Home Pureconfig Typesafe Config with sealed abstract case class
Reply: 0

Pureconfig Typesafe Config with sealed abstract case class

user1283 Published in May 22, 2018, 4:36 am

I am trying to incorporate Pureconfig in my use case for typesafe configurations. Been successful in mapping HOCON .conf to case class types. However, if I have to constrain my types with no side-effects on the object definition side (i.e., supress default apply() and copy()), I am using following definition approach for case class:

sealed abstract case class someConfig(name:String)

object someConfig{
    def apply(name:String):Option[someConfig]={
        if(Option(name).isDefined && name.nonEmpty){
            Some(new someConfig(name){})
        } else {

To support Option[_] types, I am considering having an implicit ConfigReader. This approach seems to work, with a bit more for me to address config-keys to object mapping and instantiation.

Examples that I have searched upon so far doesn't seem to resonate this need. However, do see use of Option[_] on the object members. Tried to walk through the code samples in Pureconfig git repo.

Could someone suggest an approach where Option[T] could be supported, where T is a composite custom type? And I don't have to deal with member variable name to config key mapping, etc. i.e., avoid necessary boilerplate!

You need to login account before you can post.

About| Privacy statement| Terms of Service| Advertising| Contact us| Help| Sitemap|
Processed in 0.303877 second(s) , Gzip On .

© 2016 Powered by mzan.com design MATCHINFO