Recently, I’ve been working on a Web Api system where, thanks to support of @jeanlaurent http://morlhon.net/blog/, I used Scala applying DCI architecture in a real world project. This post is about reporting benefits of using this approach. Other posts will follow that will be more focused on the use of Scala and Functional Programming in that project. Code included is a bit simplified and parts of the system that are not of interest are omitted.

The concerned part of the system is an API for logging a Web API usage and using it for showing interesting statistics to users and for implementing a Web 2.0 business model authorization.

The story starts with an API key passed as a parameter in the requested URI something like product/1234?api_key=AFFSEFFVFE2344

I create an object that represents the API user containing the key: (did I tell I like one liners?)

This is a class of an object that holds the apiKey, now I need a method that I will call to log the use of product/123 for user represented by the apiKey AFFSEFFVFE2344. What could be quite convenient and OOP-iesh is to call a record method on the apiKey instance, something like apiUser.record(…) . The problem with this, as explained in the original DCI article, is that adding these methods to the domain objects adds noise in other contexts for which recording is not relevant such as authorization and statistics, as we will see later. I would rather use here the DCI’s role concept (or context). Doing so I would say (apiUser in recording role).record(…) . This pseudo code tends to be very close to mixins implemented in Scala language and will look like following in real world Scala code:

Here the ApiUser object doesn’t contain a record method by default and so it can be shared in different contexts. In other words we kept our domain objects pure yet not scarifying OOP convenience. Now the Recorder is a trait that minds only business in the context of recording. The definition looks like the following:

Another view of the system is the end user’s statistics. Statistics should be represented in a meaningful way to the user and the user can’t care less about how the recording is done. So, it is quite desirable not to have the noise of recording when talking about the statistics view context. Here is how the call looks like in our example in Scala:

Again what we are doing here looks merely like saying: I want to use the ApiUser in a statistics context and I choose to call method getRequestsPerMonthForLast12Months. I guess the convenience brought by using this approach is obvious. This is how the Statistics trait looks like:

Note that as in the Recording trait, the ApiUser object is not passed as an explicit parameter but rather as an implicit receiver parameter (something like this for an object). To access it we use Self that refers to it.

The third view of the system is what allows us to provide an authorization mechanism based on user’s activities for a business plan they choose (be it a quota per day, per month or other interesting combinations). It could be quite convenient to have the call looking like apiUser.isAuthorized . We get pretty close with DCI without polluting our domain object with a specific context logic:

Like the previous, the Authorizer trait looks straightforward :

Now that we looked at the three views of our system introducing three examples of “Context” from DCI pattern we can go beyond that to discover how we use nested contexts (or roles).

Looking at the Authorizer trait, the ApiUser referred to by Self, doesn’t tell us much about how many requests the user did today or this month. And for authorizing user one needs a richer ApiUser that can give the necessary information that live themselves in a file or a database. But once again, we don’t want to pollute our domain object with Data Access code that varies on a different axis than the domain object itself.  Introducing a nested context/role that adds the Data Access logic would pretty convenient here:

Here Self is a richer ApiUser that carries Requests Data Access logic defined in the RequestsDataAccessor trait:

And the implementation of the Authorizer trait defined in terms of ApiUser with RequestsDataAccessor:

In the same way we implement the Statistics and Recorder traits using ApiUser with RequestsDataAccessor:

If you are not familiar with generics ( getRequestsPer[Day] ) you can ignore them since they are not central to the subject of this post and simply use their readability to understand the purpose of the method. The use of generics in this project will be the subject of a future post.

Encapsulation Test!

Now in the first version of the system, the ApiKey was passed in clear in the service URI. This is not very secured as it is quite easy to get the key and use it for using the API. We might prefer to encrypt the key in some way. This fortunately changes nothing for any of our traits implementations since the decryption of the key is the responsiblity of the ApiUSer object and all what our traits need is to get the concerned ApiKey from that object which can be easily done with pattern matching. Same thing if we want to replace database logging with file system in RequestsDataAccessor. Modularity and separation of concerns are apparent in this DCI architecture implementation.

Conclusion

This is a refreshing approach to OOP. The Domain Context Interaction pattern allowed us to restore interesting properties of real OOP approach yet not sacrificing modularity and separation of concerns. This simple view of “an object in several contexts” helps quite much in thinking explicitly about and understanding context boundaries. Note that an object(instance) is not defined by a single class but each instance curries the necessary context. This is essential to OOP which is NOT COP (for Class Oriented Programming ;) )

Feel free to ask questions and/or comment about this implementation. Refer to original papers for more in-depth explanation of the pattern.

Thanks to JetBrains’ IDEA and the Scala plug-in that helped me programming in Scala.

Clojure multimethods are just another level of that same logic, in fact they are a realization of the last sentence I just said. They are dispatch based upon an arbitrary function of the arguments. You define a multimethod and you say “Here is a function of the arguments I’d like you to use” You could look at the first argument, you could look at the 5th, you could look at all of them, you could look inside them, some member of an argument, it could look at the types or not or the values. Now, you could look at relationships between arguments, you have dispatch based upon an arbitrary function of the arguments and you have a vastly wider set of polymorphic possibilities than you had before and it’s quite powerful. In particular, it allows you to do Runtime dispatch on Runtime attributes. You don’t usually represent something like being hungry as part of something’s type, it’s some attribute that it acquires while the program is running or being outdated or things like that. Now you can access those things and you can do things polymorphically based upon that and take a lot of switch statements out of your code.

Should I call it first class Pattern Matching? or Pattern Matching in disguise?

One thing that annoys me though about most programming language books is how raw they often are.

  Probably constrained by time, authors and book teams seem to invest less on editorial stuff and teaching methodology and more on explaining details of technical and behind the scenes stuff. This often results in more manual-like books where you have a great wealth of material that you are not able to exploit anyway because of, well, lack of time. I am not sure I can invest time in reading 500+ manual of a new, or at least non mainstream, language that I might decide not to use by the end. 

I am not saying here that technical and behind the scene stuff does not matter, quite the opposite. I just think that manual, important it is, should not be the introduction to the programming language. A rather 100 to 200 pages brief book that is carefully edited to introduce paradigm, concepts, and strengths of the programming language is a more attractive choice , accompanied with a wordy but well organized reference book with examples and more in-depth explanation of language features. I guess this is a more pragmatic approach to programming language learning in the presence of WWW and Google search.

PS: I personally find Paul Hudak’s Haskell book a very good example of an enjoyable, brief, nicely and carefully edited programming language book. Also LUA’s programming book is nicely done.

How many languages are you using on the same project? If you go counting you will see that they are many. I mean XML, Java, XSLT, HTML, CSS… etc. But the reason why you are using almost all of them is that they happen to be mainstream and, oftentimes, they are the only language choice for a needed framework. You are actually almost obliged to use them. The choice is done for you. Style? CSS. Configuration? Often XML. Web interface description? Html. However, if you want to adopt true polyglot programming, you will have to face inevitable decision of language choice.

Read my article on Paradigm based Polyglot Programming at InfoQ.com

Everyday we hear about languages implementations on the JVM or the CLR. Every language has its own taste and semantics. All of these implementations try the best to satisfy an important second promise which is leveraging the preexisting platform libraries and giving an easy access to them from within that language. So on the CLR you get a promise of an easy access to all the .NET framework, and from Java, well, to the J2EE enormous libraries.

Well designed .Net libraries might be bad designed F# libraries

Some days ago I was trying to solve a small problem using F# (a new member to the .Net family). The reason I chose F# for this problem is the functional paradigm, my specific problem was easier to model using functional paradigm than any other paradigm. What I noticed while using F# is how easy it was to access the large .Net libraries, but I also noticed how can that potentially affect my way of programming. As I already mentioned the reason I chose F# was its semantics, I realized that .Net don’t talk F# and to access it I had to program with its semantics: imperatively, with a command like style almost dropping the expression oriented style that was one of the reasons I chose the language for!

Worse, this drew my attention to how this promise of 100% integrity with the preexisting libraries can affect the language design and implementation. Looking at implementations of popular languages like Ruby and Python on the JVM/CLR one can notice concepts that have almost forced in the languages (like attributes and signatures) . I guess these additions add noise to the language and to the code written with them, but that leads to an important question: How languages should communicate in a multilingual project? And what and where should be the seams when communicating between them?

Some libraries and frameworks are not even necessary for other languages, some just don’t fit, and some need to be wrapped and adapted for the new language

Before trying to think how to communicate between languages, I need to think about what is the kind of libraries I need for the new language. I mean of course it might be technically possible to use Spring and Hibernate when programming JRuby. But in case it is your first choice then, I guess you might be missing the point. There are a lot of frameworks and libraries that have been constructed because of limitations of the language. That is why you need to think twice before just accessing a foreign library because it might be supported natively by your language of choice or its supporting libraries.

Nonetheless , there are some necessary libraries that just don’t exist in your language of choice, and it would be kind of nice to have the painless access to them. But on the other hand, and as stated previously, these libraries don’t talk your language. It is somehow senseless, for instance, to specify type parameters while accessing strongly typed APIs from a dynamic language like Ruby, or say implementing strategies or writing 10 lines of imperative code for configuring a mutable object from a functional programming language like F#.

Some of these necessary APIs can be adapted for the target language. So in this case our issue is solvable by wrapping these well thought mature APIs to make them fit better in the target language paradigm. This can be done using abstractions while leaving other unnecessary details behind like state or type casting. This makes them less intrusive on your paradigm or language. Some libraries’s paradigm, however, is impossible to hide, and in this case you either need an equivalent library for your language, or you need to think carefully about your modules and boundaries to be able to use different libraries with different paradigms without one module being intrusive on another.

Understanding properties and semantics of each used language is the key to a better integration and communication

Each programming language is built and designed based on some theories, principles and concepts. Understanding these does not only help you in your decision of language choice, but this also helps you identifying where and how languages should be communicating. So for example modules written with functional programming languages can be imagined as stateless services that take an input and yield an output, modules written using OOP as holding the state, and modules written with configuration languages place some global, most probably immutable, variables into the environment. This thinking also helps defining barriers between modules to identify when the scope of one language ends for the starting edge of another.

Finally

In this post I tried to draw attention to a hairy, in my view, promise we get from language specification implementers of a seamless integration with existing libraries and frameworks. I guess in the no-fit case, the seam will be in your code and it will obscure it and add noise to your language rather than nicely being abstracted behind a foreign API wrapper. Proper design is instrumental for a non intrusive integration. Properties of each of the used language and frameworks should be considered.