Issue #19744 has been updated by janosch-x (Janosch Müller). a very thorough proposal with an attractive modularity to it! if i may ask a few questions: are the described problems, apart of dependency conflicts, very common in your experience? (i've worked on several large codebases with ~1000 gems and never saw these gems trying to create the same module or edit each other's configs.) **concerning dependency conflicts:** are they perhaps the lesser evil? maybe "evolutionary pressure" on unmaintained dependencies is actually healthy for a language ecosystem? if there were multiple versions of the same dependency running in one process, each with different bugs, wouldn't that be harder to understand? **concerning the scenario of running whole apps in namespaces:** couldn't the issues in the shared namespace, such as dependency conflicts, also happen within each individual namespace? would i then use namespaces within namespaces to work around it? if i want to patch a library, e.g. by prepending a module with a bugfix, would i need to remember to apply that patch to all namespaces where i use that library? ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-103710 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by janosch-x (Janosch Müller).

Problems around namespaces can happen in individual namespaces. Should we use namespaces to avoid those things? [...] yes.

A lot of Ruby code is written in a way that relies on extending other code. E.g. a lot of rails and rspec extensions add methods to rails or rspec objects which "enrich the DSL" and which end users call to make use of these extensions. Maybe with namespaces that could look like so? ```ruby User = Class.new(ActiveRecord::Base) namespace = NameSpace.new namespace.require('paper_trail') namespace.instance_eval { ::User.has_paper_trail } ``` However, such a call might define methods or callbacks that reference constants which are unavailable in the "main" namespace, so I'm not sure how well it would work? Then, of course, namespaces don't have to be applicable to everything to be useful. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-103718 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori).

This proposal seems very similar to #19024. Is there a difference?

#19024 proposes a new top-level (`Kernel`?) method `import`. The API of this proposal is much different from it. A new module for namespaces (`NameSpace`, but the name doesn't matter to me...), and its instance methods (require/load). and #19024 also says:

Only load code once. When the same file is imported again (either directly or transitively), "copy" constants from previously imported namespace to the new namespace using a registry which maps which namespace (import) was used to load which file (as shown above with activerecord/activemodel). This is necessary to ensure that different imports can "see" shared files. A similar registry is used to track autoloads so that they work correctly when used from imported code.

But in the namespace of this proposal, libraries will be re-loaded by require/load separately from the global namespace. It's very important to isolate libraries in namespaces from each other and to avoid unexpected side effects.

Also, IIUC it seems to imply the namespace will apply transitively to every load/require/autoload inside the namespace; there was a lot of opposition to that idea in #19024.

#19024 was closed by @shioyama himself (because "I don't really feel the need for further changes to Ruby...") and has not been declined by the Ruby core team. And I still don't have the thing that I want in Ruby. What I want is different from his one. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-103726 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by kou (Kouhei Sutou).

To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies.

Do you have any idea how to change for it? https://github.com/ruby-gnome/ruby-gnome/ calls functions provided by other gems. For example, `gobject-introspection` gem calls functions provided by `glib2` gem because underlying GObject Introspection library depends on GLib library. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-103820 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) wrote in #note-10:

I may have a wrong premise. My premise is, once we mark a library "x.so" depends on another library "y.so", `dlopen` on "x.so" recursively loads "y.so" too, and symbols in "y.so" are readable from "x.so" even when `RTLD_LOCAL` is specified. (Do we need to tweak LD_LIBRARY_PATH?) If it is correct, we may solve the problem by providing any kind of feature at the native extension build step.

This section is about the option "c". ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-103823 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) wrote in #note-12:

...

a. Lift up all functions to Ruby level method calls on the `glib2` side, then use them on `gobject-introspection` b. Split the functions from `glib2` gem to a new something (directory?), then share those code by all related gems c. Build `gobject_introspection.so` to depend on `glib2.so` in the gem `glib2`

None of these are feasible for `sequel_pg`, which calls C functions in the `pg` gem extension, which is developed and maintained independently. `sequel_pg` should work with whatever version of `pg` is installed, it cannot force a specific version (so b and c option are not possibles). The C functions it calls in `pg` are not with `VALUE` arguments, and wrapping all calls would likely result in a significant slowdown (when the main purpose of `sequel_pg` is to improve performance). It would be unreasonable to ask `pg` maintainers to add Ruby methods that they don't want to expose to Ruby level to work around `Namespace` limitations, IMO.

Thank you for another case. I got the details of those libraries. Naruse suggested me another way to call the C function of different shared objects in different gems (https://twitter.com/nalsh/status/1679060154262913024). I'll take time to understand it and then comment here as a different option later. (It requires changes on the native extensions which depends on C functions of different gems too, anyway.)

If this extension issue only affects users who are using this new namespacing feature, it may be acceptable. If this is a general change that also affects users who are not using this new namespacing feature, I think the backwards compatibility costs outweigh the benefits.

I see. Roughly speaking, there are 2 options about how to open .so libraries: A. `dlopen` with `RTLD_LOCAL` in default. Enforce native extensions to call external C-functions in a specific way (needs upgrades) B. `dlopen` with `RTLD_GLOBAL` in default. use `RTLD_LOCAL` only when a gem is marked as namespace-safe. I know that A introduces a huge compatibility problem. I want to re-check if it's acceptable or not with the benefit of namespaces (multi-version loading, avoiding name conflicts, etc). B is a different option. It's ideal if the marking is done automatically without any additional information (but it seems hard). It may be feasible to request native extension users to mark their gems namespace-safe or not. In this case, for the namespace safety, native extensions which use C-functions of other gems should use a new API to call C-functions of other native extensions. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-103825 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by kou (Kouhei Sutou). Thanks for providing your ideas. tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) wrote in #note-10:

a. Lift up all functions to Ruby level method calls on the `glib2` side, then use them on `gobject-introspection`

It's impossible for the `glib2`/`gobject-introspection` case with the similar reason of the `sequel_pg`.

b. Split the functions from `glib2` gem to a new something (directory?), then share those code by all related gems

It's impossible for the `glib2`/`gobject-introspection` case because there are stateful functions. The case wants to share implementations with them.

c. Build `gobject_introspection.so` to depend on `glib2.so` in the gem `glib2`

It's possible for the `glib2`/`gobject-introspection` case. It's already done (but only) for Windows build. tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) wrote in #note-13:

Naruse suggested me another way to call the C function of different shared objects in different gems (https://twitter.com/nalsh/status/1679060154262913024).

Keep the `handle` when we execute `handle=dlopen("glib2.so", RTLD_LOCAL)` in the `glib2` gem, pass it to `gobject-introspection` gem and call a function by `func=dlsym(handle, "FUNCTION_NAME"); func(...)`.

It's not realistic for the `glib2`/`gobject-introspection` case. (BTW, I don't know why `glib2` needs to execute `dlopen()` by itself instead of reusing the `dlopen()`-ed handle by Ruby.) In the case, I need to rewrite many codes and it also breaks API/ABI compatibilities.

It's ideal if the marking is done automatically without any additional information (but it seems hard).

I think that it's not realistic.

It may be feasible to request native extension users to mark their gems namespace-safe or not.

I agree with this. tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) wrote in #note-14:

Native extensions which depend on other gems' C functions should be upgraded for namespace-safety, but there are no big changes or complex upgrade paths.

I need to change at least about 300 lines for `gobject-introspection`. (Ruby-GNOME has more similar gems.) ```console $ grep -E '(rbg|RVAL)' ext/gobject-introspection/*.c | wc -l 305 ``` (If I need to do it, I'll do it. But I think that they are big (many?) changes...) ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-103924 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). I'm trying to implement a feature to provide symbols from other extensions to extensions. That should satisfy the requirements like calling C-functions in an extension from other extensions. The required changes for extensions (calls C-functions of other extensions) is, * modify the prototypes * call a new function (`resolve_ext_symbol` here) and assign the returned value The diff of sequel_pg with this feature is here: https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel_pg/pull/55/files It uses 4 functions in "pg_ext", requiring 4 line changes, and 4 line additions. What do you think about it, Jeremy, Kou and others? ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104138 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans). tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) wrote in #note-17:

I'm trying to implement a feature to provide symbols from other extensions to extensions. That should satisfy the requirements like calling C-functions in an extension from other extensions. The required changes for extensions (calls C-functions of other extensions) is, * modify the prototypes * call a new function (`resolve_ext_symbol` here) and assign the returned value

The diff of sequel_pg with this feature is here: https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel_pg/pull/55/files It uses 4 functions in "pg_ext", requiring 4 line changes, and 4 line additions.

What do you think about it, Jeremy, Kou and others?

Considering it causes almost no code changes, and can be backwards compatible with some preprocessor macros, it looks like a good solution to me if this feature is accepted. It should probably be prefixed with `rb_` if it is a symbol exported by Ruby. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104140 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote in #note-21:

On the native level it's a lot more tricky to isolate, for instance it's not really possible to fully fake different working directories in the same process (considering native extensions might also rely on the CWD). Does your approach handle that, how?

No, this idea doesn't provide anything about working directories. In my idea, it's totally different from namespaces. (Possibly, there may be an idea of tools to orchestrate namespaces, working directories, and others to build isolated Ruby VM instances in CRuby.) I also currently exclude parallel processing and CG overhead problems from this feature's scope. I'm focusing on creating a minimum feature to provide isolated library/code sets in a process to keep the distance to the goal short. (Just an idea, Ractor + Namespace MAY be a good combination... is it?) ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104635 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). @deivid @hsbt and other RubyGems/Bundler maintainers: What do you think of this proposal, especially the part related to RubyGems & Bundler? This would enable loading different versions of a gem in the same process, together with changes in RubyGems & Bundler. But is that what you want and is that what Ruby users want? And is this change realistic to do in RubyGems & Bundler? My concerns are: * I'm not sure many Rubyists want a Bundler that feels like `npm`/`node_modules` with every dependency duplicated N times (+ of course the longer bundle times, etc). * Will those changes be compatible enough, or would it require to be opt-in? * Should RubyGems/Bundler try to have the minimum number of versions for each gem or stop resolving and have N copies of each gem based on how many gems depend on it? * How can `Gemfile.lock` handle this? Probably the format needs to change significantly to support that? * How can `Bundler.require` handle this? I think it's not possible without extra information like passing a `NameSpace` to `gem "foo"` in the Gemfile. And that feels rather hacky because how to share `NameSpace` objects in Gemfile and in app code? Also how to serialize such a NameSpace in Gemfile.lock? (Or maybe that last one is not necessary?) * If this feature is used rarely it seems more likely to not work reliably for all gems, also it relies on gems with an extension depending on another extension doing changes, which might or not happen. * How long might it take to implement all this in RubyGems & Bundler? Until then this feature is probably unusable for most Rubyists, as most use RubyGems & Bundler of course. @tagomoris It'd be great to hear your thoughts on this too. To be clear I don't think any of this should block merging this feature, but I think this feature will likely not be useful for 99+% Rubyists until that is fully implemented and supported in RubyGems & Bundler. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104708 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). In short term, I'm positive to this feature because RubyGems and Bundler couldn't use or vendor C extensions of default gems now. see #13847. And RubyGems and Bundler have few vendored ruby library like `fileutils`, `uri` and etc. We should stop it and use version provided by standard library with lock version by this feature. In long term, I'm not sure how provide this feature to end-user by RubyGems/Bundler with a new syntax of Gemfile. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104721 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by luke-gru (Luke Gruber). This is an interesting feature imo, and it could be used well with ractors. For instance, if every namespace is owned by only 1 ractor then essentially some restrictions on using ractors could be loosened significantly when using the namespace. For example, currently we can't use class variables in ractors because they're not safe when running parallel code (other ractors could mutate them). In a namespace, though, the code is fully isolated to 1 ractor so anything can be done. As long as the namespace can't be passed around to other ractors I think it would work well. The only problem is the use of `::TopLevelConstants` in a namespace, which would violate these rules and cause this to not work. I think these types of constants should be resolved to their namespace and not the actual top-level. I think per-ractor GC is also going to be worked on at some point, so even though there would be code bloat (copies of the code) the GC load would be split across ractors. In the short term I don't see much use of the feature for running different copies of applications in threads with how threads work currently, but running many copies of micro-apps it could be interesting with the MaNy project (light-weight ractors more like goroutines). ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104760 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by maciej.mensfeld (Maciej Mensfeld). If I may. ### `::` scope Similar to Jeremy, my gems heavily use the top-level reference. Like others, I also have namespaces that collide with the root once. For example, `Karafka::ActiveJob` operates by referencing itself and its internals locally but also refers to `::ActiveJob`. In some scenarios, I use it to ease with readability for developers as it is easier to track things starting from the root level. Sometimes, it is needed because of name conflicts. ### User Experience I am unsure if namespaces will be easy to debug/work with. When I debug gems, at the moment, it is fairly easy for me to understand the versioning and to be able to modify them in place when researching some bugs/monkey patches / etc. With the addition of the namespace, I can imagine this may be a bit cumbersome due to the requirement of understanding the scope in which a given piece of code operates. ### Security #### Code Execution There are no explicit security risks I can imagine, but I would say that it may, as others mentioned, loosen the pressure on upgrading. I can also imagine that it may be a bit confusing to get multiple records on the same vulnerabilities per project from tools like bundler audit, as there may be scenarios that the same vulnerability will be assigned to a few versions in use. Another question is on the complexity of things like reachability analysis. It may become a bit more complex (though not impossible - look npm). #### Dependencies Please read the Bundler section below. ### Bundler - While the plugin API is not widely used, there are some (including me) that utilize them. I'm almost certain that introduction of namespaces will cause API changes to the plugins API.

Bundler should resolve dependencies in the same way as the current one (Most libraries have just 1 version/copy under the vendor) Bundler should recommend users resolve conflicts by updating libraries as far as possible Users can configure to depend on multiple versions of a library only when conflicts cannot be resolved through uncomfortable/un-user-friendly options/commands/etc I tried to find information on whether our PubGrub implementation would support such behavior but I couldn't. I only found references from Elm and Dart implementations stating that:

Versions use the semantic versioning scheme (Major.Minor.Patch). Packages cannot be simultaneously present at two different versions.

Same with Dart (ref: https://dart.dev/tools/pub/versioning):

Instead, when you depend on a package, your app only uses a single copy of that package. When you have a shared dependency, everything that depends on it has to agree on which version to use. If they don’t, you get an error.

This would mean that to support any "on conflict" suggestions or resolution, we would have to replace/enhance this engine. Such changes always pose a significant risk of introducing new dependency confusion bugs. On top of that, we need to answer the question of how such multi-versions operations should behave on constraints coming from multiple sources. What if the same "name" comes from two sources, one public and one private? Since we will allow for namespacing, should such a thing be allowed? If so, we may have to update how gems are cached locally to include their full source to avoid name collisions. Finally, if we go with this:

Bundler should resolve dependencies in the same way as the current one

It only mitigates "complete" conflicts but does not prevent from situations where A & B depend on C and are both able to resolve to something old but acceptable. The issue of one of dependencies "limiting" things will still stay.

How can Gemfile.lock handle this? Probably, the format needs to change significantly to support that?

Yes, though I think it can be done in a way that would be compatible as long as there are no namespaces in use.

How long might it take to implement all this in RubyGems & Bundler? Until then, this feature is probably unusable for most Rubyists, as most use RubyGems & Bundler.

Great question to David Rodríguez - I'll ping him. ## Learning from other Registries / Technologies Before getting "full in" with a feature like this, I think it would be good to research its frequency/scale of usability. Maybe we could get anonymous data on structures of lock files from technologies that support this to analyze the frequency of such feature adoption. We could take both OSS data to understand how often this is being used in packages and get data from actual projects and some viable insights. ## Summary I'm hesitant about it. On one side, I've been missing it a few times myself. On the other hand, I am not sure that this is a feature that will get wide adoption. Once it is in and beyond an experimental phase, it will have to get solid support from Ruby Core, RubyGems, and Bundler. For it to be considered usable, it must have a great user experience around usage and debuggability and solid documentation for users to understand.

But on the other hand, libraries that are not updated still exist even under very strong pressure.

Absolutely, and at the same time, some of them get adopted and become maintained again. The pressure will be lowered if such a problem can be "bypassed" by namespaces. While useful at some times, I do not feel this will get wide adoption, especially as @tagomoris himself said here:

Bundler should resolve dependencies in the same way as the current one (Most libraries have just 1 version/copy under the vendor) Bundler should recommend users resolve conflicts by updating libraries as far as possible

---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104931 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by maciej.mensfeld (Maciej Mensfeld). Here are a few more thoughts from me that may have an impact on this, and I hope David will speak up as well: Bundler and RubyGems (RG&B) should be considered in deciding on the acceptance or not of this feature. Why? Because the end-user expectation of the Ruby ecosystem will be for them to support that. Without this, we will have a half-baked functionality that, due to backward compatibility, will have to be maintained. So, to start with, we will have to solve many problems in RG&B related to the implementation and user experience, and then we will have to support it for years or forever. Once that is done, putting aside core errors, I can expect that it is going to be RG&B that will have to deal with end-user complaints and problems, similar to how it is RG&B that gets the support requests about the platform and its operations + bundler errors, etc. This requires work and resources. Even if RG&B decides not to do it initially, I can expect that there will be pressure on bringing this up because "why it is a feature in Ruby but not in RG&B that are part of Ruby ecosystem". I've seen no propositions of any DSL or API for Bundler to operate and multi-version algorithms for resolution are also not easy to create/implement and make secure. The more I read this feature proposal, the more I see that it was thought from Ruby language perspective but not fully scoped from the Ruby ecosystem perspective. IMHO, it lacks proper scope assessment looking from RG&B perspective. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104934 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by maciej.mensfeld (Maciej Mensfeld). byroot (Jean Boussier) wrote in #note-34:

...

Bundler and RubyGems (RG&B) should be considered in deciding on the acceptance or not of this feature.

I'm just as doubtful as you on the desirability of being able to load two distinct versions of a dependency, but it is only one of the possible use case of this feature.

Even if bundler/rubygems keep preventing to install/bundle two versions of a package, some users may still find that feature useful to better enforce boundaries inside their large applications.

You are absolutely right and maybe my previous statement of:

Bundler and RubyGems (RG&B) should be considered in deciding on the acceptance or not of this feature.

Should be revisited to say: "RG&B should be considered in designing/preparing the scope of this feature" rather than its acceptance. My point is not to prevent this feature but to define the expected result of this feature within the whole ecosystem and not just the core. Maybe there are way in which this could coop with RG&B as they are but from my perspective, there are still many unknowns and we may end up with a half-baked (from the ecosystem perspective) feature. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104936 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by martinemde (Martin Emde). Besides my position on integrating with RG&B, I wanted to add my thoughts about the feature itself separately and how it might end up being used in gems. ## Usage in gems I immediately imagine this feature being picked up by gems (again, please ignore whether or not bundler supports multiple versions of gems). ### Gem Namespaces Most gems want to isolate their own namespace and not pollute the namespaces into which they are required. Right now it is _customary_ but not required that a gem defines a top level module that matches the gem name, following a naming convention. These modules are "weak" namespaces compared to the proposed namespace because I can't contain anything I require within the namespace as well. If namespaces had always been available, modules and namespaces would be the same thing. We would just consider any require/load statement within a module to load nested into that module. `require` on Kernel is global, `require` within a module is namespaced. You might even expect places that currently require a file within a method or module to instead write `Kernel.require`. Gems may, with this feature, become more "strongly" namespaced, like the following: ``` # lib/my_gem.rb namespace MyGem require "oj" autoload :Feature, "my_gem/feature.rb" # maybe this feature uses json. end ``` Now this gem doesn't need to worry about which json library is already loaded or if this gem has polluted the global namespace by requiring a certain json library. Gems like this become self contained "cells", that provide an interface and functionality but don't alter any code outside of their own namespace, even when they require external libraries. ### Patching/plugins If my_gem wanted to add features to something outside of itself, if it was a plugin for another gem, then it needs to interact with an external namespace. In that case I might do something like this: ``` require "rack" # same code as above in lib/my_gem.rb Rack.include(MyGem::Feature) # `::Rack` should also work the same here ``` Just looks like normal code, but I bring it up because in means I should be able to include a module from one namespace into a module from another namespace. That module may even have access to a specific set of libraries that aren't in the destination module. Is support for that planned? ### Breaking patches out of a namespace If I require a namespaced library using a namespace, I could control what the top level name of the lib, as proposed, but then I can't still use the patch to Rack that I wrote above. Assuming MyGem is a name conflict for me, I could do the following. ``` namespace Libs # How do I add the Rack patch again? Like this? I don't have a good idea for how this would work. Rack == ::Rack # but how does the external require come into this namespace. require("my_gem") # Maybe end Rack = Libs::Rack # This feels more natural, but still weird and wouldn't work for multiple patches. ``` ### Top level ::MyGem Not being able to use `::MyGem` seems like a big problem. Without a solution for accessing "the top level of my namespace" and "the top level Kernel namespace", I expect there will be some unfixable module references. There should be a syntax for how this can be done. Within MyGem, I would expect ::MyGem to access the gem's namespace declared in the code above. If MyGem was required into another namespace by an external require, that should be invisible to this gem and ::MyGem should not change how it works. When you mix the patching of rack with a nested `outside_namespace.require("my_gem")`, then we must expect that rack will also be required into that namespace and patched inside the namespace. ## Conclusion Appreciate your time to read my exploration of this feature. Unless we do something to prevent it, I think gems will do this because it makes sense to do so. Is this going to work? Will it break everything? Thank you! ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104940 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). @fxn This proposal does not define multiple Object classes. I think this proposal has limited value because if gems use this functionality they will multiply their memory footprint because each copy of a gem (with the same version) is pure footprint overhead. And there is no real isolation either, it is easy to break it, e.g. with `::Foo`. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-104963 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). In general I'm against npm-style multiple loading of dependencies, but I think I found a use case for this that I could get behind. Would it be possible to use this features to load a Ractor-incompatible library inside a NameSpace inside a Ractor? Let's say: ```ruby Ractor.new do ns = NameSpace.new #might be better to call this "Sandbox" ? ns.require('nokogiri') ns::Nokogiri.HTML5(some_html) end ``` Normally, Nokogiri cannot be used inside a Ractor, but using this NameSpace feature it might be possible to have Nokogiri fully sandboxed/scoped to a single Ractor, so it would behave like it was in the main Ractor. Possible? ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105005 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). fxn (Xavier Noria) wrote in #note-38:

What happens with the top-level constants defined by the interpreter? In particular, is `Object.object_id != ns1::Object.object_id != ns2::Object.object_id`?

@fxn This proposal says: "a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby", and we can define methods at the top level. So, `Object` in a namespace should be different from each `Object` in other namespaces (and the global one). Yes, `Object.object_id != ns1::Object.object_id` and `ns1::Object.object_id != ns2::Object.object_id` should be true. It's required to have different sets of top-level methods in each namespace. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105018 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by martinemde (Martin Emde).

If so, yes. It's planned (and it's working on my PoC branch, without the "Gem Namespaces" feature).

Nice. Thanks for taking the time to answer and clarify. Also, I think that "gem namespaces" are something that are enabled implicitly by this feature. I brought up like "is this what we want? because that's how you get this." So unless there's a way to force a flat namespace during a require, then I suspect namespaced gems will be published. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105022 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans). If `Object.object_id != ns1::Object.object_id`, I assume `BasicObject.object_id != ns1::BasicObject.object_id`, but Ruby currently does not allow for copying the root class: ``` ruby -e BasicObject.dup -e:1:in `initialize_copy': can't copy the root class (TypeError) from -e:1:in `initialize_dup' from -e:1:in `dup' from -e:1:in `<main>' ``` How is this situation resolved? I'm assuming that `ns::Object = Object.dup`, but maybe that isn't how it works. Additionally, for: ```ruby class A end class B < A end ``` then if a namespace is created afterward, `ns::B.superclass` is `ns::A`, correct? If that is the case, does this copy the entire class hierarchy and modify all super pointers? ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105025 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). @Eregon I understand the patch is a partial implementation of the proposal (also, the author of the ticket said `Object` and `ns::Object` would be different). I cannot be otherwise, because if `Object` and `ns::Object` where the same object and I have ```ruby X = 1 ``` Then a reference to `X` would resolve to `Object::X`, which is under that hypothesis the same as `ns::Object::X`, thus not implementing the desired isolation. On the other hand, if all objects and all pointers for all instances are adjusted, we are seeing other debatable consequences. I feel like there is a pain point around isolation in the community, but the current design of Ruby simply cannot address it, because all is global, and `private` or `private_constant` are insufficient. I don't have a technical answer to that, but I feel like you should have a formal definition of "library" (nowadays, the only abstraction is "loading files with require", a gem is not a formal entity in the language), and a definition of "library-level visibility", not available to client code. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105029 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). After my last comment and comments from others, I should say I could make a wrong comment about `ns::Object`. I didn't think about it enough. Sorry, guys. My main concern about `Object` was the owner of top-level methods. My comment ("Yes, `Object.object_id != ns1::Object.object_id` ... should be true.") has been derived from the idea that "top-level methods will be defined as the singleton method of `Object`" and a too easy idea that "If a namespace has its own top-level methods, its `Object` should be different from the global one." But it was too easy and simplified, without concern about the object hierarchy, etc. Now, there are two options for the top-level method owners. A: Namespaces have their own `Object`, but it will be defined as a subclass of the global `Object` It's just like `class ns::Object < Object; end`. The definition will be empty. So all top-level method calls in the namespace will be resolved by the global `Object` in default. Once new top-level methods are defined in the namespace, they'll be defined on the `ns::Object`. Pros) It does not change the current Ruby's way: "The main object will be backed by Object, and top-level methods will be defined on Object." Cons) It breaks the hierarchy of objects. Once a `String` object is created in a namespace, its inheritance tree will be `String < ::Object`, not `String < ns::Object < Object`. This could be confusing. B: Namespaces do not have their own `Object`, and all top-level methods and constants will be defined on the Namespace object itself In this option, all top-level methods in a namespace will be defined as singleton methods of the namespace object. The main object will be backed by the namespace object too. All top-level module/class names in a namespace will be owned by the namespace (`ns.constants.contains(:X) #=> true`). This idea is almost as-is of my PoC implementation, except for the "main" and its behavior in namespaces. Pros) Object hierarchy will be clean and less confusing. Implementation will be much simpler than the option A. Cons) The "virtual" top-level object will not be `Object` anymore. It changes Ruby's manner and may be confusing. ===== Now I prefer option "B" (yes, it's different from my last comment), but I want to hear feedback and comments from others. Thank you for the discussion @fxn and @Eregon. I'm sorry again for my confusing last comment. I thought @fxn's discussion point was about the owner of singleton methods and constants, and I wanted to explain those are different between namespaces, and between a namespace and the global. But my answer was simply incomplete and wrong. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105032 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme).

That is why I believe `Object.equal?(ns::Object)` has to be false to accomplish the wanted isolation.

Not necessarily. `Object.constants` could return a different set of values depending on which Namespace you're in, similar to how `Thread.current` returns a different object depending on which Thread is currently running. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105035 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). Sorry I missed that. But I think this idea needs to be "on the table" because duplicating `Object` opens a pretty big rabbit hole of its own. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105037 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). @tagomoris I feel that for the proposal to be better understood, it needs to explain where are constants defined, and how constant resolution algorithms change. Please, remember than when you write ```ruby class C end ``` there is a constant lookup, because Ruby needs to know if it has to create or reopen a class object. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105039 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria).

the statement class C; end should define a new class C in the namespace because C is not defined in the namespace

@tagomoris which would be the superclass of that `C` if loaded under a virtual namespace? ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105044 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). @tagomoris One tricky part is constant resolution, I believe. For example, consider: ```ruby class String # (1) end class C # (2) String end module M # (3) String end ``` If `String` becomes a new class object in (1), because the constant does not exist in the namespace[*], then in (2) the constant reference points to the top-level `String`. Reason is, the resolution algorithm finds the constant in the ancestor chain of `C`. Similarly, in (3) the current resolution algorithm finds `String` in `Object` because it is manually checked for modules once the nesting and the ancestor chain are exhausted. However, besides stuff like that, the main problem is that the author of this code ```ruby class String end ``` is no longer sure they are reopening the class. It depends on the caller, they lost determinism. This is my main concern. Another question, what happens with dynamic `require` calls? Consider for example ```ruby class Adapter def self.for(name) require "adapter/#{name.underscore}" Adapter.const_get(name, false).new end end ``` Is that dynamic `require` able to pass the namespace down? ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105046 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). @tagomoris Regarding the `BasicObject` example, yes, Ruby allows you to re-assign to builtin constants, but it is a different level of lack of guarantee in practice, the way I see it. Perhaps there are _levels_ of determinism? 😅 Nowadays, under normal circumstances you expect ```ruby class String alias blank? empty? end ``` to reopen the class object stored originally in `String`. If that depends on how you are loaded, your won't work as you programmed it. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105053 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). @fxn Yes, I know my example was too extreme. I just wanted to say it's not enough reasonable to say "It's not deterministic." I will propose any feature/limitation/behavior about reopening classes (whitelists? declarations? or something else?). And I wish if Ruby has any keywords or syntax only to reopen classes. ```ruby class extension String end ``` (The idea above is just an idea, not my serious proposal :P) ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105056 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). Since this proposal is not providing full isolation, I think it should be kept as simple and minimal as possible. If `class String; end` would define `ns::String` then `"abc".class == String` would not hold, that seems pretty bad. And that `ns::String` would just be an unusable empty shell. So mostly I think we should rely on the semantics of `Kernel#load(file, wrap: wrap_module)`. For example `class C; end` does, if there is an existing `C` return it, and otherwise defines `wrap_module::C`. This means loading ActiveSupport twice (e.g. in 2 namespaces) would produce some "method redefined" warnings, since ActiveSupport monkey-patches Object, Array, String, etc. I don't think that is solvable with a proposal like this one, it would require making copies of such core classes which is a deep rabbit hole. At that point, it's much closer to multiple interpreters in one process or `fork` and might as well do/use that as it's much easier to understand and the isolation there is near complete. OTOH these warnings may be fairly harmless as long as it's the same definition for the same monkey-patched method, but that is not always the case (e.g. if redefining a method based the previous definition and not just defining a new method) These limitations does make me think the practical value of the proposal is lower than people might expect. Probably it cannot be used effectively with several gems which use monkey-patching. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105058 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote in #note-67:

So mostly I think we should rely on the semantics of `Kernel#load(file, wrap: wrap_module)`. For example `class C; end` does, if there is an existing `C` return it, and otherwise defines `wrap_module::C`.

`Kernel#load(file, wrap)` doesn't work as you wrote. `class C` defines a new class `C` even when the caller script already defined `C`. ```ruby # main.rb class C def yay "c" end end m = Module.new load('./sub.rb', m) # sub.rb class C def foo yay end end p C.new.foo # result sub.rb:3:in `foo': undefined local variable or method `yay' for #<#<Module:0x00000001006d3980>::C:0x0000000100974c48> (NameError) yay ^^^ from /Users/tagomoris/sub.rb:7:in `<top (required)>' ``` ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105066 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) wrote in #note-69:

`Kernel#load(file, wrap)` doesn't work as you wrote. `class C` defines a new class `C` even when the caller script already defined `C`.

Interesting. So that means with the current POC it doesn't work to monkey-patch classes like e.g. activesupport does? (i.e., warning or errors when loading activesupport twice, conflicts if different versions) Unless they use `C.class_exec do ... end` but that seems much less common than `class C; end`. I guess the semantics of `class C; end` are like that is they allow things like `module Foo; class String; end; end` and that defines a new String class. Maybe we could change the semantics of `class C; end` to lookup in Object after `mod` with `load(file, mod)`? It does feel like Ruby does not provide the proper tools for this kind of namespace isolation though, and that it cannot easily be added either. Maybe this is the wrong way to approach things, MVM (multiple interpreters in one process) or fork are well known and have clear isolation boundaries and semantics. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105073 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #19744 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). @tagomoris Given this feature is not possible to provide correctly and I don't think it's fixable either, I think it would be best to close/reject this issue, WDYT? One big problem is monkey patching via `class String; ...; end` e.g. like in activesupport cannot possibly work in isolated namespaces. That defines a new broken/almost-empty String class which is bad, as then any references to `String` in code loaded in that namespace would be wrong (e.g. `"".is_a?(String) # => false`). And `class X; end` cannot reopen an existing class under `::Object` otherwise `class Foo` in a namespace would be shared with the global namespace and defeat the whole point of namespaces. And there are also the various problems raised by @fxn here and in #19990. If we want isolation in Ruby I think it cannot be half-way, I think it must be multi-interpreter/VM (or existing multi-processes) with clear semantics and full isolation. That is a well-understood model and any sharing (e.g. of some immutable data structures, bytecode, etc) there is transparent and safe, it's just an optimization. Anything in between is incredibly fragile and complicated to understand + it would break for many existing gems, so it would be unsafe to use (reminds me a bit of `$SAFE`). Regarding RubyGems/Bundler using something like this to vendor its dependencies without imposing a given version on the application: * It's probably best for these to avoid depending on native extensions as much as possible anyway. * The current approach by manually vendoring Ruby code under some module is actually as good as this could be and a lot clearer, simpler and less magical. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19744: Namespace on read https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19744#change-105328 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # What is the "Namespace on read" This proposes a new feature to define virtual top-level namespaces in Ruby. Those namespaces can require/load libraries (either .rb or native extension) separately from the global namespace. Dependencies of required/loaded libraries are also required/loaded in the namespace. ### Motivation The "namespace on read" can solve the 2 problems below, and can make a path to solve another problem: The details of those motivations are described in the below section ("Motivation details"). #### Avoiding name conflicts between libraries Applications can require two different libraries safely which use the same module name. #### Avoiding unexpected globally shared modules/objects Applications can make an independent/unshared module instance. #### (In the future) Multiple versions of gems can be required Application developers will have fewer version conflicts between gem dependencies if rubygems/bundler will support the namespace on read. ### Example code with this feature ```ruby # your_module.rb module YourModule end # my_module.rb require 'your_module' module MyModule end # example.rb namespace1 = NameSpace.new namespace1.require('my_module') #=> true namespace1::MyModule #=> #<Module:0x00000001027ea650>::MyModule (or #<NameSpace:0x00...>::MyModule ?) namespace1::YourModule # similar to the above MyModule # NameError YourModule # NameError namespace2 = NameSpace.new # Any number of namespaces can be defined namespace2.require('my_module') # Different library "instance" from namespace1 require 'my_module' # require in the global namespace MyModule.object_id != namespace1::MyModule.object_id #=> true namespace1::MyModule.object_id != namespace2::MyModule.object_id ``` The required/loaded libraries will define different "instances" of modules/classes in those namespaces (just like the "wrapper" 2nd argument of `Kernel.load`). This doesn't introduce compatibility problems if all libraries use relative name resolution (without forced top-level reference like `::Name`). # "On read": optional, user-driven feature "On read" is a key thing of this feature. That means: * No changes are required in existing/new libraries (except for limited cases, described below) * No changes are required in applications if it doesn't need namespaces * Users can enable/use namespaces just for limited code in the whole library/application Users can start using this feature step by step (if they want it) without any big jumps. ## Motivation details This feature can solve multiple problems I have in writing/executing Ruby code. Those are from the 3 problems I mentioned above: name conflicts, globally shared modules, and library version conflicts between dependencies. I'll describe 4 scenarios about those problems. ### Running multiple applications on a Ruby process Modern computers have many CPU cores and large memory spaces. We sometimes want to have many separate applications (either micro-service architecture or modular monolith). Currently, running those applications require different processes. It requires additional computation costs (especially in developing those applications). If we have isolated namespaces and can load applications in those namespaces, we'll be able to run apps on a process, with less overhead. (I want to run many AWS Lambda applications on a process in isolated namespaces.) ### Running tests in isolated namespaces Tests that require external libraries need many hacks to: * require a library multiple times * require many different 3rd party libraries into isolated spaces (those may conflict with each other) Software with plugin systems (for example, Fluentd) will get benefit from namespaces. In addition to it, application tests can avoid unexpected side effects if tests are executed in isolated namespaces. ### Safely isolated library instances Libraries may have globally shared states. For example, [Oj](https://github.com/ohler55/oj) has a global `Obj.default_options` object to change the library behavior. Those options may be changed by any dependency libraries or applications, and it changes the behavior of `Oj` globally, unexpectedly. For such libraries, we'll be able to instantiate a safe library instance in an isolated namespace. ### Avoiding dependency hells Modern applications use many libraries, and those libraries require much more dependencies. Those dependencies will cause version conflicts very often. In such cases, application developers should resolve those by updating each libraries, or should just wait for the new release of libraries to conflict those libraries. Sometimes, library maintainers don't release updated versions, and application developers can do nothing. If namespaces can require/load a library multiple times, it also enables to require/load different versions of a library in a process. It requires the support of rubygems, but namespaces should be a good fundamental of it. ## Expected problems ### Use of top-level references In my expectation, `::Name` should refer the top-level `Name` in the global namespace. I expect that `::ENV` should contain the environment variables. But it may cause compatibility problems if library code uses `::MyLibrary` to refer themselves in their deeply nested library code. ### Additional memory consumption An extension library (dynamically linked library) may be loaded multiple times (by `dlopen` for temporarily copied dll files) to load isolated library "instances" if different namespaces require the same extension library. That consumes additional memory. In my opinion, additional memory consumption is a minimum cost to realize loading extension libraries multiple times without compatibility issues. This occurs only when programmers use namespaces. And it's only about libraries that are used in 2 or more namespaces. ### The change of `dlopen` flag about extension libraries To load an extension library multiple times without conflicting symbols, all extensions should stop sharing symbols globally. Libraries referring symbols from other extension libraries will have to change code & dependencies. (About the things about extension libraries, [Naruse also wrote an entry](https://naruse.hateblo.jp/entry/2023/05/22/193411).) # Misc The proof-of-concept branch is here: https://github.com/tagomoris/ruby/pull/1 It's still work-in-progress branch, especially for extension libraries. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/