What I'd like to achieve is having a proper implementation for
def dynamix[A, B](a: A): A with B
I may know what B is, but don't know what A is (but if B has a self type then I could add some constraints on A). The scala compiler is happy with the above signature, but I could not yet figure out how the implementation would look like - if it is possible at all.
Some options that came to my mind:
- Using reflection/dynamic proxy.
- Simplest case: A is an interface on Java level + I can instantiate B and it has no self type. I guess it would not be too hard (unless I run into some nasty, unexpected problems):
create a new B (b), and also a proxy implementing both A and B and using an invocation handler delegating to either a or b. - If B can not be instantiated I could still create a subclass of it, and do as it was described above. If it also has a self type I would probably need some delegation here and there, but it may still work.
- But what if A is a concrete type and I can't find a proper interface for it?
- Would I run into more problems (e.g. something related to linearization, or special constructs helping Java interoperability)?
- Simplest case: A is an interface on Java level + I can instantiate B and it has no self type. I guess it would not be too hard (unless I run into some nasty, unexpected problems):
- Using a kind of wrapping instead of a mixin and return B[A], a is accessible from b.
Unfortunately in this case the caller would need to know how the nesting is done, which could be quite inconvenient if the mixing in/wrapping is done several times (D[C[B[A]]]) as it would need to find the right level of nesting to access the needed functionality, so I don't consider it a solution. - Implementing a compiler plugin. I have zero experience with it but my gut feeling is that it would not be trivial. I think Kevin Wright's autoproxy plugin has a bit similar goal, but it would not be enough for my problem (yet?).
Do you have any other ideas that might work? Which way would you recommend? What kind of "challenges" to expect?
Or should I forget it, because it is not possible with the current Scala constraints?
Intention behind my problem:
Say I have a business workflow, but it's not too strict. Some steps have fixed order, but others do not, but at the end all of them has to be done (or some of them required for further processing).
A bit more concrete example: I have an A, I can add B and C to it. I don't care which is done first, but at the end I'll need an A with B with C.
Comment: I don't know too much about Groovy but SO popped up this question and I guess it's more or less the same as what I'd like, at least conceptional.