DDevelopment & Design

Use asInstanceOf[T] carefully!

BackgroundScala has nice static type checking engine but from time to time there are situations when we must downcast some general object. If this casting is not possible we expect that virtual machine will throw ClassCastExeption as fast as possible. …

Background

Scala has nice static type checking engine but from time to time there are situations when we must downcast some general object. If this casting is not possible we expect that virtual machine will throw ClassCastExeption as fast as possible. Although it is not always true. Consider code below.

Suprisingly when we run this test we will see:

Solution

Why this happens? Because type T is erasured during compile. The problem is that compiler doesn’t warn about it. Method asInstanceOf[T] is treated as any other regular generic method. If we want to be noticed about type erasure we should use pattern matching:

And then during compilation we will see:

But how to fix this? We can provide implicit evidence parameter:

But we will still have no error if we cast value to generic type e.g.:

With help comes shapeless with Type safe cast. Using this approach casting will be available in compile time only when exists evidence how it is possible.

Summary

Summarizing:
* Use pattern matching instead of asInstanceOf[T]
* If you are using asInstanceOf[T] make sure that target type is not erasured
* Use ClassTag implicit evidence parameter if you are casting only to not generic types
* Use shapeless Typeable in all other situations

# CodeCode with tests is available on

[GitHub][2]

— Previous article

Warsjawa – hold your own workshop

Next article —

TouK on Warsjawa 2014

You May Also Like
DDevelopment & Design

Inconsistent Dependency Injection to domains with Grails

I've encountered strange behavior with a domain class in my project: services that should be injected were null. I've became suspicious as why is that? Services are injected properly in other domain classes so why this one is different?

Constructors experiment

I've created an experiment. I've created empty LibraryService that should be injected and Book domain class like this:

class Book {
    def libraryService

    String author
    String title
    int pageCount

    Book() {
        println("Finished constructor Book()")
    }

    Book(String author) {
        this()
        this.@author = author
        println("Finished constructor Book(String author)")
    }

    Book(String author, String title) {
        super()
        this.@author = author
        this.@title = title
        println("Finished constructor Book(String author, String title)")
    }

    Book(String author, String title, int pageCount) {
        this.@author = author
        this.@title = title
        this.@pageCount = pageCount
        println("Finished constructor Book(String author, String title, int pageCount)")
    }

    void logInjectedService() {
        println("    Service libraryService is injected? -> $libraryService")
    }
}
class LibraryService {
    def serviceMethod() {
    }
}

Book has 4 explicit constructors. I want to check which constructor is injecting dependecies. This is my method that constructs Book objects and I called it in controller: 

class BookController {
    def index() {
        constructAndExamineBooks()
    }

    static constructAndExamineBooks() {
        println("Started constructAndExamineBooks")
        Book book1 = new Book().logInjectedService()
        Book book2 = new Book("foo").logInjectedService()
        Book book3 = new Book("foo", 'bar').logInjectedService()
        Book book4 = new Book("foo", 'bar', 100).logInjectedService()
        Book book5 = new Book(author: "foo", title: 'bar')
        println("Finished constructor Book(Map params)")
        book5.logInjectedService()
    }
}

Analysis

Output looks like this:

Started constructAndExamineBooks
Finished constructor Book()
    Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2
Finished constructor Book()
Finished constructor Book(String author)
    Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2
Finished constructor Book(String author, String title)
    Service libraryService is injected? -> null
Finished constructor Book(String author, String title, int pageCount)
    Service libraryService is injected? -> null
Finished constructor Book()
Finished constructor Book(Map params)
    Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2

What do we see?

  1. ✔

    Empty constructor injects dependencies.

  2. ✔

    Constructor that invokes empty constructor explicitly injects dependencies.

  3. ✘

    Constructor that invokes parent's constructor explicitly does not inject dependencies.

  4. ✘

    Constructor without any explicit call declared does not call empty constructor thus it does not inject dependencies.

  5. ✔

    Constructor provied by Grails with a map as a parameter invokes empty constructor and injects dependencies.

Conclusion

Always explicitily invoke empty constructor in your Grail domain classes to ensure Dependency Injection! I didn't know until today either!

DDevelopment & Design

Spring Security by example: securing methods

This is a part of a simple Spring Security tutorial:

1. Set up and form authentication
2. User in the backend (getting logged user, authentication, testing)
3. Securing web resources
4. Securing methods
5. OpenID (login via gmail)
6. OAuth2 (login via Facebook)
7. Writing on Facebook wall with Spring Social

Securing web resources is all nice and cool, but in a well designed application it's more natural to secure methods (for example on backend facade or even domain objects). While we may get away with role-based authorization in many intranet business applications, nobody will ever handle assigning roles to users in a public, free to use Internet service. We need authorization based on rules described in our domain.

For example: there is a service AlterStory, that allows cooperative writing of stories, where one user is a director (like a movie director), deciding which chapter proposed by other authors should make it to the final story.

The method for accepting chapters, looks like this:

Read more »