Futures – map vs flatmap

If you have a future, let’s say, Future[HttpResponse], and you want to specify what to do with that result when it is ready, such as write the body to a file, you may do something like responseF.map(response => write(response.body). However if write is also an asynchronous method which returns a future, this map call will return a type like Future[Future[Result]].

In the following code:

import scala.concurrent.Future
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global

val numF = Future{ 3 }

val stringF = numF.map(n => Future(n.toString))

val flatStringF = numF.flatMap(n => Future(n.toString))

stringF is of type Future[Future[String]] while flatStringF is of type Future[String]. Most would agree, the second is more useful. Flat Map is therefore useful for composing multiple futures together.

When you use for comprehensions with Futures, under the hood flatMap is being used together with map.

import scala.concurrent.{Await, Future}
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.concurrent.duration._

val threeF = Future(3)
val fourF = Future(4)
val fiveF = Future(5)

val resultF = for{
  three <- threeF
  four <- fourF
  five <- fiveF
}yield{
  three * four * five
}

Await.result(resultF, 3 seconds)

This code will yield 60.

Under the hood, scala translates this to

val resultF = threeF.flatMap(three => fourF.flatMap(four => fiveF.map(five => three * four * five)))