Actual type lost on call - oop

Another question on polymorphism in Go, references: Embedding instead of inheritance in Go, https://medium.com/#adrianwit/abstract-class-reinvented-with-go-4a7326525034
Motivation: there is an interface (with some methods for dealing with "the outside world") and a bunch of implementation structs of that interface.
There is a "standard" implementation of some of these methods, where common logic should be put in one place with delegation to (new) methods in the structs-implementing-the-interface ("subclasses" is not a word).
I've read the medium link above and wrote some test code. Alas, it does not work the way I expect, the actual type of a struct is lost when the call on the interface is indirect.
In C++ this is called "based class slicing" and happens when passing a polymorphic class by value. In my Go test code I'm careful to pass by reference, and then Go is not C++ (or Java).
Code: https://play.golang.org/p/lxAmw8v_kiW
Inline:
package main
import (
"log"
"reflect"
"strings"
)
// Command - interface
type Command interface {
Execute()
getCommandString() string
onData(data string)
}
// Command - implementation
type Command_Impl struct {
commandString string
conn Connection
}
func newCommand_Impl(conn Connection, data string, args ...string) Command_Impl {
var buf strings.Builder
buf.WriteString(data)
for _, key := range args {
buf.WriteString(" ")
buf.WriteString(key)
}
return Command_Impl {
conn: conn,
commandString: buf.String(),
}
}
func (self *Command_Impl) Execute() {
log.Printf("Command Impl Execute: %s", reflect.TypeOf(self))
self.conn.execute(self)
}
func (self *Command_Impl) getCommandString() string {
return self.commandString
}
func (self *Command_Impl) onData(data string) {
log.Printf("Command Impl onData: %s", data)
}
// Command - subclass
type Command_Login struct {
Command_Impl
onDataCalled bool
}
func newCommand_Login(conn Connection) *Command_Login {
return &Command_Login{
Command_Impl: newCommand_Impl(conn, "LOGIN", "user#foo.com", "pa$$w0rd"),
}
}
func (self *Command_Login) onData(data string) {
log.Printf("Command Login onData: %s", data)
self.onDataCalled = true
}
// Connection - interface
type Connection interface {
execute(command Command)
}
// Connection - impelementation
type Connection_Impl struct {
}
func newConnection_Impl() *Connection_Impl {
return &Connection_Impl{}
}
func (self *Connection_Impl) execute(command Command) {
log.Printf("Connection execute: %s, %s", command.getCommandString(), reflect.TypeOf(command))
command.onData("some data")
}
func main() {
conn := newConnection_Impl()
command := newCommand_Login(conn)
// I expect command.Execute to preserve actual type of command all the way through
// command.conn.execute(self) and then the callback onData from connection to command
// to use the onData in Command_Login
//
// This does not happen however, the test fails
command.Execute()
// This does preserve actual type of command, but isn't how I'd like to connect
// commands and connections...
//
//conn.execute(command)
if command.onDataCalled {
log.Printf("*** GOOD: Command_Login onData ***was*** called")
} else {
log.Printf("*** ERROR: Command_Login onData ***not*** called")
}
}
There is a Command interface which defines some methods.
There is a Command_Impl struct where I'd like to implement some common code that would further delegate to finer-grained methods in more structs that implement the same interface ("subclass is not a word"), similar to:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/1727737/2342806
The question:
Calling command.Execute() which in turn calls conn.execute(self) ends up "slicing" the Command_Login object and inside Connection.execute it's turned into Command_Impl. As a result, onData interface method defined for Command_Login do not get called.
If I call conn.execute(command) then the right onData does get called, but this is not how I'd like to connect my objects (e.g. Command already has a Connection, but basically what I wrote above about reusing implementation).
In Go terms, I'm trying to come up with a way to delegate implementation by embedding, and have a way to for the delegate to call back into the enclosing type (which fine-tunes the delegate's logic).
Alas, it seems to not be supported by Go (at least I can't find a way) - once you delegate to an embedded struct, your calls stay entirely there in the embedded struct, it "does not know" that it's part of a larger object which may be wanting to override some of the embedded struct's methods.

What about delegating implementation by implementing the Execute interface at the shallowest depth you need?
func (self *Command_Login) Execute() {
self.Command_Impl.Execute()
log.Printf("Command Login Execute: %s", reflect.TypeOf(self))
self.onDataCalled = true
}
https://play.golang.org/p/HvaKHZWIO5W

Related

can we pass extra parameter to a beego router

type MainController struct {
beego.Controller
}
func (this *MainController) Post() {
var datapoint User
req := this.Ctx.Input.RequestBody
json.Unmarshal([]byte(req), &datapoint)
this.Ctx.WriteString("hello world")
// result := this.Input()
fmt.Println("input value is", datapoint.UserId)
}
this is normal beego router which executes on url occurrence. I want something like
type MainController struct {
beego.Controller
}
func (this *MainController,db *sql.DB) Post() {
fmt.Println("input value is", datapoint.UserId)
}
in order to use database connection pointer. is this possible to achieve this using go...if not please suggest
You can't do this in golang
type MainController struct {
beego.Controller }
func (this *MainController,db *sql.DB) Post() {
fmt.Println("input value is", datapoint.UserId)
}
the declaration in the form
function (c *MainController)Post()
means that Post is a method for the MainController struct you can pass variable into it.
My suggestion is you declare the db pointer as a global variable in your package like below then you will be able to use it inside the Post function
type MainController struct {
beego.Controller
}
var db *sql.DB
func (this *MainController) Post() {
//you can now use the variable db inside here
fmt.Println("input value is", datapoint.UserId)
}
but considering this is Beego which uses the MVC pattern you can do all this from within the model. I suggest you take a look at their awesome documentation here

Creating delegating methods in IntelliJ

Suppose I am writing a method that delegates part of its work to an existing method (A factory method invoking a constructor would be a good example).
I would like to be able to automatically add the arguments to the method I am writing based on the method it invokes. However, IntelliJ does not seem to have the right shortcut for this. For example:
I have
class Foo {
Foo(ArgClass arg);
}
and I've just created
class FooFactory {
Foo createFoo() {
return new Foo();
}
}
Is there a shortcut (or a sequence of them) that would get my factory to
class FooFactory {
Foo createFoo(ArgClass arg) {
return new Foo(arg);
}
}
without manually typing "arg"?
I recommend doing it like this. Copy & paste arg once here (| is text cursor):
class FooFactory {
Foo createFoo() {
return new Foo(arg|);
}
}
Invoke Alt+Enter and select the quick fix Create parameter 'arg'. The Change Signature refactoring dialog appears, type Ctrl+Enter to accept. Result:
class FooFactory {
Foo createFoo(ArgClass arg) {
return new Foo(arg);
}
}

how to deal with embedded interfaces and share data between them

I would like to better understand how to use interfaces, mainly to split code in reusable components and at the same time make it more easy for testing, currently my main question is how to share/get data between the interfaces that belong to a main interface, for example:
https://play.golang.org/p/67CQor1_pY
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type MainInterface interface {
SubInterfaceA
SubInterfaceB
}
type SubInterfaceA interface {
MethodA()
GetterA(s implementMain)
}
type SubInterfaceB interface {
MethodB()
GetterB(s implementMain)
}
type implementA struct{}
func (ia *implementA) MethodA() { fmt.Println("I am method A") }
func (ia *implementA) GetterA(s implementMain) {
fmt.Println(s.Data)
}
type implementB struct{}
func (ib *implementB) MethodB() { fmt.Println("I am method B") }
func (ib *implementB) GetterB(s implementMain) {
fmt.Println(s.Data)
}
type implementMain struct {
Data string
SubInterfaceA
SubInterfaceB
}
func New(d string) implementMain {
return implementMain{
Data: d,
SubInterfaceA: &implementA{},
SubInterfaceB: &implementB{},
}
}
func main() {
var m MainInterface
m = New("something")
fmt.Println(m.(implementMain).Data)
m.MethodA() // prints I am method A
m.MethodB() // prints I am method B
m.GetterA(m.(implementMain)) // prints "something"
m.GetterB(m.(implementMain)) // prints "something"
}
In the above code, within the methods of struct implementA or implementB how to access the struct elements of the parent holder implementMain that implements MainInterface without passing it as an argument?
with holder struct I mean:
type implementMain struct {
Data string
SubInterfaceA
SubInterfaceB
}
If I am right SubInterfaceA and SubInterfaceB are embedded and help to make the struct implementMain satisfy the MainInterface:
type MainInterface interface {
SubInterfaceA
SubInterfaceB
}
But within the embedded methods of the SubInterfaceA or subInterfaceB what is the best practice to use in order to be available to get the data string?
I created Getter(s implementMain) method and passed the holder struct, but had to cast type:
m.GetterA(m.(implementMain))
I don't know if by satisfying a interface, all the involved interfaces can become part of the same structure scope and if they do, how to get/share data between them or either between its components?, for example besides been available to reach data string how from SubInterfaceA get/access SubInterfaceB

How to separate models from controllers in testing?

So I wanted to isolate controllers from models in testing so that I could easily figure out stuff if troubles arise. Before, I just hit the endpoints with mock data but it was difficult to troubleshoot because the test runs from the router all the way to the datastore. So I'm thinking maybe I'll just create two versions(MockController vs Controller) for each controller(and model) and use one depending on the value of the mode variable. In a nutshell, this is how I plan to implement it.
const mode string = "test"
// UserModelInterface is the Interface for UserModel
type UserModelInterface interface {
Get()
}
// UserControllerInterface is the Interface for UserController
type UserControllerInterface interface {
Login()
}
// NewUserModel returns a new instance of user model
func NewUserModel() UserModelInterface {
if mode == "test" {
return &MockUserModel{}
} else {
return &UserModel{}
}
}
// NewUserController returns a new instance of user controller
func NewUserController(um UserModelInterface) UserControllerInterface {
if mode == "test" {
return &MockUserController{}
} else {
return &UserController{}
}
}
type (
UserController struct {um UserModelInterface}
UserModel struct {}
// Mocks
MockUserController struct {um UserModelInterface}
MockUserModel struct {}
)
func (uc *UserController) Login() {}
func (um *UserModel) Get() {}
func (uc *MockUserController) Login() {}
func (um *MockUserModel) Get() {}
func main() {
um := NewUserModel()
uc := NewUserController(um)
}
This way I could just skip sql query in the MockUserController.Login() and only validate the payload and return a valid response.
What do you think of this design? Do you have a better implementation in mind?
I would let the code that calls NewUserController() and NewUserModel() decide whether to create a mock or real implementation. If you use that pattern of dependency injection all the way up to the top your code will become clearer and less tightly coupled. E.g. if the user controller is used by a server, it would look something like along the lines of:
Real:
u := NewUserController()
s := NewServer(u)
In tests:
u := NewMockUserController()
s := NewServer(u)
I would try a more slim variant spread over a models and a controllers package, like this:
// inside package controllers
type UserModel interface {
Get() // the methods you need from the user model
}
type User struct {
UserModel
}
// inside package models
type User struct {
// here the User Model
}
// inside package main
import ".....controllers"
import ".....models"
func main() {
c := &controllers.User{&models.User{}}
}
// inside main_test.go
import ".....controllers"
type MockUser struct {
}
func TestX(t *testing.T) {
c := &controllers.User{&MockUser{}}
}
For controller testing consider the ResponseRecorder of httptest package

is it possible to call overridden method from parent struct in Golang?

I want to implement such code, where B inherit from A and only override A's Foo() method, and I hope the code to print B.Foo(), but it still print A.Foo(), it seems that the receiver in Golang can't work like this in C++, in which when dynamic binding is enabled, the code can work like what I want.
I also post another piece of code, which works, but it's too hard to implement, and more like a hack way, I think it's not a Golang style.
So my problem is: if the parent's Bar() method has some logic, for example, open a file, then read some lines, and use Foo() to output these lines to stdout, and the Child (in the example is B) wants to use most of them, the only difference is that the Child wants Foo() to output the lines to another file. How should I implement it? I have heard that Golang's inheritance can't work like C++ or Java, and what's right way in Golang?
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type A struct {
}
func (a *A) Foo() {
fmt.Println("A.Foo()")
}
func (a *A) Bar() {
a.Foo()
}
type B struct {
A
}
func (b *B) Foo() {
fmt.Println("B.Foo()")
}
func main() {
b := B{A: A{}}
b.Bar()
}
output: A.Foo()
the following piece works, but when write
a := A{}
a.Bar()
you will encounter a compiler error
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type I interface {
Foo()
}
type A struct {
i I
}
func (a *A) Foo() {
fmt.Println("A.Foo()")
}
func (a *A) Bar() {
a.i.Foo()
}
type B struct {
A
}
func (b *B) Foo() {
fmt.Println("B.Foo()")
}
func main() {
b := B{A: A{}}
b.i = &b // here i works like an attribute of b
b.Bar()
output: B.Foo()
As you wrote, what Go has is not really inheritance, the method that allows inheritance like features is called Embedding.
http://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#embedding
What it means basically is that the embedded struct has no idea that it is embedded, so you cannot override anything that is called from it. You can actually take the embedded struct and take a reference for it only from the embedding struct.
So your best way to do it is more or less like your second example - through some sort of dependency injection using interfaces. i.e - A has a reference to some interface that does the actual work, say worker, that writes to a file or whatever. Then when instantiating B, you also replace A's worker with another worker (you can do it even without embedding A of course). The A just does something like myWorker.Work() without caring what worker it is.
Been struggling with this myself. Found 2 solutions:
Idiomatic Go way: implement the common "method" as external function with interface as argument.
package main
import "fmt"
// Fooer has to Foo
type Fooer interface {
Foo()
}
// Bar is a proxy, that calls Foo of specific instance.
func Bar(a Fooer) {
a.Foo()
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// usage
func main() {
b := &B{} // note it is a pointer
// also there's no need to specify values for default-initialized fields.
Bar(b) // prints: B.Foo()
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// implementation
// A is a "base class"
type A struct {
}
func (a *A) Foo() {
fmt.Println("A.Foo()")
}
// B overrides methods of A
type B struct {
A
}
func (b *B) Foo() {
fmt.Println("B.Foo()")
}
Try it on Go Playground: https://play.golang.org/p/2TbmHUs9_Dt
Similar to your second option: interface hackery. However, since Bar() is not specific to A (it is common to A and B), let's move it to base class, and hide implementation details and all dangerous stuff:
package main
import "fmt"
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Usage
func main() {
b := NewB()
b.Bar() // prints: B.Foo()
a := NewA()
a.Bar() // prints: A.Foo()
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Implementation.
// aBase is common "ancestor" for A and B.
type aBase struct {
ABCD // embed the interface. As it is just a pointer, it has to be initialized!
}
// Bar is common to A and B.
func (a *aBase) Bar() {
a.Foo() // aBase has no method Foo defined, so it calls Foo method of embedded interface.
}
// a class, not exported
type a struct {
aBase
}
func (a *a) Foo() {
fmt.Println("A.Foo()")
}
// b class, not exported
type b struct {
aBase
}
func (b *b) Foo() {
fmt.Println("B.Foo()")
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Now, public functions and methods.
// ABCD describes all exported methods of A and B.
type ABCD interface {
Foo()
Bar()
}
// NewA returns new struct a
func NewA() ABCD {
a := &a{}
a.ABCD = a
return a
}
// NewB returns new struct b
func NewB() ABCD {
b := &b{}
b.ABCD = b
return b
}
Try it on Go Playground: https://play.golang.org/p/0Zcs_arturP
Recently I have a need to do this and the composition method proposed by OP works great.
I try to create another example to try to demonstrate the parent and child relationship and make it easier to read.
https://play.golang.org/p/9EmWhpyjHf:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"log"
)
type FruitType interface {
Wash() FruitType
Eat() string
}
type Fruit struct {
name string
dirty bool
fruit FruitType
}
func (f *Fruit) Wash() FruitType {
f.dirty = false
if f.fruit != nil {
return f.fruit
}
return f
}
func (f *Fruit) Eat() string {
if f.dirty {
return fmt.Sprintf("The %s is dirty, wash it first!", f.name)
}
return fmt.Sprintf("%s is so delicious!", f.name)
}
type Orange struct {
*Fruit
}
func NewOrange() *Orange {
ft := &Orange{&Fruit{"Orange", true, nil}}
ft.fruit = ft
return ft
}
func NewApple() *Fruit {
ft := &Fruit{"apple", true, nil}
return ft
}
func (o *Orange) Eat() string {
return "The orange is so sour!"
}
func main() {
log.Println(NewApple().Eat())
log.Println(NewApple().Wash().Eat())
log.Println(NewOrange().Eat())
log.Println(NewOrange().Wash().Eat())
}
Go does not support virtual method overriding. The design pattern you want to use is thus not directly supported by Go. It is considered bad practice because changing the implementation of A.Bar() would break all derived classes like B that assume A.Foo() will be called by A.Bar(). The design pattern you want to use will make your code brittle.
The way to do it in Go would be to define a Fooer interface with a Foo() method. A Fooer would be passed as argument to Bar() or stored in a field of A and called by A.Bar(). To change the Foo action, change the Fooer value. This is called composition, and it is much better than changing Foo action by inheritance and method overriding.
Here is an idiomatic way to do what you want to do in Go: https://play.golang.org/p/jJqXqmNUEHn. In this implementation, the Fooer is a member field of A that is initialized by a parameter of to the instance factory function NewA(). This design pattern is preferable when the Fooer doesn't change frequently during the lifetime of A. Otherwise, you may pass the Fooer as parameter of the Bar() method.
This is how we change the behavior of Foo() in Go. It is called composition because you change the behavior of Bar() by changing the instances composing A.
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type Fooer interface {
Foo()
}
type A struct {
f Fooer
}
func (a *A) Bar() {
a.f.Foo()
}
func NewA(f Fooer) *A {
return &A{f: f}
}
type B struct {
}
func (b *B) Foo() {
fmt.Println("B.Foo()")
}
type C struct {
}
func (c *C) Foo() {
fmt.Println("C.Foo()")
}
func main() {
a := NewA(new(B))
a.Bar()
a.f = &C{}
a.Bar()
}
PS: Here is a possible implementation of the design pattern you wanted to implement for documentation purpose: https://play.golang.org/p/HugjIbYbout
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
//-- polymorphism in work
// children specification by methods signatures
// you should define overridable methods here
type AChildInterface interface {
Foo()
}
type A struct {
child AChildInterface
}
//-- /polymorphism in work
// hard A.Bar method
func (a *A) Bar() {
a.child.Foo() // Foo() will be overwritten = implemented in a specified child
}
//-- default implementations of changeable methods
type ADefaults struct{}
func (ad ADefaults) Foo() {
fmt.Println("A.Foo()")
}
//-- /default
//-- specified child
type B struct {
ADefaults // implement default A methods from ADefaults, not necessary in this example
}
// overwrite specified method
func (b B) Foo() {
fmt.Println("B.Foo()")
}
//-- /specified child
func main() {
a := A{ADefaults{}}
a.Bar()
// Golang-style inheritance = embedding child
b := A{B{}} // note: we created __Parent__ with specified __Child__ to change behavior
b.Bar()
}
Output:
A.Foo()
B.Foo()
Coming from C++/Python, where OOP is much better represented, and discovering go (now everything is web or web related, right?!) I too stumbled upon this issue. I feel that OOP in go is only half-baked. With embedding (struct's anonymous fields), methods of the inner type come along for free, inducing the idea of inheritance, only to learn later on the limitations. However, playing a bit with embedded interfaces within structs and with a bit of discipline, C++-like constructors, inheritance, polymorphism, and methods override can be emulated.
Considering the example - https://play.golang.org/p/nqt0haPYt2x
package main
import (
"bytes"
"fmt"
"log"
"math"
"unsafe"
)
//Emulate C++ like polymorphism in go, through template method design pattern
//========================== Shape interface ==============================
//like C++ abstract classes
type Shape interface {
Area() float32 //Shape's area
Perimeter() float32 //Shape's perimeter
Name() string //Shape's name (like rectangle, circle, square etc.)
}
//====================== PrintableShapeInfo =============================
type PrintableShapeInfo struct {
Shape //like C++ inheritance, although go has no such a thing
preetyPrintPrefix string
}
//Init a new PrintableShapeInfo object. The method is distinct so that it can be called from other contexts as well
//
//Remark: emulates the C++ constructor init part
func (printableShapeInfo *PrintableShapeInfo) Init(preetyPrintPrefix string) {
printableShapeInfo.preetyPrintPrefix = preetyPrintPrefix
}
//The central method emulates the template method design pattern. It prints some info about a shape by dynamically calling (through pointers) the right methods
//
//Remark: the design patterns best practices recommend to favor composition over inheritance (i.e. model a ShapeInfoPrinter class, which takes a Shape interface and prints its info),
//for the sake of showcasting the template method pattern, the "go's inheritange" like model was chosen
func (printableShapeInfo *PrintableShapeInfo) PrintInfo() {
log.Println("PrintableShapeInfo::PrintInfo")
fmt.Printf("%s PrintableShapeInfo::PrintInfo - %s:\n",
printableShapeInfo.preetyPrintPrefix, printableShapeInfo.Name()) //dynamically calls (through a pointer) a shape's Name method (like Rectangle.Name or Circle.Name or Square.Name)
fmt.Printf("\tArea: %f\n", printableShapeInfo.Area()) //dynamically calls (through a pointer) a shape's Area method (like Rectangle.Area or Circle.Area or Square.Area)
fmt.Printf("\tPerimeter: %f\n", printableShapeInfo.Perimeter()) //dynamically calls (through a pointer) a shape's Perimeter method (like Rectangle.Perimeter or Circle.Perimeter or Square.Perimeter)
}
//====================== Rectangle =============================
type Rectangle struct {
PrintableShapeInfo //like C++ inheritence, although go has no such a thing
width float32 //rectangle's width
height float32 //rectangle's heigh
}
//Creates and init a new rectangle object and properly set its Shape's interface methods set (similar to C++ class' vtable)
//
//Remark: emulates the C++ constructor
func NewRectangle(width float32, height float32) *Rectangle {
log.Println("NewRectangle")
rectangle := new(Rectangle) //allocate data
rectangle.Shape = rectangle //set the Shape's specific vtable with the Rectangle's methods. Critical for template method pattern
rectangle.Init(width, height) //init class
return rectangle
}
//Init a new rectangle object. The method is distinct so that it can be called from other contexts as well (such as a square Init method. See below)
//
//Remark: emulates the C++ constructor init part
func (rectangle *Rectangle) Init(width float32, height float32) {
log.Println("Rectangle::Init")
//call the base's PrintableShapeInfo struct Init method
rectangle.PrintableShapeInfo.Init("###")
rectangle.width = width
rectangle.height = height
}
//Compute the rectangle's area
func (rectangle *Rectangle) Area() float32 {
log.Println("Rectangle::Area")
return float32(rectangle.width * rectangle.height)
}
//Compute the rectangle's perimeter
func (rectangle *Rectangle) Perimeter() float32 {
log.Println("Rectangle::Perimeter")
return float32(2 * (rectangle.width + rectangle.height))
}
//Get the rectangle's object name
func (rectangle *Rectangle) Name() string {
log.Println("Rectangle::Name")
return "rectangle"
}
//====================== Circle =============================
type Circle struct {
PrintableShapeInfo //like C++ inheritence, although go has no such a thing
radius float32 //circle's radius
}
//Creates and init a new circle object and properly set its Shape's interface methods set (similar to C++ class' vtable)
//
//Remark: emulates the C++ constructor
func NewCircle(radius float32) *Circle {
log.Println("NewCircle")
circle := new(Circle) //allocate data
circle.Shape = circle //set the Shape's specific vtable with the Rectangle's methods. Critical for template method pattern
circle.Init(radius) //init class
return circle
}
//Init a new circle object. The method is distinct so that it can be called from other contexts as well if needed
//
//Remark: emulates the C++ constructor init part
func (circle *Circle) Init(radius float32) {
log.Println("Circle::Init")
//call the base's PrintableShapeInfo struct Init method
circle.PrintableShapeInfo.Init("ooo")
circle.radius = radius
}
//Compute the circle's area
func (circle *Circle) Area() float32 {
log.Println("Circle::Area")
return math.Pi * float32(circle.radius*circle.radius)
}
//Compute the circle's perimeter
func (circle *Circle) Perimeter() float32 {
log.Println("Circle::Perimeter")
return 2 * math.Pi * float32(circle.radius)
}
//Get the circle's object name
func (circle *Circle) Name() string {
log.Println("Circle::Name")
return "circle"
}
//====================== Rectangle =============================
//Implement Square in terms of Rectangle
type Square struct {
Rectangle //like C++ inheritance, although go has no such a thing
}
//Creates and init a new square object and properly set its Shape's interface methods set (similar to C++ class' vtable)
//
//Remark: emulates the C++ constructor init
func NewSquare(width float32) *Square {
log.Println("NewSquare")
square := new(Square) //allocate data
square.Shape = square //set the Shape's specific vtable with the Rectangle's methods. Critical for template method pattern
square.Init(width) //init class
return square
}
//Init a new square object. The method is distinct so that it can be called from other contexts as well if needed
//
//Remark: emulates the C++ constructor init part
func (square *Square) Init(width float32) {
log.Println("Square::Init")
//since the Rectangle field is anonymous it's nice that we can directly call its un-overwritten methods but we can still access it, as named Rectangle, along with its (even overwritten) methods
square.Rectangle.Init(width, width) //call Rectangle's init to initialize its members. Since Square is implemented in Rectangle's terms, there nothing else needed
}
//Compute the square's area
func (square *Square) Area() float32 {
log.Println("Square::Area")
//since the Rectangle field is anonymous it's nice that we can directly call it's un-overwritten methods but we can still access it, as named Rectangle, along with it's (even overwritten) methods
return square.Rectangle.Area()
}
//Compute the square's perimeter
func (square *Square) Perimeter() float32 {
log.Println("Square::Perimeter")
//since the Rectangle field is anonymous it's nice that we can directly call it's un-overwritten methods but we can still access it, as named Rectangle, along with it's (even overwritten) methods
return square.Rectangle.Perimeter()
}
//Get the square's object name
func (square *Square) Name() string {
log.Println("Square::Name")
return "square"
}
func main() {
//initialize log subsystem so that we can display them at the main's end
// bufWriter := bytes.NewBuffer()
logStringWriter := bytes.NewBufferString("")
log.SetOutput(logStringWriter)
rectangle := NewRectangle(2, 3) //create a Rectangle object
rectangle.PrintInfo() //should manifest polymorphism behavior by calling Rectangle's Area, Perimeter and Name methods
circle := NewCircle(2) //create a Circle object
circle.PrintInfo() //should manifest polymorphism behavior by calling Circle's Area, Perimeter and Name methods
square := NewSquare(3) //create a Square object
square.PrintInfo() //should manifest polymorphism behavior by calling Square's Area, Perimeter and Name methods
//print constructs sizes
fmt.Printf(`
Go constructs sizes:
Shape interface size as seen by Rectangle struct: %d
`, unsafe.Sizeof(rectangle.Shape))
fmt.Printf("\tRectangle struct size: %d", unsafe.Sizeof(rectangle))
fmt.Printf(`
Shape interface size as seen by Circle struct: %d
`, unsafe.Sizeof(circle.Shape))
fmt.Printf("\tCircle struct size: %d", unsafe.Sizeof(circle))
fmt.Printf(`
Shape interface size as seen by Square struct: %d
`, unsafe.Sizeof(square.Shape))
fmt.Printf("\tCircle struct size: %d", unsafe.Sizeof(square))
//print the logs
fmt.Println("\n\nDumping traces")
fmt.Print(logStringWriter)
return
}
The central method (template method) is PrintInfo which, called for any defined shape, works as expected, by calling the right Area, Perimeter, and Name methods. Ex. circle.PrintInfo() will call circle.Area, circle.Perimeter and circle.Name.
The constructor functions, NewRectangle, NewCircle, and NewSquare construct shape objects and they're split into three steps:
space allocation
methods set (C++ like vtable) init, needed for polymorphic behavior
struct members initialization, through Init methods
The struct member initialization is a distinct step for better code reuse. For example, Rectangle Init calls the base PrintableShapeInfo Init method while the Square Init method calls the base Rectangle Init (which calls PrintableShapeInfo Init, as said before).
Also, due to interfaces embedding, the object sizes increases only a bit, with a pair of pointers to the methods set and data area as can be seen in the example output.
I think the code looks pretty decent and the only concern being if specifically setting the Shape's interface method set (as the case of NewRectangle, NewCircle, and NewSquare functions) would trigger some side effects, as the code appears to work correctly?!