Daniel Ciocîrlan recently published a video showcasing a dependency-injection (DI) approach developed by Martin Odersky that uses Scala's implicit resolution to wire dependencies automatically. (See also his reddit post.)
The basic pattern for defining services in Odersky's approach is as follows:
class Service(using Provider[(Dep1, Dep2, Dep3)])
def someMethod():
provided[Dep1].doSomething()
provided[Dep2].doSomethingElse()
We can now construct a Service instance simply by calling Service() as long as implicit Providers
for Dep1, Dep2, and Dep3 are in scope. If another service needs Service, we could easily define a
Provider[Service]. We can even provide it globally by adding the following to the companion object:
object Service:
given default(using Provider[(Dep1, Dep2, Dep3)]) = provide(Provider())
As u/Krever indicated in a comment, however, this approach makes it awkward to separate the DI framework from service definitions. Here is what it would look like to separate DI from the service itself:
class Service(dep1: Dep1, dep2: Dep2, dep3: Dep3)])
def someMethod():
dep1.doSomething()
dep2.doSomethingElse()
object Service:
given default(using Provider[(Dep1, Dep2, Dep3)]): Provider[Service] =
provide(Provider(provided[Dep1], provided[Dep2), provided[Dep3])
object providers:
given test(using Provider[Dep1]): Provider[Service] =
provide(Provider(provided[Dep1], Dep2(/* custom conf */), Dep3(/* custom conf */))
Providing generic instances can get pretty verbose, especially when we start providing alternate instances for different contexts.
The approach taken by ZIO is to separate constructors used for DI from the services they construct into a new
type called ZLayer. DI works in ZIO by using a macro to automatically compose these layers, or constructors,
in such a way as to provided the desired type while satisfying all dependencies. One of the best thing about layers is
that it easy to provide several different layers for the same service and choose the one you want for each when
constructing the application.
The basic pattern for defining services in ZIO looks like this:
final case class Service(dep1: Dep1, dep2: Dep2, dep3: Dep3):
def someMethod():
dep1.doSomething()
dep2.doSomethingElse()
object Service:
val live = ZLayer.fromFunction(Service.apply)
val test = ZLayer.fromFunction { (dep1: Dep1) =>
Service(dep1, Dep2(/* custom conf */), Dep3(/* custom conf */))
}
In the above example, the live layer will have a dependency on Dep1, Dep2, and Dep3, whereas test
will only have a dependency on Dep1 (Dep2 and Dep3 are constructed manually). The dependencies for
each layer are tracked in their types, which in the above case are inferred (another advantage).
The code included in this gist demonstrates a way to combine the ZIO approach with Odersky's implicit Provider
approach. Rather than simply providing a value, a Provider now represents a constructor, which tracks the
dependencies (i.e., the constructor parameters) at the type-level. Provider[R, A] represents a constructor of
A that needs R, where R is either a dependency or a tuple of dependencies. We now also include a second type Provided which represents a value that has been provided -- either directly or via evaluation one or more Providers.
The mechanics of this DI framework thus lie in the implicit resolution of a Provided instance from given Provider
and/or Provided instances.
This approach now allows us to define our services and DI instances in a similar way to ZIO with less boilerplate:
import di.*
final case class Service(dep1: Dep1, dep2: Dep2, dep3: Dep3):
def someMethod():
dep1.doSomething()
dep2.doSomethingElse()
object Service:
given default: Provider[(Dep1, Dep2, Dep3), Service] =
provideConstructor(Service.apply)
object providers:
given test: Provider[Dep1, Service] = provideConstructor { (dep1: Dep1) =>
Service(dep1, Dep2(/* custom conf */), Dep3(/* custom conf */))
}
There are a couple important differences from the ZIO pattern, all of which follow from the fact that
providers, unlike layers, are not simply values but given instances. One benefit of this is that we are
able to provide a single default given at the top level of our application which will be used automatically
when we call provided[Service] without needing to import anything. We can override the default by
importing Service.provided.test in the scope where we call provided[Service].
The second difference is that since we are defining our Providers as given instances we must explicitly
annotate their types. While not the end of the world, this is an ergonomic sacrifice. ZIO makes good use of
Scala's type inference to allow tracking complicated dependencies without having to fuss with boilerplate. In
the ZIO example above, for instance, you can change the constructor parameters of Service and the changes
to live's dependency type will be inferred. In our version, changing the types of Service's parameters
would require rewriting the type annotation on default.
Since ZIO provides what is in my view the best DI framework available, it's worth pointing out a few things it offers that this one doesn't.
- Error messages. ZIO's
providemacro will display very nicely formatted error messages explaining which layers are missing which dependencies. It will also tell you which layers provide ambiguous (conflicting) dependencies. When using implicit resolution, we depend on built-in compiler error messages with only minimal customization possible (e.g.,implicitNotFoundandambiguousImplicitannotations). - Effects.
ZLayerallows you to include effects in your dependencies constructors, which is important for initializing and scoping resources needed by services.Provider/Providedcertainly supports effectful construction, but not using any powerful context likeFuture,ZIO, orIO. - Composability.
ZLayers can be composed manually using combinators like>>and++, allowing the user build layers from one another without having to redefine a constructor. For instance, to make a test layer forServicefrom the above example, you might want to define it as:
This will use the test layers fromval test = (Dep2.test ++ Dep3.test) >> Service.liveDep2andDep3to satisfy those dependencies while still requiring a layer forDep1. It would be possible, though complicated, to implement this forProvider, but doing so would requiring explicitly annotating the resulting provider instance with the dependencies ofDep1andDep2which would offset a lot of the convenience.
By using Providers modeled after ZLayer, it is easier to separate the DI mechanism from our service
definitions and provide alternate versions of the same dependency for different contexts. Nevertheless, there
is still a fair amount missing that we get in mature DI frameworks like ZIO's.
Thanks for checking! I will probably not use the Scala 2 version as we are migrating to Scala 3 anyway. I wanted to do something like ZIO ZLayers when I saw your post and got excited, I was curious to understand how this works! I checked Kyo as well and the Layer implementation is in a separate
kyo-preludemodule but it's for Scala 3 only. I will probably test that too sometime in the future.The scoping is only needed if any of the services is not a "singleton", right? I think ZIO has the same (or similar) problem. If you want to use the same Service implementation but with different configuration you can't really do that because it's all type based and not name/id based. So If I want to do something like this I have to create differently named subclasses of the Service. Not a big deal and rarely comes up but sometimes it does.