Are there any best-practice guidelines on when to use case classes (or case objects) vs extending Enumeration in Scala?
They seem to offer some of the same benefits.
Are there any best-practice guidelines on when to use case classes (or case objects) vs extending Enumeration in Scala?
They seem to offer some of the same benefits.
One big difference is that Enumerations come with support for instantiating them from some name String. For example:
object Currency extends Enumeration {
val GBP = Value("GBP")
val EUR = Value("EUR") //etc.
}
Then you can do:
val ccy = Currency.withName("EUR")
This is useful when wishing to persist enumerations (for example, to a database) or create them from data residing in files. However, I find in general that enumerations are a bit clumsy in Scala and have the feel of an awkward add-on, so I now tend to use case objects. A case object is more flexible than an enum:
sealed trait Currency { def name: String }
case object EUR extends Currency { val name = "EUR" } //etc.
case class UnknownCurrency(name: String) extends Currency
So now I have the advantage of...
trade.ccy match {
case EUR =>
case UnknownCurrency(code) =>
}
As @chaotic3quilibrium pointed out (with some corrections to ease reading):
Regarding "UnknownCurrency(code)" pattern, there are other ways to handle not finding a currency code string than "breaking" the closed set nature of the
Currencytype.UnknownCurrencybeing of typeCurrencycan now sneak into other parts of an API.It's advisable to push that case outside
Enumerationand make the client deal with anOption[Currency]type that would clearly indicate there is really a matching problem and "encourage" the user of the API to sort it out him/herself.
To follow up on the other answers here, the main drawbacks of case objects over Enumerations are:
Can't iterate over all instances of the "enumeration". This is certainly the case, but I've found it extremely rare in practice that this is required.
Can't instantiate easily from persisted value. This is also true but, except in the case of huge enumerations (for example, all currencies), this doesn't present a huge overhead.
Case objects already return their name for their toString methods, so passing it in separately is unnecessary. Here is a version similar to jho's (convenience methods omitted for brevity):
trait Enum[A] {
trait Value { self: A => }
val values: List[A]
}
sealed trait Currency extends Currency.Value
object Currency extends Enum[Currency] {
case object EUR extends Currency
case object GBP extends Currency
val values = List(EUR, GBP)
}
Objects are lazy; by using vals instead we can drop the list but have to repeat the name:
trait Enum[A <: {def name: String}] {
trait Value { self: A =>
_values :+= this
}
private var _values = List.empty[A]
def values = _values
}
sealed abstract class Currency(val name: String) extends Currency.Value
object Currency extends Enum[Currency] {
val EUR = new Currency("EUR") {}
val GBP = new Currency("GBP") {}
}
If you don't mind some cheating, you can pre-load your enumeration values using the reflection API or something like Google Reflections. Non-lazy case objects give you the cleanest syntax:
trait Enum[A] {
trait Value { self: A =>
_values :+= this
}
private var _values = List.empty[A]
def values = _values
}
sealed trait Currency extends Currency.Value
object Currency extends Enum[Currency] {
case object EUR extends Currency
case object GBP extends Currency
}
Nice and clean, with all the advantages of case classes and Java enumerations. Personally, I define the enumeration values outside of the object to better match idiomatic Scala code:
object Currency extends Enum[Currency]
sealed trait Currency extends Currency.Value
case object EUR extends Currency
case object GBP extends Currency
The advantages of using case classes over Enumerations are:
The advantages of using Enumerations instead of case classes are:
So in general, if you just need a list of simple constants by name, use enumerations. Otherwise, if you need something a bit more complex or want the extra safety of the compiler telling you if you have all matches specified, use case classes.
Another disadvantage of case classes versus Enumerations when you will need to iterate or filter across all instances. This is a built-in capability of Enumeration (and Java enums as well) while case classes don't automatically support such capability.
In other words: "there's no easy way to get a list of the total set of enumerated values with case classes".
If you are serious about maintaining interoperability with other JVM languages (e.g. Java) then the best option is to write Java enums. Those work transparently from both Scala and Java code, which is more than can be said for scala.Enumeration or case objects. Let's not have a new enumerations library for every new hobby project on GitHub, if it can be avoided!
I've seen various versions of making a case class mimic an enumeration. Here is my version:
trait CaseEnumValue {
def name:String
}
trait CaseEnum {
type V <: CaseEnumValue
def values:List[V]
def unapply(name:String):Option[String] = {
if (values.exists(_.name == name)) Some(name) else None
}
def unapply(value:V):String = {
return value.name
}
def apply(name:String):Option[V] = {
values.find(_.name == name)
}
}
Which allows you to construct case classes that look like the following:
abstract class Currency(override name:String) extends CaseEnumValue {
}
object Currency extends CaseEnum {
type V = Site
case object EUR extends Currency("EUR")
case object GBP extends Currency("GBP")
var values = List(EUR, GBP)
}
Maybe someone could come up with a better trick than simply adding a each case class to the list like I did. This was all I could come up with at the time.
I think the biggest advantage of having case classes over enumerations is that you can use type class pattern a.k.a ad-hoc polymorphysm. Don't need to match enums like:
someEnum match {
ENUMA => makeThis()
ENUMB => makeThat()
}
instead you'll have something like:
def someCode[SomeCaseClass](implicit val maker: Maker[SomeCaseClass]){
maker.make()
}
implicit val makerA = new Maker[CaseClassA]{
def make() = ...
}
implicit val makerB = new Maker[CaseClassB]{
def make() = ...
}