[swift-server-dev] [HTTP] Value vs Reference Types
Helge Heß
me at helgehess.eu
Mon Dec 12 08:29:40 CST 2016
Hi Samuel,
> To me things become much simpler if there is a chain of handlers that need to be run, with simple straight forward order. To do that I believe Both the Request and the Response need to be reference types.
well, no. Even if they are structs the thing you want can be built naturally. If the handler stack is run synchronously you can use `inout`, like:
func processMethodOverride(in request : inout Request) {
guard let methodOverride = request[header: “X-HTTP-Method-Override”]
else { return }
request.method = methodOverride
}
The request is passed by reference and will be modified on the calling side.
And of course there is the other, more functional approach:
func processMethodOverride(in request : Request) -> Request {
guard let methodOverride = request[header: “X-HTTP-Method-Override”]
else { return request }
var newRequest = request
newRequest.method = methodOverride
return newRequest
}
The calling side would then pass on the new, modified Request. (A nice thing is that it can easily keep a log of how the Request changed while it traverses the handler stack.)
Summary: I think having a handler stack doesn’t necessarily imply reference types.
It is kinda desirable to have those transformations based on immutable types. BUT: the problem is that an HTTP message is primarily a stream, headers are just metadata, and the thing being transformed is not usually available ‘in full’. Plus the fact that the meta data of the streams can change while the stream is read.
hh
> On 12 Dec 2016, at 14:45, Samuel Kallner via swift-server-dev <swift-server-dev at swift.org> wrote:
>
> My biggest problem with responses being structs is that it makes it much harder to have a server in which multiple independent pieces of code need to run in order for the request to be processed. Why is this useful? It's nice to have all sorts of things that "annotate" the Request and the Response, such as Session support, Compression support, Authentication support, and others.
>
> If one's handlers, as in the example in Ben's e-mail are designed to simply return a Response struct, the only way subsequent handlers can modify the response is by wrapping the call to the next handler in the chain, creating a new response based on the response received, and returning this new response.
>
> This causes one of two things.
>
> 1. There are two types of handlers, one type that simply gets invoked and returns a Response struct and a second type that gets a
> chain to invoke the next handler in the chain.
> 2. The nice and clean API in the example needs to be changed. And one always needs to deal with the results of the chain......
>
> The problem I have is that it seems to be a very artificial need for two different types of handlers. You also then need an opinionated definition of when each kind of handler runs.
>
> To me things become much simpler if there is a chain of handlers that need to be run, with simple straight forward order. To do that I believe Both the Request and the Response need to be reference types.
>
> Shmuel Kallner
> STSM Smart Client Platforms group
> Tel: +972-4829-6430
> e-mail: kallner at il.ibm.com
>
>
>
>
> From: Chris Bailey via swift-server-dev <swift-server-dev at swift.org>
> To: Ben Cohen <ben_cohen at apple.com>
> Cc: "swift-server-dev at swift.org" <swift-server-dev at swift.org>
> Date: 12/12/2016 14:11
> Subject: Re: [swift-server-dev] [HTTP] Value vs Reference Types
> Sent by: swift-server-dev-bounces at swift.org
>
>
>
> Thanks Ben. This is really useful.
>
> Its probably worth also adding some information on the approach taken by Foundation today for URLRequest/Response.
>
> For outbound requests, Foundation provides both NSURLRequest (class) and URLRequest (struct). In the case of URLRequest (struct), there is a mix of types as it contains a getter that returns a stream class for the body - and the with a number of warnings commented in the code:
> "The stream is returned for examination only; it is not safe for the caller to manipulate the stream in any way"
> (https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation/blob/5ab46791996cb65079d02f98115cef6562d4819b/Foundation/URLRequest.swift#L187)
> This is presumably because you shouldn't need to modify the stream for an outbound request
>
> For responses from outbound requests, only NSURLResponse (class) is provided as the body is read from the stream.
>
> This effectively give us a model where:
> outbound can be a struct (you shouldn't need to touch the stream)
> inbound class (reading from stream)
> For the server case, we need the mirror opposite of this - with incoming requests being a class and the outgoing response potentially being a struct.
>
> This leads to two questions:
> 1. Do we think the Foundation model is correct?
> 2. Do we think it would be confusing to switch been classes and structs when working with inbound vs. outbound requests, or do we think it would enforce correct behaviour?
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> From: Ben Cohen via swift-server-dev <swift-server-dev at swift.org>
> To: Dan Appel <dan.appel00 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "swift-server-dev at swift.org" <swift-server-dev at swift.org>
> Date: 08/12/2016 02:04
> Subject: Re: [swift-server-dev] [HTTP] Value vs Reference Types
> Sent by: swift-server-dev-bounces at swift.org
>
>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for spelling out these questions, I think they are a great starting point for a discussion. A few comments inline.
>
> On Nov 23, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Dan Appel via swift-server-dev <swift-server-dev at swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> My own responses:
>
>
> >1. Do we want to use concrete types or protocols for Request/Response?
>
>
> When working on Open Swift, this was a hot topic since we believed that it would be unsafe to have a protocol that would allow both value and reference types.
>
> Bear in mind that a protocol is more than just the methods and types it declares – it is also its documentation. For example, a number of protocols in the standard library state things like complexity requirements in their documenting comments. The language has no way of enforcing these, but your type does not truly “conform” to the protocol unless you adhere to them. Value semantics are similar – you can document that it is invalid to implement a protocol with reference semantics. So I don’t think this is a blocker to wanting to use protocols.
>
> We arrived upon the `{Request|Response}Representable` pattern which worked but was a bit of a mess. Because of this, I would prefer concrete Request/Response types.
>
>
> You could think of there as being 3 purposes to using protocols here, roughly in order of importance:
> • being able to write generic code
> • allowing different frameworks to interoperate
> • documenting what you need to implement
>
> The first one is the only reason why a protocol must be included in a library, and the key question to ask when considering defining a protocol like this is “What common algorithms do you want to write across multiple different conforming types in your program”? (such as generic functions, including protocol extensions, or functions that take an existential if the protocol has no associated types).
>
> This is distinct from wanting to be able to be able to choose from different library implementations of Request. You might want to choose between the Acme Inc Web Framework’s Request type, or some Swift-Server “official" Request type, but you never need to use both at once and write code spanning them. You just want to make sure that one can serve as a source-compatible “drop-in” replacement for the other in your code. This doesn’t mean you can’t write your own extensions – but you would extend the concrete Request not a RequestRepresentable protocol.
>
> Next, it’s possible that there might be a collection of 3rd-party frameworks out there that don’t define Request, but want to be able to write methods that take or extend multiple possible Request implementations. This seems a bit unlikely in the case of these types, more likely in other cases like networking, so it’s kind of a what-if scenario where there are both multiple popular implementations of Request, and various frameworks that want to interact with them. Anyone can add a conformance to anything, so those frameworks can define a protocol of their own with a subset of the functionality they need, and then just extend the popular implementations to conform to it. If this gets really common, at that point it might be worth creating an official protocol for everyone to share – but this can be done later, doesn’t have to be done up-front.
>
> Finally, if you do expect multiple implementations and want people to be able to swap them in and out when they choose, the protocol can serve to document what methods and properties you are expected to implement to be “source compatible". This can be done in documentation instead, the benefit of the protocol being it helps the library developer ensure they’ve got all the signatures right etc. But this isn’t something you expose to users, it’s something on the side to help implementors.
>
> Based on all the above, it seems like there isn’t a pressing need for a protocol for these types right now and initial designs should focus on a concrete implementation until one emerges, if only to avoid premature generalization. Useful protocols tend to be discovered, rather than designed, through a desire to share common operations on different concrete types.
>
> >2. If we use concrete types, do we want value or reference semantics?
>
>
> What I think makes this easier is that the "big four" have each taken a slightly different approach that can be used as a reference.
> Zewo- struct, value semantics
> Vapor- closed class, reference semantics
> Kitura- closed class + has-a pattern, reference semantics
> Perfect- class protocol, reference semantics
>
> Zewo is the outlier here, but I would like to note as a contributor to Zewo that we have not ran into situations where value semantics create an impassable roadblock.
>
> To me, it makes sense to pass them around as values since they don't have any logic of their own. Requests/Responses can't send themselves, they can only read and modified. It also gives me as a user more safety to pass them around since I know that they won't be modified implicitly.
>
> Take the following pseudo-code as an example:
>
> HTTPServer.onRequest { request in
> print(request.sourceIp)
> HTTPClient.send(request)
> print(request.sourceIp)
>
> }
>
> With reference semantics, there is no guarantee that sourceIp will be the same before and after sending off the request. After all, it couldmake sense for the HTTPClient to modify the sourceIp before sending off the request. This of course a contrived example, but the point stands.
>
>
> Not contrived at all, this is a perfect illustration of why reference semantics make it harder to reason about your code and identify the cause of bugs.
>
> Anyway, I think it would be great if we could have people talk about their own experiences.
>
>
> >3. When is it more convenient to have reference semantics?
>
>
>
> Convenience is a double-edged thing. Pointers with possibly-null values, or integer indexes into Unicode strings, are often considered convenient. But that convenience comes with a hidden cost to correctness – unexpected nulls, accidentally indexing into the middle of a grapheme cluster etc. When making a proper effort to handle these things correctly, code quickly becomes less convenient, and less readable, compared to the alternatives.
>
> It’s generally the style in Swift that correctness shouldn't be sacrificed for convenience, but when things work out well, convenience and ergonomics can be mutually reinforcing – the code is nice to use correctly, awkward to use incorrectly. For example, optionals that force you to handle nil help with correctness, but they have sugar like ?? or optional chaining to handle common patterns clearly and idiomatically, ! as a shorthand for asserting something is non-nil etc.
>
> In the middleware chain architecture that we decided on in Zewo (the other ones have something similar), it can be convenient to modify requests in the responder and have that reflect in the middleware. I think this problem is best solved with `inout` parameters rather than reference types, but that is my personal opinion.
>
>
> FWIW, this design view is also strongly held by those of us working on the Swift Standard Library. I also brought this up with several members of the Core Team and they also strongly felt that inout and value types was the general approach we should take with such types in Swift. The consensus there was that reference types really should be mostly used when identity of the value is important.
>
>
> >4. Are there problems that can't be solved with value semantics?
>
>
> I haven't found any, but I'm sure others can bring something interesting to the table.
>
>
>
> Shared mutable state is one. With an unavoidably-shared resource, like a network connection or a handle to a window on a screen, reference semantics are often what you want.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:07 PM Dan Appel <dan.appel00 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> I was unable to make the kick-off meeting for the HTTP sub-team, but I looked over the meeting notes and found some topics that I think could use some more on-the-record discussion.
>
> A few questions that I wanted to raise:
>
> 1. Do we want to use concrete types or protocols for Request/Response?
> 2. If we use concrete types, do we want value or reference semantics?
> 3. When is it more convenient to have reference semantics?
> 4. Are there problems that can't be solved with value semantics?
>
> I would like to avoid bike-shedding, and I think this can be done by providing real examples rather than just talking about the pros and cons.
> --
> Dan Appel
> --
> Dan Appel
> _______________________________________________
> swift-server-dev mailing list
> swift-server-dev at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-server-dev
> _______________________________________________
> swift-server-dev mailing list
> swift-server-dev at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-server-dev
>
>
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU_______________________________________________
> swift-server-dev mailing list
> swift-server-dev at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-server-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-server-dev mailing list
> swift-server-dev at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-server-dev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-server-dev/attachments/20161212/2a5e81b3/attachment.sig>
More information about the swift-server-dev
mailing list