I’ve been listening to an (and another) excellent podcast by Clojure programmers recently and learned that nobody builds classes in Clojure; and certainly not to represent data. Instead they populate maps for all the uses where Kotlin developers would reach for a data class.

I’ve got very used to data classes and like them a lot, but there are certainly situations in which they don’t shine. Today I’m going to look using maps instead.

The Brief

Let’s say that we want to parse a log file into semantic representations of different sorts of errors. Here’s one I borrowed from IBM

03/22 08:51:01 INFO :.main: *************** RSVP Agent started *************** 03/22 08:51:01 INFO :...locate_configFile: Specified configuration file: /u/user10/rsvpd1.conf 03/22 08:51:01 INFO :.main: Using log level 511 03/22 08:51:01 INFO :..settcpimage: Get TCP images rc - EDC8112I Operation not supported on socket. 03/22 08:51:01 INFO :..settcpimage: Associate with TCP/IP image name = TCPCS 03/22 08:51:02 INFO :..reg_process: registering process with the system 03/22 08:51:02 INFO :..reg_process: attempt OS/390 registration 03/22 08:51:02 INFO :..reg_process: return from registration rc=0 03/22 08:51:06 TRACE :...read_physical_netif: Home list entries¢ returned = 7 03/22 08:51:06 INFO :...read_physical_netif: index #0, interface VLINK1 has address 129.1.1.1, ifidx 0 03/22 08:51:06 INFO :...read_physical_netif: index #1, interface TR1 has address 9.37.65.139, ifidx 1 03/22 08:51:06 INFO :...read_physical_netif: index #2, interface LINK11 has address 9.67.100.1, ifidx 2 03/22 08:51:06 INFO :...read_physical_netif: index #6, interface LOOPBACK has address 127.0.0.1, ifidx 0 03/22 08:51:06 INFO :....mailslot_create: creating mailslot for timer 03/22 08:51:06 INFO :...mailbox_register: mailbox allocated for timer 03/22 08:51:06 INFO :.....mailslot_create: creating mailslot for RSVP 03/22 08:51:06 INFO :....mailbox_register: mailbox allocated for rsvp 03/22 08:51:06 INFO :.....mailslot_create: creating mailslot for RSVP via UDP

Data Classes

If we can get past wondering why some developer decided that it was worth outputting the day and month but not the year of each entry, we would probably decide to represent each entry with a data class

data class LogEntry(val timestamp: Instant, val level: String, val message: String) fun String.toLogEntry() = LogEntry( substring(0, 15).toInstantSomehow(), substring(16, 23).trim(), substring(24).trim() ) fun showRecentAddresses(file: File) = file.useLines { lines -> lines.map { it.toLogEntry() } .filter { it.timestamp.isAfter(lastTuesday) } .filter { it.message.contains("interface .*? has address".toRegex()) } .map { it.message.split(",")[1] } .forEach(::println) }

That’s fine for a one-off analysis, but no good deed goes unpunished. Soon we’re asked to write a suite of analysis software so that the rest of the team can get on with not writing the year into timestamps. We end up with data classes for the different types of log lines that we know how to parse, with an interface for the common data in every line.

interface LogEntry { val timestamp: Instant val level: String val loggerName: String val message: String } data class BasicEntry( override val timestamp: Instant, override val level: String, override val loggerName: String, override val message: String ) : LogEntry private val lineParser = """^(?<timestamp>.{14}) (?<level>.*?) *?:\.+(?<name>.*?): (?<message>.*)$""".toRegex() fun String.toBasicEntry() = lineParser.find(this)?.groups?.let { groups -> BasicEntry( timestamp = groups["timestamp"]?.value?.toInstantSomehow() ?: error("no timestamp in line $this"), level = groups["level"]?.value ?: error("no level in line $this"), loggerName = groups["name"]?.value ?: error("no logger name in line $this"), message = groups["message"]?.value ?: error("no messagein line $this") ) } ?: error("Could not parse as BasicEntry $this") data class IPEntry( override val timestamp: Instant, override val level: String, override val loggerName: String, override val message: String, val index: Int, val interfaceName: String, val address: String ) : LogEntry fun BasicEntry.toIPEntry(): IPEntry? = if (loggerName == "read_physical_netif") IPEntry(timestamp, level, loggerName, message, SOMECODE(), SOMECODE(), SOMECODE()) else null data class RegProcessEntry( override val timestamp: Instant, override val level: String, override val loggerName: String, override val message: String ) : LogEntry fun BasicEntry.toRegProcessEntry(): RegProcessEntry? = if (loggerName == "reg_process") SOMECODE() else null data class MailslotCreateEntry( override val timestamp: Instant, override val level: String, override val loggerName: String, override val message: String, val createdFor: String, val createdVia: String? ) : LogEntry fun BasicEntry.toMailSlotCreateEntry(): MailslotCreateEntry? = if (loggerName == "mailslot_create") SOMECODE() else null val converters = listOf<(BasicEntry) -> LogEntry?>( BasicEntry::toIPEntry, BasicEntry::toRegProcessEntry, BasicEntry::toMailSlotCreateEntry //... ) fun String.toLogEntry(): LogEntry { val rawEntry = this.toBasicEntry() return converters.asSequence() .mapNotNull { it(rawEntry) } .firstOrNull() ?: rawEntry } fun showRecentAddresses(file: File) = file.useLines { lines -> lines.map { it.toLogEntry() } .filterIsInstance<IPEntry>() .filter { it.timestamp.isAfter(lastTuesday) } .map { "${it.interfaceName} : ${it.address}" } .forEach(::println) } // etc

This isn’t the only formulation of this data with data classes, and I’m not sure that it’s the best, but it is the sort of thing that we end up with in these situations. And it is, well, horrible, largely because you can’t inherit from a data classes. We could have made BasicEntry the only property of LogEntry to remove some duplication, or make BasicEntry the envelope containing a typed contents of the parsed payloads, but it’s all rather icky because of the inheritance limitation of data classes.

There is another problem with data classes - we don’t have (easy) runtime access to their properties. Which is a problem because now the ops people would like us to use our technology to filter lines that contain a given property value. They are happy to look in our source for the names of the properties, but don’t want to be recompiling Kotlin every time they want a change, so we need to take the property name and value on the command-line.

java -jar filter-log.jar file.log interfaceName=VLINK1

So we set to and write

fun filterFile(file: File, propertyName: String, propertyValue: String) = file.useLines { lines -> lines.map { it.toLogEntry() } .filter { it.hasProperty(propertyName, propertyValue) } .forEach(::println) }

How do we write LogEntry.hasProperty without lots of tables or trying to keep code up to date? Reflection is the answer, but it has just taken me 30 minutes to get the following to compile

@Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST") private fun Any.hasProperty(name: String, value: String): Boolean = (this::class as KClass<Any>).memberProperties.any { it.name == name && it.get(this).toString() == value }

and even now it does it is relatively slow at runtime. Once we start mixing runtime selection with data classes we find all sorts of things that we have to use reflection to solve - we can’t even ask a data class for the number of its properties without reflection (or a compiler plugin). Serialising to and from JSON? We have clever libraries that hide it but it’s all refection underneath.

Now compared to Java, data classes are a real boon. In Kotlin they should certainly be your default choice for representing data as objects. But even when I offered data classes as a solution to a Clojure developer, he said that he would generally stick with maps. Why is this?

Maps

Let’s have a look at solving the same problem with maps.

First the simple case

fun String.toLogMap(): Map<String, Any?> = mapOf( "timestamp" to substring(0, 15).toInstantSomehow(), "level" to substring(16, 23).trim(), "rawMessage" to substring(24).trim() ) fun showRecentAddresses(file: File) = file.useLines { lines -> lines.map { it.toLogMap() } .filter { (it["timestamp"] as Instant).isAfter(lastTuesday) } .filter { (it["rawMessage"] as String).contains("interface .*? has address".toRegex()) } .map { (it["rawMessage"] as String).split(",")[1] } .forEach(::println) }

Hmmm, those casts are a bit ugly. They wouldn’t be there in Clojure of course, and we can do better in Kotlin as we’ve given up type safety anyway

@Suppress("EXTENSION_SHADOWED_BY_MEMBER") inline fun <reified R> Map<String, Any?>.get(key: String) = get(key) as R fun showRecentAddresses(file: File) = file.useLines { lines -> lines.map { it.toLogMap() } .filter { it.get<Instant>("timestamp").isAfter(lastTuesday) } .filter { it.get<String>("rawMessage").contains("interface .*? has address".toRegex()) } .map { it.get<String>("rawMessage").split(",")[1] } .forEach(::println) }

This is a bit worse than the data class version, why would we give up the type safety that we had? Well the equivalent of the more developed example is quite a bit simpler because we don’t have to try to bend data classes to our will.

typealias LogEntryProperties = Map<String, Any?> val lineParser = """^(?<timestamp>.{14}) (?<level>.*?) *?:\.+(?<name>.*?): (?<message>.*)$""".toRegex() fun String.extractBasicProperties(): LogEntryProperties = lineParser.find(this)?.groups?.let { groups -> mapOf( "timestamp" to (groups["timestamp"]?.value?.toInstantSomehow() ?: error("no timestamp in line $this")), "level" to (groups["level"]?.value ?: error("no level in line $this")), "loggerName" to (groups["name"]?.value ?: error("no logger name in line $this")), "message" to (groups["message"]?.value ?: error("no messagein line $this")) ) } ?: error("Could not extract properties from $this") fun LogEntryProperties.withIPProperties(): LogEntryProperties = if (get<String>("loggerName") == "read_physical_netif") this + mapOf( "interface/index" to SOMECODE(), "interface/name" to SOMECODE(), "interface/address" to SOMECODE() ) else this fun LogEntryProperties.withRegProcessProperties(): LogEntryProperties = SOMECODE() fun LogEntryProperties.withMailSlotCreateProperties(): LogEntryProperties = SOMECODE() val extractors = listOf( LogEntryProperties::withIPProperties, LogEntryProperties::withRegProcessProperties, LogEntryProperties::withMailSlotCreateProperties ) fun String.toLogEntryProperties(): LogEntryProperties = extractors.fold(this.extractBasicProperties()) { acc, f -> f(acc) } fun showRecentAddresses(file: File) = file.useLines { lines -> lines.map { it.toLogEntryProperties() } .filter { it.containsKey("interface/index") } .filter { it.get<Instant>("timestamp").isAfter(lastTuesday) } .map { "${it["interface/name"]} : ${it["interface/address"]}" } .forEach(::println) }

(Notice that we have added a namespace prefix to the property names - this isn’t strictly necessary but helps to avoid collisions in the event that more than one extractor matches a line.)

Because data is just stored in a map we don’t have to define data classes to match its shape, but we have lost the type safety that the properties of the data class were giving us, both with respect to their names and types. The data class implementation will almost certainly be faster, because reading a property is a single method call and field access, and more space efficient, because we won’t be creating sparse map structures. In short, data classes should probably be your default representation, even though they can be clumsy.

But what about that additional requirement of filtering by properties on the command line? That’s where the maps shine

fun filterFile(file: File, propertyName: String, propertyValue: String) = file.useLines { lines -> lines.map { it.toLogEntryProperties() } .filter { it[propertyName].toString() == propertyValue } // this is now just a map lookup - no reflection .forEach(::println) }

Not having to deal with reflection is really nice here, the map really is first class data, whereas the data class makes you jump through reflective hoops.

So, data classes are good for some things, maps are good for others. Can we meet in the middle?

We can, but you have to decide whether your fundamental representation is going to be data classes, and you just wish that they behaved more like maps sometimes, or you are going to start from maps, and wouldn’t it be nice if they could be more type safe? As the maps version is still fresh, let’s look at making maps more type safe.

PropertySet

I have a technique for making maps more type-safe that I haven’t tried in anger, but I think has promise. I’m tentatively calling it the Phantom-typed PropertySet.

The problem it (partially) solves is that of passing information about what properties a map contains at compile time. Without this we run into the partial function problem described in Avoiding Failure - functions that take a Map<String, Any?> can fail at runtime because the actual map passed does not have the required keys (or they are the wrong type).

My plan is to parameterise Map<String, Any?> with another type that prevents them from all looking alike. Let’s call that type PropertySet .

interface PropertySet<out T> : Map<String, Any?>

We can implement PropertySet s by delegating to another map

class MapPropertySet<out T>(private val delegate: Map<String, Any?>) : PropertySet<T>, Map<String, Any?> by delegate { constructor(vararg properties: Pair<String, Any>) : this(mapOf(*properties)) } fun <T> propertySetOf(vararg properties: Pair<String, Any>): PropertySet<T> = MapPropertySet(*properties)

and provide a function to combine them like maps

operator fun <T> PropertySet<T>.plus(other: PropertySet<T>): PropertySet<T> = MapPropertySet( (this.entries + other.entries).map { entry -> entry.key to entry.value } .toMap())

Now let’s look at our log parsing example. A PropertySet needs a type, but the type doesn’t have to do anything. An empty interface will do fine.

interface Base

We can parse the basic log information into a PropertySet<Base> just like we did for plain maps

fun String.extractBasicProperties(): PropertySet<Base> = lineParser.find(this)?.groups?.let { groups -> propertySetOf<Base>( "timestamp" to (groups["timestamp"]?.value?.toInstantSomehow() ?: error("no timestamp in line $this")), "level" to (groups["level"]?.value ?: error("no level in line $this")), "loggerName" to (groups["name"]?.value ?: error("no logger name in line $this")), "message" to (groups["message"]?.value ?: error("no messagein line $this")) ) } ?: error("Could not extract properties from $this")

Now let’s say that we need semantic access to the timestamp. We can provide that with an extension property on PropertySet<Base> .

val PropertySet<Base>.timeStamp get() = get<Instant>("timestamp")

That property allows access to, and knowledge of the type of, timestamp only when we have the right type of PropertySet .

val aPropertySet: PropertySet<Base> = SOMECODE() val timestamp: Instant = aPropertySet.timeStamp val aDifferentPropertySet: PropertySet<Any> = SOMECODE() // doesn't compile // val nogo = aDifferentPropertySet.timeStamp

and we still have access to other properties with the unsafe-but-usefully-dynamic map interface

val level = aPropertySet.get<String>("level")

Now we can do the same for our other ‘types’

interface IP : Base val PropertySet<Base>.loggerName get() = get<String>("loggerName") fun PropertySet<Base>.withIPProperties(): PropertySet<Base> = if (loggerName == "read_physical_netif") this + propertySetOf( "interface/index" to SOMECODE(), "interface/name" to SOMECODE(), "interface/address" to SOMECODE() ) else this val PropertySet<IP>.name get() = get<String>("interface/name") val PropertySet<IP>.address get() = get<String>("interface/address") interface RegProcess fun PropertySet<Base>.withRegProcessProperties(): PropertySet<Base> = SOMECODE() interface MailSlotCreate fun PropertySet<Base>.withMailSlotCreateProperties(): PropertySet<Base> = SOMECODE()

Parsing is the same as for the maps example

val extractors = listOf( PropertySet<Base>::withIPProperties, PropertySet<Base>::withRegProcessProperties, PropertySet<Base>::withMailSlotCreateProperties ) fun String.toLogEntryProperties(): PropertySet<Base> = extractors.fold(this.extractBasicProperties()) { acc, f -> f(acc) }

Now the only thing missing to build showRecentAddresses is the downcast from PropertySet<Base> to PropertySet<IP> . In order to do this we need to know that the map actually does have the properties that the PropertySet<IP> extension properties imply. We can get away here with just checking that one of them is there.

@Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST") fun PropertySet<Base>.asSetOfIP(): PropertySet<IP>? = if (containsKey("interface/index")) this as PropertySet<IP> else null

and now mapNotNull will conveniently cast and filter

fun showRecentAddresses(file: File) = file.useLines { lines -> lines.map { it.toLogEntryProperties() } .mapNotNull { it.asSetOfIP() } .filter { it.timeStamp.isAfter(lastTuesday) } // it is PropertySet<IP> now .map { "${it.name} : ${it.address}" } .forEach(::println) }

and because we really are just dealing with maps, our previous filterFile continues to work fine.

fun filterFile(file: File, propertyName: String, propertyValue: String) = file.useLines { lines -> lines.map { it.toLogEntryProperties() } .filter { it[propertyName].toString() == propertyValue } .forEach(::println) }

This technique of taking a map and tagging it with a type-erased but reconstructable marker, and synthesising properties based on the marker type, is a nice way to add gradual typing to a map-based data model. What if we want to go the other way round - represent a statically-typed model as a map? We’ll look at that in the next episode.

Thanks to Nat Pryce, Rob Fletcher and Robert Stoll for providing feedback on this article.