What if I am only interested in onSee and do not care for other events? Can I at least omit the methods that have no return values?
interface EventHandler
{
fun onSee()
fun onHear()
fun onSmell()
fun onTouch()
fun onAwake()
fun onSleep()
}
fun addEventHandler(handler:EventHandler)
{
}
fun Main()
{
addEventHandler(object:EventHandler
{
override fun onSee()
{
print("I see.")
}
})
}
Sure, that is possible! you can implement one interface method when you extend it, all you have to do is to provide a default implementation for the other methods in the interface declaration
interface EventHandler {
fun onSee()
fun onHear() { /* default implementation */ }
fun onSmell(){ /* default implementation */ }
fun onTouch(){ /* default implementation */ }
fun onAwake(){ /* default implementation */ }
fun onSleep(){ /* default implementation */ }
}
Now when you create an instance of this interface you only need to provide a compulsory implementation for onSee() method, rest are optional
If you're not the author of the original interface
You could extend the original interface and provide a default implementation for the methods you want
interface OnSeeEventHandler: EventHandler {
override fun onHear() { /* default implementation */ }
override fun onSmell(){ /* default implementation */ }
override fun onTouch(){ /* default implementation */ }
override fun onAwake(){ /* default implementation */ }
override fun onSleep(){ /* default implementation */ }
}
And use the OnSeeEventHandler to provide only onSee method imeplementation
I came up with the following, somewhat p̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶ interesting approach.
The function below uses a dynamic proxy to "materialize" an interface and patch it with only the needed methods. Methods that are not patched will just return null or Unit, depending on the return type.
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy.newProxyInstance
inline fun <reified T> Any.materialize(): T = materialize(T::class.java, this)
fun <T> materialize(i: Class<T>, x: Any = object {}): T {
#Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST")
return newProxyInstance(i.classLoader, arrayOf(i)) { _, m, args ->
x.javaClass.methods
.asSequence()
.filter {
it.name == m.name
&& it.parameterTypes!!.contentEquals(m.parameterTypes)
}
.map {
it.invoke(x, *args.orEmpty())
}.firstOrNull()
} as T
}
It can then be used as follow, given an interface Foo and an anonymous object that contains only an implementation of its qux() function:
interface Foo {
fun bar()
fun baz(): String
fun qux(s: String): String
}
fun main(vararg args: String) {
val foo = object {
fun qux(s: String): String {
return "Returned from qux: $s"
}
}.materialize<Foo>()
println(foo.bar()) // void no-op, prints "kotlin.Unit"
println(foo.baz()) // no-op with return value, prints "null"
println(foo.qux("Hello")) // prints "Returned from qux: Hello"
}
Disclaimer
Using this, you lose all compile-time checking as everything is resolved at runtime.
Some things are not covered by this implementation (e.g. interface default methods).
Performance is not taken into account at all.
Requires the kotlin-reflect dependency.
Today is my second day learning Kotlin, so there might be any number of unaddressed edge cases and bugs.
I would not use this myself in most
cases, and will continue to hold out for a Kotlin construct that supports partial
interface implementations (like TypeScript's Partial<T>).
I'm only providing
this approach because it might be of interest for some use cases, and I'm
sorry if this made your eyes bleed.
Related
Is it impossible to use generic on interface level as argument type for function?
I read about out and in keywords but as I understand they don't work for this case.
interface BaseB
open class ChildB1: BaseB
open class ChildB2: BaseB
abstract class BaseMapper<V: BaseB> {
open fun test(v: V) {
return
}
}
class TestMapper1: BaseMapper<ChildB1>() {
override fun test(v: ChildB1) {
return
}
}
class TestMapper2: BaseMapper<ChildB2>() {
override fun test(v: ChildB2) {
return
}
}
#Test
fun t() {
//ERROR
val mappers: List<BaseMapper<BaseB>> = listOf(TestMapper1(), TestMapper2())
mappers[0].test(ChildB1())
}
A BaseMapper<ChildB1> is not logically a BaseMapper<BaseB>. It consumes ChildB’s, so if you passed some other implementation of Base it would cause a ClassCastException if the compiler let you do that. There is no common subtype of your two subclasses besides Nothing, so the only way to put both of these types in the same list is to make it a List<BaseMapper<in Nothing>>.
Example of why it is not logically a BaseMapper<BaseB>:
open class ChildB1: BaseB {
fun sayHello() = println("Hello world")
}
class TestMapper1: BaseMapper<ChildB1>() {
override fun test(v: ChildB1) {
v.sayHello() // if v is not a ChildB1, this would be impossible
}
}
//...
val impossibleCast: BaseMapper<BaseB> = TestMapper1()
// TestMapper1 cannot call sayHello() because it's undefined for ChildB2.
// This is impossible:
impossibleCast.test(ChildB2())
// ...so the compiler prevents you from doing the impossible cast in the first place.
Gradle tasks using Kotlin are implemented as either abstract class ... or interface ....
In either case it is not clear how to use delegation.
The following works correctly but requires delegation to be performed manually (i.e. it does not use Kotlin delegation).
#CacheableTask
abstract class FooTask : DefaultTask(), CopySourceSpec {
#get:InputFiles
#get:Optional
#get:SkipWhenEmpty
#get:IgnoreEmptyDirectories
#get:PathSensitive(PathSensitivity.RELATIVE)
abstract val sourceFiles: ConfigurableFileCollection
#TaskAction
fun canonize() {
val sourceFileTree = sourceFiles.asFileTree
// do something with the sourceFileTree
}
override fun from(vararg sourcePaths: Any?): ProtobufHeaderTask {
this.sourceFiles.from(sourcePaths)
return this
}
override fun from(sourcePath: Any, closure: Closure<*>): ProtobufHeaderTask {
this.sourceFiles.from(sourcePath, closure)
return this
}
override fun from(sourcePath: Any, configureAction: Action<in CopySpec>): ProtobufHeaderTask {
this.sourceFiles.from(sourcePath, configureAction)
return this
}
}
It seems like this could be done more simply using Kotlin delegation.
#CacheableTask
abstract class FooTask : DefaultTask(), ConfigurableFileCollection by sourceFiles {
#get:InputFiles
#get:Optional
#get:SkipWhenEmpty
#get:IgnoreEmptyDirectories
#get:PathSensitive(PathSensitivity.RELATIVE)
abstract val sourceFiles: ConfigurableFileCollection
#TaskAction
fun canonize() {
val sourceFileTree = sourceFiles.asFileTree
// do something with the sourceFileTree
}
}
This latter case produces an error that sourceFiles is not defined.
Is it possible to use Kotlin delegation in this way?
I have a class that receives a function allowing it to display things on the UI during a failure case. What's the best way that I can verify that the function is called in my test?
MyClass(private val uiPrinter: (String) -> Unit) {
fun foo() {
// do some stuff
uiPrinter("printing from foo!")
// do some more stuff
}
}
MyClassTest() {
val testUiPrinter: (String) -> Unit = { System.out.println(it) }
#Test
fun uiPrinterIsInvoked() {
val myClass = MyClass(testUiPrinter)
myClass.foo()
// can I verify that testUiPrinter has been invoked?
}
}
You may want to check out the Model-View-Presenter architecture. Its purpose is to hide the Android framework behind an abstract View interface which a purely Java Presenter can interact with. In your example:
interface ViewInterface {
fun printError(error: String)
}
class MyPresenter(private val view: ViewInterface) {
fun foo() {
// do some stuff (testable stuff)
view.printError("Printing from foo()!")
// do some more (testable) stuff
}
}
class MyPresenterTest() { // Test using Mockito to mock the abstract view
private val view = mock(ViewInterface::class.java)
private val presenter = MyPresenter(view)
#Test
fun printsError() {
// set up preconditions
presenter.foo()
verify(view).printError("Printing from foo()!")
}
}
Your concrete view will generally be an Android Activity, Fragment, or View which implements the view interface. Notice MyPresenter only expects the abstract view and does not need knowledge of the framework-dependent operations.
class MyActivity : Activity(), ViewInterface {
// ...
override fun printError(error: String) {
textView.text = error // For example
}
// ...
}
This can be achieved by mocking the higher-order function as higher-order functions are objects unless inlined.
#Mock
val testUiPrinter: (String) -> Unit
#Test
fun uiPrinterIsInvoked() {
val myClass = MyClass(testUiPrinter)
myClass.foo()
verify(testUiPrinter).invoke("Printing from foo!")
}
I'm really confused about the kotlin delegation. Let me describe the regular polymorphism approach here which looks same like the kotlin delgation.
interface Base {
fun print()
}
class BaseImpl(val x: Int) : Base {
override fun print() { print(x) }
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val b : Base = BaseImpl(10)
b.print() // prints 10
}
I can pass any implemented class of Base interface to b variable to call the method of specified class's object. Then what is the benefit of kotlin's delegation? Which is described here.
interface Base {
fun print()
}
class BaseImpl(val x: Int) : Base {
override fun print() { print(x) }
}
class Derived(b: Base) : Base by b // why extra line of code?
// if the above example works fine without it.
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val b = BaseImpl(10)
Derived(b).print() // prints 10
}
I know this is the simple scenario where the both codes are working fine. There should be a benefit of delegation that's why kotlin introduced it. What is the difference? and how kotlin delegation can be useful? Please give me a working example to compare with polymorphism approach.
Also remember that you're not restricted to just one delegate. Kotlin's way of implementing delegation is similar to traits implementation in languages like Groovy. You can compose different functionality via delegates. Kotlin's way can also be considered more powerful because you can "plug in" different implementations too.
interface Marks {
fun printMarks()
}
class StdMarks() : Marks {
override fun printMarks() { println("printed marks") }
}
class CsvMarks() : Marks {
override fun printMarks() { println("printed csv marks") }
}
interface Totals {
fun printTotals()
}
class StdTotals : Totals {
override fun printTotals() { println("calculated and printed totals") }
}
class CheatTotals : Totals {
override fun printTotals() { println("calculated and printed higher totals") }
}
class Student(val studentId: Int, marks: Marks, totals: Totals)
: Marks by marks, Totals by totals
fun main(args:Array<String>) {
val student = Student(1,StdMarks(), StdTotals())
student.printMarks()
student.printTotals()
val cheater = Student(1,CsvMarks(), CheatTotals())
cheater.printMarks()
cheater.printTotals()
}
Output:
printed marks
calculated and printed totals
printed csv marks
calculated and printed higher totals
You can't do this with inheritance.
It is extremely useful for creating decorators and for object composition.
Joshua Bloch in Effective Java, 2nd Edition, Item 16 'Favor Composition Over Inheritance' shows a good example: inheritance is easy-to-break, and decorators are not.
Inheritance:
class LoggingList<E> : ArrayList<E>() {
override fun add(e: E): Boolean {
println("added $e")
return super.add(e)
}
override fun addAll(e: Collection<E>): Boolean {
println("added all: $e")
return super.addAll(e) // oops! Calls [add] internally.
}
}
Delegation:
class LoggingList<E>(delegate: MutableList<E>) : MutableList<E> by delegate {
override fun add(e: E): Boolean {
println("added $e")
return delegate.add(e)
}
override fun addAll(e: Collection<E>): Boolean {
println("added all: $e")
return delegate.addAll(e) // all OK
// it calls [delegate]'s [add] internally, not ours
}
}
It is useful because of the Delegation Pattern where most of the behavior can be the same as the target of the delegation (b) but you just want to override a subset of methods to act differently.
An example would be an InputStream implementation which delegates all work to another InputStream but overrides the close() method to not close the underlying stream. This could be implemented as:
class CloseGuardInputStream(private val base: InputStream)
: InputStream by base {
override fun close() {}
}
Following is the example :-
interface Mode{
val color:String
fun display()
}
class DarkMode(override val color:String) : Mode{
override fun display(){
println("Dark Mode..."+color)
}
}
class LightMode(override val color:String) : Mode {
override fun display() {
println("Light Mode..."+color)
}
}
class MyCustomMode(val mode: Mode): Mode{
override val color:String = mode.color
override fun display() {
mode.display()
}
}
Now, the custom mode can reuse display() function of both modes DarkMode & LightMode
fun main() {
MyCustomMode(DarkMode("CUSTOM_DARK_GRAY")).display()
MyCustomMode(LightMode("CUSTOM_LIGHT_GRAY")).display()
}
/* output:
Dark Mode...CUSTOM_DARK_GRAY
Light Mode...CUSTOM_LIGHT_GRAY
*/
Kotlin natively support delegation pattern.
Kotlin provides by keyword to specify the delegate object which our custom mode will be delegating to.
We can achieve the same result of the code above using by keyword.
class MyCustomMode(val mode: Mode): Mode by mode
fun main() {
MyCustomMode(DarkMode("CUSTOM_DARK_GRAY")).display()
MyCustomMode(LightMode("CUSTOM_LIGHT_GRAY")).display()
}
/* output:
Dark Mode...CUSTOM_DARK_GRAY
Light Mode...CUSTOM_LIGHT_GRAY
*/
Is there a way to specify the return type of a function to be the type of the called object?
e.g.
trait Foo {
fun bar(): <??> /* what to put here? */ {
return this
}
}
class FooClassA : Foo {
fun a() {}
}
class FooClassB : Foo {
fun b() {}
}
// this is the desired effect:
val a = FooClassA().bar() // should be of type FooClassA
a.a() // so this would work
val b = FooClassB().bar() // should be of type FooClassB
b.b() // so this would work
In effect, this would be roughly equivalent to instancetype in Objective-C or Self in Swift.
There's no language feature supporting this, but you can always use recursive generics (which is the pattern many libraries use):
// Define a recursive generic parameter Me
trait Foo<Me: Foo<Me>> {
fun bar(): Me {
// Here we have to cast, because the compiler does not know that Me is the same as this class
return this as Me
}
}
// In subclasses, pass itself to the superclass as an argument:
class FooClassA : Foo<FooClassA> {
fun a() {}
}
class FooClassB : Foo<FooClassB> {
fun b() {}
}
You can return something's own type with extension functions.
interface ExampleInterface
// Everything that implements ExampleInterface will have this method.
fun <T : ExampleInterface> T.doSomething(): T {
return this
}
class ClassA : ExampleInterface {
fun classASpecificMethod() {}
}
class ClassB : ExampleInterface {
fun classBSpecificMethod() {}
}
fun example() {
// doSomething() returns ClassA!
ClassA().doSomething().classASpecificMethod()
// doSomething() returns ClassB!
ClassB().doSomething().classBSpecificMethod()
}
You can use an extension method to achieve the "returns same type" effect. Here's a quick example that shows a base type with multiple type parameters and an extension method that takes a function which operates on an instance of said type:
public abstract class BuilderBase<A, B> {}
public fun <B : BuilderBase<*, *>> B.doIt(): B {
// Do something
return this
}
public class MyBuilder : BuilderBase<Int,String>() {}
public fun demo() {
val b : MyBuilder = MyBuilder().doIt()
}
Since extension methods are resolved statically (at least as of M12), you may need to have the extension delegate the actual implementation to its this should you need type-specific behaviors.
Recursive Type Bound
The pattern you have shown in the question is known as recursive type bound in the JVM world. A recursive type is one that includes a function that uses that type itself as a type for its parameter or its return value. In your example, you are using the same type for the return value by saying return this.
Example
Let's understand this with a simple and real example. We'll replace trait from your example with interface because trait is now deprecated in Kotlin. In this example, the interface VitaminSource returns different implementations of the sources of different vitamins.
In the following interface, you can see that its type parameter has itself as an upper bound. This is why it's known as recursive type bound:
VitaminSource.kt
interface VitaminSource<T: VitaminSource<T>> {
fun getSource(): T {
#Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST")
return this as T
}
}
We suppress the UNCHECKED_CAST warning because the compiler can't possibly know whether we passed the same class name as a type argument.
Then we extend the interface with concrete implementations:
Carrot.kt
class Carrot : VitaminSource<Carrot> {
fun getVitaminA() = println("Vitamin A")
}
Banana.kt
class Banana : VitaminSource<Banana> {
fun getVitaminB() = println("Vitamin B")
}
While extending the classes, you must make sure to pass the same class to the interface otherwise you'll get ClassCastException at runtime:
class Banana : VitaminSource<Banana> // OK
class Banana : VitaminSource<Carrot> // No compiler error but exception at runtime
Test.kt
fun main() {
val carrot = Carrot().getSource()
carrot.getVitaminA()
val banana = Banana().getSource()
banana.getVitaminB()
}
That's it! Hope that helps.
Depending on the exact use case, scope functions can be a good alternative. For the builder pattern apply seems to be most useful because the context object is this and the result of the scope function is this as well.
Consider this example for a builder of List with a specialized builder subclass:
open class ListBuilder<E> {
// Return type does not matter, could also use Unit and not return anything
// But might be good to avoid that to not force users to use scope functions
fun add(element: E): ListBuilder<E> {
...
return this
}
fun buildList(): List<E> {
...
}
}
class EnhancedListBuilder<E>: ListBuilder<E>() {
fun addTwice(element: E): EnhancedListBuilder<E> {
addNTimes(element, 2)
return this
}
fun addNTimes(element: E, times: Int): EnhancedListBuilder<E> {
repeat(times) {
add(element)
}
return this
}
}
// Usage of builder:
val list = EnhancedListBuilder<String>().apply {
add("a") // Note: This would return only ListBuilder
addTwice("b")
addNTimes("c", 3)
}.buildList()
However, this only works if all methods have this as result. If one of the methods actually creates a new instance, then that instance would be discarded.
This is based on this answer to a similar question.
You can do it also via extension functions.
class Foo
fun <T: Foo>T.someFun(): T {
return this
}
Foo().someFun().someFun()