Generic Templates

Sometimes different DAML templates have a common structure. Typically this occurs when there is some logic (usually in choices) that can be applied to many different underlying contracts. Generic templates allow you to capture this logic in a single place, instead of having to duplicate it for every template. Let’s see a simple example to understand what this means.

Example: Generic Proposal

Suppose we want to model a propose and accept workflow. This means that a party can propose a contract to a specific party, who may accept it with the terms of that contract. We see this pattern occur frequently for different types of contracts. Of course, we could implement one proposal template for every underlying template. However this is tedious and error prone. Alternatively, we can write it once and for all using a generic template.

This is how the generic Proposal template looks in DAML.

template Template t => Proposal t
  with
    asset : t
    receiver : Party
  where
    signatory (signatory asset \\ [receiver])

    controller receiver can
      Accept : ContractId t
        do create asset

There are several things to notice in this short template.

Firstly, where we usually see a template name, there is now a more general template header Template t => Proposal t. This can include multiple type parameters and constraints on those types. In this case Proposal takes a single type parameter t representing the type of the underlying asset. The Template constraint says that t is not just any type but a contract template with signatories, choices and more.

Secondly, the asset parameter to the template has the abstract type t. We don’t know anything about asset other than that it is an instance of Template. However this is all we need to implement the proposal template.

Notice that the signatories of the proposal are obtained from the signatories of the underlying contract. This is done by calling the overloaded signatory method. In this case we exclude the receiving party, as this is the one whose authorization we want to gain from accepting the proposal.

Finally let’s look at the Accept choice which characterizes the propose and accept workflow. The receiver can Accept which results in a contract of the underlying asset type being created. We are able to call create on the asset since we know it satisfies the Template constraint.

Template Instances

The above template soundly represents the proposal workflow, but we have not yet used it on a concrete (non-generic) template. We call the concrete instantiation a template instance.

Let’s introduce a very simple Coin contract that we can use in the proposal.

template Coin
  with
    issuer : Party
    owner : Party
  where
    signatory issuer, owner

We would like to model an issuing party (e.g. a bank) proposing a coin contract for an individual to accept. To do this, we need to explicitly state our intention to use Coin in a Proposal. We do this using the template instance syntax.

template instance CoinProposal = Proposal Coin

Note that we must choose a name, here CoinProposal, for creating contracts of this template in some client languages (for example when using the Java ledger bindings).

With a template instance in place, we can create and exercise choices on contracts of this type.

coinIssuance = scenario do
  alice <- getParty "alice"
  bank <- getParty "bank"
  let coin = Coin with issuer = bank; owner = alice
  let proposal = Proposal with asset = coin; receiver = alice
  propId <- bank `submit` create proposal
  alice `submit` exercise propId Accept

We construct the underlying asset and the proposal data using the Coin and Proposal data constructors respectively. The bank is able to create the coin proposal which Alice can then accept. This scenario results in two contract creations: first the proposal contract, which is consumed to give rise to the coin contract.