Regarding data classes it is forbidden to not use var or val keywords in the primary constructor, i.e. every parameter is implicitly turned into a class property. However, sometimes there are cases which I don't want each parameter to be turned into a class property.
So, as far as I can see, there is no chance of passing a parameter in a primary constructor that is accessible only within the constructor and is forgotten after the construction of the instance has finished. Is there a good reason for this?
The only way I see to get around this, is not to use data classes or to use a secondary constructor that allows for non-var/val-prefixed variables. However, having a lot of parameters that need to be passed, a secondary constructor would immensely inflate the class. Of course, I could wrap all the parameters into another object, but that would just kind of shift the problem to another place.
Is there a recommended approach or pattern in order to cope with that?
You are not limited at all, you just have to do things a bit differently.
Data classes are intended to be very clear about what they contain and in what order, and only allow members in the primary constructor parameter list.
But you have other options: use a secondary constructor, and/or create top-level functions with the same name as the class with different overloads, or create factory methods in the companion object:
data class Person(val name: String, val age: Int) {
// secondary constructor
constructor (name: String): this(name, 0) {
// ... make a newborn
}
// factory methods in companion object
companion object {
fun of(name: String, birthdate: LocalDate): Person {
return Person(name, yearsSince(birthdate))
}
}
}
// function with same name as class acting like a constructor
fun Person(name: String, birthdate: LocalDate): Person {
return Person(name, yearsSince(birthdate))
}
// these all work now:
Person("Fred", 30) // primary constructor
Person("Baby") // secondary constructor
Person("Geoff", LocalDate.parse("12/08/1990")) // top-level function
Person.of("Jennifer", LocalDate.parse("01/01/1981") // companion function
You can also hide the primary constructor by making it private, but you cannot hide the copy version of that constructor.
By the way, having data classes with this contract for the primary constructor really help serialization/deserialization libraries know what to do with the class that would be guesswork otherwise. It is a good thing!
Fist thing that I must say is that this is my personal opinion so take it with grain of salt.
From official kotlin documentation
We frequently create classes whose main purpose is to hold data. In such a class some standard functionality and utility functions are often mechanically derivable from the data.
So data classes are supposed to be used as data holders, and they shouldn't contain much logic.
From my perspective when you want to pass something to constructor but class doesn't store that data then there is probably some logic connected with that.
Common situation when you want to do this is:
Using some flag to change behavior of constructor
Passing some class that wraps all data needed and then extract it to each individual field.
In first case then we clearly see that this isn't part of data class use case.
And second case is simply bad code, it introduces unneeded dependency on another class and hides what that class actually needs.
Constructors should be simple, they take data that class requires and bind it to fields, not much logic should reside there, it should be up to those that use constructor to prepare all data, and if there is some repeatable code when creating new instances then it might be good idea to use factory method to encapsulate that.
Related
I'm new at Kotlin, migrating from Java. One thing I think is a little bit confusing is the fact we may declare a function using different ways. Bellow are at least 3 ways to accomplish that:
package me.bruno.santana
class MyClass {
fun square(number: Int) = number * number
fun square2(number: Int): Int{
return number * number
}
}
fun MyClass.square3(number: Int) = number * number
fun main(){
val obj = MyClass()
println(obj.square(3))
println(obj.square2(3))
println(obj.square3(3))
}
What is the difference between this 3 ways in practical terms? I know the last one is related to extension funcion concept, but I don't know what it differs from the conventional way in practical terms.
Another thing is weird for me is the assignment in the function definition(using equals sign to associate the function's body to the function's signature). Is it in any way different from the convetional way using curly braces as in Java?
Thank you.
1. This is single expression function:
When a function returns a single expression, the curly braces can be omitted and the body is specified after a = symbol
Explicitly declaring the return type is optional when this can be inferred by the compiler:
fun square(number: Int) = number * number
2. This is normal function
That can have single-line or multi-lines and required return type (but Unit is optional):
fun square2(number: Int): Int {
return number * number
}
3. This is Extension functions:
Kotlin provides the ability to extend a class with new functionality without having to inherit from the class or use design patterns such as Decorator.
Extensions are resolved statically: Extensions do not actually modify classes they extend. By defining an extension, you do not insert new members into a class, but merely make new functions callable with the dot-notation on variables of this type
Often used to write utility functions and enhance readability via dot-notation.
If an extension is declared outside its receiver type, such an extension cannot access the receiver's private members.
fun MyClass.square3(number: Int) = number * number
To add something about extension functions: there are four common reasons to use them that I can think of.
You don't control the source code of the class you're adding the function to.
You want to add functions only to specifically typed instances of a class. For example, you could write a function for your Foo<T: Animal> class that is only available on instances that are a Foo<Pet>.
You want to add something like a final function to an interface. This is used frequently in the standard library. If you define a function inside an interface, its behavior is unpredictable because interface functions cannot be final. By declaring it outside the interface as an extension, it can be hidden (by writing a different extension function with the same signature), but it cannot be overridden. Hiding it still requires the user to import the other version of the function, so it must be done explicitly.
You want to confine the scope of the added function. Maybe the function only really makes sense in a certain context, so you don't want it to clutter the IDE auto-complete everywhere. Or maybe it uses a property of a certain class, so it must be defined within that class.
When you're just composing one of your own typical classes, you won't frequently need to use an extension function.
Kotlin has two types of constructors, primary and secondary. What is the purpose of having two types? In my opinion it makes the code more complicated and inconsistent. If both types of constructors create objects of a class, they are equally important to a class.
Meanwhile, multiple initialisers also introduce confusion and reduce readability.
Primary constructors cover the poplular use case when you need to save the values passed as the constructor arguments to the properties of the instance.
Basically, a primary constructor provides a shorthand for both declaring a property and initializing it from the constructor parameter.
Note that you can do the same without primary constructors at all:
class Foo {
val bar: Bar
constructor(barValue: Bar) {
bar = barValue
}
}
But, since this happens really often in the codebases, Kotlin primary constructors serve the purpose of reducing the boilerplate here:
class Foo(val bar: Bar)
Secondary constructors may complement or replace the primary one in order to support several construction routines for a single class.
Philosophy: the main purpose - kotlin is pragmatic language. The main idea of it: exclude the most frequent boilerplate.
A lot of classes, which are used in the C#/Java have only one constructor with the following semantic:
Part of parameters are stored into the fields (with the same names)
Part of parameters are used by constructor to create other field (or extra validation)
Moreover, a lot of secondary constructors are used to call the primary constructor with default values (please see this question for C# language)
Therefore: to have simplified code (which reflects essence) you have to have ability to:
Support constructor parameters, which will be stored into the fields automatically (without this.myData = myData)
Support ability to create field from constructor parameters
Both of items above required, therefore all constructors have the same input values (because all fields should be initialized, however they are set out of constructor body). Therefore you have to have primary constructor, which will do initialization.
After this logic applying we get major rule: to cover the most frequent class initializing scenarios you have to have primary constructor with ability to define default parameter values. Additionally you should have ability to create secondary constructors to cover all other scenarios.
So, I repeat the main idea: primary constructor is needed to cover the most frequent cases (pragmatic purpose)
Primary constructor can define what parameters are passed into the init blocks. For example:
class Foo(a: Bar){
val b : Bar
init {
b = a // value of "a" is known from primary constructor
}
constructor(a: Boo) : this(a.toBar())
}
Without explicit primary constructor call it would be impossible to determine what value/type of a should be used in init.
Primary constructor and initializer blocks always execute before secondary constructor block (doc).
We have a package that we are looking to convert to kotlin from python in order to then be able to migrate systems using that package.
Within the package there are a set of classes that are all variants, or 'flavours' of a common base class.
Most of the code is in the base class which has a significant number of optional parameters. So consider:
open class BaseTree(val height:Int=10,val roots:Boolean=true, //...... lots more!!
class FruitTree(val fruitSize, height:Int=10, roots:Boolean=true,
// now need all possible parameters for any possible instance
):BaseTree(height=height, roots=roots //... yet another variation of same list
The code is not actually trees, I just thought this was a simple way to convey the idea. There are about 20 parameters to the base class, and around 10 subclasses, and each subclass effectively needs to repeat the same two variations of the parameter list from the base class. A real nightmare if the parameter list ever changes!
Those from a Java background may comment "20 parameters is too many", may miss that this is optional parameters, the language features which impacts this aspect of design. 20 required parameters would be crazy, but 10 or even 20 optional parameters is not so uncommon, check sqlalchemy Table for example.
In python, you to call a base class constructor you can have:
def __init__(self, special, *args, **kwargs):
super().__init(*args, **kwargs) # pass all parameters except special to base constructor
Does anyone know a technique, using a different method (perhaps using interfaces or something?) to avoid repeating this parameter list over and over for each subclass?
There is no design pattern to simplify this use case.
Best solution: Refactor the code to use a more Java like approach: using properties in place of optional parameters.
Use case explained: A widely used class or method having numerous optional parameters is simply not practical in Java, and kotlin is most evolved as way of making java code better. A python class with 5 optional parameters, translated to Java with no optional parameters, could have 5! ( and 5 factorial is 60) different Java signatures...in other words a mess.
Obviously no object should routinely be instanced with a huge parameter list, so normall python classes only evolve for classes when the majority of calls do not need to specify these optional parameters, and the optional parameters are for the exception cases. The actual use case here is the implementation of a large number of optional parameters, where it should be very rare for any individual object to be instanced using more than 3 of the optional parameter. So a class with 10 optional parameters that is used 500 times in an application, would still expect 3 of the optional parameters to be the maximum ever used in one instance. But this is simply a design approach not workable in Java, no matter how often the class is reused.
In Java, functions do hot have optional parameters, which means this case where an object is instanced in this way in a Java library simply could never happen.
Consider an object with one mandatory instance parameter, and five possible options. In Java these options would each be properties able to be set by setters, and objects would then be instanced, and the setter(s) called for setting any relevant option, but infrequently required change to the default value for that option.
The downside is that these options cannot be set from the constructor and remain immutable, but the resultant code reduces the optional parameters.
Another approach is to have a group of less 'swiss army knife' objects, with a set of specialised tools replacing the one do-it-all tool, even when the code could be seen as just slightly different nuances of the same theme.
Despite the support for Optional parameters in kotlin, The inheritance structure in kotlin is not yet optimised for heavier use of this feature.
You can skip the name like BaseTree(height, roots) by put the variable in order but you cannot do things like Python because Python is dynamic language.
It is normal that Java have to pass the variables to super class too.
FruitTree(int fruitSize, int height, boolean root) {
super(height, root);
}
There are about 20 parameters to the base class, and around 10 subclasses
This is most likely a problem of your classes design.
Reading your question I started to experiment myself and this is what I came up with:
interface TreeProperties {
val height: Int
val roots: Boolean
}
interface FruitTreeProperties: TreeProperties {
val fruitSize: Int
}
fun treeProps(height: Int = 10, roots: Boolean = true) = object : TreeProperties {
override val height = height
override val roots = roots
}
fun TreeProperties.toFruitProperty(fruitSize: Int): FruitTreeProperties = object: FruitTreeProperties, TreeProperties by this {
override val fruitSize = fruitSize
}
open class BaseTree(val props: TreeProperties)
open class FruitTree(props: FruitTreeProperties): BaseTree(props)
fun main(args: Array<String>){
val largTree = FruitTree(treeProps(height = 15).toFruitProperty(fruitSize = 5))
val rootlessTree = BaseTree(treeProps(roots = false))
}
Basically I define the parameters in an interface and extend the interface for sub-classes using the delegate pattern. For convenience I added functions to generate instances of those interface which also use default parameters.
I think this achieves the goal of repeating parameter lists quite nicely but also has its own overhead. Not sure if it is worth it.
If your subclass really has that many parameters in the constructur -> No way around that. You need to pass them all.
But (mostly) it's no good sign, that a constructor/function has that many parameters...
You are not alone on this. That is already discussed on the gradle-slack channel. Maybe in the future, we will get compiler-help on this, but for now, you need to pass the arguments yourself.
I was wondering, why do static Create methods exist?
For instance, why use this code:
System.Xml.XmlReader reader = System.Xml.XmlReader.Create(inputUri);
over this code:
System.Xml.XmlReader reader = new System.Xml.XmlReader(inputUri);
I cannot find the rationale for using one over the other, and can't find any relation between classes who use this construct over the other.
Can anyone shed some light on this?
XmlReader is an abstract class. You cannot instantiate it.
Providing a Create method is an instance of the factory pattern. Depending on the specified arguments a different implementation of XmlReader is chosen and returned. For example, there are validating and non-validating XmlReader implementations in the .NET framework.
A more general answer...
The reason people like these kinds of methods, known as "static factory methods", is because you can give them a name (as opposed to constructors). So if you need three different constructors, you can instead create static factory methods which have names relevant to their use.
Another reason is that a factory method doesn't really need to create new objects - it can return the same one over and over if need be.
Because it can actually create and object of derived type that you have no access to or return an abstract class (as dtb answered). This is factory method pattern.
A constructor can only be used to create instances of one specific class, while a static Create method can create an instance of different classes depending on the input.
In the case of the XmlReader class the Create method will return an XmlDictionaryReader, XmlTextReader, XmlValidatingReader or XmlNodeReader, depending on which overload you use and what parameters you send to it.
This pattern allows the XmlReader class to provide you with instances of derived classes tailored to the parameters you passed to Create. Note in particular the overloads that accept an XmlReaderSettings object. A different XmlReader subclass can be returned to you depending on your settings.
A better example is WebRequest.Create(url). Depending on the URL you pass, you may receive an HttpWebRequest, an FtpWebRequest, etc.
Because you don't have to commit to the exact class of object you get. Constructors can only construct objects from exactly one class.
Because you can give the method a meaningful name, e.g. BigInt.probablePrime(). Constructors can only have the same name as the class.
Because you can have more than one factory method for the same parameter type combination, e.g. Point.fromPolarCoords(int, int) and Point.fromCartesianCoords(int, int), but there can be only one constructor Point(int, int).
(A much more detailed answer is given in Bloch's 'Effective Java'.)
Sometimes they exist as a form of self-documentation. I have a db access component that I can instantiate either with a connection string or the name of the connection in the config file. Both of these methods take strings as a parameter so they cannot be differentiated by arguments alone. So I created a FromConnectionString(string) factory method and a FromConnectionName(string) factory method. This nuance would entirely be lost by a new Foo(bool, string) line.
The idea is that this way they can change the implementation of XmlReader and not break any user code (e.g. they can change the actual type that is returned from the Create method).
I personally don't like this approach, because it creates an inverse relationship in the XmlReader class hierarchy. Maybe they thought that the Factory pattern is an overkill?
To encapsulate object creation.
Please tell me why the constructor does not return any value. I want a perfect technical reason to explain to my students why the constructor does not have any return type.
What actually happens with the constructor is that the runtime uses type data generated by the compiler to determine how much space is needed to store an object instance in memory, be it on the stack or on the heap.
This space includes all members variables and the vtbl. After this space is allocated, the constructor is called as an internal part of the instantiation and initialization process to initialize the contents of the fields.
Then, when the constructor exits, the runtime returns the newly-created instance. So the reason the constructor doesn't return a value is because it's not called directly by your code, it's called by the memory allocation and object initialization code in the runtime.
Its return value (if it actually has one when compiled down to machine code) is opaque to the user - therefore, you can't specify it.
Well, in a way it returns the instance that has just been constructed.
You even call it like this, for example is Java
Object o = new Something();
which looks just like calling a "regular" method with a return value
Object o = someMethod();
How is a constructor supposed to return a return value? The new operator returns the newly created instance. You do not call a ctor, newdoes it.
MyClass instance = new MyClass();
If the ctor would return a value, like so:
public int MyClass()
{
return 42;
}
Where would you receive the integer?
(I'm biased towards C++, so regarding other languages, take this with a grain of salt.)
Short answer: You don't want to have to explicitly check for success for every single object construction in your code.
Somewhat longer answer: In C++, constructors are called for dynamically as well as for globally and automatically allocated objects. In this code
void f()
{
std::string s;
}
there is no way for the constructor of s (std::string::string()) to return any value. Either it succeeds - then we can use the object, or it throws an exception - the we never get a chance to try to use it.
IMO, that's the way it should be.
A constructor is some method automatically called when you initialize a new instance of an object.
This method is there if you need to initialize your object to a given state and run few default methods.
Actually you can imagine the constructor always return the instance of the object created that would be a good image.
When you call a constructor the return value is the new object:
Point pt = new Point(1,2);
But within the constructor itself, you're not actually creating and returning the object; it's been created before your code starts, you're just setting up the initial values.
Point::Point(int x, int y) {
this->x = x;
this->y = y;
}
The lack of a return type reflects the fact that constructors are used differently than other functions. A return type of null, while technically accurate, doesn't reflect well the fact that the code is used as if it returns an object. However, any other return type would indicate that your code is supposed to return something at the end, which is also incorrect.
Constructor doesn’t return anything not even Void. Though some of the answers have mentioned that Constructor do return reference to the newly created object , which is not true. It’s the new operator that returns the object.
So Why constructor doesn’t return any value
Because its not supposed to return anything. The whole purpose of constructor is to initialize the current state of the object by setting the initial values.
So Why doesn’t it even return Void
This is actually a Design constraint which has been placed to distinguish it from methods. public void className() is perfectly legal in java but it denotes a method and not a constructor. To make the compiler understand that it’s a constructor , it requires a way to distinguish it.
all answers are biased towards C++/Java. there is no reason a constructor does not return a value other than the language design.
look at a constructor in a broader sense: it is a function which constructs a new object. you can write perfectly valid constructors in C:
typedef struct object object;
int object_create( object **this );
this is perfect OOP in C and the constructor returns value (this can also be called a factory, but the name depends on the intention).
however, in order to create an object automatically (to satisfy some type cast, or conversion for example), there have to be some rules defined. in C++, there is an argument-less constructor, which is inferred by the compiler if it is not defined.
the discussion is broader than what we think. Object Oriented Programming is a name which describes a way of thinking about programming. you can have OO in almost any language: all you need is structures and functions. mainstream languages like C++ and Java are so common that we think they define "the way". now look at the OO model in Ada: it is far from the model of C++ but is still OO. i am sure languages like Lisp have some other ways of doing OO.
One point that hasn't yet been discussed is that the constructor of class "foo" must be usable not only when creating instances of foo, but also when creating instances of classes derived from foo. In the absence of generics (which weren't available when Java, C++, or .net were designed) there would be no way for foo's constructor to return an object of any derived class. Therefore, what needs to happen is for the derived-class object to be created via some other means and then made available to foo's constructor (which will then be able to use the object in question as a foo when doing its initialization).
Even though the VM implementation of a constructor isn't to return any value, in practice it kind of does - the new object's reference. It would then be syntactically weird and / or confusing to be able to store one or both of the new object's reference and an additional return value in one statement.
So the reason the constructor doesn't return a value is because it's not called directly by your code, it's called by the memory allocation and object initialization code in the runtime. Its return value (if it actually has one when compiled down to machine code) is opaque to the user - therefore, you can't specify it.
Constructor is not directly called by the user's code. It's called by the memory allocation and object initialization code in the run time. Its value is not visible to the user.
In case of C#, the syntax for declaring object is :
classname objectname= new constructor();
According to this line, if we are using assignment operator(=) then it should return some value. But the main objective of a constructor is to assign values to variables, so when we use a new keyword it creates instance of that class, and constructor assigns values to the variable for that particular instance of object, so constructor returns assigned values for that objects's instance.
We can not call constructors independently. Instead they are automatically called whenever objects are created.
Ex:
MyDate md = new Mydate(22,12,2012);
In above example new will return a memory location which will be held by md, and programatically we can not return multiple values in single statements.
So constructors can not return anything.
From what I know about OO design methodologies, I would say the following:
1)By allowing a constructor to return a value, framework developer would allow the program to crash in an instant where the returned value is not handled. To keep the integrity of the program workflow, not allowing a return value from the initialization of an object is a valid decision. Instead, language designer would suggest/force the coders to use getter/setter - access methods.
2)Allowing the object to return a value on initialization also opens possible information leaks. Specially when there are multiple layer or access modifications applied to the variables/methods.
As you aware that when object is created constructor will be automatically called So now imagine that constructor is returning an int value. So code should like this...
Class ABC
{
int i;
public:
int ABC()
{
i=0;
return i;
}
.......
};
int main()
{
int k= ABC abc; //constructor is called so we have to store the value return by it
....
}
But as you aware that stament like int k= ABC abc; is not possible in any programming language. Hope you can understand.
i found it helpful
This confusion arises from the assumption that constructors are just like any other functions/methods defined by the class. NO, they are not.
Constructors are just part of the process of object creation. They are not called like other member functions.
I would be using Java as my language in the answer.
class SayHelloOnCreation {
public SayHelloOnCreation() {
System.out.println("Hello, Thanks For Creating me!");
}
}
class Test {
public static void main(String[]args) {
SayHelloOnCreation thing = new SayHelloOnCreation(); //This line here, produces an output - Hello, Thanks For Creating me!
}
}
Now let us see what is happening here. in java, we use the new keyword to create an instance of a class. And as you can see in the code, in the line, SayHelloOnCreation thing = new SayHelloOnCreation();, the expression after the assignment operator runs before assignment is done. So using the keyword new, we call the constructor of that class (SayHelloOnCreation()) and this constructor creates an object on the Java Heap. After the object is created, a reference to that object is assigned to the thing reference of type SayHelloOnCreation.
The point that I am trying to keep here is that if constructors were allowed to have a return type, Firstly the strongly typed nature of the language would be compromised (Remember I am speaking about Java here).
Secondly, an object of class SayHelloOnCreation is created here so by default I guess the constructor returns a reference of the same type, to avoid ClassCastException.
A method returns the value to its caller method, when called explicitly. Since, a constructor is not called explicitly, who will it return the value to. The sole purpose of a constructor is to initialize the member variables of a class.