I can't find a "clone" method convention in Golang, but it seems necessary to have one.
I only saw the built-in way *clonedObj = *obj, but it is too low-level, and can't handle (when-necessary) deep copy of case like struct { member *CompositionObj }
I doubt whether "func (obj ClassA) Clone() interface{}" prototype will work, because calling obj2 := obj.Clone() will "loose" the method set for ClassA, and need explicit code like obj2.(*ClassA) afterwards.
Please advice a working direction.
This answer to a similar question regarding maps suggests to use the gob package. The documentation states:
A stream of gobs is self-describing. Each data item in the stream is preceded by a specification of its type, expressed in terms of a small set of predefined types. Pointers are not transmitted, but the things they point to are transmitted; that is, the values are flattened. Nil pointers are not permitted, as they have no value. Recursive types work fine, but recursive values (data with cycles) are problematic. This may change.
so it may not be suitable for your use case.
That said, your question largely depends on your actual use-case. You do not need a generic way to deep-copy things usually, you can usually either get away with the built-in copy mechanics or write concrete copy functions for the types that actually need it.
An alternative might be the deepcopy package but I have no experience with it myself, I just found it on Goolge.
Ok, having some while no one else give me proper reference, I have found out some reference example how to clone in Go myself and want to share.
(Only upvote me a few if this answer is useful to you. I'm not for earning votes. Welcome other better answers and comments)
I found this protoype in package "github.com/jinzhu/gorm" (Database's ORM library) for reference:
func (s *DB) clone() *DB {
db := &DB{
...
}
...
return db
}
And similar pattern in package "golang.org/x/net/html/atom":
func (n *Node) clone() *Node {
m := &Node{
Type: n.Type,
...
}
...
return m
}
The above prototype is enough if the Clone()'s caller always know your object type when cloning. (and you need uppercase Clone() to make the method to be "public")
However, if you want advanced feature that a variable may hold any object of similar base interface, here is my sample:
func (t *T) Clone() YourBaseInterface
Where YourBaseInterface is:
type YourBaseInterface interface {
Clone() YourBaseInterface
OtherMethod1()
...
}
Or can merely use interface{} instead of YourBaseInterface in the return, and do a typecast like obj2 := obj.Clone().(*YourBaseType) after clone.
CAUTION
There is one drawback with this prototype. Becase Golang doesn't support this prototype as build-in, the Clone() method won't be called in some language's feature, e.g. when you copy(dest, src) a []YourTypeWithClone slice. Instead, it still do plain *elem2 = *elem1 struct copying. Solutions maybe either don't use those build-in, or you may flaw back to design the class struct members so that doing plain copy is enough for its copy purpose if possible.
Related
I'm confused about the constructors in Go. Most constructors I've seen return a struct, but 'Effective Go' suggests that an interface can be returned in some cases, according to the rule of 'Generality'.
I trust 'Effective Go' to provide good ideas, but this doesn't seem to follow the principle of 'accept interfaces, return structs'. I guess that many types implement an interface and nothing more than that, so in that case it would be common to see constructors which return interfaces.
Another related statement is that interfaces should be defined by the consumer, but 'Generality' means that the interface is defined by the producer.
Can someone clarify?
As it has already been mentioned, returning an interface should be considered something exceptional.
Returning errors of type error which is an interface is one of those exception.
Returning an interface that represents an unexported type is the other exception. But why would you have an exported interface that describes an unexported struct instead of just having an exported struct?
The reason is simple, that allows you a higher degree of control on how that struct is constructed.
Compare this two pieces of code:
type MyType struct {
MyField string
}
func NewMyType(value string) MyType {
return MyType{value}
}
func (t MyType) MyMethod() string {
return t.MyField
}
type MyType interface {
MyMethod() string
}
type myType struct {
MyField string
}
func NewMyType(value string) MyType {
return myType{value}
}
func (t myType) MyMethod() string {
return t.MyField
}
In the first case I would be able to do: myVar := MyType{} while in the second case I won't be able to do so, I am forced to use the provided constructor. The first case also allows to modify the field value after creation which is not allowed in the second case. Making the field unexported will solve the second part but not the first.
This example is obviously trivial, but being able to construct invalid structs may have a horrible impact. By having specific constructors you can ensure that the object is in a valid starting state and you will only need to make sure it always stays in a valid state. If you can't ensure that, you may need to check that it is in a valid state at the start of every method.
For example consider a DB request. It needs a DB connection. If the user is able to create a DB request without a DB connection you will have to check that it is valid in every method. If you enforce him to use a constructor you can check at creation time and done.
It depends a bit on your preference and how you view things. Coming from OOP background my take is: there is no point in the constructor if you cannot enforce it. Adding the constructor means - you must supply these values when instantiating this item. If your struct is public, it will be misused and instantiated bypassing the constructor. So it makes sense that the constructor returns the public interface and the struct is private (lowercase). If the struct is public, there is no point in the constructor, because you cannot enforce it. Writing code is a dialogue between writer and reader, making a struct public and having a constructor would tell the reader - here you have the constructor, but you also have a public struct and that would mean that constructor usage is arbitrary. If that is the case, go with that setup
In most cases constructor functions return concrete types (or pointer to a type).
The situations in which returning interfaces might be a good idea is when calling factory functions or builder functions in which underlying concrete type satisfies that interface.
Consider error interface for example, when you call http.NewRequest underlying concentrate error type can be of net.Error, net.DNSError etc. Now try to think how are you going to create an api like this without an error interface if function returns concrete type? Only solution to it I can think of is to create a massive error type for net package and add fields for extra information, but its most probably much harder to maintain, test that kind of error type and not to mention memory bloat.
Whether you choose to return concrete type or an interface is a design choice, some guidelines exists to give solution to common scenarios.
Let's say in a 3rd party library we have an interface and a struct implementing this interface. Let's also assume there is a function that takes ParentInterface as argument, which have different behavior for different types.
type ParentInterface interface {
SomeMethod()
}
type ParentStruct struct {
...
}
func SomeFunction(p ParentInterface) {
switch x := p.Type {
case ParentStruct:
return 1
}
return 0
}
In our code we want to use this interface, but with our augmented behavior, so we embed it in our own struct. The compiler actually allows us to call functions about ParentInterface on my struct directly:
type MyStruct struct {
ParentInterface
}
parentStruct := ParentStruct{...}
myStruct := MyStruct{parentStruct}
parentStruct.SomeMethod() // Compiler OK.
myStruct.SomeMethod() // Compiler OK. Result is same. Great.
SomeFunction(parentStruct) // Compiler OK. Result is 1.
SomeFunction(myStruct.ParentInterface) // Compiler OK. Result is 1.
SomeFunction(myStruct) // Compiler OK. Result is 0. (!)
Isn't the last case a problem? I've encountered this kind of bugs more than once. Because I'm happily use MyStruct as an alias of ParentInterface in my code (which is why I define it in the first place), it's so hard to always remember that we cannot call SomeFunction on MyStruct directly (the compiler says we can!).
So what's the best practice to avoid this kind of mistake? Or it's actually a flaw of the compiler, which is supposed to forbid the use of SomeFunction(myStruct) at all since the result is untrustable anyway?
There is no compiler mistake here and your experienced result is the expected one.
Your SomeFunction() function explicitly states it wants to do different things based on the dynamic type of the passed interface value, and that is exactly what happens.
We introduce interfaces in the first place so we don't have to care about the dynamic type that implements it. The interface gives us guarantees about existing methods, and those are the only things you should rely on, you should only call those methods and not do some type-switch or assertion kung-fu.
Of course this is the ideal world, but you should stick to it as much as possible.
Even if in some cases you can't fit everything into the interface, you can again type assert another interface and not a concrete type out of it if you need additional functionality.
A typical example of this is writing an http.Handler where you get the response writer as an interface: http.ResponseWriter. It's quite minimalistic, but the actual type passed can do a lot more. To access that "more", you may use additional type assertions to obtain that extra interface, such as http.Pusher or http.Flusher.
In Go, there is no inheritance and polymorphism. Go favors composition. When you embed a type into another type (struct), the method set of the embedded type will be part of the embedder type. This means any interfaces the embedded type implemented, the embedder will also implement those. And calling methods of those implemented interfaces will "forward" the call to the embedded type, that is, the receiver of those method calls will be the embedded value. This is unless you "override" those methods by providing your own implementation with the receiver type being the embedder type. But even in this case virtual routing will not happen. Meaning if the embedded type has methods A() and B(), and implementation of A() calls B(), if you provide your own B() on the embedder, calling A() (which is of the embedded type) will not call your B() but that of the embedded type.
This is not something to avoid (you can't avoid it), this is something to know about (something to live with). If you know how this works, you just have to take this into consideration and count with it.
Because I'm happily use MyStruct as an alias of ParentInterface in my code (which is why I define it in the first place)
You shouldn't use embedding to create aliases, that is a misuse of embedding. Embedding a type in your own will not be an alias. Implementations of existing methods that check concrete types will "fail" as you experienced (meaning they will not find a match to their expected concrete type).
Unless you want to "override" some methods or implement certain interfaces this way, you shouldn't use embedding. Just use the original type. Simplest, cleanest. If you need aliases, Go 1.9 introduced the type alias feature whose syntax is:
type NewType = ExistingType
After the above declaration NewType will be identical to ExistingType, they will be completely interchangeable (and thus have identical method sets). But know that this does not add any new "real" feature to the language, anything that is possible with type aliases is doable without them. It is mainly to support easier, gradual code refactoring.
I would like to explore Go possibilities. How would you turn "append" to method? simply: "st.app(t) == append(st, t)"
This is what I got:
type T interface{}
type ST []interface{}
func (st []T) app (t T) []T {
return(append(st, t))
}
but this code does not check for type compatibility:
append([]int{1,2},"a") // correctly gives error
ST{1,2}.app("a") // dumbly gives [1 2 a] !!!
I know why the code does not check for type compatibility but What is the right way to do it? Is it possible?
I appreciate your help to understand how Go works.
The right way to do this is to call append() as the built-in function it is. It's not an accident that it's a built-in function; you can't write append itself in Go, and anything that approximates it would be unsafe (and over-complicated).
Don't fight Go. Just write the line of code. In the time you spend trying to create tricky generics, you could have solved three more issues and shipped the product. That's how Go works.
This isn't to say Go will never have generics, but as we move towards Go 2 consider the following from Russ Cox:
For example, I've been examining generics recently, but I don't have in my mind a clear picture of the detailed, concrete problems that Go users need generics to solve. As a result, I can't answer a design question like whether to support generic methods, which is to say methods that are parameterized separately from the receiver. If we had a large set of real-world use cases, we could begin to answer a question like this by examining the significant ones.
(On the other hand, Generics is the most responded-to topic in ExperienceReports, so it's not that no one is aware of the interest. But don't fight Go. It's a fantastic language for shipping great software. It is not, however, a generic language.)
4 years later, there is actually a possible solution to get methods that are parameterized separately from the receiver.
There is with Go 1.18 generics
It does not support parameterized method
It does support parameterized method, meaning the receiver may have type parameters
Jaana B. Dogan proposes "Generics facilitators in Go" based on that
Parameterized receivers are a useful tool and helped me develop a common pattern, facilitators, to overcome the shortcomings of having no parameterized methods.
Facilitators are simply a new type that has access to the type you wished you had generic methods on.
Her example:
package database
type Client struct{ ... }
type Querier[T any] struct {
client *Client
}
func NewQuerier[T any](c *Client) *Querier[T] {
return &Querier[T]{
client: c,
}
}
func (q *Querier[T]) All(ctx context.Context) ([]T, error) {
// implementation
}
func (q *Querier[T]) Filter(ctx context.Context, filter ...Filter) ([]T, error) {
// implementation
You can use it as:
querier := database.NewQuerier[Person](client)
In your case though, while you could define an Appender struct, it still needs to apply on a concrete struct, which is why using the built-in append() remains preferable.
But in general, should you need parameterized methods, Jaana's pattern can help.
In python, I can define types that override list item access and dict value access by defining __getitem__(). Can I do something similar in Go?
// What I mean is:
type MySlice []MyItem
// Definition of MySlice
......
func (s MySlice) getItem(i int) MyItem {
}
......
// Access is overrided with calling getItem()
item := ms[0] //calling ms.getItem(0)
// Is this doable?
No, operator overloading is not a feature of Go.
Quoting from the official FAQ to explain why:
Method dispatch is simplified if it doesn't need to do type matching as well. Experience with other languages told us that having a variety of methods with the same name but different signatures was occasionally useful but that it could also be confusing and fragile in practice. Matching only by name and requiring consistency in the types was a major simplifying decision in Go's type system.
Regarding operator overloading, it seems more a convenience than an absolute requirement. Again, things are simpler without it.
Suppose that I have a type type T intand I want to define a logic to operate on this type.
What abstraction should I use and When ?
Defining a method on that type:
func (T t) someLogic() {
// ...
}
Defining a function:
func somelogic(T t) {
// ...
}
Some situations where you tend to use methods:
Mutating the receiver: Things that modify fields of the objects are often methods. It's less surprising to your users that x.Foo will modify X than that Foo(x) will.
Side effects through the receiver: Things are often methods on a type if they have side effects on/through the object in subtler ways, like writing to a network connection that's part of the struct, or writing via pointers or slices or so on in the struct.
Accessing private fields: In theory, anything within the same package can see unexported fields of an object, but more commonly, just the object's constructor and methods do. Having other things look at unexported fields is sort of like having C++ friends.
Necessary to satisfy an interface: Only methods can be part of interfaces, so you may need to make something a method to just satisfy an interface. For example, Peter Bourgon's Go intro defines type openWeatherMap as an empty struct with a method, rather than a function, just to satisfy the same weatherProvider interface as other implementations that aren't empty structs.
Test stubbing: As a special case of the above, sometimes interfaces help stub out objects for testing, so your stub implementations might have to be methods even if they have no state.
Some where you tend to use functions:
Constructors: func NewFoo(...) (*Foo) is a function, not a method. Go has no notion of a constructor, so that's how it has to be.
Running on interfaces or basic types: You can't add methods on interfaces or basic types (unless you use type to make them a new type). So, strings.Split and reflect.DeepEqual must be functions. Also, io.Copy has to be a function because it can't just define a method on Reader or Writer. Note that these don't declare a new type (e.g., strings.MyString) to get around the inability to do methods on basic types.
Moving functionality out of oversized types or packages: Sometimes a single type (think User or Page in some Web apps) accumulates a lot of functionality, and that hurts readability or organization or even causes structural problems (like if it becomes harder to avoid cyclic imports). Making a non-method out of a method that isn't mutating the receiver, accessing unexported fields, etc. might be a refactoring step towards moving its code "up" to a higher layer of the app or "over" to another type/package, or the standalone function is just the most natural long-term place for it. (Hat tip Steve Francia for including an example of this from hugo in a talk about his Go mistakes.)
Convenience "just use the defaults" functions: If your users might want a quick way to use "default" object values without explicitly creating an object, you can expose functions that do that, often with the same name as an object method. For instance, http.ListenAndServe() is a package-level function that makes a trivial http.Server and calls ListenAndServe on it.
Functions for passing behavior around: Sometimes you don't need to define a type and interface just to pass functionality around and a bare function is sufficient, as in http.HandleFunc() or template.Funcs() or for registering go vet checks and so on. Don't force it.
Functions if object-orientation would be forced: Say your main() or init() are cleaner if they call out to some helpers, or you have private functions that don't look at any object fields and never will. Again, don't feel like you have to force OO (à la type Application struct{...}) if, in your situation, you don't gain anything by it.
When in doubt, if something is part of your exported API and there's a natural choice of what type to attach it to, make it a method. However, don't warp your design (pulling concerns into your type or package that could be separate) just so something can be a method. Writers don't WriteJSON; it'd be hard to implement one if they did. Instead you have JSON functionality added to Writers via a function elsewhere, json.NewEncoder(w io.Writer).
If you're still unsure, first write so that the documentation reads clearly, then so that code reads naturally (o.Verb() or o.Attrib()), then go with what feels right without sweating over it too much, because often you can rearrange it later.
Use the method if you are manipulating internal secrets of your object
(T *t) func someLogic() {
t.mu.Lock()
...
}
Use the function if you are using the public interface of the object
func somelogic(T *t) {
t.DoThis()
t.DoThat()
}
if you want to change T object, use
func (t *T) someLogic() {
// ...
}
if you donn't change T object and would like a origined-object way , use
func (t T) someLogic() {
// ...
}
but remeber that this will generate a temporay object T to call someLogic
if your like the way c language does, use
func somelogic(t T) {
t.DoThis()
t.DoThat()
}
or
func somelogic(t T) {
t.DoThis()
t.DoThat()
}
one more thing , the type is behide the var in golang.