- About Scala
- Documentation
- Code Examples
- Software
- Scala Developers
Re: Modules?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Miles Sabin
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:54 AM, BobLondon wrote:
> Scala objects and path dependent types encode ML-style modules,
Seems like a different kind of module to what I'm thinking of. This looks like just a way to structure code.
I'm thinking of versioned deployable artifacts. Plus mechanisms like Ruby gems or I guess Maven/OSGi/Jigsaw in Java. A mechanism to declare the dependencies of code.
Bob
Re: Modules?
On 3 Nov 2011, at 11:28, Bob London wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Miles Sabin
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:54 AM, BobLondon wrote:
>> Scala objects and path dependent types encode ML-style modules,
>
> Seems like a different kind of module to what I'm thinking of. This looks like just a way to structure code.
>
> I'm thinking of versioned deployable artifacts. Plus mechanisms like Ruby gems or I guess Maven/OSGi/Jigsaw in Java. A mechanism to declare the dependencies of code.
Most Scala libraries use Maven or Ivy (which interoperate pretty well). Sbt provides particularly good support for Ivy. Is there anything that Maven/Ivy don't give you that you think would justify a Scala-specific solution?
--
paul.butcher->msgCount++
Snetterton, Castle Combe, Cadwell Park...
Who says I have a one track mind?
http://www.paulbutcher.com/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulbutcher
MSN: paul [at] paulbutcher [dot] com
AIM: paulrabutcher
Skype: paulrabutcher
Re: Modules?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marius Danciu
> That's really beyond a language scope. These are really libraries more or
> less "standard". I believe one can use OSGi in Scala ... although OSGi
> sucks big time. Any .jar can impersonate a (hot)-deploy-able module with a
> bit of classloaders help. So what is your expectation from Scala language
> really ?
Its just a sense that classes/objects are too low level a unit to be thinking in terms of. And Maven/OSGi type solutions feel like tacking the extra data on after the fact rather than building it in the base unit you produce day-to-day. Why should packaging and deployment be something separate to development? Why not compile modules rather than classes?
All, thanks for the other links, which are useful.
Bob
Re: Modules?
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Bob London <boblondon [at] mail [dot] com> wrote:
It's not separate from development, but that doesn't mean it's part of the language per se. I believe the Typesafe Stack includes sbt. I really think sbt is what you want. Also, there's a project somewhere that lets you put sbt dependencies directly in a scala script.
Re: Modules?
Marius
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Bob London <boblondon [at] mail [dot] com> wrote:
Re: Modules?
Le Thursday 03 Nov 2011 à 07:28:22 (-0400), Bob London a écrit :
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Miles Sabin
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:54 AM, BobLondon wrote:
> > Scala objects and path dependent types encode ML-style modules,
>
> Seems like a different kind of module to what I'm thinking of. This looks like just a way to structure code.
>
> I'm thinking of versioned deployable artifacts. Plus mechanisms like Ruby gems or I guess Maven/OSGi/Jigsaw in Java. A mechanism to declare the dependencies of code.
>
> Bob
Well, in OCaml, "versioned deployable artifacts" and "mechanisms to
declare the dependencies of code" can be done by using first-class
modules (not only a way to structure code, but also a runtime value
analog to a C struct). You'd dynamically load a module satisfying a
given module signature, and you'd pass the module around in your code as
a first-class runtime value. Some kind of "plugin".
This is not really a problem with ML-style modules, except that it
indeed was intended more as a way to structure code as opposed to any
kind of OSGi replacement.
Now, I do not see why you wouldn't be able to use the OSGi Java
machinery from Scala itself.