So I have an abstract class Composition, which has two children: one is a Track, and one is an Album (which is a group of Tracks).
class Composition(val name: String, ...)
class Track(name: String): Composition(name)
class Album(name: String, val tracks: List<Track>): Composition(name)
So far, so good. Now, I have the duration that is added. It is abstract in Composition, so I can override it in the children:
abstract class Composition(...){
abstract fun getDuration(): Int
}
Now, I can add override the method in the Track, which takes it as a parameter:
class Track(..., private val duration: Int): Composition(...){
override fun getDuration() = duration
}
And finally, I make the Album, whose duration is the sum of the Tracks:
class Album(..., val tracks: List<Track>): Composition(...){
override fun getDuration() = tracks.sumBy { it.getDuration() }
}
It works as intended, but I do not understand why I cannot simply use tracks.sumBy { it.duration }, since in Kotlin properties are nothing more than getters and setters (I'm thinking about the getDuration in Composition).
I feel like I'm missing something, because if the same code was written in Java, I would be able to call composition.duration as a property -- so that makes me think that Kotlin allows it from Java code, but not from Kotlin code, which is sad.
An other example:
Let's say I have a class named Artist, who wrote multiple Compositions:
class Artist(
val nom: String,
private val _compositions: MutableList<Composition> = ArrayList()
) {
// HERE (I wrote the extension method List<E>.toImmutableList)
fun getCompositions() : List<Composition> = _compositions.toImmutableList()
}
This is standard in Java (exposing immutable versions of Collections via getters, so they are not modified) ; Kotlin doesn't recognize it though:
val artist = Artist("Mozart")
artist.getCompositions() // Legal
artist.compositions // Illegal
I thought about making this a property, but:
- If I choose the type List<E>, I can override the getter to return the immutable list, but I cannot use regular methods (add...) as the List is immutable
- If I choose the type MutableList<E>, I cannot override the getter to return ImmutableList (which is a subclass of List that I wrote, and is obviously not a subclass of MutableList).
There's a chance I'm doing something ridiculous while there is an easy solution, but right now I cannot find it.
In the end, my question is: Why aren't manually-written getters considered properties when written from Kotlin?
And, if I'm mistaking, What is the expected way of solving both of these patterns?
If you want to use it as property, you should use Kotlin-way to override getter.
For example:
abstract class Composition(...){
abstract val duration: Int
}
// You can use "override" in constructor
// val - is immutable property that has only getter so you can just
// remove private modifier to make possible get it.
class Track(..., override val duration: Int): Composition(...){
...
}
class Album(..., val tracks: List<Track>): Composition(...) {
override val duration: Int
get() = tracks.sumBy { it.duration }
}
Also there are may be case when you need mutable property that can be changed only inside of object. For this case you can declare mutable property with private setter:
class SomeClass(value: Int) {
var value: Int = value
private set
}
Read more in docs: https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/properties.html#getters-and-setters
You have to define duration as an abstract property and not as an abtract function (https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/properties.html#getters-and-setters):
abstract class Composition(val name: String) {
abstract val duration: Int
}
class Track(name: String, override val duration: Int): Composition(name)
class Album(name: String, val tracks: List<Track>): Composition(name) {
override val duration: Int
get() = tracks.sumBy { it.duration }
}
The getter/setter conversion as properties does only work for Java classes (https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/java-interop.html#getters-and-setters).
Related
I want to dynamically implement an interface by extending an existing class as an anonymous object.
This anonymous object captures a method parameter to implement the interface method:
fun myFunc(someObj: SomeObj, update: Boolean) = object : SomeObj(/*copy some values from someObj*/), SomeInterface {
override fun doUpdate() = update
}
This implementation captures the update method parameter and adds it as a synthetic $update field into the anonymous object. I need to annotate this field as my serialization framework includes the $update field when its not marked as #Transient.
Another approach by delegation suffers from the same issue:
fun myFunc(someObj: SomeObj, update: Boolean) {
val someInterfaceImpl = object : SomeInterface {
override fun doUpdate() = update
}
return object : SomeObj(/*copy some values from someObj*/), SomeInterface by someInterfaceImpl
}
I cannnot annotate someInterfaceImpl in any place with #delegate:Transient or #Transient.
In essence:
Is there a way to annotate captured variables in Kotlin?
Is there a way to annotate the field when delegating to an object?
I am required to do this by annotations as the framework does not offer any other way to exclude fields, not even by names.
Furthermore I am not talking about delegated properties but delegated interfaces.
Create a named class:
fun myFunc(someObj: SomeObj, update: Boolean): SomeObj {
class SomeObjSubclass(someObj: SomeObj, #Transient val update: Boolean):
SomeObj(someObj.prop1, someObj.prop2, /* and so on*/), SomeInterface {
override fun doUpdate() = update
}
return SomeObjSubclass(someObj, update)
}
Notice that myFunc is now merely a wrapper for SomeObj. Depending on your design, you could just make myFunc the SomeObj subclass instead:
class MyFunc(someObj: SomeObj, #Transient val update: Boolean):
SomeObj(someObj.prop1, someObj.prop2, /* and so on*/), SomeInterface {
override fun doUpdate() = update
}
Callers would call MyFunc(...) as if it were a function, and they would receive something assignable to SomeObj, just like before.
You can also add a secondary constructor to SomeObj that takes a SomeObj, and copy the properties there
constructor(someObj: SomeObj): this(
someObj.prop1, someObj.prop2, /* and so on */
)
Then the declaration of MyFunc can just be:
class MyFunc(someObj: SomeObj, #Transient val update: Boolean):
SomeObj(someObj), SomeInterface {
override fun doUpdate() = update
}
I want to make Jackson work with enums not by name and not by ordinal, but with a custom property I added called "stringId".
I wanted to support this with all Enums in the system so I made an interface called StringIdEnum which the FooEnum will implement.
I'm using Kotlin so I created a property in the interface called stringId which I override in each enum value.
Now I want to make Jackson serialize and deserialize using this stringId field, from what I seen I have several options:
Use #JsonProperty annotation on each enum value and make sure it is aligned with the stringId property.
I see two issues with this approach. one it's a lot of annotation to add (we have many enum classes across the system). two I need to make sure the annotation value and the property value should be always the same which can cause issues in the future.
I tried to use the READ_ENUMS_USING_TO_STRING feature, but because I'm using an interface I can't override the toString in the interface class (I can override it in every enum class but that again seems like a lot of redundant code)
Implement a custom serializer/deserializer.
The serializer is pretty straightforward, however, I had trouble with the deserializer.
I wanted to register the deserializer on the StringIdEnum interface, but I had an issue getting all the runtime enum values for the actual FooType enum.
StringIdEnum:
interface StringIdEnum {
val stringId: String
}
enum class FooType(override val stringId: String) : StringIdEnum {
FOO("FOO"),
GOO("GOO");
}
Managed to get it working:
#JsonSerialize(using = StringIdEnumSerializer::class)
#JsonDeserialize(using = StringIdEnumDeserializer::class)
interface StringIdEnum: DbEnum {
val stringId: String
}
class StringIdEnumSerializer: StdSerializer<StringIdEnum>(StringIdEnum::class.java) {
override fun serialize(value: StringIdEnum, gen: JsonGenerator, provider: SerializerProvider) {
gen.writeString(value.stringId)
}
}
class StringIdEnumDeserializer : JsonDeserializer<Enum<*>>(), ContextualDeserializer {
private lateinit var type: JavaType
override fun deserialize(p: JsonParser, ctxt: DeserializationContext): Enum<*> {
val t = p.text
val enumConstants = (type.rawClass as Class<Enum<*>>).enumConstants
return enumConstants.single { (it as StringIdEnum).stringId == t }
}
override fun createContextual(ctxt: DeserializationContext?, property: BeanProperty?): JsonDeserializer<*> {
val wrapperType: JavaType = property!!.type
val stringIdEnumDeserializer = StringIdEnumDeserializer()
stringIdEnumDeserializer.type = wrapperType
return stringIdEnumDeserializer
}
}
Suppose I have many enum classes like the following:
enum class Hero(val alias: String) {
SUPERMAN("Clark Kent"),
BATMAN("Bruce Wayne");
companion object {
fun fromAlias(value: String): Hero? = Hero.values().find { it.alias.equals(value, true) }
}
}
enum class Villain(val alias: String) {
TWO_FACE("Harvey Dent"),
RIDDLER("Edward Nigma");
companion object {
fun fromAlias(value: String): Villain? = Villain.values().find { it.alias.equals(value, true) }
}
}
I'd like to be able to create a generic interface to handle the fromAlias method in such a way that I can still call it using Hero.fromAlias("Bruce Wayne"). So my enum classes would be simplified to something like:
enum class Hero(override val alias: String): AliasedEnum<Hero> {
SUPERMAN("Clark Kent"),
BATMAN("Bruce Wayne");
}
enum class Villain(override val alias: String): AliasedEnum<Villain> {
TWO_FACE("Harvey Dent"),
RIDDLER("Edward Nigma");
}
I attempted to incorporate the answer from Kotlin define interface for enum class values method, but couldn't see a way to access the enum values() from the companion object in the interface. Is there a clean way to do what I am wanting?
You can quite easily do this by using the fact that companion object objects can extend other classes.
Pretty much any solution will require two different parts, since you need:
A common interface that provides any data required for the function, so it is available regardless of the actual implementation.
A way to attach the shared function to the companion object for <Class>.function access. This can either be an abstract class with the required implementation or a marker class with the implementation as an extension function.
In the end the "cleanest" solution would probably be this:
// Attaching point for the extension function which provides the answer
interface EnumCompanion<T : Enum<T>>
// Marker interface to provide the common data
interface WithAlias {
val alias: String
}
inline fun <reified T> EnumCompanion<T>.fromAlias(
value: String
): T? where T : Enum<T>, T : WithAlias {
return enumValues<T>().find { it.alias == value }
}
// Define the enums and attach the helper to their companion object
enum class Hero(override val alias: String) : WithAlias {
SUPERMAN("Clark Kent"),
BATMAN("Bruce Wayne");
companion object : EnumCompanion<Hero>
}
enum class Villain(override val alias: String) : WithAlias {
TWO_FACE("Harvey Dent"),
RIDDLER("Edward Nigma");
companion object : EnumCompanion<Villain>
}
fun main() {
println(Hero.fromAlias("Bruce Wayne"))
println(Villain.fromAlias("Edward Nigma"))
}
Here's my attempt:
data class LineStyle(val thickness: Float) {
override fun toString() =
if (thickness == 0f) {
"NO_LINE"
} else {
"LineStyle(${thickness}f)"
}
companion object {
#JvmField
val NO_LINE = LineStyle(0f)
}
}
I'd rather override toString separately for the NO_LINE singleton, but don't see how. I have a lot of classes that have a zero instance.
There are a few different ways you could do this. You could use a sealed or open class as your actual LineStyle and have the NoLine as a companion object, forcing you to refer to it as LineStyle.NoLine. In that object, you could override the actual toString() method with whatever you want. The implementation would look something like this:
// sealed so it's easier to deal with in when statements
sealed class LineStyle(val thickness: Float) {
// defines a no line style
companion object NoLine: LineStyle(0f) {
override fun toString() = "NO_LINE"
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
// only able to access it as
LineStyle.NoLine
}
However, with this approach, you lose the data aspect of the class. The only other option is to do basically what you have done, instead, maybe use a when statement though for future extensibility. It's not the prettiest but it works:
data class LineStyle(val thickness: Float) {
// if you want extensibility, you could use a when statement
override fun toString() = if(this == NO_LINE) "NO_LINE" else super.toString()
companion object {
val NO_LINE = LineStyle(0f)
}
}
I have an interface where I want a property that can be modified innside the class, but not outside. I cannot use val because it needs to be mutable and the var keyword can not have a specified private setter since this is in an interface.
In Java I would have done this:
public <T> getMyProperty();
I can use the same approach in kotlin and just write the getter function dirrectly, but this does not seem like a kotlinlike approach. Is there a better way to achieve the same as this?
fun getMyProperty()
In Kotlin, you can actually override a val with a var, so, I think, what you want can be expressed as follows:
interface Iface {
val foo: Foo
}
class Impl : Iface {
override var foo: Foo
get() = TODO()
private set(value) { TODO() }
}
Or you can override the val with a property with a backing field and default accessors:
class ImplDefaultGetter : Iface {
override var foo: Foo = someFoo
private set
}
In both cases, the mutability and the presence of a private setter become an implementation detail of the classes and are not exposed through the interface.