Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Kafka >> mail # dev >> setters and getters


Copy link to this message
-
Re: setters and getters
Update - there must have been some stray classes lying around. Actually,
only _= works. Also, we got some useful info from Chris Conrad:

Basically for any declaration:
var x

the scala compiler creates a (private[this] x_) along with a getter (def x
= x_) and setter (def x_=(v) {x_=v}) - although the x_ is inaccessible to
code

So the def xyz_= and def xyz effectively create a synthetic var.

We can actually go with public vals or vars - there is not much point in
defining a custom getter/setter as that is redundant.

For example:
- start with "val x"
- over time, we determine that it needs to be mutable - change it to "var x"
- if you need something more custom (e.g., enforce constraints on the
values that you can assign) then we can add the custom setter
  private[this] var underyling: T = ...
  def  x = underlying
  def x_=(update: T)  { if (constraint satisfied) {underlying = update}
else {throw new Exception} }

All of the above changes will be binary compatible since under the covers,
reads/assignments are all through getter/setter methods.

Joel

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Joel Koshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Interesting - so according to that article, the _ is not operator
> overloading, rather it is a whitespace symbol: xyz_= means a method named
> "xyz =".
>
> However, that explanation appears to be incomplete, because all of these
> seem to work and I don't understand why:
> def xyz_=(x: Int) {underlying = x}
> def xyz_(x: Int) {underlying = x}
> def xyz_abc(x: Int) {underlying = x}
>
> o.xyz = ...; // works with all of the above
>
> If we are going with this convention, then it would be good to fully
> understand how it works. Also, if we need to access setters from Java we
> would need to provide an explicit setter.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joel
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's my understanding. This blog gives a reasonable overview:
>>  http://www.dustinmartin.net/2009/10/getters-and-setters-in-scala/
>>
>> Kind of sad that a year or so in we are just figuring this out, but I
>> guess
>> better late then never. :-)
>>
>> -Jay
>>
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Joel Koshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Personally, I like options 3 and 4. (Option 4 more than 3, but I'm not
>> sure
>> > I follow it correctly - and I did not know that shorthand for
>> overloading!
>> > So is this right:)
>> >
>> > class GetSetXYZ {
>> >  private var underlying = 10
>> >  def xyz = underlying
>> >  def xyz_=(x: Int) {underlying = x}
>> > }
>> >
>> > val o = new GetSetXYZ
>> > println(o.xyz) // 10
>> > o.xyz=5
>> > println(o.xyz) // 5
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Oh no, you are no using xyz_() you are overriding =. So you define
>> > >  xyz_=(x:Int)
>> > > but to call it you do
>> > >  o.xyz = 5
>> > > The reason this is nice is because you can start with a simple
>> > >  var xyz
>> > > and not need any getter/setter. Then later when you need to change the
>> > > behavior of the get you make
>> > >  def xyz = ...
>> > > and none of the calling code changes. Later still you decide you need
>> to
>> > > override the setter you do
>> > >  def xyz_=(x: Int)...
>> > > and that overrides o.xyz=5, again without changing the calling code.
>> > >
>> > > Basically the point is that scala generates these getters and setters
>> no
>> > > matter what so you might as well use the official scala mechanism.
>> > >
>> > > Since I am only semi-scala literate any of the above may be wrong.
>> > >
>> > > -Jay
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jun Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I think separating out the getter and setter makes the
>> implementation
>> > > > cleaner. I am not sure how intuitive it is to use xyz_() as the
>> setter,
>> > > > although it is concise.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > >
>> > > > Jun
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB