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.
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.
I'm a newbie in Kotlin. I want to ask what private constructor in Kotlin for? class DontCreateMe private constructor () { /*...*/ }. I mean what class is supposed to be if we can't create its instance?
Well, the answers in the comments are correct, but since nobody wrote a full answer. I'm going to have a go at it.
Having a private constructor does not necessarily mean that an object cannot be used by external code. It just means that the external code cannot directly use its constructors, so it has to get the instances through an exposed API in the class scope. Since this API is in the class scope, it has access to the private constructor.
The simplest example would be:
class ShyPerson private constructor() {
companion object {
fun goToParty() : ShyPerson {
return ShyPerson()
}
}
}
fun main(args: String) {
// outside code is not directly using the constructor
val person = ShyPerson.goToParty()
// Just so you can see that you have an instance allocated in memory
println(person)
}
The most common use case for this that I've seen is to implement the Singleton pattern, as stated by Mojtaba Haddadi, where the external code can only get access to one instance of the class.
A simple implementation would be:
class Unity private constructor() {
companion object {
private var INSTANCE : Unity? = null
// Note that the reason why I've returned nullable type here is
// because kotlin cannot smart-cast to a non-null type when dealing
// with mutable values (var), because it could have been set to null
// by another thread.
fun instance() : Unity? {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
INSTANCE = Unity()
}
return INSTANCE
}
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val instance = Unity.instance()
println(instance)
}
This is often used so that classes that are resource consuming are only instantiated once or so that certain pieces of data are shared by the entire codebase.
Be aware that kotlin uses the object keyword to implement this pattern, with the advantage of being thread-safe. Also some developers consider Singletons to be an anti-pattern
Another use case for private constructors would be to implement Builder patterns, where classes that have complex initialization can be abstracted into a simpler API, so the user doesn't have to deal with clunky constructors. This other answer addresses its uses in kotlin.
One of the simplest uses in real life kotlin code that I've seen is on the Result implementation from the stdlib, where it's being used to change the internal representation of the object.
I would like to semantically constrain a map to only accept "data" class object types as the value in kotlin like so:
class Test(
val test : Int
)
data class Test2 (
val test : Int
)
fun test(map : Map<String, /* compile error on Test, but accept Test2 or any other data class */>) {
}
I'm mainly trying to do this so that I can keep everything in the map cloneable, but when I do this:
fun <T: Cloneable> test(map : Map<String, T>) {
// test clone
map.map { it.key.uuid to it.value.clone() } .toMap() // error on .clone() Cannot access 'clone': it is protected in 'Cloneable'
}
but I thought implementing the Cloneable interface made your clone method public? Essentially I'm looking for a compile time guarantee that all data is copyable in that method invocation, (is a primitive type, a data class that I can call .copy() on, or any object that has implemented Cloneable). Is my only option reflection and runtime assertions?
I thought implementing the Cloneable interface made your clone method public?
No, it's simply a marker interface, which tells the protected Object.clone() method not to throw a CloneNotSupportedException. In practice, classes that implement Cloneable will usually override clone() and make it public, but that's not necessary. And of course that's no help when you don't know the exact type!
The cloning mechanism was an early part of Java, and not very well-designed. (Effective Java calls it “a highly atypical use of interfaces and not one to be emulated”.) But it's still used, so we're stuck with it…
(See also these related answers.)
I don't know whether this is the best way or not, but how about you to use property like below.
SomeClass::class.isData
Kdoc says
true if this class is a data class.
Is it possible to create an extension function and call it as if it were static?
For Example...
fun System.sayByeAndExit() {
println("Goodbye!")
System.exit()
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
System.sayByeAndExit() // I'd like to be able to call this
}
I know that the code sample doesn't work...
I understand that kotlin's extension functions are resolved statically, as mentioned in the Kotlin Reference (Extension Functions), but this does not mean they can be called as if they were static functions within a class (in a Java sense).
I also understand that this code will not work because there is no instance of System to pass into the method that the compiler will generate; therefore it won't compile.
Why would I want this?
Some of you might be wondering why this behaviour is desirable. I can understand why you would think that is isn't, so here are some reasons:
It has all of the benefits that standard extension functions give.
An instance of the class doesn't need to be created just to access the extra functionality.
The functions can be accessed from an application-wide context (provided the class is visible).
To summarise...
Does Kotlin have a way to "hook" a static function onto a class? I'd love to know.
You are really asking for "extension functions for a Class reference" or "adding static methods to existing classes" which was covered by another question here: How can one add static methods to Java classes in Kotlin which is covered by a feature request KT-11968
Extension functions cannot be added to anything that does not have an instance. A reference to a Class is not an instance and therefore you cannot extend something like java.lang.System. You can however extend a companion object of an existing class. For example:
class LibraryThing {
companion object { /* ... */ }
}
Allows you to extend LibraryThing.Companion and therefore calling some new myExtension() method would look like you are extending the Class reference itself, when really you are extending the singleton instance of the companion object:
fun LibraryThing.Companion.myExtension() = "foo"
LibraryThing.Companion.myExtension() // results in "foo"
LibraryThing.myExtension() // results in "foo"
Therefore you might find some Kotlin libraries add empty companion objects just for this case. Others do not, and for those you are "out of luck." Since Java does not have companion objects, you cannot do the same for Java either.
The other commonly requested feature is to take an existing Java static method that accepts an instance of a class as the first parameter, and make it behave as an extension function. This is tracked by issues KT-5261, KT-2844, KT-732, KT-3487 and probably other feature requests.
You can define extension function for an object and use it from system-wide context. An object will be created only once.
object MyClz
fun MyClz.exit() = System.exit(0)
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
MyClz.exit()
}
Or
class MyClz {
companion object
}
fun MyClz.Companion.exit() = System.exit(0)
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
MyClz.exit()
}
What is the intended meaning of "companion object"? So far I have been using it just to replace Java's static when I need it.
I am confused with:
Why is it called "companion"?
Does it mean that to create multiple static properties, I have to group it together inside companion object block?
To instantly create a singleton instance that is scoped to a class, I often write
:
companion object {
val singleton by lazy { ... }
}
which seems like an unidiomatic way of doing it. What's the better way?
What is the intended meaning of "companion object"? Why is it called "companion"?
First, Kotlin doesn't use the Java concept of static members because Kotlin has its own concept of objects for describing properties and functions connected with singleton state, and Java static part of a class can be elegantly expressed in terms of singleton: it's a singleton object that can be called by the class' name. Hence the naming: it's an object that comes with a class.
Its name used to be class object and default object, but then it got renamed to companion object which is more clear and is also consistent with Scala companion objects.
Apart from naming, it is more powerful than Java static members: it can extend classes and interfaces, and you can reference and pass it around just like other objects.
Does it mean that to create multiple static properties, I have to group it together inside companion object block?
Yes, that's the idiomatic way. Or you can even group them in non-companion objects by their meaning:
class MyClass {
object IO {
fun makeSomethingWithIO() { /* ... */ }
}
object Factory {
fun createSomething() { /* ... */ }
}
}
To instantly create a singleton instance that is scoped to a class, I often write /*...*/ which seems like an unidiomatic way of doing it. What's the better way?
It depends on what you need in each particular case. Your code suits well for storing state bound to a class which is initialized upon the first call to it.
If you don't need it to be connected with a class, just use object declaration:
object Foo {
val something by lazy { ... }
}
You can also remove lazy { ... } delegation to make the property initialize on first class' usage, just like Java static initializers
You might also find useful ways of initializing singleton state.
Why is it called "companion"?
This object is a companion of the instances.
IIRC there was lengthy discussion here: upcoming-change-class-objects-rethought
Does it mean that to create multiple static properties, I have to group it together inside companion object block?
Yes. Every "static" property/method needs to be placed inside this companion.
To instantly create a singleton instance that is scoped to a class, I often write
You do not create the singleton instance instantly. It is created when accessing singleton for the first time.
which seems like an unidiomatic way of doing it. What's the better way?
Rather go with object Singleton { } to define a singleton-class. See: Object Declarations
You do not have to create an instance of Singleton, just use it like that Singleton.doWork()
Just keep in mind that Kotlin offers other stuff to organize your code. There are now alternatives to simple static functions e.g. you could use Top-Level-Functions instead.
When the classes/objects with related functionalities belong together, they are like companions of each other. A companion means a partner or an associate, in this case.
Reasons for companionship
Cleaner top-level namespace
When some independent function is intended to be used with some specific class only, instead of defining it as a top-level function, we define it in that particular class. This prevents the pollution of top-level namespace and helps with more relevant auto-completion hints by IDE.
Packaging convenience
It's convenient to keep the classes/objects together when they are closely related to each other in terms of the functionality they offer to each other. We save the effort of keeping them in different files and tracking the association between them.
Code readability
Just by looking at the companionship, you get to know that this object provides helper functionality to the outer class and may not be used in any other contexts. Because if it was to be used with other classes, it would be a separate top level class or object or function.
Primary purpose of companion object
Problem: companion class
Let's have a look at the kinds of problems the companion objects solve. We'll take a simple real world example. Say we have a class User to represent a user in our app:
data class User(val id: String, val name: String)
And an interface for the data access object UserDao to add or remove the User from the database:
interface UserDao {
fun add(user: User)
fun remove(id: String)
}
Now since the functionalities of the User and implementation of the UserDao are logically related to each other, we may decide to group them together:
data class User(val id: String, val name: String) {
class UserAccess : UserDao {
override fun add(user: User) { }
override fun remove(id: String) { }
}
}
Usage:
fun main() {
val john = User("34", "John")
val userAccess = User.UserAccess()
userAccess.add(john)
}
While this is a good setup, there are several problems in it:
We have an extra step of creating the UserAccess object before we can add/remove a User.
Multiple instances of the UserAccess can be created which we don't want. We just want one data access object (singleton) for User in the entire application.
There is a possibility of the UserAccess class to be used with or extended with other classes. So, it doesn't make our intent clear of exactly what we want to do.
The naming userAccess.add() or userAccess.addUser() doesn't seem very elegant. We would prefer something like User.add().
Solution: companion object
In the User class, we just replace the two words class UserAccess with the two other words companion object and it's done! All the problems mentioned above have been solved suddenly:
data class User(val id: String, val name: String) {
companion object : UserDao {
override fun add(user: User) { }
override fun remove(id: String) { }
}
}
Usage:
fun main() {
val john = User("34", "John")
User.add(john)
}
The ability to extend interfaces and classes is one of the features that sets the companion objects apart from Java's static functionality. Also, companions are objects, we can pass them around to the functions and assign them to variables just like all the other objects in Kotlin. We can pass them to the functions that accept those interfaces and classes and take advantage of the polymorphism.
companion object for compile-time const
When the compile-time constants are closely associated with the class, they can be defined inside the companion object.
data class User(val id: String, val name: String) {
companion object {
const val DEFAULT_NAME = "Guest"
const val MIN_AGE = 16
}
}
This is the kind of grouping you have mentioned in the question. This way we prevent the top-level namespace from polluting with the unrelated constants.
companion object with lazy { }
The lazy { } construct is not necessary to get a singleton. A companion object is by default a singleton, the object is initialized only once and it is thread safe. It is initialized when its corresponding class is loaded. Use lazy { } when you want to defer the initialization of the member of the companion object or when you have multiple members that you want to be initialized only on their first use, one by one:
data class User(val id: Long, val name: String) {
companion object {
val list by lazy {
print("Fetching user list...")
listOf("John", "Jane")
}
val settings by lazy {
print("Fetching settings...")
mapOf("Dark Theme" to "On", "Auto Backup" to "On")
}
}
}
In this code, fetching the list and settings are costly operations. So, we use lazy { } construct to initialize them only when they are actually required and first called, not all at once.
Usage:
fun main() {
println(User.list) // Fetching user list...[John, Jane]
println(User.list) // [John, Jane]
println(User.settings) // Fetching settings...{Dark Theme=On, Auto Backup=On}
println(User.settings) // {Dark Theme=On, Auto Backup=On}
}
The fetching statements will be executed only on the first use.
companion object for factory functions
Companion objects are used for defining factory functions while keeping the constructor private. For example, the newInstance() factory function in the following snippet creates a user by generating the id automatically:
class User private constructor(val id: Long, val name: String) {
companion object {
private var currentId = 0L;
fun newInstance(name: String) = User(currentId++, name)
}
}
Usage:
val john = User.newInstance("John")
Notice how the constructor is kept private but the companion object has access to the constructor. This is useful when you want to provide multiple ways to create an object where the object construction process is complex.
In the code above, consistency of the next id generation is guaranteed because a companion object is a singleton, only one object will keep track of the id, there won't be any duplicate ids.
Also notice that companion objects can have properties (currentId in this case) to represent state.
companion object extension
Companion objects cannot be inherited but we can use extension functions to enhance their functionality:
fun User.Companion.isLoggedIn(id: String): Boolean { }
The default class name of the companion object is Companion, if you don't specify it.
Usage:
if (User.isLoggedIn("34")) { allowContent() }
This is useful for extending the functionality of the companion objects of third party library classes. Another advantage over Java's static members.
When to avoid companion object
Somewhat related members
When the functions/properties are not closely related but only somewhat related to a class, it is recommended that you use top-level functions/properties instead of companion object. And preferably define those functions before the class declaration in the same file as that of class:
fun getAllUsers() { }
fun getProfileFor(userId: String) { }
data class User(val id: String, val name: String)
Maintain single responsibility principle
When the functionality of the object is complicated or when the classes are big, you may want to separate them into individual classes. For example, You may need a separate class to represent a User and another class UserDao for database operations. A separate UserCredentials class for functions related to login. When you have a huge list of constants that are used in different places, you may want to group them in another separate class or file UserConstants. A different class UserSettings to represent settings. Yet another class UserFactory to create different instances of the User and so on.
That's it! Hope that helps make your code more idiomatic to Kotlin.
Why is it called "companion"?
An object declaration inside a class can be marked with the companion keyword:
class MyClass {
companion object Factory {
fun create(): MyClass = MyClass()
}
}
Members of the companion object can be called by using simply the class name as the qualifier:
val instance = MyClass.create()
If you only use 'object' without 'companion', you have to do like this:
val instance = MyClass.Factory.create()
In my understanding, 'companion' means this object is companion with the outter class.
We can say that companion is same as "Static Block" like Java, But in case of Kotlin there is no Static Block concept, than companion comes into the frame.
How to define a companion block:
class Example {
companion object {
fun display(){
//place your code
}
}
}
Calling method of companion block, direct with class name
Example.Companion.display