I have a class with a function like so:
#Component
class UpdateService(
private val storeGateway: UpdateStoreGateway,
private val loadGateway: UpdateLoadGateway,
private val updateNotify: UpdateNotify,
) : UpdateStorage {
override fun delete(key: UpdateKey) {
if (loadGateway.loadByKey(key) != null)
storeGateway.delete(key)
updateNotify.deleted()
}
}
}
UpdateStoreGateway, UpdateLoadGateway and UpdateNotify are Interfaces. Since I'm new to Kotlin I can't quite grasp how the method override fun delete(key: UpdateKey) knows which implementation of the methods to take since there is no mention of the implementation class.
It's implementing all three!
An interface requires that all implementing clases must provide method(s) with the required signature(s). (That is: having the required name, and taking the required parameter type(s).) But there are no restrictions on where that method is defined: it could be in the implementing class, or inherited from a superclass. And similarly, there are no restrictions on a method implementing more than one interface, if the signature matches.
All that matters is that users of the class know they can call the method(s) specified in all implemented interfaces; they shouldn't know or care about the details.
Related
If I have something like the following:
interface IRecordService {
fun doSomething () : Record
}
#MongoRepository
interface IRecordRepository : MongoRepository<Record, String> {
}
#Service
class RecordService (
private val recordRepository : IRecordRepository // or just val instead of private val
) : IRecordService
{
override fun doSomething () : Record {
// does something
}
}
Is there any difference between using private val in the RecordService constructor vs just val? I've seen both being used but couldn't tell if there was a recommended way or why.
This isn't specific to Spring or Mongo; it's just core Kotlin. There are several things going on here; I'll try to unpick them.
Consider the simpler definition:
class MyClass(i: Int)
The parens specify the primary constructor: any parameters there (such as i) are passed into the class, and are available during construction. So you could pass them up to the superclass constructor, use them in property initialisers, and/or in an init block:
class MyClass(i: Int) : MySuperclass(i) {
val someProperty = i
init {
println("i is $i")
}
}
However, they don't persist after the instance has been constructed — so you couldn't refer to them in methods, or from outside the class.
If you want to do that, you have to define a property for each parameter you want to persist. You could do that explicitly, e.g.:
class MyClass(i: Int) {
val i2 = i
}
Here every instance of MyClass has a property called i2 which is initialised to the i constructor parameter.
However, because this is a common pattern, Kotlin provides a shortcut. If you specify val or var in the primary constructor:
class MyClass(val i: Int)
then Kotlin creates a property with the same name as the parameter, and initialises it for you. So every instance of the above class has a property called i that you can refer to at any time.
By default, properties in Kotlin are public: you can access them from inside the class, from subclasses, from other classes in the same module, and from any other code that has a MyClass instance.
However, in some cases it's useful to restrict access, so you can add a visibility modifier: internal prevents code in other modules from seeing it, protected allows only subclasses to see it, and private makes it visible only inside the class itself.
So, to answer your question: without the private modifier, any code that had access to your RecordService would be able to access its recordRepository property; adding private prevents that, and means that only code within RecordService can see it.
In general, it might be a good idea to centralise all access to the recordRepository in the one class; then making it private would ensure that no other code can muck around with it. That would make it easier to see what's going on, easier to debug, and safer to work on. (However, we obviously don't know about the rest of your program, and can't advise on whether that would be a good plan in your case.)
By the way, using an I prefix for interfaces is not a convention that's used much in Kotlin (or Java). There's often little point in having an interface with only one implementation; and if you could have multiple implementations, then better to use a simple term for the interface and then more specific terms for the implementations. (For example: the List interface with ArrayList and LinkedList classes, or Number with Int and Long.)
If you put val, it will be a constructor parameter and property. If you don't, it will be a constructor parameter (NOT property).
See Why to put val or var in kotlin class constructors
Firstly if you use val it converts this constructor parameter to property,If you do not want to hide this property (to set it) from other classes,you can use val.But if you do not want your property to be changed by other classes you should use private val instead.
Well, you can use both val and private val in your constructor there's no problem in that, it's just that with private keyword your properties wont be modified or accessed by some other class, so it basically provides some data hiding. If you talking about difference in functionality inside your RecordService class, then no there wont be any difference.
The Code A is from the project android/architecture-components-samples.
The author place the code of instance a class DefaultServiceLocator in the interface ServiceLocator.
In my mind , normally a interface should not include any implement code.
Is it a good idea to place the code of instance a class in a interface in Kotlin?
Code A
interface ServiceLocator {
companion object {
private val LOCK = Any()
private var instance: ServiceLocator? = null
fun instance(context: Context): ServiceLocator {
synchronized(LOCK) {
if (instance == null) {
instance = DefaultServiceLocator(
app = context.applicationContext as Application,
useInMemoryDb = false)
}
return instance!!
}
}
/**
* Allows tests to replace the default implementations.
*/
#VisibleForTesting
fun swap(locator: ServiceLocator) {
instance = locator
}
}
...
}
open class DefaultServiceLocator(val app: Application, val useInMemoryDb: Boolean) : ServiceLocator {
...
}
In my mind , normally a interface should not include any implement code.
Welcome back from hibernation ;) Yes, you could achieve the same with interface + abstract class but you can have default implementation also as part of the interface for some time now in many languages. Which way you go is up to you, but if you have only one abstract class implementing your interface then it is often handy to be able to merge this into one file for sake of ease of future maintenance.
As per kotlin interfaces documentation:
Interfaces in Kotlin can contain declarations of abstract methods, as well as method implementations. What makes them different from abstract classes is that interfaces cannot store state. They can have properties but these need to be abstract or to provide accessor implementations.
So... there's no problem in using method implementations on the interfaces. That feature might offer you extra power (if you like and need to use it).
I've bumped into this code and I'm not sure why would anyone do this. Basically the author decided for making the class constructor private so that it cannot be instantiated outside the file, and added a public method to a companion object in the class that creates a new instance of this class. What is the benefit of this approach?
This is what I found:
class Foo private constructor(private val arg1: Any) {
//more code here..
companion object {
fun newFoo(arg1: Any) = Foo(arg1 = arg1)
}
}
Why is it better than this?
class Foo(private val arg1: Any) {
//more code here..
}
There are several benefits to providing a factory method instead of a public constructor, including:
It can do lots of processing before calling the construstor. (This can be important if the superclass constructor takes parameters that need to be calculated.)
It can return cached values instead of new instances where appropriate.
It can return a subclass. (This allows you to make the top class an interface, as noted in another answer.) The exact class can differ between calls, and can even be an anonymous type.
It can have a name (as noted in another answer). This is especially important if you need multiple methods taking the same parameters. (E.g. a Point object which could be constructed from rectangular or polar co-ordinates.) However, a factory method doesn't need a specific name; if you implement the invoke() method in the companion object, you can call it in exactly the same way as a constructor.
It makes it easier to change the implementation of the class without affecting its public interface.
It also has an important drawback:
It can't be used by subclass constructors.
Factory methods seem to be less used in Kotlin than Java, perhaps due to Kotlin's simpler syntax for primary constructors and properties. But they're still worth considering — especially as Kotlin companion objects can inherit.
For much deeper info, see this article, which looks at the recommendation in Effective Java and how it applies to Kotlin.
If you want to change Foo into an interface in the future the code based on the method will keep working, since you can return a concrete class which still implements Foo, unlike the constructor which no longer exists.
An example specific to android is, that Fragments should be constructed with an empty constructed, and any data you'd like to pass through to them should be put in a bundle.
We can create a static/companion function, which takes in the arguments we need for that fragment, and this method would construct the fragment using the empty constructor and pass in the data using a bundle.
There are many useful cases, for example what Kiskae described. Another good one would be to be able to "give your constructors names":
class Foo<S: Any, T: Any> private constructor(private val a: S, private val b: T) {
//more code here...
companion object {
fun <S: Any> createForPurposeX(a: S) = Foo(a = a, b = "Default value")
fun createForPurposeY() = Foo(a = 1, b = 2)
}
}
Call site:
Foo.createForPurposeX("Hey")
Foo.createForPurposeY()
Note: You should use generic types instead of Any.
I want to override toString() in an interface and have objects that implement that interface to default to using that method (eg: not shadowed)
interface SingletonObjectTrait {
fun toString(): String = this.javaClass.simpleName
}
Is there a straightforward way to define such an interface, preferably with minimal configuration at implementation
object MyEvent: SomeEventLogic(), SomeEventType, SingletonObjectTrait
class SomeEventLogic {}
interface SomeEventType {}
That's not possible, I'm afraid.
Method implementations in interfaces work much like default methods in Java: they're used only if the implementing class doesn't have an implementation already. But every class already inherits toString() from Any, so the default would never be used.
In fact, the compiler has a specific error for this — if you try to implement toString() in an interface, it says:
An interface may not implement a method of 'Any'
I can't see a good way around this.
As Erik says, one option is to change the interface to an abstract class; but of course that's not viable if any implementations already extend another class.
Another option might be to implement a different method in the interface, and in the comments instruct implementing classes to override toString() and call that method. Not automatic, but less work for implementers, and less repetition.
There isn't a great way to do this other than using maybe an annotation processor to add the missing override at compile time (by adding an annotation to the interface that you detect and you generate the overrides in the implementation class). This would work, but may be biting off more than you want to, and is likely out of scope of an answer here on Stack Overflow (seek "how to write an annotation processor for Java or Kotlin" and "KAPT" for the one engine that supports Kotlin processors).
Back to your code and why it will not work as-is:
An interface cannot have a method with a signature that matches any of the methods in Any class. And if you try to override one of them you will get a compilation error.
An interface may not implement a method of 'Any'
The minimal code to do something like you want is:
interface SingletonObjectTrait {
fun asString(): String = this.javaClass.simpleName
}
open class SomeEventLogic {}
interface SomeEventType {}
object MyEvent: SomeEventLogic(), SomeEventType, SingletonObjectTrait {
override fun toString(): String = asString() // hope they don't forget to call this!
}
There is no guarantee the implementer will call the trait asString() function but at least you can share the functionality with a one-liner in the implementing class.
I'm aware of two differences between Abstract classes and Interfaces in Kotlin:
An abstract class can have state (e.g. var...)
A class can implement multiple interfaces, but not multiple abstract classes.
Since Kotlin is a rather fresh language, I wonder why Abstract Classes were not abandoned? Interfaces seem superior tool, with a very little need for Abstract Classes.
To elaborate: Kotlin does support concrete function implementation in interfaces, e.g.:
interface Shiny {
fun shine(amount : Int) // abstract function
fun reflect(s : String) { print ("**$s**") } // concrete function
}
Can someone provide a strong practical example of the need for Abstract Classes?
The practical side of abstract classes is that you can encapsulate a part of implementation that works with the state, so that it cannot be overridden in the derived classes.
In an interface, you can only define a property without a backing field, and an implementation class must override that property (with either a backing field or custom accessors).
Given that, you cannot define logic that stores some state in an interface in a reliable way: an implementation class might override the properties in an unexpected way.
Example:
interface MyContainer {
var size: Int
fun add(item: MyItem) {
// ...
size = size + 1
}
}
Here, we provide a default implementation for add that increments size. But it might break if an implementing class is defined like this:
class MyContainerImpl : MyContainer {
override val size: Int
get() = 0
set(value) { println("Just ignoring the $value") }
}
On contrary, abstract classes support this use case and thus allow you to provide some guarantees and contract for all their implementations: they can define some state and its transitions that will stay the same in a derived class.
Apart from that, abstract classes can have non-public API (internal, protected) and final members, whereas interfaces cannot (they can only have private members, which can be used in the default implementations), and all their default implementations can be overridden in the classes.
Abstract classes exist essentially for a hierarchy of classes. For example, if the abstract parent class had a concrete function that was also defined in the child class which extends the parent class, then in certain cases it would be necessary to call the parent's function. When you use an interface it is impossible to do so due to the entirely abstract nature of the class.