The ABAP documentation lists three kinds of modularization structures:
Methods. Problem: methods don't accept parameters.
Function modules. Problem: FMs belong to function groups and can be called from other programs. Apparently they are meant to be reused across the system.
Forms. Problem: are marked as "obsolete".
Is there a newer structure that replaces the obsolete FORM structure, that is:
Local to our program.
Accepts parameters.
Doesn't require ABAP Objects syntax ?
Methods. Problem: methods don't accept parameters.
I am not sure how you came to that conclusion, because methods support parameters very well. The only limitation compared to FORMs is that they don't support TABLES parameters to take a TABLE WITH HEADER LINE. But they support CHANGING parameters with internal tables, which covers any case where you don't actually need the header-line. And in the rare case that you are indeed forced to deal with a TABLE WITH HEADER LINE and the method actually needs the header-line (I pity you), you can pass the header-line as a separate parameter.
You declare a method with parameters like this:
CLASS lcl_main DEFINITION.
METHODS foo
IMPORTING iv_bar TYPE i
EXPORTING es_last_message TYPE bapiret2
CHANGING ct_all_messages TYPE bapiret2_t.
ENDCLASS.
And you call it either like that:
main->foo( IMPORTING iv_bar = 1
EXPORTING es_last_message = t_messages
CHANGING ct_all_messages = t_messages[] ).
or with the more classic syntax like that:
CALL METHOD main->foo
IMPORTING iv_bar = 1
EXPORTING es_last_message = t_messages
CHANGING ct_all_messages = t_messages[].
Function modules. Problem: FMs belong to function groups and can be called from other programs. Apparently they are meant to be reused across the system.
Yes, function modules are supposed to be global while FORM's are supposed to be local (supposed to: You can actually call a FORM in another program with PERFORM formname IN PROGRAM programname).
But classes can be local or global, depending on how you created them. A global class can be used by any program in the system. So function groups can be substituted by global classes in most cases.
The one use-case where function modules can not be substituted by methods of classes is for RFC-enabled function modules. RFC is the Remote Function Call protocol which allows external systems to execute a function module in another system via network. However, if you do need some other system to communicate with your SAP system, then you might want to consider to use webservices instead, which can be implemented with pure ABAP-OO. And they also offer much better interoperability with non-SAP systems because they don't require a proprietary protocol.
Is there a newer structure that replaces the obsolete FORM structure, that [...] Doesn't require ABAP Objects syntax ?
Here is where you got a problem. ABAP Objects syntax is the way we are supposed to program ABAP now. There is currently a pretty hard push to forget all the non-OO ways to write ABAP and fully embrace the ABAP-OO styles of writing code. With every new release, more classic syntax which can be substituted by ABAP-OO syntax gets declared obsolete.
However, so far SAP follows the philosophy of 100% backward compatibility. While they might try their best to compel people to not use certain obsolete language constructs (including adding scary-sounding warnings to the syntax check), they very rarely actually remove any language features. They hardly can, because they themselves got tons of legacy code which uses them and which would be far too expensive and risky to rewrite. The only case I can think of when they actually removed language features was when they introduced Unicode which made certain direct assignments between now incompatible types syntactically illegal.
You are having some wrong information there. Don't know what system version are you in, but this info could help you out:
Methods: They actually accept parameters (should be crazy if they wouldn't). In fact, they accept IMPORTING, EXPORTING, CHANGING and RETURNING parameters.
Forms: Indeed they are obsolete, but in my opinion there is no risk in using then, almost every standard component relies in programs made out of FORMS. FORMS are a core concept in ABAP programming. They are the "function" or "def" of many other languages. They accept USING, CHANGING and TABLES parameters.
Related
How do I structure Raku code so that certain symbols are public within the the library I am writing, but not public to users of the library? (I'm saying "library" to avoid the terms "distribution" and "module", which the docs sometimes use in overlapping ways. But if there's a more precise term that I should be using, please let me know.)
I understand how to control privacy within a single file. For example, I might have a file Foo.rakumod with the following contents:
unit module Foo;
sub private($priv) { #`[do internal stuff] }
our sub public($input) is export { #`[ code that calls &private ] }
With this setup, &public is part of my library's public API, but &private isn't – I can call it within Foo, but my users cannot.
How do I maintain this separation if &private gets large enough that I want to split it off into its own file? If I move &private into Bar.rakumod, then I will need to give it our (i.e., package) scope and export it from the Bar module in order to be able to use it from Foo. But doing so in the same way I exported &public from Foo would result in users of my library being able to use Foo and call &private – exactly the outcome I am trying to avoid. How do maintain &private's privacy?
(I looked into enforcing privacy by listing Foo as a module that my distribution provides in my META6.json file. But from the documentation, my understanding is that provides controls what modules package managers like zef install by default but do not actually control the privacy of the code. Is that correct?)
[EDIT: The first few responses I've gotten make me wonder whether I am running into something of an XY problem. I thought I was asking about something in the "easy things should be easy" category. I'm coming at the issue of enforcing API boundaries from a Rust background, where the common practice is to make modules public within a crate (or just to their parent module) – so that was the X I asked about. But if there's a better/different way to enforce API boundaries in Raku, I'd also be interested in that solution (since that's the Y I really care about)]
I will need to give it our (i.e., package) scope and export it from the Bar module
The first step is not necessary. The export mechanism works just as well on lexically scoped subs too, and means they are only available to modules that import them. Since there is no implicit re-export, the module user would have to explicitly use the module containing the implementation details to have them in reach. (As an aside, personally, I pretty much never use our scope for subs in my modules, and rely entirely on exporting. However, I see why one might decide to make them available under a fully qualified name too.)
It's also possible to use export tags for the internal things (is export(:INTERNAL), and then use My::Module::Internals :INTERNAL) to provide an even stronger hint to the module user that they're voiding the warranty. At the end of the day, no matter what the language offers, somebody sufficiently determined to re-use internals will find a way (even if it's copy-paste from your module). Raku is, generally, designed with more of a focus on making it easy for folks to do the right thing than to make it impossible to "wrong" things if they really want to, because sometimes that wrong thing is still less wrong than the alternatives.
Off the bat, there's very little you can't do, as long as you're in control of the meta-object protocol. Anything that's syntactically possible, you could in principle do it using a specific kind of method, or class, declared using that. For instance, you could have a private-class which would be visible only to members of the same namespace (to the level that you would design). There's Metamodel::Trusting which defines, for a particular entity, who it does trust (please bear in mind that this is part of the implementation, not spec, and then subject to change).
A less scalable way would be to use trusts. The new, private modules would need to be classes and issue a trusts X for every class that would access it. That could include classes belonging to the same distribution... or not, that's up to you to decide. It's that Metamodel class above who supplies this trait, so using it directly might give you a greater level of control (with a lower level of programming)
There is no way to enforce this 100%, as others have said. Raku simply provides the user with too much flexibility for you to be able to perfectly hide implementation details externally while still sharing them between files internally.
However, you can get pretty close with a structure like the following:
# in Foo.rakumod
use Bar;
unit module Foo;
sub public($input) is export { #`[ code that calls &private ] }
# In Bar.rakumod
unit module Bar;
sub private($priv) is export is implementation-detail {
unless callframe(1).code.?package.^name eq 'Foo' {
die '&private is a private function. Please use the public API in Foo.' }
#`[do internal stuff]
}
This function will work normally when called from a function declared in the mainline of Foo, but will throw an exception if called from elsewhere. (Of course, the user can catch the exception; if you want to prevent that, you could exit instead – but then a determined user could overwrite the &*EXIT handler! As I said, Raku gives users a lot of flexibility).
Unfortunately, the code above has a runtime cost and is fairly verbose. And, if you want to call &private from more locations, it would get even more verbose. So it is likely better to keep private functions in the same file the majority of the time – but this option exists for when the need arises.
I see some usages of Extension functions in Kotlin I don't personally think that makes sense, but it seems that there are some guidelines that "apparently" support it (a matter of interpretation).
Specifically: defining an extension function outside a class (but in the same file):
data class AddressDTO(val state: State,
val zipCode: String,
val city: String,
val streetAddress: String
)
fun AddressDTO.asXyzFormat() = "${streetAddress}\n${city}\n${state.name} $zipCode"
Where the asXyzFormat() is widely used, and cannot be defined as private/internal (but also for the cases it may be).
In my common sense, if you own the code (AddressDTO) and the usage is not local to some class / module (hence behing private/internal) - there is no reason to define an extension function - just define it as a member function of that class.
Edge case: if you want to avoid serialization of the function starting with get - annotate the class to get the desired behavior (e.g. #JsonIgnore on the function). This IMHO still doesn't justify an extension function.
The counter-response I got to this is that the approach of having an extension function of this fashion is supported by the Official Kotlin Coding Conventions. Specifically:
Use extension functions liberally. Every time you have a function that works primarily on an object, consider making it an extension function accepting that object as a receiver.
Source
And:
In particular, when defining extension functions for a class which are relevant for all clients of this class, put them in the same file where the class itself is defined. When defining extension functions that make sense only for a specific client, put them next to the code of that client. Do not create files just to hold "all extensions of Foo".
Source
I'll appreciate any commonly accepted source/reference explaining why it makes more sense to move the function to be a member of the class and/or pragmatic arguments support this separation.
That quote about using extension functions liberally, I'm pretty sure means use them liberally as opposed to top level non-extension functions (not as opposed to making it a member function). It's saying that if a top-level function conceptually works on a target object, prefer the extension function form.
I've searched before for the answer to why you might choose to make a function an extension function instead of a member function when working on a class you own the source code for, and have never found a canonical answer from JetBrains. Here are some reasons I think you might, but some are highly subject to opinion.
Sometimes you want a function that operates on a class with a specific generic type. Think of List<Int>.sum(), which is only available to a subset of Lists, but not a subtype of List.
Interfaces can be thought of as contracts. Functions that do something to an interface may make more sense conceptually since they are not part of the contract. I think this is the rationale for most of the standard library extension functions for Iterable and Sequence. A similar rationale might apply to a data class, if you think of a data class almost like a passive struct.
Extension functions afford the possibility of allowing users to pseudo-override them, but forcing them to do it in an independent way. Suppose your asXyzFormat() were an open member function. In some other module, you receive AddressDTO instances and want to get the XYZ format of them, exactly in the format you expect. But the AddressDTO you receive might have overridden asXyzFormat() and provide you something unexpected, so now you can't trust the function. If you use an extension function, than you allow users to replace asXyzFormat() in their own packages with something applicable to that space, but you can always trust the function asXyzFormat() in the source package.
Similarly for interfaces, a member function with default implementation invites users to override it. As the author of the interface, you may want a reliable function you can use on that interface with expected behavior. Although the end-user can hide your extension in their own module by overloading it, that will have no effect on your own uses of the function.
For what it's worth, I think it would be very rare to choose to make an extension function for a class (not an interface) when you own the source code for it. And I can't think of any examples of that in the standard library. Which leads me to believe that the Coding Conventions document is using the word "class" in a liberal sense that includes interfaces.
Here's a reverse argument…
One of the main reasons for adding extension functions to the language is being able to add functionality to classes from the standard library, and from third-party libraries and other dependencies where you don't control the code and can't add member functions (AKA methods). I suspect it's mainly those cases that that section of the coding conventions is talking about.
In Java, the only option in this cases is utility methods: static methods, usually in a utility class gathering together lots of such methods, each taking the relevant object as its first parameter:
public static String[] splitOnChar(String str, char separator)
public static boolean isAllDigits(String str)
…and so on, interminably.
The main problem there is that such methods are hard to find (no help from the IDE unless you already know about all the various utility classes). Also, calling them is long-winded (though it improved a bit once static imports were available).
Kotlin's extension methods are implemented exactly the same way down at the bytecode level, but their syntax is much simpler and exactly like member functions: they're written the same way (with this &c), calling them looks just like calling a member function, and your IDE will suggest them.
(Of course, they have drawbacks, too: no dynamic dispatch, no inheritance or overriding, scoping/import issues, name clashes, references to them are awkward, accessing them from Java or reflection is awkward, and so on.)
So: if the main purpose of extension functions is to substitute for member functions when member functions aren't possible, why would you use them when member functions are possible?!
(To be fair, there are a few reasons why you might want them. For example, you can make the receiver nullable, which isn't possible with member functions. But in most cases, they're greatly outweighed by the benefits of a proper member function.)
This means that the vast majority of extension functions are likely to be written for classes that you don't control the source code for, and so you don't have the option of putting them next to the class.
I prefer working with files that are less than 1000 lines long, so am thinking of breaking up some Erlang modules into more bite-sized pieces.
Is there a way of doing this without expanding the public API of my library?
What I mean is, any time there is a module, any user can do module:func_exported_from_the_module. The only way to really have something be private that I know of is to not export it from any module (and even then holes can be poked).
So if there is technically no way to accomplish what I'm looking for, is there a convention?
For example, there are no private methods in Python classes, but the convention is to use a leading _ in _my_private_method to mark it as private.
I accept that the answer may be, "no, you must have 4K LOC files."
The closest thing to a convention is to use edoc tags, like #private and #hidden.
From the docs:
#hidden
Marks the function so that it will not appear in the
documentation (even if "private" documentation is generated). Useful
for debug/test functions, etc. The content can be used as a comment;
it is ignored by EDoc.
#private
Marks the function as private (i.e., not part of the public
interface), so that it will not appear in the normal documentation.
(If "private" documentation is generated, the function will be
included.) Only useful for exported functions, e.g. entry points for
spawn. (Non-exported functions are always "private".) The content can
be used as a comment; it is ignored by EDoc.
Please note that this answer started as a comment to #legoscia's answer
Different visibilities for different methods is not currently supported.
The current convention, if you want to call it that way, is to have one (or several) 'facade' my_lib.erl module(s) that export the public API of your library/application. Calling any internal module of the library is playing with fire and should be avoided (call them at your own risk).
There are some very nice features in the BEAM VM that rely on being able to call exported functions from any module, such as
Callbacks (funs/anonymous funs), MFA, erlang:apply/3: The calling code does not need to know anything about the library, just that it's something that needs to be called
Behaviours such as gen_server need the previous point to work
Hot reloading: You can upgrade the bytecode of any module without stopping the VM. The code server inside the VM maintains at most two versions of the bytecode for any module, redirecting external calls (those with the Module:) to the most recent version and the internal calls to the current version. That's why you may see some ?MODULE: calls in long-running servers, to be able to upgrade the code
You'd be able to argue that these points'd be available with more fine-grained BEAM-oriented visibility levels, true. But I don't think it would solve anything that's not solved with the facade modules, and it'd complicate other parts of the VM/code a great deal.
Bonus
Something similar applies to records and opaque types, records only exist at compile time, and opaque types only at dialyzer time. Nothing stops you from accessing their internals anywhere, but you'll only find problems if you go that way:
You insert a new field in the record, suddenly, all your {record_name,...} = break
You use a library that returns an opaque_adt(), you know that it's a list and use like so. The library is upgraded to include the size of the list, so now opaque_adt() is a tuple() and chaos ensues
Only those functions that are specified in the -export attribute are visible to other modules i.e "public" functions. All other functions are private. If you have specified -compile(export_all) only then all functions in module are visible outside. It is not recommended to use -compile(export_all).
I don't know of any existing convention for Erlang, but why not adopt the Python convention? Let's say that "library-private" functions are prefixed with an underscore. You'll need to quote function names with single quotes for that to work:
-module(bar).
-export(['_my_private_function'/0]).
'_my_private_function'() ->
foo.
Then you can call it as:
> bar:'_my_private_function'().
foo
To me, that communicates clearly that I shouldn't be calling that function unless I know what I'm doing. (and probably not even then)
Do I really have to use the ClassImp macro to benefit the automatic dictionary and streamer generation in ROOT? Some online tutorials and examples mention it but I noticed that simply adding the ClassDef(MyClass, <ver>) macro to MyClass.h and processing it with rootcint/rootcling already generates most of such code.
I did look at Rtypes.h where these macros are defined but to follow preprocessor macros calling each other is not easy and so, it would be nice if experts could confirm the role of ClassImp. I am specifically interested in recent versions of ROOT >= 5.34
Here is the answer I got on roottalk mailing list confirming that the usage of ClassImp is essentially outdated.
ClassImp is used to register in the TClass the name of the source file
for the class. This was used in particular by THtml (which has now
been deprecated in favor of Doxygen). So unless you code/framework
needs to know the name of the source files, it is no longer necessary
to have ClassImp.
ClassDef is necessary for class inheriting from TObject (or from any
classes that has a ClassDef). In the other cases, it provide
accelerator that makes the I/O slightly faster (and thus is
technically not compulsory in this case). It also assign a version
number to the schema layout which simplifies writing schema evolution
rules (on the other hand, there is other alternative to assign a
version number to the schema layout).
What exactly are you trying to do? The ClassImp and ClassDef macros add members to the class that provide Run-Time Type Information and allow the class to be written to root files. If you are not interested in that, then don't bother with these macros.
I never use them.
This question already has answers here:
What is reflection and why is it useful?
(23 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I was just curious, why should we use reflection in the first place?
// Without reflection
Foo foo = new Foo();
foo.hello();
// With reflection
Class cls = Class.forName("Foo");
Object foo = cls.newInstance();
Method method = cls.getMethod("hello", null);
method.invoke(foo, null);
We can simply create an object and call the class's method, but why do the same using forName, newInstance and getMthod functions?
To make everything dynamic?
Simply put: because sometimes you don't know either the "Foo" or "hello" parts at compile time.
The vast majority of the time you do know this, so it's not worth using reflection. Just occasionally, however, you don't - and at that point, reflection is all you can turn to.
As an example, protocol buffers allows you to generate code which either contains full statically-typed code for reading and writing messages, or it generates just enough so that the rest can be done by reflection: in the reflection case, the load/save code has to get and set properties via reflection - it knows the names of the properties involved due to the message descriptor. This is much (much) slower but results in considerably less code being generated.
Another example would be dependency injection, where the names of the types used for the dependencies are often provided in configuration files: the DI framework then has to use reflection to construct all the components involved, finding constructors and/or properties along the way.
It is used whenever you (=your method/your class) doesn't know at compile time the type should instantiate or the method it should invoke.
Also, many frameworks use reflection to analyze and use your objects. For example:
hibernate/nhibernate (and any object-relational mapper) use reflection to inspect all the properties of your classes so that it is able to update them or use them when executing database operations
you may want to make it configurable which method of a user-defined class is executed by default by your application. The configured value is String, and you can get the target class, get the method that has the configured name, and invoke it, without knowing it at compile time.
parsing annotations is done by reflection
A typical usage is a plug-in mechanism, which supports classes (usually implementations of interfaces) that are unknown at compile time.
You can use reflection for automating any process that could usefully use a list of the object's methods and/or properties. If you've ever spent time writing code that does roughly the same thing on each of an object's fields in turn -- the obvious way of saving and loading data often works like that -- then that's something reflection could do for you automatically.
The most common applications are probably these three:
Serialization (see, e.g., .NET's XmlSerializer)
Generation of widgets for editing objects' properties (e.g., Xcode's Interface Builder, .NET's dialog designer)
Factories that create objects with arbitrary dependencies by examining the classes for constructors and supplying suitable objects on creation (e.g., any dependency injection framework)
Using reflection, you can very easily write configurations that detail methods/fields in text, and the framework using these can read a text description of the field and find the real corresponding field.
e.g. JXPath allows you to navigate objects like this:
//company[#name='Sun']/address
so JXPath will look for a method getCompany() (corresponding to company), a field in that called name etc.
You'll find this in lots of frameworks in Java e.g. JavaBeans, Spring etc.
It's useful for things like serialization and object-relational mapping. You can write a generic function to serialize an object by using reflection to get all of an object's properties. In C++, you'd have to write a separate function for every class.
I have used it in some validation classes before, where I passed a large, complex data structure in the constructor and then ran a zillion (couple hundred really) methods to check the validity of the data. All of my validation methods were private and returned booleans so I made one "validate" method you could call which used reflection to invoke all the private methods in the class than returned booleans.
This made the validate method more concise (didn't need to enumerate each little method) and garuanteed all the methods were being run (e.g. someone writes a new validation rule and forgets to call it in the main method).
After changing to use reflection I didn't notice any meaningful loss in performance, and the code was easier to maintain.
in addition to Jons answer, another usage is to be able to "dip your toe in the water" to test if a given facility is present in the JVM.
Under OS X a java application looks nicer if some Apple-provided classes are called. The easiest way to test if these classes are present, is to test with reflection first
some times you need to create a object of class on fly or from some other place not a java code (e.g jsp). at that time reflection is useful.