Faye 0.8: the refactoring

I’m pleased to finally announce the release of Faye 0.8 after a few months of reorganising the 0.7 codebase to make it more modular, and splitting parts of it out into separate projects. Before I get to what’s changed, I’m going to get the API changes out of the way: this is the stuff you need to know if you’re upgrading.

I hate introducing API changes but I’m afraid these really couldn’t be avoided. They’re really configuration changes so you shouldn’t need to change a lot of code. Please get on the mailing list if you have problems.

First, if you’re running the Ruby server you need to tell it which web server you’re using. Faye now supports the Thin, Rainbows and Goliath web servers, and you need to tell the WebSocket layer which set of adapters to load. For a ‘hello world’ app this looks like this:

# config.ru
require 'faye'
Faye::WebSocket.load_adapter('thin')

app = Faye::RackAdapter.new(:mount => '/faye', :timeout => 25)

run app

Depending on whether you run your application with rackup or thin, the load_adapter call might not be strictly necessary, but better to have it in there just in case. See the Faye Ruby docs and the faye-websocket documentation on how to run your app with different Ruby servers.

Second, if you use the Redis backend, you need to install a new library and change the engine.type setting in your server. Instead of specifying the name of the engine, this field now takes a reference to the engine object. In Ruby that looks like this:

# config.ru
# First run: gem install faye-redis

require 'faye'
require 'faye/redis'

bayeux = Faye::RackAdapter.new(
  :mount   => '/',
  :timeout => 25,
  :engine  => {
    :type  => Faye::Redis,
    :host  => 'redis.example.com',
    # more options
  }
)

And on Node:

// First run: npm install faye-redis

var faye  = require('faye'),
    redis = require('faye-redis');

var bayeux = new faye.NodeAdapter({
  mount:    '/',
  timeout:  25,
  engine: {
    type:   redis,
    host:   'redis.example.com',
    // more options
  }
});

Apart from this, Faye 0.8 should be backward-compatible with previous releases.

Having got the administrivia out of the way, what’s new? Well, the main focus of the 0.8 release is modularity. Two major components of Faye – the WebSocket support and the Redis engine – have been split off into their own packages. I’ve been blogging here already about faye-websocket (rubygem, npm package), and the major work over the last few months has gone into making this a really solid WebSocket and EventSource implementation. Because of its new-found freedom outside the main Faye project, it’s been adopted by other projects, notably SockJS, Cramp and Poltergeist. This adoption, particularly from SockJS, has meant more feedback, bug fixes and performance improvements and resulted in a really solid WebSocket library that improves Faye’s performance.

This new library has had a beneficial impact on Faye’s transport layer. faye-websocket is much faster than Faye’s 0.7 WebSocket code, supports EventSource and new WebSocket features, and runs on more Ruby servers: Faye 0.7 was confined to Thin whereas it now also runs on Rainbows and Goliath. On top of this, Faye 0.8 adds a new EventSource-based transport to support Opera 11 and browsers where proxies block WebSocket, and improves how it uses WebSocket. Previously, Faye’s WebSocket transport used the same polling-based /meta/connect cycle as other transports. It was faster than HTTP, but not optimal. Faye 0.8 now breaks out of this request/response pattern and pushes messages to WebSocket and EventSource connections as soon as they arrive at the server, without returning the /meta/connect poll. This results in lower latency, particular when delivering messages at high volume.

The second major change is that the Redis engine is now a separate library, faye-redis (rubygem, npm package). This has two important benefits. First, the main Faye package no longer depends on Redis clients, and in particular the Node version no longer depends on packages with C extensions, so no compiler is needed to install it. Second, it means Faye’s backend is now totally pluggable and third parties can implement their own engines: the API is thoroughly documented for Ruby and Node. The engine is a small piece of code (for example here’s the Ruby in-memory engine) but it really defines Faye’s behaviour. This layer is not concerned with transport negotiation (HTTP, WebSocket, etc) or even the Bayeux protocol format, it just implements the messaging business logic and stores the state of the system. You can easily implement your own engine to run on top of another messaging/storage stack, or change the messaging semantics if you like. Faye has a complete set of tests you can run to check your engine – see the Ruby and Node projects for examples.

Finally, there have been a couple of changes to the client. We’ve switched from exponential-backoff to fixed-interval for trying to reconnect after the client loses its connection to the server, and this interval is configurable using the retry setting:

// Attempts to reconnect every 5 seconds
var client = new Faye.Client('http://example.com/bayeux', {
  retry: 5
});

You can also set headers for long-polling requests on the client; this is useful for talking to OAuth-protected servers, for example:

client.setHeader('Authorization', 'OAuth ' + accessToken);

And finally, there’s a new server-side setting, ping, that controls how often the server sends keep-alive data over WebSocket and EventSource connections. This data is ignored by the client, but helps keep the connection open through proxies that like to kill idle connections.

// Sends pings every 10 seconds

var bayeux = new faye.NodeAdapter({
  mount: '/bayeux',
  ping:  10
});

And that just about wraps things up for this release. Since 0.7.1, the main Faye codebase has shed over 2,000 lines of code into other projects that we can easily ship incremental updates to without affecting Faye itself. It’s more performant, leaner and more modular and I know there are already projects doing cool things with it. If you’re using Faye for interesting projects, I’d love to hear from you on the mailing list.

Organizing a project with JS.Packages

I’ve been asked by a few users of JS.Class to explain how I use it to organize projects. I’ve been meaning to write this up for quite a while, ever since we adopted it at Songkick for managing our client-side codebase. Specifically, we use JS.Packages to organize our code, and JS.Test to test it, and I’m mostly going to talk about JS.Packages here.

JS.Packages is my personal hat-throw into the ring of JavaScript module loaders. It’s designed to separate dependency metadata from source code, and be capable of loading just about anything as efficiently as possible. It works at a more abstract level than most script loaders: users specify objects they want to use, rather than scripts they want to load, allowing JS.Packages to optimize downloads for them and load modules that have their own loading strategies, all through a single interface, the JS.require() function.

As an example, I’m going to show how we at Songkick use JS.Packages within our main Rails app. We manage our JavaScript and CSS by doing as much as possible in those languages, and finding simple ways to integrate with the Rails stack. JS.Packages lets us specify where our scripts live and how they depend on each other in pure JavaScript, making this information portable. We use JS.require() to load our codebase onto static pages for running unit tests without the Rails stack, and we use jsbuild and AssetHat to package it for deployment. Nowhere in our setup do we need to manage lists of script tags or worry about load order.

The first rule of our codebase is: every class/module lives in its own file, much like how we organize our Ruby code. And this means every namespace: even if a namespace has no methods of its own but just contains other classes, we give it a file so that other files don’t have to guess whether the namespace is defined or not. For example a file containing a UI widget class might look like this:

// public/javascripts/songkick/ui/widget.js

Songkick.UI.Widget = function() {
  // ...
};

This file does not have to check whether Songkick or Songkick.UI is defined, it just assumes they are. The namespaces are each defined in their own file:

// public/javascripts/songkick.js
Songkick = {};

// public/javascripts/songkick/ui.js
Songkick.UI = {};

Notice how each major class or namespace lives in a file named after the module it contains; this makes it easier to find things while hacking and lets us take advantage of the autoload() feature in JS.Packages to keep our dependency data small. It looks redundant at first, but it helps maintain predictability as the codebase grows. It results in more files, but we bundle everything for production so we keep our code browsable without sacrificing performance. I’ll cover bundling later on.

To drive out the implementation of our UI widget, we use JS.Test to write a spec for it. I’m just going to give it some random behaviour for now to demonstrate how we get everything wired up.

// test/js/songkick/ui/widget_spec.js

Songkick.UI.WidgetSpec = JS.Test.describe("Songkick.UI.Widget", function() { with(this) {
  before(function() { with(this) {
    this.widget = new Songkick.UI.Widget("foo")
  }})

  it("returns its attributes", function() { with(this) {
    assertEqual( {name: "foo"}, widget.getAttributes() )
  }})
}})

So now we’ve got a test and some skeleton source code, how do we run the tests? First, we need a static page to load up the JS.Packages loader, our manifest (which we’ll get to in a second) and a script that runs the tests:

// test/js/browser.html

<!doctype html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
    <title>JavaScript tests</title>
  </head>
  <body>

    <script type="text/javascript">ROOT = '../..'</script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="../../vendor/jsclass/min/loader.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="../../public/javascripts/manifest.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="./runner.js"></script>

  </body>
</html>

The file runner.js should be very simple: ideally we just want to load Songkick.UI.WidgetSpec and run it:

// test/js/runner.js

// Don't cache files during tests
JS.cacheBust = true;

JS.require('JS.Test', function() {

  JS.require(
    'Songkick.UI.WidgetSpec',
    // more specs as the app grows...
    function() { JS.Test.autorun() });
});

The final missing piece is the manifest, the file that says where our files are stored and how they depend on each other. Let’s start with a manifest that uses autoload() to specify all our scripts’ locations; I’ll present the code and explain what each line does.

// public/javascripts/manifest.js

JS.Packages(function() { with(this) {
  var ROOT = JS.ENV.ROOT || '.'

  autoload(/^(.*)Spec$/,     {from: ROOT + '/test/js', require: '$1'});
  autoload(/^(.*)\.[^\.]+$/, {from: ROOT + '/public/javascripts', require: '$1'});
  autoload(/^(.*)$/,         {from: ROOT + '/public/javascripts'});
}});

The ROOT setting simply lets us override root directory for the manifest, as we do on our test page. After that, we have three autoload() statements. When you call JS.require() with an object that’s not been explicitly configured, the autoload() rules are examined in order until a match for the name is found.

The first rule says that object names matching /^(.*)Spec$/ (that is, test files) should be loaded from the test/js directory. For example, Songkick.UI.WidgetSpec should be found in test/js/songkick/ui/widget_spec.js. The require: '$1' means that the object depends on the object captured by the regex, so Songkick.UI.WidgetSpec requires Songkick.UI.Widget to be loaded first, as you’d expect.

The second rule makes sure that the containing namespace for any object is loaded before the object itself. For example, it makes sure Songkick.UI is loaded before Songkick.UI.Widget, and Songkick before Songkick.UI. The regex captures everything up to the final . in the name, and makes sure it’s loaded using require: '$1'.

The third rule is a catch-all: any object not matched by the above rules should be loaded from public/javascripts. Because of the preceeding rule, this only matches root objects, i.e. it matches Songkick but not Songkick.UI. Taken together, these rules say: load all objects from public/javascripts, and make sure any containing namespaces are loaded first.

Let’s implement the code needed to make the test pass. We’re going to use jQuery to do some trivial operation; the details aren’t important but it causes a dependency problem that I’ll illustrate next.

// public/javascripts/songkick/ui/widget.js

Songkick.UI.Widget = function(name) {
  this._name = name;
};

Songkick.UI.Widget.prototype.getAttributes = function() {
  return jQuery.extend({}, {name: this._name});
};

If you open the page test/js/browser.html, you’ll see an error:

The test doesn’t work because jQuery is not loaded; this means part of our codebase depends on it but JS.Packages doesn’t know that. Remember runner.js just requires Songkick.UI.WidgetSpec? We can use jsbuild to see which files get loaded when we require this object. (jsbuild is a command-line tool I wrote after an internal project at Amazon, that was using JS.Class, decided they needed to pre-compile their code for static analysis rather than loading it dynamically at runtime. You can install it by running npm install -g jsclass.)

$ jsbuild -m public/javascripts/manifest.js -o paths Songkick.UI.WidgetSpec
public/javascripts/songkick.js
public/javascripts/songkick/ui.js
public/javascripts/songkick/ui/widget.js
test/js/songkick/ui/widget_spec.js

As expected, it loads the containing namespaces, the Widget class, and the spec, in that order. But the Widget class depends on jQuery, so we need to tell JS.Packages about this. However, rather than adding it as a dependency to every UI module in our application, we can use a naming convention trick: all our UI modules require Songkick.UI to be loaded first, so we can make everything in that namespace depend on jQuery but making the namespace itself depend on jQuery. We update our manifest like so:

// public/javascripts/manifest.js

JS.Packages(function() { with(this) {
  var ROOT = JS.ENV.ROOT || '.';

  file('https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.1/jquery.min.js')
    .provides('jQuery', '$');

  autoload(/^(.*)Spec$/,     {from: ROOT + '/test/js', require: '$1'});
  autoload(/^(.*)\.[^\.]+$/, {from: ROOT + '/public/javascripts', require: '$1'});
  autoload(/^(.*)$/,         {from: ROOT + '/public/javascripts'});

  pkg('Songkick.UI').requires('jQuery');
}});

Running jsbuild again shows jQuery will be loaded, and if you reload the tests now they will pass:

$ jsbuild -m public/javascripts/manifest.js -o paths Songkick.UI.WidgetSpec
public/javascripts/songkick.js

https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.1/jquery.min.js

public/javascripts/songkick/ui.js
public/javascripts/songkick/ui/widget.js
test/js/songkick/ui/widget_spec.js

So we’ve now got a working UI widget, and we can use exactly the same approach to load it in our Rails app: load the JS.Packages library and our manifest, and call JS.require('Songkick.UI.Widget'). But in production, we’d rather not be downloading all those tiny little files one at a time, it’s much more efficient to bundle them into one file.

To bundle our JavaScript and CSS for Rails, we use AssetHat, or rather a fork we made to tweak a few things. Our fork notwithstanding, AssetHat is the closest of the handful of Rails packaging solutions we tried that did everything we needed, and I highly recommend it.

AssetHat uses a file called config/assets.yml, in which you list all the bundles you want and which files should go in each section. But I’d rather specify which objects I want in each bundle; we already have tooling that figures out which files we need and in what order so I’d rather not duplicate that information. But fortunately, AssetHat lets you put ERB in your config, and we use this to shell out to jsbuild to construct our bundles for us.

First, we write a jsbuild bundles file that says which objects our application needs. We exclude jQuery from the bundle because we’ll probably load that from Google’s CDN.

// config/bundles.json
{
  "app" : {
    "exclude" : [ "jQuery" ],
    "include" : [
      "Songkick.UI.Widget"
    ]
  }
}

This is a minimal format that’s close to what the application developer works with: objects. It’s easy to figure out which objects your app needs, less simple to make sure you only load the files you need and get them in the right order, in both your test pages and your application code. We can use jsbuild to tell us which files will go into this bundle:

$ jsbuild -m public/javascripts/manifest.js -b config/bundles.json -o paths app
public/javascripts/songkick.js
public/javascripts/songkick/ui.js
public/javascripts/songkick/ui/widget.js

Now all we need to do is pipe this information into AssetHat. This is easily done with a little ERB magic:

// config/assets.yml
# ...
js:
  <%  def js_bundles
        JSON.parse(File.read('config/bundles.json')).keys
      end

      def paths_for_js_bundle(name)
        jsbuild = 'jsbuild -m public/javascripts/manifest.js -b config/bundles.json'
        `#{jsbuild} -o paths -d public/javascripts #{name}`.split("\n")
      end
  %>

  bundles:
  <% js_bundles.each do |name| %>
    <%= name %>:
    <% paths_for_js_bundle(name).each do |path| %>
      - <%= path %>
    <% end %>
  <% end %>

Running the minification task takes the bundles we’ve defined in bundles.json and packages them for us:

$ rake asset_hat:minify
Minifying CSS/JS...

 Wrote JS bundle: public/javascripts/bundles/app.min.js
        contains: public/javascripts/songkick.js
        contains: public/javascripts/songkick/ui.js
        contains: public/javascripts/songkick/ui/widget.js
        MINIFIED: 14.4% (Engine: jsmin)

This bundle can now be loaded in your Rails views very easily:

<%= include_js :bundle => 'app' %>

This will render script tags for each individual file in the bundle during development, and a single script tag containing all the code in production. (You may have to disable the asset pipeline in recent Rails versions to make this work.)

So that’s our JavaScript strategy. As I said earlier, the core concern is to express dependency information in one place, away from the source code, in a portable format that can be used just as easily in a static web page as in your production web framework. Using autoload() and some simple naming conventions, you can get all these benefits while keeping the configuration very small indeed.

But wait, there’s more!

As a demonstration of how valuable it is to have portable dependency data and tests, consider the situation where we now want to run tests from the command line, or during our CI process. We can load the exact same files we load in the browser, plus a little stubbing of the jQuery API, and make our tests run on Node:

// test/js/node.js

require('jsclass');
require('../../public/javascripts/manifest');

JS.ENV.jQuery = {
  extend: function(a, b) {
    for (var k in b) a[k] = b[k];
    return a;
  }
};

JS.ENV.$ = JS.ENV.jQuery;

require('./runner');

And lo and behold, our tests run:

$ node test/js/node.js
Loaded suite Songkick.UI.Widget

Started
.
Finished in 0.003 seconds
1 tests, 1 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors

Similarly, we can write a quick PhantomJS script to parse the log messages that JS.Test emits:

// test/js/phantom.js

var page = new WebPage();

page.onConsoleMessage = function(message) {
  try {
    var result = JSON.parse(message).jstest;
    if ('total' in result && 'fail' in result) {
      console.log(message);
      var status = (!result.fail && !result.error) ? 0 : 1;
      phantom.exit(status);
    }
  } catch (e) {}
};

page.open('test/js/browser.html');

We can now run our tests on a real WebKit instance from the command line:

$ phantomjs test/js/phantom.js
{"jstest":{"fail":0,"error":0,"total":1}}

One nice side-effect of doing as much of this as possible in JavaScript is that it improves your API design and makes you decouple your JS from your server-side stack; if it can’t be done through HTML and JavaScript, your code doesn’t do it. This makes it easy to keep your code portable, making it easier to reuse across applications with different server-side stacks.

The cost of privacy

I have a bone to pick with a certain oddly prevalent piece of received wisdom in the JavaScript community. I’ve been meaning to rant about this properly for what seems like geologic amounts of time, but I finally hit a concrete example today that both broke the camel’s back and gave me something I could actually illustrate my point with.

Let’s talk about private variables, or more precisely, defining API methods inside a closure, giving them privileged access to data that code outside the closure cannot see. This is used in several JavaScript design patterns, for example when writing constructors or using the module pattern:

// Defining a constructor
var Foo = function() {
  var privateData = {hello: 'world', etc: 'etc'};

  this.publicMethod = function(key) {
    return privateData[key];
  };
};

// Defining a single object
var Bar = (function() {
  var privateData = {hello: 'world', etc: 'etc'};

  return {
    publicMethod: function(key) {
      return privateData[key];
    }
  };
})();

The reason people use this pattern, in fact the only reason for doing so as far as I can tell, is encapsulation. They want to keep the internal state of something private, so that access to it is predictable and it can’t put the object in a weird or inconsistent state, or leak implementation details to consumers of the API. These are all laudable design goals.

However, encapsulation does not need to be rigorously enforced by the machine, and using this style has all sorts of annoying costs that I’ll get to in just a second. Encapsulation is something you get by deliberately designing interfaces and architectures, by communicating with your team/users, and through documentation and tests. Trying to enforce it in code shows a level of paranoia that isn’t necessary in most situations, and this code style has plenty of costs that grossly offset the minimal encapsulation benefit it provides.

So, I guess I should show you what I’m talking about. Okay, hands up who can read the jQuery.Deferred documentation and then tell me what this code does?

var DelayedTask = function() {
  jQuery.Deferred.call(this);
};
DelayedTask.prototype = new jQuery.Deferred();

var task = new DelayedTask();
task.done(function(value) { console.log('Done!', value) });

task.resolve('the value');

var again = new DelayedTask();
again.done(function(value) { console.log('Again!', value) });

I asked this on Twitter earlier and got one correct response. This code prints the following:

Done! the value
Again! the value

But from the source code, what it seems to be trying to do is as follows:

  • Create a subclass of jQuery.Deferred
  • Instantiate a copy of the subclass, and add a callback to it
  • Resolve the instance, invoking the callback
  • Create a second instance of the subclass and add a callback to it
  • Do not resolve the second instance

But it does not do this: the second instance is somehow already resolved, and the callback we add is unexpectedly invoked. What’s going on?

Well, let’s examine what we expect to happen when we try to subclass in JavaScript:

var DelayedTask = function() {
  jQuery.Deferred.call(this);
};
DelayedTask.prototype = new jQuery.Deferred();

We assign the prototype of our subclass to an instance of the superclass, putting all its API methods in our subclass’s prototype. But this not only puts the superclass’s methods into our prototype, it also puts the object’s state in there, so in our constructor we call jQuery.Deferred.call(this). This applies the superclass’s constructor function to our new instance, setting up a fresh copy of any state the object might need.

So why doesn’t this work? Well it turns out that inside the jQuery.Deferred function you’ll find code that essentially does this:

jQuery.Deferred = function() {
  var doneCallbacks = [],
      failCallbacks = [],
      // more private state

  var done = function(callback) {
    doneCallbacks.push(callback);
  };

  var fail = function(callback) {
    failCallbacks.push(callback);
  };

  return {
    done: done,
    fail: fail,
    // more API methods
  };
};

So now we see what’s really going on: jQuery.Deferred, despite its capitalized name and the docs’ instruction to invoke it with new, is not a constructor. It’s a normal function that creates and returns an object, rather than acting on the object created by new. Its methods are not stored in a prototype, they are created anew every time you create a deferred object. As such they are bound to the private data inside the Deferred closure, and cannot be reused and applied to other objects, such as objects that try to inherit this API. It also means that calling jQuery.Deferred.call(this) in our constructor is pointless, since it just returns a new object and does not modify this at all.

This concept of binding is important. All JavaScript function invocations have an implicit argument: this. It refers to the receiving object if the function is called as a method (i.e. o in o.m()) or can be set explicitly using the first argument to call() or apply(). Being able to invoke a method against any object is part of what makes them useful; a single function can be used by all the objects in a class and give different output depending on each object’s state. A function that does not use this to refer to state, but instead refers to variables inside a closure, can only act on that data; if you want to reuse its behaviour you have to reimplement it or manually delegate to it.

Manual delegation means that in order to implement a ‘subtype’, we keep an instance of the supertype as an instance variable and reimplement its API, delegating calls to the stored object.

var DelayedTask = function() {
  this._deferred = new jQuery.Deferred();
};

DelayedTask.prototype.always = function() {
  this._deferred.always.apply(this._deferred, arguments);
  return this;
};

// 17 more method definitions

One correspondent on Twitter suggested I do this to dynamically inherit the jQuery API:

var DelayedTask = function() {
  jQuery.extend(this, new jQuery.Deferred());
};

This makes a new instance of the superclass, and copies its API onto the subclass instance. This avoids the problem of manual delegation, but you just introduced four new problems:

  • It assumes the methods are correctly bound to new jQuery.Deferred(), so they will work correctly if invoked as methods on another object. This happens to be true in our case but it’s a risky assumption to make about all objects.
  • These methods will return a reference to the jQuery.Deferred instance, rather than the DelayedTask object, breaking an abstraction boundary.
  • for/in loops are slow; object creation now takes O(N) time where N is the size of its API.
  • Doing this will clobber any methods you define in your prototype, so if you want to override any methods you have to put them in the constructor.

So we’ve shown that defining your methods in the constructor, rather than in the prototype, hurts reusability and increases maintenance effort, especially in such a dynamic, malleable language as JavaScript. It also makes code harder to understand: if I have to read the whole bloated body of a function to figure out that it’s not really a constructor, because it explicitly returns an object after defining a ton of methods, that’s a maintenance problem. Here’s several things I expect to be true if you name a function using an uppercase first letter:

  • It must be invoked using new to function correctly
  • The object returned by new Foo() gives true for object instanceof Foo
  • It can be subclassed easily using the technique shown above
  • Its public API can be seen by inspecting its prototype

One of JavaScript’s key problems is that it’s not semantically rich enough to accurately convey the author’s intent. This can largely be solved using libraries and consistent style, but any time you need to read to the end of a function (including all possible early exits) to figure out if it’s really a constructor or not, that causes maintenance problems.

I’ve shown that it causes reusability problems and shared state, and that it makes code harder to understand, but if I know JavaScript programmers you’re probably not convinced. Okay, let’s try science:

require('jsclass');
JS.require('JS.Benchmark');

var Foo = function() {};
Foo.prototype.method = function() {};

var Bar = function() {
  this.method = function() {};
};

JS.Benchmark.measure('prototype', 1000000, {
  test: function() { new Foo() }
});

JS.Benchmark.measure('constructor', 1000000, {
  test: function() { new Bar() }
});

We have two classes: one defines a method on its prototype, and the other defines it inside its constructor. Let’s see how they perform:

$ node test.js
 BENCHMARK [47ms +/- 8%] prototype
 BENCHMARK [265ms +/- 26%] constructor

(Another pet peeve: benchmarks with no statistical error margins.)

Defining the API inside the constructor – just one no-op method – is substantially slower than if the method is defined on the prototype. Every time you invoke Bar, it has to construct its entire API from scratch, instead of simply setting a pointer to the prototype to inherit methods. It also uses more memory: all those function objects aren’t free, and are more likely to leak memory since they’re inside a closure. As the API gets bigger, this problem only gets worse.

Defining methods this way vastly increases the runtime of constructors, increases memory use, and forces manual delegation, adding an extra function dispatch to every method call in the subclass. JavaScript function calls are expensive: two of the best ways to improve the performance of JavaScript code are to inline function calls, and make constructors cheaper (a third being to aggressively remove loops). The original version of Sylvester defined methods in its constructors, and the first big performance win involved moving to prototypes. One of the factors that made faye-websocket much faster was removing unnecessary function calls and loops.

As a sweet bonus, if your instances all share the same copy of their methods, you can do useful things like test coverage analysis, which is impossible if every instance gets a fresh set of methods.

Yes, I know most of the time object creation and function calls do not dominate the runtime of an application, but when they do, you will wish you’d written your code in a style less likely to introduce performance problems. Writing code with prototypes is no more costly than using closures in terms of development effort, and avoids all the problems I’ve listed above, and I like sticking to habits that result in less maintenance work.

If you really want privacy, you need to ask yourself these questions. First, is your API actually guaranteeing privacy? It’s easy to let one little object reference slip out through an API and your whole privacy claim is blown. Second, is it worth all the above costs? And third, can you better communicate the design intent of your code without incurring these costs? For example, many people prefix ‘private’ fields with an underscore to signal you shouldn’t call them. I go one step further and compress my code using Packer, which obfuscates these underscored names. You can still reuse my methods because they’re not bound to private state, but it’s very clear which methods are public and which aren’t. I’m not going to stop you using them, but the risk is very clearly stated.

Finally consider the real reason we’ve been told global variables are evil, and we should encapsulate things are much as possible. Global variables are evil because they are an example of implicit shared state. This is definitely something to avoid, but you need to know it’s this you’re avoiding, and not global variables per se. The methods in the jQuery.Deferred API still have an implicit shared state problem that in some sense is worse than the global variable problem: the user cannot completely determine the function’s output from its inputs, because the user cannot change the object the function acts upon. The function’s behaviour is bound to state that the user cannot see or replace.

CommonJS doesn’t really solve this problem either, it just moves it to the filesystem so multiple versions of a library can co-exist and each module can get its own copies of its dependencies. (I’d argue this a waste of memory and start-up time for very little reward.) You still have a global shared namespace (both in the filesystem and the JavaScript runtime), and you can still change the public API of a CommonJS module, just as you can for anything defined using the module pattern. There’s only so far you can go in locking down your code, at some point some of it has to walk out into the mean wide world and interact with other programs. Deal with it, and quit punishing your users with bad design decisions.

faye-websocket 0.3: EventSource support, and two more Ruby servers

The latest iteration of faye-websocket has just been released for Ruby and Node, probably the last release before I get back to making progress on Faye itself. It contains two major new features: EventSource support, and support for the Rainbows and Goliath web servers for the Ruby version.

EventSource is a server-push protocol that’s supported by many modern browsers. On the client side, you open a connection and listen for messages:

var es = new EventSource('http://example.com/events');
es.onmessage = function(event) {
  // process event.data
};

This sends a GET request with Content-Type: text/event-stream to the server and holds the connection open, and the server can then send messages to the client via a streaming HTTP response. It’s a one-way connection so the client cannot send messages to the server over this connection; it must use separate HTTP requests. However, EventSource uses a much simpler protocol than WebSocket, and looks more like ‘normal’ HTTP so it has less trouble getting through proxies.

On the server side, supporting this requires a lot of the same code as WebSocket, and I might use it in Faye later on, so I decided to add support for it in faye-websocket. In your Rack app, you can now easily handle EventSource connections using an API similar to WebSocket:

require 'faye/websocket'

App = lambda do |env|
  if Faye::EventSource.eventsource?(env)
    es = Faye::EventSource.new(env)

    # Periodically send messages
    loop = EM.add_periodic_timer(1) { es.send('Hello') }

    es.onclose = lambda do |event|
      EM.cancel_timer(loop)
      es = nil
    end

    # Async Rack response
    es.rack_response

  else
    # Normal HTTP
    [200, {'Content-Type' => 'text/plain'}, ['Hello']]
  end
end

Just like WebSocket, EventSource is designed as a convenient wrapper around the Rack environment and underlying TCP connection that deals with the wire protocol and connection details for you. It tries not to make any assumptions or force constraints on your application design. There are a lot of WebSocket libraries around whose interfaces look more like Rails controllers; black-box Rack components or full-stack servers that hide the socket object and force you respond to WebSockets on one endpoint, and normal HTTP on another. Faye needs to be able to speak many different transport protocols over a single endpoint, which is why this library is designed to be usable inside any Rack adapter while leaving routing decisions up to you.

The benefit of interacting with the sockets as first-class objects is that you can pass them to other parts of your application, which can deal with them as a simple abstraction. For example, if your application just needs to push data to the client, as many WebSocket apps do, you can maintain a socket pool full of objects that respond to send(). When the application wants to push data, it selects the right connection and calls send() on it, without worrying whether it’s a WebSocket or EventSource connection. This gives you some flexibility around which transport your client uses.

The Node API to this is very similar and both are fully documented on GitHub: Ruby docs, Node docs.

The final big change is that the Ruby version now works under a broader range of web servers; it now supports Rack apps running under Thin, Rainbows and Goliath. Hopefully, providing a portable socket implementation that’s easy to drop into any Rack app will open up possibilities for more portable async app frameworks, decoupling the application from the network transport just as Rack did for HTTP. faye-websocket extracted its initial Thin and Rainbows adapters from the Cramp project, and there’s a chance Cramp can now remove its WebSocket code and rely on a simple abstraction for binding the app framework to the web.

As usual, download from Rubygems and npm, and get on the Faye mailing list if you have problems.

Black-box criteria

Tim Bray recently published an article called Type-System Criteria, in which he makes the argument that Java, or statically-typed languages in general, is better-suited to mobile development than the dynamically-typed languages that are more prevalent in web development circles. The reason he gives for this boils down to API surface size:

Another observation that I think is partially but not entirely a consequence of API scale is testing difficulty. In my experience it’s pretty easy and straightforward to unit-test Web Apps. There aren’t that many APIs to mock out, and at the end of the day, these things take data in off the wire and emit other data down the wire and are thus tractable to black-box, in whole or in part.

On the other hand, I’ve found that testing mobile apps is a major pain in the ass. I think the big reason is all those APIs. Your average method in a mobile app responds to an event and twiddles APIs in the mobile framework. If you test at all completely you end up with this huge tangle of mocks that pretty soon start getting in the way of seeing what’s actually going on.

The argument goes that, as the API surface you need to integrate with becomes larger, so static type systems become more attractive. I don’t disagree, in part because I don’t have nearly enough experience with static languages to have an informed opinion on them. But at a gut level I believe this to be true, in fact I’d be willing to bet that a majority of the bugs I’ve written while refactoring software could have been caught by a static type checker (and not even a very sophisticated one, at that).

But the excerpt I quoted above contains a code smell, and it points to another reason why mobile development is difficult. It’s not the size of the APIs that’s the big problem: it’s the nature of the application.

Web application servers are comparatively easy to test because the tests can be written by talking to an encapsulated black box. You throw a request (or several) at a web server, you read what comes back, and check it looks like what you expected. On the other hand, testing web application clients is much more complex: instead of doing simple call/response testing, you have to initiate events within the application’s environment, and then monitor changes to that environment that you expect the events to cause. The core difference here is that client-side programs tend to be what I’m going to refer to as ‘stateful user interfaces’, and mobile (and desktop) software falls into the same category.

What exactly do I mean by ‘stateful user interface’? When you call a web server, you don’t need to hold onto any state on your end: you ask the server a question by sending it a request, and it sends back a fully-formed, self-contained response. When you’ve checked that response, you throw it away and start the next test. In contrast, stateful user interfaces are long-running processes in which incremental changes are made to what the user sees. Instead of getting a fresh new page, just a part of the view is changed, or a sound is emitted, or a notification generated, or a vibration initiated. The programming paradigm in a server environment emphasises call/response, statelessness and immutability; in a client environment you have side effects, state and incremental change. Testing in such environments is hard.

I think this, rather than large API surface, is the real problem. Large API surfaces are only a problem if your application code talks to them directly, and this is much more common in side-effect-heavy applications. Unit tests in these environments tend to be messy for several reasons:

  • Application code responds to events triggered by the host environment
  • Business logic produces its output by modifying the host environment rather than returning values
  • It is hard or impossible to reset the environment to a clean state between tests

The third reason is a particular problem when unit testing client-side JavaScript, and I’ve seen plenty of tests where the state of the page or the implementation of event listeners is such that it becomes very difficult to keep each test independent of the others. You also have the problem that anything that causes a page refresh will cause your test runner to vanish. (I wrote about this exact problem in Refactoring towards testable JavaScript.)

So if side-effect-heavy programs cause large API surfaces to be a problem, what should we do about it? The answer comes down to something I think of as ‘avoiding framework-isms’. This means that any time you have a framework or host environment in which user input or third-party code drives your application, the sooner you can dispatch to something you control the better. The classic example of this is the ‘fat model, skinny controller’ mantra popular in the Rails community: rather than dump lots of code in a controller that’s only invoked by the host server and framework, turn the request into calls to models. This way, the bulk of the logic is in objects that you control the interface to, and that are easy to create and manipulate, properties that also make them easy to test.

In client-side JavaScript and other stateful user interfaces, this means keeping event listeners small. Ideally an event listener should extract all the necessary data from the event and the current application state, and use this to make a black-box call to a module containing the real business logic. It means making sure orthogonal components of a user interface do not talk to each other directly, but publish data changes via a message bus. And it means writing business logic that returns results rather than causes side-effects; the side-effects again being dealt with by thin bindings to the host environment.

I’ll finish up with a small but illustrative example. Say you’re writing a WebSocket implementation, and the protocol mandates that when you call socket.send('Hello, world!') then the bytes 81 8d ed a3 88 c3 a5 c6 e4 af 82 8f a8 b4 82 d1 e4 a7 cc should be written to the TCP socket. You could write a test for it by mocking out the whole network stack (which I’ve probably glossed over considerably here):

describe WebSocket do
  before do
    @tcp_socket = mock('TCP socket')
    TCP.should_receive(:connect).with('example.com', 80).and_return @tcp_socket
    @web_socket = WebSocket.new('ws://example.com/')
  end

  it "writes a message to the socket" do
    @tcp_socket.should_receive(:write).with [0x81, 0x8d, 0xed, 0xa3, 0x88, 0xc3, 0xa5, 0xc6, 0xe4, 0xaf, 0x82, 0x8f, 0xa8, 0xb4, 0x82, 0xd1, 0xe4, 0xa7, 0xcc]
    @web_socket.send("Hello, world!")
  end

  # More mock-based protocol tests...
end

Or you could test it by implementing a pure function that turns text into WebSocket frames, leaving the code that actually deals with networking doing only that and nothing else:

describe WebSocket::Parser do
  before do
    @parser = WebSocket::Parser.new
  end

  it "turns text into message frames" do
    @parser.frame("Hello, world!").should == [0x81, 0x8d, 0xed, 0xa3, 0x88, 0xc3, 0xa5, 0xc6, 0xe4, 0xaf, 0x82, 0x8f, 0xa8, 0xb4, 0x82, 0xd1, 0xe4, 0xa7, 0xcc]
  end

  # More protocol implementation tests...
end

describe WebSocket do
  before do
    @tcp_socket = mock('TCP socket')
    TCP.should_receive(:connect).with('example.com', 80).and_return @tcp_socket

    @parser = mock('parser')
    WebSocket::Parser.should_receive(:new).and_return @parser

    @web_socket = WebSocket.new('ws://example.com/')
  end

  it "converts text to frames and sends them" do
    frame = mock('frame')
    @parser.should_receive(:frame).with("Hello, world!").and_return frame
    @tcp_socket.should_receive(:write).with(frame)
    @web_socket.send("Hello, world!")
  end

  # And we're done here
end

This separates the business logic (implementing the WebSocket protocol) away from the side effects to the host environment (writing to network connections). This results in code that’s more modular, much easier to test, and less coupled to the API surface of the host environment. If a static type system helps you with that then have at it, but recognize when it’s a symptom of a deeper problem.

faye-websocket 0.2: big performance boost, and subprotocol support

I’ve just released the 0.2 version of faye-websocket for Ruby and Node. This release benefits from the fact that the SockJS project is now using faye-websocket to handle WebSocket connections; my thanks to them for finding the performance bugs and missing features that went into making this release.

The biggest difference in this release is performance. In 0.1, the Node version had a rather interesting performance profile and was pretty slow. We’ve now made a bunch of optimisations that give it a more predictable performance profile across message sizes, and increases performance across the range by orders of magnitude.

The following benchmarks were produced using the ws client to send 1000 messages of various sizes to an echo server:

Benchmarks for Node 0.6.6

On Ruby, the change is not so dramatic but for most message sizes performance is improved by at least a factor of 2. This is in part achieved by writing part of the parser in C; this being my first Ruby C extension there may be problems with it so please get on the mailing list if you find any.

Benchmarks for Ruby 1.9.3

There is one new feature in the form of Sec-WebSocket-Protocol support. With the latest WebSocket protocol, the one currently shipping in Chrome and Firefox, you can specify which application protocol(s) you want to use over the socket, for example:

// client-side
var ws = new WebSocket('ws://example.com/', ['irc', 'xmpp']);

On the server side, you can specify which protocols the server supports and the first of these that matches a protocol supported by the client will be selected and sent back to the client as part of the handshake.

// server-side
var ws = new WebSocket(request, socket, head, ['bayeux', 'irc']);
ws.protocol // -> 'irc'

I’m really pleased with the progress on this project since decoupling it from Faye, and stoked that SockJS has adopted it. They’ve helped me improve things a great deal just in the last few days and it’s great to know these changes will go into making Faye faster.

Announcing faye-websocket, a standards-compliant WebSocket library

While announcing last week’s release of Faye 0.7, I mentioned a couple of things: first, Faye now exposes its WebSocket APIs for everyone to use, and second that I planned to extract some components in order to slim Faye down for the 0.8 release.

Well the first step in that process is now done, and faye-websocket packages are now available for Node and Ruby, installable using npm install faye-websocket and gem install faye-websocket respectively. This process has already shrunk the Faye codebase by over 2,300 LOC but I suppose you’re still wondering why we need another WebSocket library.

It was never my intention to turn Faye into a plain-WebSocket project. I just implemented enough of the protocol to get Faye working, and left it at that. But recently I’ve taken a look around at the other packages for both Node and Ruby, and it turns out pretty much all of them suffer from at least one of the following problems:

The first is a simple matter of maintenance; I could contribute patches to projects to make them work. And it turns out you can’t take a piecemeal approach to implementing wire protocols, you need to deal with whatever might come your way. This is the Internet, after all. I found several libraries where sending them totally valid WebSocket data causes them to crash, simply because they are incomplete.

The second is somewhat trickier, depending on the nature of the project. Some projects are simple WebSocket implementations. Some are transport abstractions aiming to provide a socket-like interface on top of other protocols. And some are full-blown messaging systems with semantics over and above those provided by WebSockets. Faye falls into the latter camp, although its WebSocket code has always been decoupled from the rest of the codebase.

The third is harder to fix, though. If you change the API for a project, you affect all its users. Its author probably has reasons for the API they picked, reasons you weren’t privy to when examining potential use cases. Patches that change the user-facing API of a library are much less likely to be accepted.

But the problem posed by non-standard APIs is, to me, quite serious. The Web Standards movement came about because web developers wanted to write portable code, and have a reasonable expectation of that code working when delivered to users. The WebSocket API is part of that same effort, to provide Web authors with standard interfaces to code against in order to produce portable software. As I have ranted about at length before, ignorance of code portability constitutes a missed opportunity for anyone developing Node programs.

Every time somebody invents a new API for a standard piece of Web infrastructure, they make everyone else’s code less portable. The aim with faye-websocket is to keep the standard WebSocket API so that code developed for the browser can be reused on the server. For example, the Faye pub/sub messaging client uses a ‘transport’ object to send messages to the server; there’s a transport based on XMLHttpRequest, one based on JSON-P, one based on Node’s HTTP library, and one based on WebSockets. If using an HTTP transport, one must pick whether to use XMLHttpRequest or Node HTTP, based on the environment. With WebSockets, we can reuse the same transport class on the server and in the browser, because Faye’s WebSockets have the same API you get in the browser. This means less code to write, and more code you can automatically test from the command line.

And this doesn’t just apply to WebSocket clients. After the handshake, the WebSocket protocol is symmetric: both peers can send and receive messages with the same protocol operating in both directions. It seems to me that any code based on WebSockets ought to be equally happy handling a server-side connection or a client-side one, since both ends of the connection have exactly the same capabilities. For this reason, faye-websocket wraps server-side connections with the standard API:

var WebSocket = require('faye-websocket'),
    http      = require('http'),
    server    = http.createServer();

server.addListener('upgrade', function(request, socket, head) {
  var ws = new WebSocket(request, socket, head);

  ws.onmessage = function(event) {
    ws.send(event.data);
  };

  ws.onclose = function(event) {
    console.log('close', event.code, event.reason);
    ws = null;
  };
});

server.listen(8000);

Server-side connections transparently select between draft-75, draft-76 or hybi-07-compatible protocols and handle text, binary, ping/pong, close and fragmented messages. The client is hybi-08, but has been tested up to version 17.

Of course, nothing is ever perfect on the first release but faye-websocket does have one of the most complete protocol implementations around, and I’d like to see more implementations adopt the standard API. The standard interfaces might not be to your taste, but they benefit the ecosystem by giving everyone a predictable playing field. If you maintain a WebSocket project, please test it using the Autobahn test suite (here are Faye’s server and client results) and consider exposing the standard API to your users.

Faye 0.7: new event APIs and an open WebSocket stack

I’m very excited to announce the release of Faye 0.7, available now through gem and npm. This release focuses on two main areas: new event APIs for hooking into the framework, and a polished stand-alone WebSocket implementation.

Let’s deal with the new APIs first. The main one is an API for listening to what’s going on inside the engine. People have historically used extensions for various sorts of monitoring but there are certain events extensions can’t catch. For example, when a client session ends due to inactivity rather than because the client sent a /meta/disconnect message, there’s no way to detect that. Well now you can:

var bayeux = new Faye.NodeAdapter({mount: '/faye', timeout: 45});

bayeux.bind('disconnect', function(clientId) {
  // event listener logic
});

There’s a complete API for listening to all the major events in Faye’s pub/sub model, and I encourage you to use it over extensions if all you want is a little monitoring.

The second new event API is on the client side. Faye will always attempt to reconnect for you if the network connection is dropped, but often it’s useful to signal the connection loss to the user. You can now do this using these events on the client:

client.bind('transport:down', function() {
  // Fires when the connection is lost
});
client.bind('transport:up', function() {
  // Fires when the connection is established
});

You don’t need to reconnect the client yourself, these events are just there to notify you of what’s going on. And to give you even more feedback, publish() now supports the same Deferrable API as subscribe().

Now onto the WebSocket changes. The first of which is that Faye now includes a WebSocket client, and will use this instead of HTTP for server-side clients. The server-side HTTP transports now support cookies, and all transports support SSL. The WebSocket stack has received a lot of bug fixes based on the Autobahn test suite, and is now one of the most complete WebSocket implementations available for Node or Ruby. (Want proof? Here’s the server and client test report.)

Faye’s WebSocket stack also has the advantage of having been reasonably decoupled from the rest of the codebase since it was first introduced in version 0.5, and now I’ve taken the decision to open it up for everyone to use. It makes adding WebSocket support to existing Node and Rack apps very easy indeed; you can drop sockets right into your existing application and they expose the same API you use in the browser:

var http = require('http'),
    faye = require('faye');

var server = http.createServer();

server.addListener('upgrade', function(request, socket, head) {
  var ws = new faye.WebSocket(request, socket, head);

  ws.onmessage = function(event) {
    ws.send(event.data);
  };

  ws.onclose = function(event) {
    console.log('close', event.code, event.reason);
    ws = null;
  };
});

server.listen(8000);

The sockets implement the standard WebSocket API on both the server- and client-side. They handle text and binary data, and transparently handle ping/pong, close, and fragmented messages for you. The server supports a wide range of protocol versions and the client should be able to talk to any modern WebSocket server.

If, however, you don’t want to use WebSockets for your Faye client, you can easily switch them off:

client.disable('websocket');

I think the WebSocket tools are important because while there are plenty of messaging frameworks and transport abstractions around (e.g. libraries that present the WebSocket API on top of other wire transports), the state of pure WebSocket implementations seems to be somewhat lacking at the moment. Hopefully this can improve the situation as we move towards broader socket support across the web.

So that’s about it for the 0.7 release. Work is already underway on the 0.8 release, and the current plan is to focus on refactoring. The Faye distribution contains several components, such as the WebSocket code and the Redis backend, that can be broken off into separate projects. Indeed, work is already underway on extracting the WebSocket code for Ruby. As usual, this release should be backward compatible but if you have problems don’t hesitate to post on the mailing list.

Of objects and operators

I was bitten this week by some unexpected behaviour in RSpec. I can’t remember the specifics of the problem but here’s a very similar one: when a Faye client connects to the server, it must perform what’s called a handshake. It sends the server a message and the server responds by sending a randomly generated client ID back. We don’t care what the ID is, we just care about the format of the response. So we do something like this (greatly simplified of course):

describe Faye::Server do
  include Rack::Test::Methods
  let(:app) { Faye::Server.new }

  describe :handshake do
    before do
      post '/bayeux', :message => '{"channel":"/meta/handshake"}'
    end

    it "returns a clientId" do
      json = JSON.parse(last_response.body)
      json.should == hash_including('clientId' => instance_of(String))
    end
  end
end

Let’s assume our server works properly, and returns a response body of {"clientId":"abc123"}. Our test will end up doing this:

{'clientId' => 'abc123'}.should == hash_including('clientId' => instance_of(String))
RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError:
expected: #<RSpec::Mocks::ArgumentMatchers::HashIncludingMatcher:0x00000001be5ab8 @expected={"clientId"=>#<RSpec::Mocks::ArgumentMatchers::InstanceOf:0x00000001be65f8 @klass=String>}>
     got: {"clientId"=>"abc123"} (using ==)
Diff:
@@ -1,6 +1,2 @@
-#<RSpec::Mocks::ArgumentMatchers::HashIncludingMatcher:0x00000001be5ab8
- @expected=
-  {"clientId"=>
-    #<RSpec::Mocks::ArgumentMatchers::InstanceOf:0x00000001be65f8
-     @klass=String>}>
+{"clientId"=>"abc123"}

What happens if we swap the operands of == around?

hash_including('clientId' => instance_of(String)).should == {'clientId' => 'abc123'}
#=> true

So on the one hand, we’re told that A != B, but somehow B == A. What’s going on here? Well, you no doubt recognise hash_including and instance_of from RSpec’s mocking framework. It lets you write stubs like this:

o = Object.new
o.stub(:foo).with(instance_of String).and_return :chunky
o.stub(:foo).with(hash_including 'clientId' => 'abc123').and_return :bacon

o.foo('hello') #=> :chunky
o.foo('clientId' => 'abc123') #=> :bacon

These methods create matchers: objects that are used to pattern-match incoming arguments and dispatch the correct return value. They work by implementing custom equality methods that RSpec uses to tell which argument list matches the arguments passed to the method.

instance_of(String) == 'hello'
#=> true
hash_including('clientId' => 'abc123') == 'hello'
#=> false
instance_of(String) == {}
#=> false
hash_including('clientId' => 'abc123') == {'clientId' => 'abc123'}
#=> true

But if you try placing these matchers on the right-hand-side of an equality expression, something weird happens:

'hello' == instance_of(String)
#=> false

These things ought to be equal, but they’re not, and the reason they’re not is quite simple: == is implemented as a method.

In object-oriented programming, a method is just a function attached to some object. When it is invoked, it has access to the object it is attached to, and all its state, as well as the arguments passed into the method. In Ruby, the equality method looks like this:

class MyClass
  def ==(other)
    # return true or false
  end
end

Now broadly speaking, I like programming this way. I find objects to be a useful way of organising the concepts in my programs into thematically linked groups. Methods let you tell objects what to do, and they let you ask objects questions. But what they don’t do terribly well is let you implement operators.

On the surface, it seems like a natural fit: invoking an operator could be seen as asking an object, “Are you equal to this other object?”. Letting your custom object types implement this question seems like a good idea, as it lets the language’s built-in idea of equality be extended. But the equality operator should not work this way: the question of whether two objects are equal is related to the concept of equality, not to the whims of either of the operands. By implementing equality as a method, we make one object entirely responsible for the question of whether two objects are equal, and it turns out this is not easily extensible.

Many operators have properties that are hard to get right if implemented as methods, and the most troublesome of them all is commutativity. Operators such as equality, addition and scalar multiplication have the property that the order of the operands does not matter. A + B = B + A and if A = B then B = A. It is not hard to see how, as we introduce more and more types of objects into a system, each type needs to know how to interact with every other type. In our example above, RSpec matchers know how to compare themselves to other Ruby objects, but the objects have no idea what an RSpec matcher is and so declare themselves not equal. Ruby provides a mechanism for working around this with the coerce method, but even this has a problem. Users need to remember to defer to it if given an unknown object type, it’s easy to create an infinite loop if both parties defer responsibility, and clearly many built-in Ruby objects don’t use it to defer equality decisions.

This little story highlights two key problems. First, given the semantics of operators in Ruby, RSpec’s assertion mechanism is unreliable. By placing the value under test on the left-hand-side of the a.should == b expression, we make it responsible for deciding whether it is a valid value or not when really that decision should be up to b, the expected value. This is one reason that I prefer Test::Unit‘s assert_equal, which places the expected value first and invokes == on it rather than on the value under test. I’ve been told that custom RSpec matchers can solve this problem but really that feels like far too much ceremony when a simple function call will suffice.

Second, the more insidious problem that we’ve seen repeated in Dart this week: operators should not be methods. Making one operand responsible for the whole operation might seem convenient but it does not scale as your program grows. A more sensible approach is to adopt a dispatch table where you can dynamically register new type signatures for existing operators; the closest thing I’ve seen to this is Clojure’s multimethods. I won’t say they’re the answer as I’ve not really used Clojure in anger, but they do look like a better solution than jamming operators into the ‘everything is an object’ model.

Unfortunately, many things that are bad ideas in theory turn out to be useful in practise, and until we come up with convenient ways of doing the right thing, we’ll be lumbered with bad design decisions in our programming languages.

Faye 0.6.4 keeps your WebSockets healthy

Update: Please skip past this version and use 0.6.5, which fixes a bunch of WebSocket string encoding problems.

With the release of Firefox 6, and the pending release of Chrome 14, we’re beginning to see people using browsers that move past the now-expired draft 76 of the WebSocket protocol and use one of the latest revisions of the protocol, which is now expected to be finalized without too many more adjustments. Those of you using Faye 0.6.3 or earlier will see the connection falling back to plain HTTP long-polling in these newer browsers since the new protocol is very different to the old one and their attempts to connect to Faye’s old socket server fail.

Faye 0.6.4 is a bug fix release, although fixing the ‘bug’ involves quite a lot of new code. It includes support in both the Node and Ruby versions for the WebSocket protocol in Chrome 14 and Firefox 6, so users of new browsers should continue to see minimal latency from your Faye apps.

If you want to test it out, you can grab it using gem install faye or npm install faye. There are no API changes but the introduction of new protocols means stuff might break. If you find bugs, please report them on GitHub and roll back to 0.6.3. Faye will continue to fall back to HTTP in cases where WebSockets are not usable, so your users shouldn’t notice any problems.