Ruby

Hi Nobuyoshi,

The notion of Internal Interface is about being able to use the methods identified as internal only in the context of a given root module and all its subclasses and/or submodules. Lets call it: namespace full tree.

The namespace full tree in this context would integrate all constants of the tree defined by the namespace root and all its subnodes.

That way if we develop a new gem lets call it

gem foo

We would be able to define an Internal Interface that would only be used internally by gem foo classes and modules
and by any other gem foo extension like for instance:

gem 'foo-bar'

We have this notion of Public and Internal interface when looking at an API (Application Public Interface) in Web Services.

Web Services expose to the users a given set of methods/actions making them Public.

The remaining of the architecture is internal to the infrastructure.

In ruby libraries/packages/gems every class is available to the user.

That makes development of libraries hard because a change to the public interface of a given class may have side effects.

We may need to create a major release just because we need to change some method in one of our classes that should not be used outside of the library context.

What I aim as an architect is to allow a better defined contract between developers and users.

Having the definition of an Internal Interface the architect will have greater freedom to develop the required functionalities.

The development process may be like this:

1. Define Public Interface
2. Release version 1.0 once that Public Interface is well defined and will hardly change.
3. Reengineer the Internal Interface and add functionality to the Public Interface without breaking backwards compatibility.

This way dependencies between libraries will be much better understood.

Versioning of releases with this feature will be able to communicate in a greater detail to the users what nature of changes were made in each release.

We may then identify:

• Major release
  Third party libraries and/or applications might be broken.
  Library extensions might be broken.

  • Public Interface changes with broken backward compatibility

• Minor release
  Library extensions using internal interface features might be broken.

  • Public Interface changes with backward compatibility
  • Internal Interface changes with broken backward compatibility
  • Internal Interface changes with impact on overall behaviour
    • Performance improvements
    • New core engine
  • Internal Interface changes with backward compatibility
    • New features for extensions

• Patch (Tiny) release
  No side effects on extensions or third party libraries and/or applications.

  • Changes to private interface (private and protected methods)
  • Bugs
  • Refactoring
  • Unit test updates

With this feature the library development cycle will be much more linear.
Major releases will be in a much smaller number then nowadays.
We will get much more stable ecosystems.

My idea is to leverage ruby further in order to better fit the enterprise environment.

Happy to reply to any doubts and discuss with you this thoughts and what other alternatives may we have.

Cheers

Daniel

I would suggest opening a feature request if you feel strongly about adding internal to Ruby.

See also: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/HowToRequestFeatures

Ehh, sorry I must have missed #9992

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by namespace. Classes and modules don't belong to namespaces. Constants belong to modules, but the fact that two classes which may or may not be referenced by two constants which are namespaced in the same module does not imply any sort of relationship whatsoever between either the two classes or one of the classes and the module.

Expanding your example a bit:

module Foo; end Baz = Bar = Foo class Foo::Bar def baz puts ‘baz’ end internal :baz end class Bar::Qux def baz ::Baz::Bar.new.baz end end 

Should it work? If not, why? The modules and classes involved are the exact same ones as in your example.

I mean, what about this:

foo = Class.new bar = Class.new baz = Module.new baz.const_set(:Foo, foo) baz.const_set(:Bar, bar) quux = Module.new quux.const_set(:Goobledigook, foo) quux.const_set(:Blahdiblah, bar) baz.send(:remove_const, :Bar) module One; module Two; end end One::Two::Three = quux::Goobledigook 

Okay, now what namespace relations are there?

If I now do this:

class One::Two::Three internal def blub; end end 

Am I allowed to call foo.new.blub from a method in quux::Blahdiblah?

Hi Jörg, thank you very much for your interesting questions.

This is a subject for a wider discussion and your questions come in the right direction in my opinion.

My base view is the following example:

Fred wants to create a gem called foo.
Fred knows that he wants two methods on the interface:

Foo.bar Foo.baz 

This is all Fred aims to implement as the public interface of the foo gem for version v1.0.0.

Both Foo.bar and Foo.baz expose complex internals which Fred would like to keep isolated from outside the gem Foo namespace.

With time these internals will have an improved architecture with different modules, classes, methods, etc.

By using internal in the internal public methods Fred is confident that there is no broken backwards compatibility since no one can use the methods outside the gem namespace.

An internal method behaves:

1. Like a public method inside Foo namespace.
2. Like a private method outside Foo namespace.

So this is the logic behind the proposed implementation.

Now if Waldo does:

Bar = Foo 

Shall Bar be treated as Foo or not?

What we should not allow is something like:

module Foo class Bar def baz puts 1 end internal :baz end end ::Foo::Bar.new.baz => error: internal method being called outside ::Foo namespace 

For your presented challenges I would open the discussion to the wider community.
What are the possibilities and challenges we would face in order to implement the proposed internal access modifier?

I hope we can make it happen!
It will give us development freedom and architecture control.

Note:

I can understand we may get a degradation on performance by using internal.
Maybe we could use a flag to trigger it like we do for verbose.
With the flag off internal would behave just like public.
It would be a flag to increase levels of integrity in the code that we could use with different levels in dev, uat or production environments.
Maybe the extra flag would deserve a separate proposal by its own but makes sense to present it in this context as well in my point of view.
We have debug, verbose and warning level flags.
Why not a new (architecture integrity/performance) flag?

There is a proposal for a namespace method: Object#namespace.
The namespace method would make it viable the implementation of Module#internal and simplify a lot the code I have put in place as a proof of concept in my gem internal
If we do:

namespace_root = ::Foo::Bar.namespace.last # => ::Foo 

Then Module#internal would behave like:

1. Public method if called inside namespace_root (::Foo).
2. Private method if called outside namespace_root (::Foo).

Matthew Draper presented a feature request to extended 'protected' access modifier that comes in line with my current proposal.
Matthew presents the problem in a different angle so maybe that will make more understandable the concept of internal interfaces.

What is your opinion?

What about this use case:

module Foo; end ## # Template class # # ==== Example #  # Foo::SubClass.run(:arg1) # #=> ... class Foo::Base def initialize(arg) @arg = arg end def self.run(arg) self.new(arg).perform end public_class_method :run ## # Override abstract method def perform raise NotImplementedError end internal :perform end ## # Test subclass. #  # ==== Example # # Foo::Bar.run("Hello!") # # => My argument is Hello! class Foo::Bar < Foo::Base def perform puts "My argument is: " + @arg end internal :perform end 

Currently we need to make perform method public but it would be great if we could have the public interface showing only the singleton run method.

Sorry. The previous code was with a bug. I corrected it but here it is again:

What about this use case:

module Foo; end ## # Template class # # ==== Example #  # Foo::SubClass.run(:arg1) # #=> ... class Foo::Base def initialize(arg) @arg = arg end def self.run(arg) self.new(arg).perform end public_class_method :run ## # Override abstract method def perform raise NotImplementedError end internal :perform end ## # Test subclass. #  # ==== Example # # Foo::Bar.run("Hello!") # # => My argument is Hello! class Foo::Bar < Foo::Base def perform puts "My argument is: " + @arg end internal :perform end