I tried to use Kotlin's coroutine channels, but got a warning about the code using an ObsoleteCoroutinesApi. Where is the replacement for the deprecated channels code?
As of today, no replacement yet exists for the Kotlin Coroutine Channels API. Despite confusing naming, they added this annotation to indicate that the existing API is being rewritten and will be replaced.
It's a warning that you can accept. If you have kotlinOptions.allWarningsAsErrors = true stopping you from building your app, you can simply add the #ObsoleteCoroutinesApi annotation to the top of the class to indicate that you accept the risk that your code will require changes.
However, this may quickly spiral out of control as you need to apply these markers to every class that uses these APIs and then every dependency that uses those classes, ad infinitum. To accept these risks project-wide, add the following to your gradle options:
kotlinOptions.freeCompilerArgs += [
"-Xuse-experimental=kotlinx.coroutines.ExperimentalCoroutinesApi",
"-Xuse-experimental=kotlinx.coroutines.ObsoleteCoroutinesApi"]
Feel free to update this answer when a replacement API exists.
Related
In book 'Kotlin in Action', it says Kotlin DSL structure is most commonly created through chained method calls. Also, a typical library consists of many methods and no context is maintained btw one call and the next.
I'm confused of which side sequence is close to. Before I read this, I've thought sequence is just API of library, but it really fits with feature of DSL.
I'm not 100% sure this answers your question, but I would not think of Sequence pipelines as a "DSL" per se, in particular because it is quite general, which is the opposite of "domain-specific" - the heart of the definition of a DSL.
If you build your own builder API based on chained method calls for a specific domain, you could consider that as a DSL, but I would say Kotlin DSLs are mostly made of nested lambdas with declarative property assignments, rather than chained method calls.
This is because lambdas in Kotlin give the illusion of blocks and structure more than actual functions and function calls, which is why nested structures like this look like their own "language" (the L of DSL). Chained method calls don't look like another "language" - they just look like function calls, but of course that's my subjective take.
For example, here is a Gradle build script using the Gradle Kotlin DSL:
plugins {
`java-library`
}
dependencies {
api("junit:junit:4.13")
implementation("junit:junit:4.13")
testImplementation("junit:junit:4.13")
}
java {
sourceCompatibility = JavaVersion.VERSION_11
targetCompatibility = JavaVersion.VERSION_11
}
It does look like its own language, you don't immediately think of Kotlin when reading such code.
Do you know how to use Web Speech API in KMM project for Web application: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Speech_API/Using_the_Web_Speech_API
I'm using Kotlin to build the web app, and the web app require speech to text feature.
I'm not familiar with this particular WEB API, but here's the general process of wrapping global JS APIs in Kotlin so hopefully you'll be able to correct the odd inconsistencies yourself via trial and error.
Firstly, since the target API is global, there's no need for any meta-information for the compiler about where to source JS code from - it's present in the global context. Therefore, we only need to declare the shape of that global context. Normally that would be a straightforward task as outlined in this article, however there's a caveat here which requires some trickery to make it work on all the browsers:
As mentioned earlier, Chrome currently supports speech recognition with prefixed properties, therefore at the start of our code we include these lines to feed the right objects to Chrome, and any future implementations that might support the features without a prefix:
var SpeechRecognition = window.SpeechRecognition || webkitSpeechRecognition;
var SpeechGrammarList = window.SpeechGrammarList || webkitSpeechGrammarList;
var SpeechRecognitionEvent = window.SpeechRecognitionEvent || >webkitSpeechRecognitionEvent;
But let's ignore that for now since the API shape is consistent across the implementation, and name is the only difference that we'll address later. Two main API entities we need to wrap here are SpeechRecognition and SpeechGrammarList, both being classes. However, to make it easier to bridge the inconsistent names for them later on, in Kotlin it's best to describe their shapes as external interfaces. The process for both is the same, so I'll just outline it for SpeechRecognition.
First, the interface declaration. Here we can already make use from EventTarget declaration in Kotlin/JS stdlib. Note that the name of it does not matter here and will not clash with webkitSpeechRecognition when present since we declare it as an interface and as such we only care about the API shape.
external interface SpeechRecognition: EventTarget {
val grammars: SpeechGrammarList // or dynamic if you don't want to declare nested types
var lang: String
// etc...
}
Once we have the API shape declared, we need to bridge naming inconsistencies and provide a unified way to construct its instances from Kotlin. For that, we'll inject some hacky Kotlin code to act as our constructors.
// We match the function name to the type name here so that from Kotlin consumer's perspective it's indistinguishable from an actual constructor.
fun SpeechRecognition(): SpeechRecognition {
// Using some direct JS code to get an appropriate class reference
val cls = js("window.SpeechRecognition || webkitSpeechRecognition")
// Using the class reference to construct an instance of it and then tell the kotlin compiler to assume it's type
return js("new cls()").unsafeCast<SpeechRecognition>()
}
Hopefully this gives you the general idea of how things tie together. Let me know if something's still not quite clear.
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)
Just wondering if you can mark a method as pending to implement in pharo, like you can do in java using "todo"
I'ts really hard for me to keep track of what's complete on pharo without something like that
Methods whose implementation is still pending should send the notYetImplemented message like this:
methodImNotSureHowToImplement
^self notYetImplemented
if the unimplemented message gets sent anyway, it will signal a NotYetImplemented exception which will know the offending selector, #methodImNotSureHowToImplement in my example.
Note also that this will make it easy finding all methods that need to be implemented as senders of #notYetImplemented.
The implementation of #notYetImplemented is straightforward, thanks to the existence of NotYetImplemented.
notYetImplemented
"Announce that this message is not yet implemented"
NotYetImplemented signalFor: thisContext sender selector
Note also that NotYetImplemented is one of the subclasses of SelectorException which model several situations of similar kinds:
SelectorException
NotYetImplemented
PrimitiveFailed
ShouldBeImplemented
ShouldNotImplement
SubclassResponsibility
I found the solution for this by myself 2 days after asking about it, almost accidentally, just using the context menu option jump to test method over a method without any test. Pharo automatically generated an empty test with this:
self flag: #toImplement.
self assert: false`
the first line, which can be used not only on tests, gives me the behavior I expected as it automatically categorizes the method containing it on a flags category marked with a big "!" allowing to easily check at glance which methods are pending.
The second line forces test to fail and be shown on yellow which is pretty useful because if it's empty it will pass and be shown on green, probably leading to believe it's already done when is not the case. A similar effect can be achieved just using self notYetImplemented
I would probably start doing something like this with my incomplete methods:
MyIncompleteMethod
self flag: #toImplement.
self notYetImplemented.`
you also can use pragmas to mark such methods
As Smalltalk provides the origin of agile development, let me provide a different answer. In a failing unit test. As you are not supposed to have a lot of those, it automatically provides the pressure to limit work in progress (the number of open #toDo's).
ObjC has a very unique way of overriding methods. Specifically, that you can override functions in OSX's own framework. Via "categories" or "Swizzling". You can even override "buried" functions only used internally.
Can someone provide me with an example where there was a good reason to do this? Something you would use in released commercial software and not just some hacked up tool for internal use?
For example, maybe you wanted to improve on some built in method, or maybe there was a bug in a framework method you wanted to fix.
Also, can you explain why this can best be done with features in ObjC, and not in C++ / Java and the like. I mean, I've heard of the ability to load a C library, but allow certain functions to be replaced, with functions of the same name that were previously loaded. How is ObjC better at modifying library behaviour than that?
If you're extending the question from mere swizzling to actual library modification then I can think of useful examples.
As of iOS 5, NSURLConnection provides sendAsynchronousRequest:queue:completionHandler:, which is a block (/closure) driven way to perform an asynchronous load from any resource identifiable with a URL (local or remote). It's a very useful way to be able to proceed as it makes your code cleaner and smaller than the classical delegate alternative and is much more likely to keep the related parts of your code close to one another.
That method isn't supplied in iOS 4. So what I've done in my project is that, when the application is launched (via a suitable + (void)load), I check whether the method is defined. If not I patch an implementation of it onto the class. Henceforth every other part of the program can be written to the iOS 5 specification without performing any sort of version or availability check exactly as if I was targeting iOS 5 only, except that it'll also run on iOS 4.
In Java or C++ I guess the same sort of thing would be achieved by creating your own class to issue URL connections that performs a runtime check each time it is called. That's a worse solution because it's more difficult to step back from. This way around if I decide one day to support iOS 5 only I simply delete the source file that adds my implementation of sendAsynchronousRequest:.... Nothing else changes.
As for method swizzling, the only times I see it suggested are where somebody wants to change the functionality of an existing class and doesn't have access to the code in which the class is created. So you're usually talking about trying to modify logically opaque code from the outside by making assumptions about its implementation. I wouldn't really support that as an idea on any language. I guess it gets recommended more in Objective-C because Apple are more prone to making things opaque (see, e.g. every app that wanted to show a customised camera view prior to iOS 3.1, every app that wanted to perform custom processing on camera input prior to iOS 4.0, etc), rather than because it's a good idea in Objective-C. It isn't.
EDIT: so, in further exposition — I can't post full code because I wrote it as part of my job, but I have a class named NSURLConnectionAsyncForiOS4 with an implementation of sendAsynchronousRequest:queue:completionHandler:. That implementation is actually quite trivial, just dispatching an operation to the nominated queue that does a synchronous load via the old sendSynchronousRequest:... interface and then posts the results from that on to the handler.
That class has a + (void)load, which is the class method you add to a class that will be issued immediately after that class has been loaded into memory, effectively as a global constructor for the metaclass and with all the usual caveats.
In my +load I use the Objective-C runtime directly via its C interface to check whether sendAsynchronousRequest:... is defined on NSURLConnection. If it isn't then I add my implementation to NSURLConnection, so from henceforth it is defined. This explicitly isn't swizzling — I'm not adjusting the existing implementation of anything, I'm just adding a user-supplied implementation of something if Apple's isn't available. Relevant runtime calls are objc_getClass, class_getClassMethod and class_addMethod.
In the rest of the code, whenever I want to perform an asynchronous URL connection I just write e.g.
[NSURLConnection sendAsynchronousRequest:request
queue:[self anyBackgroundOperationQueue]
completionHandler:
^(NSURLResponse *response, NSData *data, NSError *blockError)
{
if(blockError)
{
// oh dear; was it fatal?
}
if(data)
{
// hooray! You know, unless this was an HTTP request, in
// which case I should check the response code, etc.
}
/* etc */
}
So the rest of my code is just written to the iOS 5 API and neither knows nor cares that I have a shim somewhere else to provide that one microscopic part of the iOS 5 changes on iOS 4. And, as I say, when I stop supporting iOS 4 I'll just delete the shim from the project and all the rest of my code will continue not to know or to care.
I had similar code to supply an alternative partial implementation of NSJSONSerialization (which dynamically created a new class in the runtime and copied methods to it); the one adjustment you need to make is that references to NSJSONSerialization elsewhere will be resolved once at load time by the linker, which you don't really want. So I added a quick #define of NSJSONSerialization to NSClassFromString(#"NSJSONSerialization") in my precompiled header. Which is less functionally neat but a similar line of action in terms of finding a way to keep iOS 4 support for the time being while just writing the rest of the project to the iOS 5 standards.
There are both good and bad cases. Since you didn't mention anything in particular these examples will be all-over-the-place.
It's perfectly normal (good idea) to override framework methods when subclassing:
When subclassing NSView (from the AppKit.framework), it's expected that you override drawRect:(NSRect). It's the mechanism used for drawing views.
When creating a custom NSMenu, you could override insertItemWithTitle:action:keyEquivalent:atIndex: and any other methods...
The main thing when subclassing is whether or not your behaviour completes re-defines the old behaviour... or extends it (in which case your override eventually calls [super ...];)
That said, however, you should always stand clear of using (and overriding) any private API methods (those normally have an underscore prefix in their name). This is a bad idea.
You also should not override existing methods via categories. That's also bad. It has undefined behaviour.
If you're talking about categories, you don't override methods with them (because there is no way to call original method, like calling super when subclassing), but only completely replace with your own ones, which makes the whole idea mostly pointless. Categories are only useful for safely extending functionality, and that's the only use I have even seen (and which is a very good, an excellent idea), although indeed they can be used for dangerous things.
If you mean overriding by subclassing, that is not unique. But in Obj-C you can override everything, even private undocumented methods, not just what was declared 'overridable' like in other languages. Personally, I think it's nice, as I remember in Delphi and C++ I used to “hack” access to private and protected members to workaround an internal bug in framework. This is not a good idea, but at some moments it can be a life saver.
There is also method swizzling, but that's not standard language feature, that's a hack. Hacking undocumented internals is rarely a good idea.
And regarding “how can you explain why this can best be done with features in ObjC”, the answer is simple — Obj-C is dynamic, and this freedom is common to almost all dynamic languages (Javascript, Python, Ruby, Io, a lot more). Unless artificially disabled, every dynamic language has it.
Refer to the wikipedia page on dynamic languages for longer explanation and more examples. For example, an even more miraculous things possible in Obj-C and other dynamic languages is that an object can change it's type (class) in place, without recreation.