Nigel's WebDAV package

Nigel Tao and Nick Cooper have been working on a new WebDAV package for the golang.org/x/net repository. The package is still in its formative stages, so this isn’t a review of the package itself.

Instead what I want to discuss is the design of one of the package’s types, and how it made me re-evaluate some of my ideas about Go package design.

The Handler type

The central type in the WebDAV package is the Handler , which I’ve reproduced below

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 type Handler struct { // FileSystem is the virtual file system. FileSystem FileSystem // LockSystem is the lock management system. LockSystem LockSystem // PropSystem is an optional property management system. If non-nil, TODO. PropSystem PropSystem // Logger is an optional error logger. If non-nil, it will be called // whenever handling a http.Request results in an error. Logger func(*http.Request, error) }

The Handler type has a ServeHTTP method so it implements the http.Handler interface. Let’s look at the start of ServeHTTP in more detail

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 func (h *Handler) ServeHTTP(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { status, err := http.StatusBadRequest, error(nil) if h.FileSystem == nil { status, err = http.StatusInternalServerError, errNoFileSystem } else if h.LockSystem == nil { status, err = http.StatusInternalServerError, errNoLockSystem } else { // preconditions succeeded, switch on method and handle request. } }

As you know, I’m passionate about the ideas of initialisation and configuration, so my first response when I read the code review was

“ h.FileSystem and h.LockSystem are mandatory, the Handler can’t operate without them, so the package shouldn’t permit the caller to create an invalid Handler “

Fortunately, I stopped myself before pressing send. To explain why, I want to walk through the ways that the WebDAV package could be changed to enforce this precondition.

A constructor you say

Go doesn’t have constructors, or destructors for that matter, but we do have the convention of a New function who’s job is to return a properly initialised value. Here is a simplified version of what I thought a webdav.NewHandler function would look like

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 type Handler struct { fs FileSystem // now private ls LockSystem // now private // more fields } func NewHandler(fs FileSystem, ls LockSystem) (*Handler, error) { if fs == nil { return nil, errNoFileSystem } if ls == nil { return nil, errNoLockSystem } return &Handler{fs: fs, ls: ls}, nil }

By making Handler ’s fields private, callers from outside the package cannot access or assign them.

This is a perfectly valid approach, especially when you need more complicated initialisation, usually involving starting some goroutines. However it does not achieve the goal we set; preventing callers from creating invalid Handler values. Consider this incorrect usage

1 http.Handle("/dav", new(webdav.Handler)) // oops

The only way to prevent this misuse would be to make the webdav.Handler type private, forcing callers to go through NewHandler , and requiring NewHandler to return a value of an unexported type – a highly questionable practice.

Let’s try interfaces

Another approach may be to have our NewHandler function return an interface value. Something like this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 // NewHandler returns a Handler that implements the WebDAV protocol. func NewHandler(fs FileSystem, ls LockSystem) (http.Handler, error) { if fs == nil { return nil, errNoFileSystem } if ls == nil { return nil, errNoLockSystem } return &Handler{FileSystem: fs, LockSystem: ls}, nil }

In this example we are very lucky that there is a pre made interface type, http.Handler that we can use, but in return we now have to document that the type of the interface is a webdav.Handler .

This solution is also not without its problems. Handler is still public, along with its fields, and to ensure that callers could not usurp NewHandler , Handler would again have to be made private, making it less discoverable and hiding the documentation attached to that type.

More fundamentally, applying this convention broadly implies that every type would also need an interface declared for the explicit purpose of hiding its fields, not its implementation – this is exactly the sort of ceremony that Go can do without.

A question of performance

Some readers may be wondering if there is a performance cost doing those two nil checks for every request. Isn’t this Handler.ServeHTTP the “inner loop” for this package ?

This package talks to clients over the network so its performance will be dominated by network transmission. Compared to that nil checks are cheap, along with slice bounds checks and interface dynamic method dispatch. Also, we know that the processor can predict that these nil checks will never be true, because if they were, the server would not be able to serve any traffic.

Simpler is better

In this post I talked about two common approaches to ensuring that types are properly initialised, but in the end I’m glad I didn’t suggest either to Nigel and Nick. I realised that their approach was better, and not just better, but simpler and more idiomatic.

Using the webdav package is beautifully simple and shows the elegance of composite literals

1 2 3 4 5 handler := webdav.Handler{ FileSystem: webdav.Dir{"/somepath"}, LockSystem: new(webdav.MemLS), // this type is still in code review } http.Handle("/dav", &handler)

What Nigel and Nick have done is deferred checking the handler value is properly initialised until the point you care about it, which in this case is the only public entry point into this type, its ServeHTTP method.

I see this pattern of deferred error checking evolving in Go code as we learn more about the language. A great example of this is evolving style is the bufio.Scanner type.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 // ReadLines reads all lines from r. func ReadLines(r io.Reader) ([]string, error) { var lines []string scanner := bufio.NewScanner(r) for scanner.Scan() { lines = append(lines, scanner.Text()) } return lines, scanner.Err() }

In this concocted example, scanner reads lines of text from r and appends them to the result. At some point scanner.Scan() will return false and the loop will exit, and it is at that point that we need to check if an error occurred. Comparing this example to one that uses bufio.Readline is left as an exercise to the reader.

My take away from this experience: it is easy to dogmatically apply ideas like construction from other languages, but this episode taught me that this should not be my default especially when simpler options are available.

Lastly, if you’re passionate about WebDAV, please get involved with the design on this package; many hands make light work.