I want to create a structure which will be accessible in other packages, but I don't want to allow modify this structure. In other languages this is archived by making all fields private and exposing only public getters.
Solution with getters works fine for all data types except slices and maps because returned slices and maps aren't copied by default so they can be modified. The only solution that I managed to figure out is to create new map/slice and assign all items in a loop but this introduce a lot of repetitive and ugly code, especially for large nested structures.
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type OtherStruct struct {
prop string
}
type Struct struct {
prop map[string]OtherStruct
}
func (s Struct) Prop() map[string]OtherStruct {
return s.prop
}
func (s Struct) Prop2() map[string]*OtherStruct {
prop := make(map[string]*OtherStruct, 0)
for k := range s.prop {
v := s.prop[k]
prop[k] = &v
}
return prop
}
func main() {
var s Struct;
// Simple getter
s = Struct{make(map[string]OtherStruct, 0)}
p1 := s.Prop()
fmt.Println(s) // &{map[]}
p1["something"] = OtherStruct{"test"}
fmt.Println(s) // {map[something:{test}]}
// Getter which copies map
s = Struct{make(map[string]OtherStruct, 0)}
p2 := s.Prop2()
fmt.Println(s) // &{map[]}
p2["something"] = &OtherStruct{"test"}
fmt.Println(s) // &{map[]}
}
Is there any better way to encapsulate slices/maps in Go? Or maybe I shouldn't use encapsulation at all in Go and use different approach?
Returning slice or map values is idiomatic Go. The user of your package will know how those data structures work in Go.
In your example, the user of Struct should know that adding a new entry into the returned map would reflect for any other user of the same map.
// Simple getter
s = Struct{make(map[string]OtherStruct, 0)}
p1 := s.Prop()
fmt.Println(s) // &{map[]}
p1["something"] = OtherStruct{"test"}
fmt.Println(s) // {map[something:{test}]}
You should worry about such things only in case of concurrency. That is, when multiple goroutines are accessing, and possibly changing, the elements inside your slice or map.
Related
I've had difficulty learning the basics of reflect, pointers and interface in go, so here's another entry level question I can't seem to figure out.
This code does what I want it to do - I'm using reflect to add another record to a slice that's typed as an interface.
package main
import (
"reflect"
"log"
)
type Person struct {
Name string
}
func Add(slice interface{}) {
s := reflect.ValueOf(slice).Elem()
// in my actual code, p is declared via the use of reflect.New([Type])
p := Person{Name:"Sam"}
s.Set(reflect.Append(s,reflect.ValueOf(p)))
}
func main() {
p := []Person{}
Add(&p)
log.Println(p)
}
If I changed the Add and main function to this, things don't work the way I want it to.
func Add(slice interface{}) {
s := reflect.ValueOf(&slice).Elem()
p := Person{Name:"Sam"}
s.Set(reflect.Append(reflect.ValueOf(slice),reflect.ValueOf(p)))
log.Println(s)
}
func main() {
p := []Person{}
Add(p)
log.Println(p)
}
That is, the log.Println(p) at the end doesn't show a slice with the record Sam in it like the way I had hoped. So my question is whether it's possible for me to have Add() receive a slice that is not a pointer, and for me to still write some code in Add() that will produce the outcome shown in my first scenario?
A lot of my recent questions dance around this kind of subject, so it's still taking me a while to figure out how to use the reflect package effectively.
No, it's not possible to append to a slice in a function without passing in a pointer to the slice. This isn't related to reflection, but to how variables are passed in to functions. Here's the same code, modified to not use reflection:
package main
import (
"log"
)
type Person struct {
Name string
}
func AddWithPtr(slicep interface{}) {
sp := slicep.(*[]Person)
// This modifies p1 itself, since *sp IS p1
*sp = append(*sp, Person{"Sam"})
}
func Add(slice interface{}) {
// s is now a copy of p2
s := slice.([]Person)
sp := &s
// This modifies a copy of p2 (i.e. s), not p2 itself
*sp = append(*sp, Person{"Sam"})
}
func main() {
p1 := []Person{}
// This passes a reference to p1
AddWithPtr(&p1)
log.Println("Add with pointer: ", p1)
p2 := []Person{}
// This passes a copy of p2
Add(p2)
log.Println("Add without pointer:", p2)
}
(Above, when it says 'copy' of the slice, it doesn't mean the copy of the underlying data - just the slice)
When you pass in a slice, the function effectively gets a new slice that refers to the same data as the original. Appending to the slice in the function increases the length of the new slice, but doesn't change the length of the original slice that was passed in. That's why the original slice remains unchanged.
I have an interface Model, which is implemented by struct Person.
To get a model instance, I have the following helper functions:
func newModel(c string) Model {
switch c {
case "person":
return newPerson()
}
return nil
}
func newPerson() *Person {
return &Person{}
}
The above approach allows me to return a properly typed Person instance (can easily add new models later with same approach).
When I attempted to do something similar for returning a slice of models, I get an error. Code:
func newModels(c string) []Model {
switch c {
case "person":
return newPersons()
}
return nil
}
func newPersons() *[]Person {
var models []Person
return &models
}
Go complains with: cannot use newPersons() (type []Person) as type []Model in return argument
My goal is to return a slice of whatever model type is requested (whether []Person, []FutureModel, []Terminator2000, w/e). What am I missing, and how can I properly implement such a solution?
This is very similar to a question I just answered: https://stackoverflow.com/a/12990540/727643
The short answer is that you are correct. A slice of structs is not equal to a slice of an interface the struct implements.
A []Person and a []Model have different memory layouts. This is because the types they are slices of have different memory layouts. A Model is an interface value which means that in memory it is two words in size. One word for the type information, the other for the data. A Person is a struct whose size depends on the fields it contains. In order to convert from a []Person to a []Model, you will need to loop over the array and do a type conversion for each element.
Since this conversion is an O(n) operation and would result in a new slice being created, Go refuses to do it implicitly. You can do it explicitly with the following code.
models := make([]Model, len(persons))
for i, v := range persons {
models[i] = Model(v)
}
return models
And as dskinner pointed out, you most likely want a slice of pointers and not a pointer to a slice. A pointer to a slice is not normally needed.
*[]Person // pointer to slice
[]*Person // slice of pointers
Maybe this is an issue with your return type *[]Person, where it should actually be []*Person so to reference that each index of the slice is a reference to a Person, and where a slice [] is in itself a reference to an array.
Check out the following example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type Model interface {
Name() string
}
type Person struct {}
func (p *Person) Name() string {
return "Me"
}
func NewPersons() (models []*Person) {
return models
}
func main() {
var p Model
p = new(Person)
fmt.Println(p.Name())
arr := NewPersons()
arr = append(arr, new(Person))
fmt.Println(arr[0].Name())
}
As Stephen already answered the question and you're a beginner I emphasize on giving advises.
A better way of working with go's interfaces is not to have a constructor returning
the interface as you might be used to from other languages, like java, but to have
a constructor for each object independently, as they implement the interface implicitly.
Instead of
newModel(type string) Model { ... }
you should do
newPerson() *Person { ... }
newPolitician() *Politician { ... }
with Person and Politician both implementing the methods of Model.
You can still use Person or Politician everywhere where a Model
is accepted, but you can also implement other interfaces.
With your method you would be limited to Model until you do a manual conversion to
another interface type.
Suppose I have a Person which implements the method Walk() and a Model implements ShowOff(), the following would not work straight forward:
newModel("person").ShowOff()
newModel("person").Walk() // Does not compile, Model has no method Walk
However this would:
newPerson().ShowOff()
newPerson().Walk()
As others have already answered, []T is a distinct type. I'd just like to add that a simple utility can be used to convert them generically.
import "reflect"
// Convert a slice or array of a specific type to array of interface{}
func ToIntf(s interface{}) []interface{} {
v := reflect.ValueOf(s)
// There is no need to check, we want to panic if it's not slice or array
intf := make([]interface{}, v.Len())
for i := 0; i < v.Len(); i++ {
intf[i] = v.Index(i).Interface()
}
return intf
}
Now, you can use it like this:
ToIntf([]int{1,2,3})
Types T and []T are distinct types and distinct are their methods as well, even when satisfying the same interface. IOW, every type satisfying Model must implement all of the Model's methods by itself - the method receiver can be only one specific type.
Even if Go's implementation allowed this, it's unfortunately unsound: You can't assign a []Person to a variable of type []Model because a []Model has different capabilities. For example, suppose we also have Animal which implements Model:
var people []Person = ...
var models []Model = people // not allowed in real Go
models[0] = Animal{..} // ???
var person Person = people[0] // !!!
If we allow line 2, then line 3 should also work because models can perfectly well store an Animal. And line 4 should still work because people stores Persons. But then we end up with a variable of type Person holding an Animal!
Java actually allows the equivalent of line 2, and it's widely considered a mistake. (The error is caught at run time; line 3 would throw an ArrayStoreException.)
Let's say I have a bunch of structs (around 10).
type A struct {
ID int64
... other A-specific fields
}
type B struct {
ID int64
... other B-specific fields
}
type C struct {
ID int64
... other C-specific fields
}
If I have an array of these structs at any given time (either []A, []B, or []C), how can I write a single function that pulls the IDs from the array of structs without writing 3 (or in my case, 10) separate functions like this:
type AList []A
type BList []B
type CList []C
func (list *AList) GetIDs() []int64 { ... }
func (list *BList) GetIDs() []int64 { ... }
func (list *CList) GetIDs() []int64 { ... }
With general method on the slice itself
You can make it a little simpler if you define a general interface to access the ID of the ith element of a slice:
type HasIDs interface {
GetID(i int) int64
}
And you provide implementation for these:
func (x AList) GetID(i int) int64 { return x[i].ID }
func (x BList) GetID(i int) int64 { return x[i].ID }
func (x CList) GetID(i int) int64 { return x[i].ID }
And then one GetID() function is enough:
func GetIDs(s HasIDs) (ids []int64) {
ids = make([]int64, reflect.ValueOf(s).Len())
for i := range ids {
ids[i] = s.GetID(i)
}
return
}
Note: the length of the slice may be a parameter to GetIDs(), or it may be part of the HasIDs interface. Both are more complex than the tiny reflection call to get the length of the slice, so bear with me on this.
Using it:
as := AList{A{1}, A{2}}
fmt.Println(GetIDs(as))
bs := BList{B{3}, B{4}}
fmt.Println(GetIDs(bs))
cs := []C{C{5}, C{6}}
fmt.Println(GetIDs(CList(cs)))
Output (try it on the Go Playground):
[1 2]
[3 4]
[5 6]
Note that we were able to use slices of type AList, BList etc, we did not need to use interface{} or []SomeIface. Also note that we could also use e.g. a []C, and when passing it to GetIDs(), we used a simple type conversion.
This is as simple as it can get. If you want to eliminate even the GetID() methods of the slices, then you really need to dig deeper into reflection (reflect package), and it will be slower. The presented solution above performs roughly the same as the "hard-coded" version.
With reflection completely
If you want it to be completely "generic", you may do it using reflection, and then you need absolutely no extra methods on anything.
Without checking for errors, here's the solution:
func GetIDs(s interface{}) (ids []int64) {
v := reflect.ValueOf(s)
ids = make([]int64, v.Len())
for i := range ids {
ids[i] = v.Index(i).FieldByName("ID").Int()
}
return
}
Testing and output is (almost) the same. Note that since here parameter type of GetIDs() is interface{}, you don't need to convert to CList to pass a value of type []C. Try it on the Go Playground.
With embedding and reflection
Getting a field by specifying its name as a string is quite fragile (think of rename / refactoring for example). We can improve maintainability, safety, and somewhat the reflection's performance if we "outsource" the ID field and an accessor method to a separate struct, which we'll embed, and we capture the accessor by an interface:
type IDWrapper struct {
ID int64
}
func (i IDWrapper) GetID() int64 { return i.ID }
type HasID interface {
GetID() int64
}
And the types all embed IDWrapper:
type A struct {
IDWrapper
}
type B struct {
IDWrapper
}
type C struct {
IDWrapper
}
By embedding, all the embedder types (A, B, C) will have the GetID() method promoted and thus they all automatically implement HasID. We can take advantage of this in the GetIDs() function:
func GetIDs(s interface{}) (ids []int64) {
v := reflect.ValueOf(s)
ids = make([]int64, v.Len())
for i := range ids {
ids[i] = v.Index(i).Interface().(HasID).GetID()
}
return
}
Testing it:
as := AList{A{IDWrapper{1}}, A{IDWrapper{2}}}
fmt.Println(GetIDs(as))
bs := BList{B{IDWrapper{3}}, B{IDWrapper{4}}}
fmt.Println(GetIDs(bs))
cs := []C{C{IDWrapper{5}}, C{IDWrapper{6}}}
fmt.Println(GetIDs(cs))
Output is the same. Try it on the Go Playground. Note that in this case the only method is IDWrapper.GetID(), no other methods needed to be defined.
As far as I know, there is no easy way.
You might be tempted to use embedding, but I'm not sure there's any way to make this particular task any easier. Embedding feels like subclassing but it doesn't give you the power of polymorphism.
Polymorphism in Go is limited to methods and interfaces, not fields, so you can't access a given field by name across multiple classes.
You could use reflection to find and access the field you are interested in by name (or tag), but there are performance penalties for that and it will make your code complex and hard to follow. Reflection is not really intended to be a substitute for Polymorphism or generics.
I think your best solution is to use the polymorphism that Go does give you, and create an interface:
type IDable interface {
GetId() int64
}
and make a GetId method for each of your classes. Full example.
Generic methods require the use of interfaces and reflection.
I have a function that initializes an array of structs from an array of an array of values. This is how I'm doing it currently:
type Loadable interface {
Load([]interface{})
}
type FooList struct {
Foos []*Foo
}
func (fl *FooList) Load(vals []interface{}) {
fl.Foos = make([]*Foo, len(vals))
for i, v := range vals {
foo := &Foo{}
foo.Load(v.([]interface{}))
fl.Foos[i] = foo
}
}
This works just fine, but now I also need to initialize BarLists and BazLists which contain Bars and Bazs. Instead of sprinkling the same snippet throughout my code which all look like this:
type BarList struct {
Bars []*Bar
}
func (fl *BarList) Load(vals []interface{}) {
fl.Bars = make([]*Bar, len(vals))
for i, v := range vals {
bar := &Bar{}
bar.Load(v.([]interface{}))
fl.Bars[i] = bar
}
}
What's the correct way to refactor this code to make it more DRY?
The code you show does not violate the DRY principle. The code implementing the Loader interface (I refuse to write the javaism you used) for type FooList and BarList shares only one line - the range statement. Otherwise they're type specific.
As Go has no generics, there's no direct way how to not write type specialized versions in a generic way (modulo poor choices like everything is an interface{} etc. and/or slowing down your code 10 times by using reflection.)
The simplest I can come up with using reflection would be something like this (not tested):
import "reflect"
// example_of_type should be an instance of the type, e.g. Foo{}
// returns slice of pointers, e.g. []*Foo
func Load(vals []interface{}, example_of_type interface()) interface{} {
type := reflect.TypeOf(example_of_type)
list := reflect.MakeSlice(type.PtrOf().SliceOf(), len(vals), len(vals))
for i, v := range vals {
bar := reflect.New(type)
bar.Interface().(Loadable).Load(v.([]interface{}))
list.Index(i).Set(bar)
}
return list.Interface()
}
You would use it like:
fl.Foos = Load(vals, Foo{}).([]*Foo)
fl.Bars = Load(vals, Bar{}).([]*Bar)
I have an interface Model, which is implemented by struct Person.
To get a model instance, I have the following helper functions:
func newModel(c string) Model {
switch c {
case "person":
return newPerson()
}
return nil
}
func newPerson() *Person {
return &Person{}
}
The above approach allows me to return a properly typed Person instance (can easily add new models later with same approach).
When I attempted to do something similar for returning a slice of models, I get an error. Code:
func newModels(c string) []Model {
switch c {
case "person":
return newPersons()
}
return nil
}
func newPersons() *[]Person {
var models []Person
return &models
}
Go complains with: cannot use newPersons() (type []Person) as type []Model in return argument
My goal is to return a slice of whatever model type is requested (whether []Person, []FutureModel, []Terminator2000, w/e). What am I missing, and how can I properly implement such a solution?
This is very similar to a question I just answered: https://stackoverflow.com/a/12990540/727643
The short answer is that you are correct. A slice of structs is not equal to a slice of an interface the struct implements.
A []Person and a []Model have different memory layouts. This is because the types they are slices of have different memory layouts. A Model is an interface value which means that in memory it is two words in size. One word for the type information, the other for the data. A Person is a struct whose size depends on the fields it contains. In order to convert from a []Person to a []Model, you will need to loop over the array and do a type conversion for each element.
Since this conversion is an O(n) operation and would result in a new slice being created, Go refuses to do it implicitly. You can do it explicitly with the following code.
models := make([]Model, len(persons))
for i, v := range persons {
models[i] = Model(v)
}
return models
And as dskinner pointed out, you most likely want a slice of pointers and not a pointer to a slice. A pointer to a slice is not normally needed.
*[]Person // pointer to slice
[]*Person // slice of pointers
Maybe this is an issue with your return type *[]Person, where it should actually be []*Person so to reference that each index of the slice is a reference to a Person, and where a slice [] is in itself a reference to an array.
Check out the following example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type Model interface {
Name() string
}
type Person struct {}
func (p *Person) Name() string {
return "Me"
}
func NewPersons() (models []*Person) {
return models
}
func main() {
var p Model
p = new(Person)
fmt.Println(p.Name())
arr := NewPersons()
arr = append(arr, new(Person))
fmt.Println(arr[0].Name())
}
As Stephen already answered the question and you're a beginner I emphasize on giving advises.
A better way of working with go's interfaces is not to have a constructor returning
the interface as you might be used to from other languages, like java, but to have
a constructor for each object independently, as they implement the interface implicitly.
Instead of
newModel(type string) Model { ... }
you should do
newPerson() *Person { ... }
newPolitician() *Politician { ... }
with Person and Politician both implementing the methods of Model.
You can still use Person or Politician everywhere where a Model
is accepted, but you can also implement other interfaces.
With your method you would be limited to Model until you do a manual conversion to
another interface type.
Suppose I have a Person which implements the method Walk() and a Model implements ShowOff(), the following would not work straight forward:
newModel("person").ShowOff()
newModel("person").Walk() // Does not compile, Model has no method Walk
However this would:
newPerson().ShowOff()
newPerson().Walk()
As others have already answered, []T is a distinct type. I'd just like to add that a simple utility can be used to convert them generically.
import "reflect"
// Convert a slice or array of a specific type to array of interface{}
func ToIntf(s interface{}) []interface{} {
v := reflect.ValueOf(s)
// There is no need to check, we want to panic if it's not slice or array
intf := make([]interface{}, v.Len())
for i := 0; i < v.Len(); i++ {
intf[i] = v.Index(i).Interface()
}
return intf
}
Now, you can use it like this:
ToIntf([]int{1,2,3})
Types T and []T are distinct types and distinct are their methods as well, even when satisfying the same interface. IOW, every type satisfying Model must implement all of the Model's methods by itself - the method receiver can be only one specific type.
Even if Go's implementation allowed this, it's unfortunately unsound: You can't assign a []Person to a variable of type []Model because a []Model has different capabilities. For example, suppose we also have Animal which implements Model:
var people []Person = ...
var models []Model = people // not allowed in real Go
models[0] = Animal{..} // ???
var person Person = people[0] // !!!
If we allow line 2, then line 3 should also work because models can perfectly well store an Animal. And line 4 should still work because people stores Persons. But then we end up with a variable of type Person holding an Animal!
Java actually allows the equivalent of line 2, and it's widely considered a mistake. (The error is caught at run time; line 3 would throw an ArrayStoreException.)