Which is definitely a counterpoint to the oft-stated argument that you should validate all data upfront.
Either way though, you can still have types, the question is just when and where (in a distributed system, especially) they should be checked.
The more modern approaches, like protobuf or capn proto are designed with the experience of mutating protocols over time.
It works pretty well too unless the new field changes the semantics of old field values, e.g. adding a field "payment_is_reversal_if_set" to a payment info type, which would change the meaning of the signs of the amounts. In that case, you have to reason more explicitly about when to roll out the protocol readers and when to roll out the protocol writers. Or version it, etc.
I was at Google when the "let's get rid of optional" crusade started. It didn't make sense to me then and over a decade later it still doesn't. If a program expects a field to be there then it has to be there, removing the protobuf level checking just meant that programs could now read garbage (some default value) instead of immediately crashing. But the whole reason we have types, assertions, bounds checking and so on is because, almost always, we'd like our software to NOT just blindly plough on into undefined territory when it doesn't understand something properly, so in reality it just means everyone ends up coding those very same required-ness assertions by hand.
Now, Google's business model is remarkably robust to generating and processing corrupt data, so you can argue that in the specific case of this specific company, it is actually better to silently serve garbage than to crash. This argument was made explicitly in other forms, like when they deleted all the assertions from the HTTP load balancers. But in every case where I examined an anti-required argument carefully the actual problem would turn out to be elsewhere, and removing assertions was just covering things up. The fact that so much of Google's code is written in C++ that not only starts up slowly but also just immediately aborts the entire process when something goes wrong also contributes to the brittleness that encourages this kind of thing. If Google had been built on a language with usable exceptions right from the start it'd have been easier to limit the blast radius of data structure versioning errors to only the requests where that data structure turned up, instead of causing them to nuke the entire server (and then the RPC stack will helpfully retry because it doesn't know why the server died, promptly killing all of them).
But this tolerance to undefined behavior is not true for almost any other business (except maybe video games?). In those businesses it's better to be stopped than wrong. If you don't then you can lose money, lose data, lose customers or in the worst cases even lose your life. I don't think people appreciate the extent to which the unique oddities of Google's business model and infrastructure choices have leaked out into the libraries their staffers/ex-staffers release.
The middleman software in question often needed to process some part of the message but not others. It wasn't realistic to define a boundary between what each middleman might need and what they wouldn't need, and somehow push the "not needed" part into nested encoded blobs.
I'm not sure the rest of your comment is really addressing the issue here. The argument doesn't have anything to do with proceeding forward in the face of corrupt data or undefined behavior. The argument is that validation needs to happen at the consumer. There should still be validation.
It was quite realistic to improve protobufs to help dig web search out of their "everything+dog consumes an enormous monolithic datastructure" problem, assuming that's what you're thinking of (my memory of the details of this time is getting fuzzy).
A simple brute-force fix for their situation would have been to make validation of required fields toggle-able on a per-parse level, so they could disable validation for their own parts of the stack without taking it away for everyone else (none of the projects I worked on had problems with required fields that I can recall).
A better fix would have been for protobufs to support composition. They could then have started breaking down the mega-struct into overlapping protos, with the original being defined as a recursive merge of them. That'd have let them start narrowing down semantically meaningful views over what the programs really needed.
The worst fix was to remove validation features from the language, thus forcing everyone to manually re-add them without the help of the compiler.
Really, the protobuf type system was too simple for Google even in 2006. I recall during training wondering why it didn't have a URL type given that this was a web-centric company. Shortly after I discovered a very simple and obvious bug in web search in which some local business results were 404s even though the URL existed. It had been there for months, maybe years, and I found it by reading the user support forums (nobody else did this, my manager considered me way out of my lane for doing so). The bug was that nothing anywhere in the pipeline checked that the website address entered by the business owner started with https://, so when the result was stuffed into an <a> tag it turned into <a href="www.business.com"> and so the user ended up at https://www.google.com/www.business.com. Oops. These bad strings made it all the way from the business owner, through the LBC frontend, the data pipeline, the intermediate microservices and the web search frontends to the user's browser. The URL did pass crawl validation because when loaded into a URL type, the missing protocol was being added. SREs were trained to do post-mortems, so after it got fixed and the database was patched up, I naively asked whether there was a systematic fix for this, like maybe adding a URL type to protobufs so data would be validated right at the start. The answer was "it sounds like you're asking how to not write bugs" and nothing was done, sigh. It's entirely possible that similar bugs reoccurred dozens of times without being detected.
Those are just a couple of cases where the simplicity (or primitivity) of the protobuf type system led to avoidable problems. Sure, there are complexity limits too, but the actual languages Googlers were using all had more sophisticated type systems than protobuf and bugs at the edges weren't uncommon.
Maybe there need to be levels of validation, like "it's a text file" versus "it parses" versus "it type checks."
You can also see it as a version control and awareness problem rather than a schema or serialization problem. The issues don't occur if you always have full awareness of what code is running and what's consuming what data, but that's hard especially when you take into account batch jobs.
I am.
> After all it's usually better to abort early than half way through an operation.
I realize this goes against common wisdom, but I actually disagree.
It's simply unrealistic to imagine that we can fully determine whether an operation will succeed by examining the inputs upfront. Even if the inputs are fully valid, all sorts of things can go wrong at runtime. Maybe a database connection is randomly dropped. Maybe you run out of memory. Maybe the power goes out.
So we already have to design our code to be tolerant to random failures in the middle. This is why we try to group our state changes into a single transaction, or design things to be idempotent.
Given we already have to do all that, I think trying to validate input upfront creates more trouble than it solves. When your validation code is far away from the code that actually processes the data, it is easier to miss things and harder to keep in sync.
To be clear, though, this does not mean I like dynamic typing. Static types are great. But the reason I like them is more because they make programming easier, letting you understand the structure of the data you're dealing with, letting the IDE implement auto-complete, jump-to-definition, and error checking, etc.
Consider TypeScript, which implements static typing on JavaScript, but explicitly does not perform any runtime checks whatsoever validating types. It's absolutely possible that a value at runtime does not match the type that TypeScript assigned to it. The result is a runtime exception when you try to access the value in a way that it doesn't support (even though its type says it should have). And yet, people love TypeScript, it clearly provides value despite this.
This stuff makes a programming language theorist's head explode but it practice it works. Look, anything can be invalid in ways you never thought of, and no type system can fully defend you from that. You gotta get comfortable with the idea that exceptions might be thrown from anywhere, and design systems to accommodate failure.
1. The advantage of having it in the type system is the compiler can't forget.
2. It's quite hard to unwind operations in C++. I think delaying validation to the last moment is easier when you have robust exceptions. At the top level the frameworks can reject RPCs or return a 400 or whatever it is you want to do, if it's found out 20 frames deep into some massive chunk of code then you're very likely to lose useful context as the error gets unwound (and worse error messages).
On forgetting, the risky situation is something like this:
message FooRequest {
required string query = 1;
optional list<string> options = 2; // added later
}
TypeScript does indeed not do validation of type casts up front, but that's more because it's specifically designed to be compatible with JavaScript and the runtime doesn't do strong typing. People like it compared to raw JS.
> This stuff makes a programming language theorist's head explode but it practice it works. Look, anything can be invalid in ways you never thought of, and no type system can fully defend you from that. You gotta get comfortable with the idea that exceptions might be thrown from anywhere, and design systems to accommodate failure.
It's only possible if you're doing something wrong type-wise. In particular, when ingesting an object you're supposed to validate it before/as you assign the type to it. Delaying the error until the particular field is accessed is bad TypeScript! Those kinds of exceptions aren't supposed to be thrown from anywhere.
This is an interesting argument that I would like to see more elaboration on, because that's the obvious solution. Effectively you're building a pipeline of data processors and each stage in the pipeline reads its own information and then passes along a payload with the rest of the information to the next stage. This would preserve full static typing with required fields, but I can see how it might inhibit some forms of dynamic instrumentation, eg. turning verbose logging on/off might dynamically reconfigure the pipeline, which would affect all upstream producers if they're wrapping messages for downstream consumers.
If this were a programming language I would immediately think of row typing to specify the parts that each stage depends on while being agnostic about the rest of the content, but I'm not sure how that might work for a serialization format. Effectively, you're pulling out a typed "view" over the underlying data that contains offsets to the underlying fields (this is the dictionary-passing transform as found in Haskell).
Truly generic middleware like RPC balancers did what you are saying, but there were also a lot of service specific "middlemen" which did need to look at parts of these mega-structures.
Now due to how protobufs work, you can do what you suggest and "cast" a byte stream to multiple different types, so they could have defined subsets of the overall structures and maybe they did, I don't remember, but the issue then is code duplication. You end up defining the same structures multiple times, just as subsets. With a more advanced type system you can eliminate the duplication, but there was a strong reluctance to add features to protobufs.
These "tweaks" could be just about anything. Like: "You searched for Jaguar, but I don't know if you meant the cat or the car. The index decided that pages about the car rank higher so the first three pages of results are about the car. I'm going to pull some results about the cat from page 4 and put them near the top so just in case that's what you really wanted, you'll find it."
Google Search, at least when I worked on it, was composed of a huge number of such tweaks. People were constantly proposing them, testing if they led to an improvement, and shipping them if they do. For a variety of reasons, our middleman server was a great place to implement certain kinds of tweaks.
But what kinds of information are needed for these "tweaks"? Could be anything! It's a general-purpose platform. Search results were annotated with all kinds of crazy information, and any piece of information might be useful in implementing some sort of middleman tweak at some point.
So you couldn't very well say upfront "OK, we're going to put all the info that is only for the frontend into the special 'frontend blob' that doesn't get parsed by the middleman", because you have no idea what fields are only needed by the frontend. In fact, that set would change over time.
> If this were a programming language I would immediately think of row typing to specify the parts that each stage depends on while being agnostic about the rest of the content
Indeed, perhaps one could develop an elaborate system where in the schemas, we could annotate certain fields as being relevant to certain servers. Anywhere else, those fields would be unavailable (but passed through without modification or validation). If you needed the fields in a new place, you change the annotations.
But that sounds... complicated to design and cumbersome to maintain the annotations. Simply banning required fields solved the problem for us, and everything else just worked.
I don't think it has to be elaborate. What I was thinking was something more like, in pseudo-C#:
// the framework's general channel type from which messages are read
public interface IChannel
{
T Read<T>() where T : interface;
}
// clients declare the interface they operate on:
public interface IClientFields
{
public int Foo { get; set; }
public string? Name { get; set; }
}
...
// client middleware function
Task MiddlewareFn(IChannel chan)
{
var client = chan.Read<IClientFields>();
... // do something with client before resuming at next stage
}
This essentially means declaring the same protocol multiple times, which seems like a big pain.
In principle, this also enables type checking the whole pipeline before deployments since the interfaces can be known upfront rather than latent in the code.
In the search infrastructure example I mentioned up-thread, we had hundreds, maybe thousands of schemas involved.
> I was at Google when the "let's get rid of optional" crusade started. It didn't make sense to me then and over a decade later it still doesn't. If a program expects a field to be there then it has to be there, removing the protobuf level checking just meant that programs could now read garbage (some default value) instead of immediately crashing. But the whole reason we have types, assertions, bounds checking and so on is because, almost always, we'd like our software to NOT just blindly plough on into undefined territory when it doesn't understand something properly, so in reality it just means everyone ends up coding those very same required-ness assertions by hand.
Yeah, that's what stuck out to me from the linked explanation as well; the issue wasn't that the field was required, it was that the message bus was not doing what was originally claimed. It sounds like either having the message bus _just_ process the header and not the entire message or having the header have a version number that indicated which fields are required (with versions numbers that are newer than the latest the bus was aware of being considered to have no required fields). I don't claim that it's never correct to design a protocol optimizing for robustness when consumed by poorly written clients, but I similarly struggle to see how making that the only possible way to implement a protocol is the only valid option. Maybe the goal of cap'n proto is to be prescriptive about this sort of thing, so it wouldn't be a good choice for uses where there's more rigor in the implementation of services using the protocol, but if its intended for more general usage, I don't understand this design decision at all.
No, because static typing exists in all sorts of places. This argument is primarily about cases where you're exchanging data, which is a very specific use case.
I'm not rejecting static types entirely, and yes I was discussing exchanging data here, as Alan Kay's OOP is inherently distributed. It's much closer to Erlang than it is to Java.
OK I guess I'm having a hard time reconciling that with:
> basically all static typing
1. Type info which is available before runtime, but not at runtime (compiled away).
2. Type info which is available at runtime, but not at compile time (input, statistics, etc.).
3. Type info which is available both at compile time and runtime (say like a Java class).
When you have a JIT optimizer that can turn [3] and [2] into [1], there's no longer a reason to have [1], except if you're micro-optimizing embedded code for some device with 64kb RAM or whatever. We've carried through legacy practices, and we don't even question them, and try to push them way out of their league into large-scale distributed software.
When I say we don't need [1], this doesn't mean I deny [3], which is still statically analyzable type information. It's static types, but without throwing away flexibility and data at runtime, that doesn't need to be thrown away.
> there's no longer a reason to have [1]
I guess if you're assuming the value of static types is just performance? But it's not, not by a long shot - hence 'mypy', a static typechecker that in no way impacts runtime.
I think this conversation is a bit too confusing for me so I'm gonna respectfully walk away :)
From the linked article the post: "The right answer is for applications to do validation as-needed in application-level code. If you want to detect when a client fails to set a particular field, give the field an invalid default value and then check for that value on the server. Low-level infrastructure that doesn’t care about message content should not validate it at all."
(I agree that "static typing" isn't exactly the right term here. But protobuf dynamic validation allows the programmer to then rely on static types, vs having to dynamically check those properties with hand-written code, so I can see why someone might use that term.)
Static type systems in programming languages are designed to break at compilation-time. The reason this works is because all users are within the same “program unit”, on the same version.
In other words, static typing allows more validation to be automated, and removes the need for multiple simultaneous versions, but assumes that the developer has access and ability to change all other users at the same “time” of their own change.
I find this whole topic fascinating. It seems like programmers are limited to an implicit understanding of these differences but it’s never formalized (or even properly conceptualized). Thus, our intuition often fails with complex systems (eg multiple simultaneous versions, etc). Case in point: even mighty Google distinguished engineers made this “billion-dollar mistake” with required fields, even though they had near-perfect up-front knowledge of their planned use-cases.
The whole lesson is that you can’t apply the lessons from static type systems in PLs when you have multiple versions and fragmented validation across different subsystems. Counter-intuitively! Everyone thought it was a good idea, and it turned out to be a disaster.
Why are we not having this debate about "everything must be optional" for Internet Packets (IP) for example? Because it's just binary load. If you want to ensure integrity you checksum the binary load.
the bigger challenge with proto3 is that people use it both for rpc and storage, in some cases directly serializing rpc payloads. Disregarding how awful a choice that is, you likely want to trade off flexible deserialization of old data at the expense of rigidity, and conformance.
It's easy to imagine any statically typed language having a general-purpose JSON type. You could imagine all functions accepting and returning such objects.
Now it's your turn to implement the sum(a,b) function. Would you like to allow the caller to pass anything in as a and b?