| # Organizing Go code |
| 16 Aug 2012 |
| Tags: godoc, gopath, interface, libraries, tools, technical |
| Summary: How to name and package the parts of your Go program to best serve your users. |
| |
| Andrew Gerrand |
| |
| ## Introduction |
| |
| Go code is organized differently to that of other languages. |
| This post discusses how to name and package the elements of your Go program |
| to best serve its users. |
| |
| ## Choose good names |
| |
| The names you choose affect how you think about your code, |
| so take care when naming your package and its exported identifiers. |
| |
| A package's name provides context for its contents. |
| For instance, the [bytes package](https://golang.org/pkg/bytes/) from |
| the standard library exports the `Buffer` type. |
| On its own, the name `Buffer` isn't very descriptive, |
| but when combined with its package name its meaning becomes clear: `bytes.Buffer`. |
| If the package had a less descriptive name, |
| like `util`, the buffer would likely acquire the longer and clumsier name `util.BytesBuffer`. |
| |
| Don't be shy about renaming things as you work. |
| As you spend time with your program you will better understand how its pieces fit together and, |
| therefore, what their names should be. |
| There's no need to lock yourself into early decisions. |
| (The [gofmt command](https://golang.org/cmd/gofmt/) has a `-r` flag that |
| provides a syntax-aware search and replace, |
| making large-scale refactoring easier.) |
| |
| A good name is the most important part of a software interface: |
| the name is the first thing every client of the code will see. |
| A well-chosen name is therefore the starting point for good documentation. |
| Many of the following practices result organically from good naming. |
| |
| ## Choose a good import path (make your package "go get"-able) |
| |
| An import path is the string with which users import a package. |
| It specifies the directory (relative to `$GOROOT/src/pkg` or `$GOPATH/src`) |
| in which the package's source code resides. |
| |
| Import paths should be globally unique, so use the path of your source repository as its base. |
| For instance, the `websocket` package from the `go.net` sub-repository has |
| an import path of `"golang.org/x/net/websocket"`. |
| The Go project owns the path `"github.com/golang"`, |
| so that path cannot be used by another author for a different package. |
| Because the repository URL and import path are one and the same, |
| the `go get` command can fetch and install the package automatically. |
| |
| If you don't use a hosted source repository, |
| choose some unique prefix such as a domain, |
| company, or project name. |
| As an example, the import path of all Google's internal Go code starts with |
| the string `"google"`. |
| |
| The last element of the import path is typically the same as the package name. |
| For instance, the import path `"net/http"` contains package `http`. |
| This is not a requirement - you can make them different if you like - but |
| you should follow the convention for predictability's sake: |
| a user might be surprised that import `"foo/bar"` introduces the identifier |
| `quux` into the package name space. |
| |
| Sometimes people set `GOPATH` to the root of their source repository and |
| put their packages in directories relative to the repository root, |
| such as `"src/my/package"`. |
| On one hand, this keeps the import paths short (`"my/package"` instead of |
| `"github.com/me/project/my/package"`), |
| but on the other it breaks `go get` and forces users to re-set their `GOPATH` |
| to use the package. Don't do this. |
| |
| ## Minimize the exported interface |
| |
| Your code is likely composed of many small pieces of useful code, |
| and so it is tempting to expose much of that functionality in your package's |
| exported interface. Resist that urge! |
| |
| The larger the interface you provide, the more you must support. |
| Users will quickly come to depend on every type, |
| function, variable, and constant you export, |
| creating an implicit contract that you must honor in perpetuity or risk |
| breaking your users' programs. |
| In preparing Go 1 we carefully reviewed the standard library's exported |
| interfaces and removed the parts we weren't ready to commit to. |
| You should take similar care when distributing your own libraries. |
| |
| If in doubt, leave it out! |
| |
| ## What to put into a package |
| |
| It is easy to just throw everything into a "grab bag" package, |
| but this dilutes the meaning of the package name (as it must encompass a |
| lot of functionality) and forces the users of small parts of the package |
| to compile and link a lot of unrelated code. |
| |
| On the other hand, it is also easy to go overboard in splitting your code |
| into small packages, |
| in which case you will likely becomes bogged down in interface design, |
| rather than just getting the job done. |
| |
| Look to the Go standard libraries as a guide. |
| Some of its packages are large and some are small. |
| For instance, the [http package](https://golang.org/pkg/net/http/) comprises |
| 17 go source files (excluding tests) and exports 109 identifiers, |
| and the [hash package](https://golang.org/pkg/hash/) consists of one file |
| that exports just three declarations. |
| There is no hard and fast rule; both approaches are appropriate given their context. |
| |
| With that said, package main is often larger than other packages. |
| Complex commands contain a lot of code that is of little use outside the |
| context of the executable, |
| and often it's simpler to just keep it all in the one place. |
| For instance, the go tool is more than 12000 lines spread across [34 files](https://golang.org/src/cmd/go/). |
| |
| ## Document your code |
| |
| Good documentation is an essential quality of usable and maintainable code. |
| Read the [Godoc: documenting Go code](https://golang.org/doc/articles/godoc_documenting_go_code.html) |
| article to learn how to write good doc comments. |