc. are all compiled to their java equivalents, and thus any runtime checks will not be able to distinguish between them. At compile-time, however, they are distinct types with different sets of members. In particular, the Kotlin types do not have all members that the corresponding Java types have. They have those listed in the Kotlin std lib reference, as well as a few extra JVM specific ones (such as Collection.stream())
kotlin.String does not have a .strip() function. You are just "incidentally" calling java.lang.String.strip() which happens to be there in some target JVMs but not defined in Kotlin. If you look at the kotlin.String source in your IDE you can see it is not defined there.
The reason it is not there is because it was explicitly graylisted by the Kotlin team:
Some methods in JDK classes are undesirable in Kotlin built-ins (e.g. a lot of String methods or List.sort(), because there are Kotlin analogues with better signatures already defined).
.strip() does the same thing as kotlin.String.trim(), so use that instead.
Extended Reading
Extended Reading 2
The commit which put .strip() on the graylist
I am very new to Kotlin development and I came across custom annotation classes in the documentation.
Is there a way for me to use an annotation on a function as a way to pre-populate some variables, or to run a decorator function before running the annotated function?
Something like:
class TestClass {
#Friendly("Hello World")
private fun testFun() {
greet()
//does something else
}
}
with an annotation class like
#Target(AnnotationTarget.FUNCTION)
#Retention(AnnotationRetention.BINARY)
annotation class Friendly(val message: String) {
fun greet() {
println(message)
}
}
I know this isn't valid Kotlin code, but I can't find any examples on how to actually use values from annotations without using reflection (if it's even possible)
Please let me know if I can do something like this, and more usefully, a better resource on annotation classes for Kotlin?
To make use of your custom annotations, you need to either create your own annotation processor (and use kapt Kotlin compiler plugin) to generate some new sources (but not modify existing!) at compile time, or use #Retention(AnnotationRetention.RUNTIME) meta-annotation (which is default in Kotlin), so that they could be accessed via reflection in runtime.
#Retention(AnnotationRetention.BINARY) meta-annotation you're using is equivalent of #Retention(RetentionPolicy.CLASS) in java, which is mostly useless (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/5971247/13968673).
What you're trying to do with annotations (call some additional code before/after method execution) reminds me aspect-oriented programming. Take a look at Spring AOP and AspectJ frameworks, following this paradigm, and their approach for annotations processing. TL;DR: Spring AOP is processing annotations in runtime, generating proxy-classes with respectful code, while AspectJ is using its own compiler (even not an annotation processor, cause it also introduces its own syntactic extension for java language), and can generate respectful bytecode at compile-time. They both are originally java-oriented, but with some configurational pain could be used with Kotlin too.
Data classes print out just fine in MPP projects. When I toString() the KClass object for my class, I get:
class com.example.MySimpleClass (Kotlin reflection is not available)
How Can I do what data class does and have a nice clean name without reflection?
I don't have it set up myself to test, so answer is based purely on documentation:
KClass.simpleName is available in Common code; qualifiedName isn't, but since 1.3 it is on every platform, so you could define an expect fun in your multiplatform part and make all actual implementations access qualifiedName.
I noticed that some functions for coroutines are marked with actual keyword.
From documentation:
actual denotes a platform-specific implementation in multiplatform
projects
As I understood from documentation actual keyword is used for multiplatform projects and should work in pair with expect keyword.
Something like this:
Common module:
package org.jetbrains.foo
expect class Foo(bar: String) {
fun frob()
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
Foo("Hello").frob()
}
Corresponding module:
package org.jetbrains.foo
actual class Foo actual constructor(val bar: String) {
actual fun frob() {
println("Frobbing the $bar")
}
}
That case is clear.
But in package kotlinx.coroutines.experimental I noticed that some functions like launch or withContext are marked as actual but there are no expect functions in package.
So what is the purpose of actual keyword without expect?
The kotlinx.coroutines library actually makes use of multiplatform projects since it supports both the JVM and JS compilation targets.
You can find the common module here, and the specific expect declarations for the functions you've mentioned here.
While the source code in the other answer helped, I found this page (linked off of the page #jim-andreas mentioned in the comments above) was much more helpful.
Specifically, this passage:
If you're developing a multiplatform application that needs to access platform-specific APIs that implement the required functionality (for example, generating a UUID), use the Kotlin mechanism of expected and actual declarations.
With this mechanism, a common source set defines an expected
declaration, and platform source sets must provide the actual
declaration that corresponds to the expected declaration. This works
for most Kotlin declarations, such as functions, classes, interfaces,
enumerations, properties, and annotations.
The compiler ensures that every declaration marked with the expect keyword in the common module has the corresponding declarations marked with the actual keyword in all platform modules. The IDE provides tools that help you create the missing actual declarations.
Again, for more information, you can visit this page.
I have a Kotlin interface with a default implementation, for instance:
interface Foo {
fun bar(): String {
return "baz"
}
}
This would be okay until I try to implement this interface from Java. When I do, it says the class need to be marked as abstract or implement the method bar(). Also when I try to implement the method, I am unable to call super.bar().
Generating true default methods callable from Java is an experimental feature of Kotlin 1.2.40.
You need to annotate the methods with the #JvmDefault annotation:
interface Foo {
#JvmDefault
fun bar(): String {
return "baz"
}
}
This feature is still disabled by default, you need to pass the -Xjvm-default=enable flag to the compiler for it to work. (If you need to do this in Gradle, see here).
It really is experimental, however. The blog post warns that both design and implementation may change in the future, and at least in my IDE, Java classes are still marked with errors for not implementing these methods, despite compiling and working fine.
Please see the related issue.
There is a recommendation in the comments:
Write your interface in Java (with default methods) and both the Java and Kotlin classes correctly use those defaults
If you know you won't be overriding the function in any implementations of your interface, you can use extension functions as a nice workaround for this issue. Just put an extension function in the same file as the interface (and at the top level so other files can use it).
For example, what you're doing could be done this way:
interface Foo {
// presumably other stuff
}
fun Foo.bar(): String {
return "baz"
}
See the docs on extension functions for more information about them.
One "gotcha" worth noting:
We would like to emphasize that extension functions are dispatched statically, i.e. they are not virtual by receiver type. This means that the extension function being called is determined by the type of the expression on which the function is invoked, not by the type of the result of evaluating that expression at runtime.
Put simply, extension functions don't do what you might expect from regular polymorphism. What this means for this workaround is that the default function cannot be overridden like a regular function. If you try to override it, you'll get some weird behavior, because the "overridden" version will be called whenever you're dealing explicitly with the subclass, but the extension version will be called when you're dealing with the interface generically. For example:
interface MyInterface {
fun a()
}
fun MyInterface.b() {
println("MyInterface.b() default implementation")
}
class MyInterfaceImpl : MyInterface {
override fun a() {
println("MyInterfaceImpl.a()")
}
fun b() {
println("MyInterfaceImpl.b() \"overridden\" implementation")
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val inst1: MyInterface = MyInterfaceImpl()
inst1.a()
inst1.b() // calls the "default" implementation
val inst2: MyInterfaceImpl = MyInterfaceImpl() // could also just do "val inst2 = MyInterfaceImpl()" (the type is inferred)
inst2.a()
inst2.b() // calls the "overridden" implementation
}
Since Kotlin 1.4.0, you can use one of the following compiler flags:
-Xjvm-default=all
-Xjvm-default=all-compatibility (for binary compatibility with old Kotlin code)
This will enable JVM default method compilation for all interfaces.
If you want to read up on how to set these flags in your IDE or Maven/Gradle project, check out the documentation on compiler options.
Progress on this is being tracked in issue KT-4779, which also includes a helpful summary of the current state. The #JvmDefault annotation and the older -Xjvm-default=enable and -Xjvm-default=compatibility compiler flags should no longer be used.
Unlike earlier version of Java8, Kotlin can have default implementation in interface.
When you implement Foo interface into a Java class. Kotlin hides those implementation of interface method. As stated here.
Arrays are used with primitive datatypes on the Java platform to avoid the cost of boxing/unboxing operations. As Kotlin hides those implementation details, a workaround is required to interface with Java code
This is specific for Arrays in above link but it also applies to all the classes (May be to give support for earlier version of Java8).
EDIT
Above explanation is opinion based.
One thing i came across and that is the main reason.
Kotlin binaries were compiled with java bytecode version 1.8 without default methods in interfaces. And they are facing critical issue solving it.