I am a software developer from Poland, currently working in banking industry. For the past few years I have been writing software in Java, however I actively seek for a close alternative. Certified in SCJP, SCJD, SCWCD and SCBCD, used to be active on StackOverflow. I feel comfortable at the back-end, however recently rediscovered front-end development. In spare time I love cycling. Tomasz is a DZone MVB and is not an employee of DZone and has posted 86 posts at DZone. You can read more from them at their website. View Full User Profile

Scala Traits Implementation and Interoperability. Part I: Basics

04.11.2013
| 4237 views |
  • submit to reddit

 Traits in Scala are similar to interfaces, but much more powerful. They allow implementations of some of the methods, fields, stacking, etc. But have you ever wondered how are they implemented on top of JVM? How is it possible to extend multiple traits and where the implementations go to? In this article, based on my StackOverflow answer, I will give several trait examples and explain how scalac implements them, what are the drawbacks and what you get for free. Often we will look at compiled classes and decompile them to Java. It's not essential knowledge, but I hope you'll enjoy it. All examples are compiled against Scala 2.10.1.

Simple trait with no method implementations

The following trait:
trait Solver {
    def answer(question: String): Int
}
compiles down to the most boring Java interface:
public interface Solver {
    int answer(String);
}
There is really nothing special in Scala traits. That also means that if you ship Solver.class as part of your library, users can safely implement such interface from Java code. As far as java/javac is concerned, this is an ordinary Java compiled interface.

Traits having some methods implemented

OK, but what if trait actually has some method bodies?
trait Solver {
 
    def answer(s: String): Int
 
    def ultimateAnswer = answer("Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything")
 
}
Here, ultimateAnswer method actually has some implementation (the fact that it calls abstract answer() method is irrelevant) while answer() remains unimplemented. What will scalac produce?
public interface Solver {
    int answer(java.lang.String);
    int ultimateAnswer();
}
Well, it's still an interface and the implementation is gone. If the implementation is gone, what happens when we extend such a trait?
class DummySolver extends Solver {
 
    override def answer(s: String) = 42
 
}
We need to implement answer() but ultimateAnswer is already available via Solver. Anxious to see how it looks under the hood? DummySolver.class:
public class DummySolver implements Solver {
 
    public DummySolver() {
        Solver$class.$init$(this);
    }
 
    public int ultimateAnswer() {
        return Solver$class.ultimateAnswer(this);
    }
 
    public int answer(String s) {
        return 42;
    }
 
}
That... is... weird... Apparently we missed one new class file, Solver$class.class. Yes, the class is named Solver$class, this is valid even in Java. This is not Solver.class expression which returns Class[Solver], it's apparently an ordinary Java class named Solver$class with a bunch of static methods. Here is how it looks like:
public abstract class Solver$class {
 
    public static int ultimateAnswer(Solver $this) {
        return $this.answer("Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything");
    }
 
    public static void $init$(Solver solver) {}
}
Do you see the trick? Scala created a helper Solver$class and methods that are implemented inside trait are actually placed in that hidden class. BTW this is not a companion object, it's just a helper class invisible to you. But the real trick is $this parameter, invoked as Solver$class.ultimateAnswer(this). Since we are technically in another object, we must somehow get a handle of a real Solver instance. It is like OOP but done manually.

So we learned that method implementations from traits are extracted to a special helper class. This class is referenced every time we call such a method. This way we don't copy method body over and over into every single class extending given trait.

Extending multiple traits with implementations

Imagine extending multiple traits, each implementing distinct set of methods:
trait Foo {
    def foo = "Foo"
}
 
trait Bar {
    def bar = "Bar"
}
 
class Buzz extends Foo with Bar
By analogy you probably know already how Foo.class and Bar.class look like:
public interface Foo {
    String foo();
}
 
public interface Bar {
    String bar();
}

Implementations are hidden in mysterious ...$class.class files just as before:
public abstract class Foo$class {
    public static String foo(Foo) {
        return "Foo";
    }
 
    public static void $init$(Foo) {}
}
 
public abstract class Bar$class {
    public static String bar(Bar) {
        return "Bar";
    }
 
    public static void $init$(Bar) {}
}

Notice that static methods in Foo$class accept instances of Foo while Bar$class require reference to Bar. This works because Buzz implements both Foo and Bar:
public class Buzz implements Foo, Bar {
 
    public Buzz() {
        Foo.class.$init$(this);
        Bar.class.$init$(this);
    }
 
    public String bar() {
        return Bar$class.bar(this);
    }
 
    public String foo() {
        return Foo$class.foo(this);
    }
 
}

Both foo() and bar() pass this reference, but this is fine.

Traits with fields

Fields are another interesting feature of traits. This time let's use a real-world example from Spring Data project. As you know interfaces can require certain methods to be implemented. However they can't force you to provide certain fields (or provide fields on their own). This limitation becomes painful when working with Auditable<U, ID> interface extending Persistable<ID>. While these interfaces merely exist to make sure certain fields are present on your @Entity class, namely createdBy, createdDate, lastModifiedBy, lastModifiedDate and id, this cannot be expressed cleanly. Instead you have to implement the following methods in every single entity extending Auditable:
       U getCreatedBy();
    void setCreatedBy(final U createdBy);
DateTime getCreatedDate();
    void setCreatedDate(final DateTime creationDate);
       U getLastModifiedBy();
    void setLastModifiedBy(final U lastModifiedBy);
DateTime getLastModifiedDate();
    void setLastModifiedDate(final DateTime lastModifiedDate);
 
      ID getId();
 boolean isNew();
Moreover, every single class must of course define fields highlighted above. Doesn't feel DRY at all. Luckily traits can help us a lot. In trait we can define what fields should be created in every class extending this trait:
trait IAmAuditable[ID <: java.io.Serializable] extends Auditable[User, ID] {
 
    var createdBy: User = _
 
    def getCreatedBy = createdBy
 
    def setCreatedBy(createdBy: User) {
        this.createdBy = createdBy
    }
 
    var createdDate: DateTime = _
 
    def getCreatedDate = createdDate
 
    def setCreatedDate(creationDate: DateTime) {
        this.createdDate = creationDate
    }
 
    var lastModifiedBy: User = _
 
    def getLastModifiedBy = lastModifiedBy
 
    def setLastModifiedBy(lastModifiedBy: User) {
        this.lastModifiedBy = lastModifiedBy
    }
 
    var lastModifiedDate: DateTime = _
 
    def getLastModifiedDate = lastModifiedDate
 
    def setLastModifiedDate(lastModifiedDate: DateTime) {
        this.lastModifiedDate = lastModifiedDate
    }
 
    var id: ID = _
 
    def getId = id
 
    def isNew = id == null
}

But wait, Scala has built-in support for POJO-style getters/setters! So we can shorten this to:
class IAmAuditable[ID <: java.io.Serializable] extends Auditable[User, ID] {
 
    @BeanProperty var createdBy: User = _
 
    @BeanProperty var createdDate: DateTime = _
 
    @BeanProperty var lastModifiedBy: User = _
 
    @BeanProperty var lastModifiedDate: DateTime = _
 
    @BeanProperty var id: ID = _
 
    def isNew = id == null
}
Compiler-generated getters and setters implement interface automatically. From now on, every class willing to provide auditing capabilities can extend this trait:
@Entity
class Person extends IAmAuditable[String] {
 
    //...
 
}
All the fields, getters and setters are there. But how is it implemented? Let's look at the generated Person.class:
public class Person implements IAmAuditable<java.lang.String> {
    private User createdBy;
    private DateTime createdDate;
    private User lastModifiedBy;
    private DateTime lastModifiedDate;
    private java.io.Serializable id;
 
    public User createdBy() //...
    public void createdBy_$eq(User) //...
    public User getCreatedBy() //...
    public void setCreatedBy(User) //...
 
    public DateTime createdDate() //...
    public void createdDate_$eq(DateTime) //...
    public DateTime getCreatedDate() //...
    public void setCreatedDate(DateTime) //...
 
    public boolean isNew();
 
    //...
}
There is actually much more, but you get the idea. So fields aren't refactored into a separate class, but that was to be expected. Instead fields are copied into every single class extending this particular trait. In Java we could have used abstract base class for that, but it's nice to reserve inheritance for real is-a relationships and do not use it for dummy field holders. In Scala trait is such a holder, grouping common fields that we can reuse across several classes.

What about Java interoperability? Well, IAmAuditable is compiled down to Java interface, thus it doesn't have fields at all. If you implement it from Java, you gain nothing special.

We covered basic use cases for traits in Scala and their implementation. In the next article we will explore how mixins and stackable modifications work.


Published at DZone with permission of Tomasz Nurkiewicz, author and DZone MVB. (source)

(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)