<< Back to previous view

[CLJ-1490] Exception on protocol implementation after protocol reloaded could be improved Created: 04/Aug/14  Updated: 11/Aug/14

Status: Open
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.6
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Enhancement Priority: Minor
Reporter: Howard Lewis Ship Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 2
Labels: errormsgs, protocols

Attachments: Text File CLJ-1490.1.patch    
Patch: Code and Test


In a situation where you define a protocol, and then define a class that extends that protocol (e.g., reify, defrecord, deftype) and then later, re-define the protocol (typically, by reloading the namespace that defines the protocol), then the existing instances are no longer valid.

However, the exception that gets generated can be confusing:

     java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No implementation of method: :injections of protocol: #'fan.microservice/MicroService found for class: fan.auth.AuthService
                                           clojure.core/-cache-protocol-fn                  core_deftype.clj:  544
                                           fan.microservice/eval23300/fn/G                  microservice.clj:   12
                                                       clojure.core/map/fn                          core.clj: 2559
                                                 clojure.lang.LazySeq.sval                      LazySeq.java:   40
                                                  clojure.lang.LazySeq.seq                      LazySeq.java:   49
                                                    clojure.lang.Cons.next                         Cons.java:   39
                                             clojure.lang.RT.boundedLength                           RT.java: 1654
                                               clojure.lang.RestFn.applyTo                       RestFn.java:  130
                                                        clojure.core/apply                          core.clj:  626
                 fan.microservice.StandardContainer/construct-ring-handler                  microservice.clj:   51

The confusing part is that (in the above example) AuthService does extend MicroService, just not the correct version of it.

The exception message should be extended to identify that this is "possibly because the protocol was reloaded since the class was defined."

A patch will be ready shortly.

Comment by Howard Lewis Ship [ 04/Aug/14 12:15 PM ]

Patch with tests

[CLJ-1381] Improve support for extending protocols to primitive arrays Created: 13/Mar/14  Updated: 18/Sep/14

Status: Open
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.5, Release 1.6
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Defect Priority: Major
Reporter: Alex Miller Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 2
Labels: protocols


It is possible to extend protocols to primitive arrays but specifying the class for the type is a little tricky:

(defprotocol P (p [_]))
(extend-protocol P (Class/forName "[B") (p [_] "bytes"))
(p (byte-array 0))   ;; => "bytes"

However, things go bad if you try to do more than one of these:

(extend-protocol P 
  (Class/forName "[B") (p [_] "bytes")
  (Class/forName "[I") (p [_] "ints"))
CompilerException java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: nth not supported on this type: Character, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:1:1)
	clojure.lang.Compiler.analyze (Compiler.java:6380)
	clojure.lang.Compiler.analyze (Compiler.java:6322)
	clojure.lang.Compiler$MapExpr.parse (Compiler.java:2879)
	clojure.lang.Compiler.analyze (Compiler.java:6369)
	clojure.lang.Compiler.analyze (Compiler.java:6322)
	clojure.lang.Compiler$InvokeExpr.parse (Compiler.java:3624)
	clojure.lang.Compiler.analyzeSeq (Compiler.java:6562)
	clojure.lang.Compiler.analyze (Compiler.java:6361)
	clojure.lang.Compiler.analyze (Compiler.java:6322)
	clojure.lang.Compiler$BodyExpr$Parser.parse (Compiler.java:5708)
	clojure.lang.Compiler$FnMethod.parse (Compiler.java:5139)
	clojure.lang.Compiler$FnExpr.parse (Compiler.java:3751)
Caused by:
UnsupportedOperationException nth not supported on this type: Character
	clojure.lang.RT.nthFrom (RT.java:857)
	clojure.lang.RT.nth (RT.java:807)
	clojure.core/emit-hinted-impl/hint--5951/fn--5953 (core_deftype.clj:758)
	clojure.core/map/fn--4207 (core.clj:2487)
	clojure.lang.LazySeq.sval (LazySeq.java:42)
	clojure.lang.LazySeq.seq (LazySeq.java:60)
	clojure.lang.RT.seq (RT.java:484)
	clojure.lang.RT.countFrom (RT.java:537)
	clojure.lang.RT.count (RT.java:530)
	clojure.lang.Cons.count (Cons.java:49)
	clojure.lang.Compiler.analyze (Compiler.java:6352)
	clojure.lang.Compiler.analyze (Compiler.java:6322)

The code in {parse-impls} is seeing the second {(Class/forName "[I")} as a function, not as a new type. One workaround for this is to only extend the protocol to one type at a time.

It would be even better (moving into enhancement area) if there was a syntax here to specify primitive array types - we already have the syntax of {bytes, ints, longs}, etc for type hints and those seem perfectly good to me.

Comment by Nahuel Greco [ 18/Sep/14 6:08 PM ]

It also breaks when extending only one array type:

(extend-protocol P
  String               (p [_] "string")
  (Class/forName "[B") (p [_] "ints") 

;=> CompilerException java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: nth not supported on this type ...

But changing the declaration order fixes it:

(extend-protocol P
  (Class/forName "[B") (p [_] "ints") 
  String               (p [_] "string")

;=> OK

[CLJ-1180] defprotocol doesn't resolve tag classnames Created: 10/Mar/13  Updated: 05/Feb/14

Status: Open
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.5, Release 1.6
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Defect Priority: Major
Reporter: Nicola Mometto Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: protocols

Attachments: Text File 001-CLJ-1180.patch    
Patch: Code and Test


defprotocol doesn't resolve tag classnames, this results in exceptions being thrown when the declared protocol uses as a tag an imported class that is not imported in the namespace that uses it.

user=> (import 'clojure.lang.ISeq)
user=> (defprotocol p (^ISeq f [_]))
user=> (ns x)
x=> (defn x [y] (let [z (user/f y)] (inc z)))
CompilerException java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Unable to resolve classname: ISeq, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:4:33)

Comment by Alex Miller [ 03/Sep/13 9:38 AM ]

Similer to CLJ-1232.

[CLJ-1165] Forbid varargs defprotocol/definterface method declarations because those cannot be defined anyway Created: 15/Feb/13  Updated: 28/Oct/13  Resolved: 28/Oct/13

Status: Resolved
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Enhancement Priority: Major
Reporter: Tassilo Horn Assignee: Stuart Halloway
Resolution: Duplicate Votes: 0
Labels: protocols

Attachments: Text File 0001-Protocol-interface-method-declarations-don-t-allow-f.patch    
Patch: Code


Protocol, interface method declarations don't allow for varags. Currently, for example

  (defprotocol FooBar
    (foo [this & more]))

compiles just fine, and & is interpreted as a usual argument that happens to be
named & without special meaning. But clearly, the user wanted to specify a
varags parameter here. The same applies to definterface.

Similarly, providing method implementations via defrecord, deftype, and reify
don't allow for varags (but dynamic extensions via extend do).

So this patch makes defprotocol and definterface throw an
IllegalArgumentException if a user tries to use varargs in method signatures.

Similarly, defrecord, deftype, and reify throw an IllegalArgumentException if
any method implementation arglist contains a varargs argument.

This patch is a cut-down variant of my patch to http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1024
which has been reverted shortly before Clojure 1.5 was released. The CLJ-1024 patch
was the same as this one, but it has also forbidden destructuring in defprotocol and
definterface. This was a bit too much, because although destructuring has no
semantic meaning with method declarations, it still can serve a documentation purpose.

This has been discussed on the list: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure-dev/qjkW-cv8nog/discussion

Comment by Stuart Halloway [ 29/Mar/13 5:27 AM ]

I think that this patch would be much more helpful to users if it reported the problem form (both name and params).

(And I wonder if we should be using ex-info for all errors going forward.)

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 31/Mar/13 5:17 AM ]

New version of the patch that mentions both method name and argument vector, and uses ex-info as Stu suggested.

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 04/Apr/13 7:24 PM ]

Presumuptuously changing Approval from Incomplete back to None, since the reason for marking it Incomplete seems to have been addressed with a new patch.

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 25/Oct/13 6:29 PM ]

I have not investigated the reason yet, but patch 0001-Protocol-interface-method-declarations-don-t-allow-f.patch no longer applies cleanly after the latest commits to Clojure master on Oct 25 2013.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 28/Oct/13 2:18 AM ]

I'm closing this issue in favor of CLJ-888 which is about the very same issue and contains a more recent patch that also contains test cases.

[CLJ-1152] PermGen leak in multimethods and protocol fns when evaled Created: 30/Jan/13  Updated: 15/Sep/14

Status: Open
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.4
Fix Version/s: Release 1.7

Type: Defect Priority: Critical
Reporter: Chouser Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 6
Labels: memory, protocols

Attachments: File naive-lru-for-multimethods-and-protocols.diff     File protocol_multifn_weak_ref_cache.diff    
Patch: Code
Approval: Vetted


There is a PermGen memory leak that we have tracked down to protocol methods and multimethods called inside an eval, because of the caches these methods use. The problem only arises when the value being cached is an instance of a class (such as a function or reify) that was defined inside the eval. Thus extending IFn or dispatching a multimethod on an IFn are likely triggers.

Reproducing: The easiest way that I have found to test this is to set "-XX:MaxPermSize" to a reasonable value so you don't have to wait too long for the PermGen spaaaaace to fill up, and to use "-XX:+TraceClassLoading" and "-XX:+TraceClassUnloading" to see the classes being loaded and unloaded.

leiningen project.clj
(defproject permgen-scratch "0.1.0-SNAPSHOT"
  :dependencies [[org.clojure/clojure "1.5.0-RC1"]]
  :jvm-opts ["-XX:MaxPermSize=32M"

You can use lein swank 45678 and connect with slime in emacs via M-x slime-connect.

To monitor the PermGen usage, you can find the Java process to watch with "jps -lmvV" and then run "jstat -gcold <PROCESS_ID> 1s". According to the jstat docs, the first column (PC) is the "Current permanent space capacity (KB)" and the second column (PU) is the "Permanent space utilization (KB)". VisualVM is also a nice tool for monitoring this.

Multimethod leak

Evaluating the following code will run a loop that eval's (take* (fn foo [])).

multimethod leak
(defmulti take* (fn [a] (type a)))

(defmethod take* clojure.lang.Fn

(def stop (atom false))
(def sleep-duration (atom 1000))

(defn run-loop []
  (when-not @stop
    (eval '(take* (fn foo [])))
    (Thread/sleep @sleep-duration)

(future (run-loop))

(reset! sleep-duration 0)

In the lein swank session, you will see many lines like below listing the classes being created and loaded.

[Loaded user$eval15802$foo__15803 from __JVM_DefineClass__]
[Loaded user$eval15802 from __JVM_DefineClass__]

These lines will stop once the PermGen space fills up.

In the jstat monitoring, you'll see the amount of used PermGen space (PU) increase to the max and stay there.

-    PC       PU        OC          OU       YGC    FGC    FGCT     GCT
 31616.0  31552.7    365952.0         0.0      4     0    0.000    0.129
 32000.0  31914.0    365952.0         0.0      4     0    0.000    0.129
 32768.0  32635.5    365952.0         0.0      4     0    0.000    0.129
 32768.0  32767.6    365952.0      1872.0      5     1    0.000    0.177
 32768.0  32108.2    291008.0     23681.8      6     2    0.827    1.006
 32768.0  32470.4    291008.0     23681.8      6     2    0.827    1.006
 32768.0  32767.2    698880.0     24013.8      8     4    1.073    1.258
 32768.0  32767.2    698880.0     24013.8      8     4    1.073    1.258
 32768.0  32767.2    698880.0     24013.8      8     4    1.073    1.258

A workaround is to run prefer-method before the PermGen space is all used up, e.g.

(prefer-method take* clojure.lang.Fn java.lang.Object)

Then, when the used PermGen space is close to the max, in the lein swank session, you will see the classes created by the eval'ing being unloaded.

[Unloading class user$eval5950$foo__5951]
[Unloading class user$eval3814]
[Unloading class user$eval2902$foo__2903]
[Unloading class user$eval13414]

In the jstat monitoring, there will be a long pause when used PermGen space stays close to the max, and then it will drop down, and start increasing again when more eval'ing occurs.

-    PC       PU        OC          OU       YGC    FGC    FGCT     GCT
 32768.0  32767.9    159680.0     24573.4      6     2    0.167    0.391
 32768.0  32767.9    159680.0     24573.4      6     2    0.167    0.391
 32768.0  17891.3    283776.0     17243.9      6     2   50.589   50.813
 32768.0  18254.2    283776.0     17243.9      6     2   50.589   50.813

The defmulti defines a cache that uses the dispatch values as keys. Each eval call in the loop defines a new foo class which is then added to the cache when take* is called, preventing the class from ever being GCed.

The prefer-method workaround works because it calls clojure.lang.MultiFn.preferMethod, which calls the private MultiFn.resetCache method, which completely empties the cache.

Protocol leak

The leak with protocol methods similarly involves a cache. You see essentially the same behavior as the multimethod leak if you run the following code using protocols.

protocol leak
(defprotocol ITake (take* [a]))

(extend-type clojure.lang.Fn
  (take* [this] '()))

(def stop (atom false))
(def sleep-duration (atom 1000))

(defn run-loop []
  (when-not @stop
    (eval '(take* (fn foo [])))
    (Thread/sleep @sleep-duration)

(future (run-loop))

(reset! sleep-duration 0)

Again, the cache is in the take* method itself, using each new foo class as a key.

Workaround: A workaround is to run -reset-methods on the protocol before the PermGen space is all used up, e.g.

(-reset-methods ITake)

This works because -reset-methods replaces the cache with an empty MethodImplCache.

Patch: multifn_weak_method_cache.diff

Screened by:

Comment by Chouser [ 30/Jan/13 9:10 AM ]

I think the most obvious solution would be to constrain the size of the cache. Adding an item to the cache is already not the fastest path, so a bit more work could be done to prevent the cache from growing indefinitely large.

That does raise the question of what criteria to use. Keep the first n entries? Keep the n most recently used (which would require bookkeeping in the fast cache-hit path)? Keep the n most recently added?

Comment by Jamie Stephens [ 18/Oct/13 9:35 AM ]

At a minimum, perhaps a switch to disable the caches – with obvious performance impact caveats.

Seems like expensive LRU logic is probably the way to go, but maybe don't have it kick in fully until some threshold is crossed.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 18/Oct/13 4:28 PM ]

A report seeing this in production from mailing list:

Comment by Adrian Medina [ 10/Dec/13 11:43 AM ]

So this is why we've been running into PermGen space exceptions! This is a fairly critical bug for us - I'm making extensive use of multimethods in our codebase and this exception will creep in at runtime randomly.

Comment by Kevin Downey [ 17/Apr/14 9:52 PM ]

it might be better to split this in to two issues, because at a very abstract level the two issues are the "same", but concretely they are distinct (protocols don't really share code paths with multimethods), keeping them together in one issue seems like a recipe for a large hard to read patch

Comment by Kevin Downey [ 26/Jul/14 5:49 PM ]

naive-lru-method-cache-for-multimethods.diff replaces the methodCache in multimethods with a very naive lru cache built on PersistentHashMap and PersistentQueue

Comment by Kevin Downey [ 28/Jul/14 7:09 PM ]

naive-lru-for-multimethods-and-protocols.diff creates a new class clojure.lang.LRUCache that provides an lru cache built using PHashMap and PQueue behind an IPMap interface.

changes MultiFn to use an LRUCache for its method cache.

changes expand-method-impl-cache to use an LRUCache for MethodImplCache's map case

Comment by Kevin Downey [ 30/Jul/14 3:10 PM ]

I suspect my patch naive-lru-for-multimethods-and-protocols.diff is just wrong, unless MethodImplCache really is being used as a cache we can't just toss out entries when it gets full.

looking at the deftype code again, it does look like MethidImplCache is being used as a cache, so maybe the patch is fine

if I am sure of anything it is that I am unsure so hopefully someone who is sure can chime in

Comment by Nicola Mometto [ 31/Jul/14 11:02 AM ]

I haven't looked at your patch, but I can confirm that the MethodImplCache in the protocol function is just being used as a cache

Comment by dennis zhuang [ 08/Aug/14 6:21 AM ]

I developed a new patch that convert the methodCache in MultiFn to use WeakReference for dispatch value,and clear the cache if necessary.

I've test it with the code in ticket,and it looks fine.The classes will be unloaded when perm gen is almost all used up.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 22/Aug/14 4:55 PM ]

I don't know which to evaluate here. Does multifn_weak_method_cache.diff supersede naive-lru-for-multimethods-and-protocols.diff or are these alternate approaches both under consideration?

Comment by Kevin Downey [ 22/Aug/14 8:26 PM ]

the most straight forward thing, I think, is to consider them as alternatives, I am not a huge fan of weakrefs, but of course not using weakrefs we have to pick some bounding size for the cache, and the cache has a strong reference that could prevent a gc, so there are trade offs. My reasons to stay away from weak refs in general are using them ties the behavior of whatever you are building to the behavior of the gc pretty strongly. that may be considered a matter of personal taste

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 29/Aug/14 4:31 PM ]

All patches dated Aug 8 2014 and earlier no longer applied cleanly to latest master after some commits were made to Clojure on Aug 29, 2014. They did apply cleanly before that day.

I have not checked how easy or difficult it might be to update the patches.

Comment by Kevin Downey [ 29/Aug/14 7:00 PM ]

I've updated naive-lru-for-multimethods-and-protocols.diff to apply to the current master

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 29/Aug/14 7:34 PM ]

Thanks, Kevin. While JIRA allows multiple attachments to a ticket with the same filename but different contents, that can be confusing for people looking for a particular patch, and for a program I have that evaluates patches for things like whether they apply and build cleanly. Would you mind removing the older one, or in some other way making all the names unique?

Comment by Kevin Downey [ 29/Aug/14 8:43 PM ]

I deleted all of my attachments accept for my latest and greatest

Comment by dennis zhuang [ 30/Aug/14 9:51 AM ]

I updated multifn_weak_method_cache2.diff patch too.

I think using weak reference cache is better,because we have to keep one cache per multifn.When you have many multi-functions, there will be many LRU caches in memory,and they will consume too much memory and CPU for evictions. You can't choose a proper threshold for LRU cache in every environment.
But i don't have any benchmark data to support my opinion.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 10/Sep/14 2:38 PM ]

I'm going to set the LRU cache patch aside. I don't think it's possible to find a "correct" size for it and it seems weird to me to extend APersistentMap to build such a thing anyways.

I think it makes more sense to follow the same strategy used for other caches (such as the Keyword cache) - a combination ConcurrentHashMap with WeakReferences and a ReferenceQueue for clean-up. I don't see any compelling reason not to take the same path as other internal caches.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 10/Sep/14 3:44 PM ]

Stepping back a little to think about the problem.... our requirements are:
1) cache map of dispatch value (could be any Object) to multimethod function (IFn)
2) do we want keys to be compared based on equality or identity? identity-based opens up more reference-based caching options and is fine for most common dispatch types (Class, Keyword), but reduces (often eliminates?) cache hits for all other types where values are likely to be equiv but not identical (vector of strings for example)
3) concurrent access to cache
4) cache cannot grow without bound
5) cache cannot retain strong references to dispatch values (the cache keys) because the keys might be instances of classes that were loaded in another classloader which will prevent GC in permgen

multifn_weak_method_cache.diff uses a ConcurrentHashMap (#3) that maps RefWrapper around keys to IFn (#1). The patch uses Util.equals() (#2) for (Java) equality-based comparisons. The RefWrapper wraps them in WeakReferences to avoid #5. Cache clearing based on the ReferenceQueue is used to prevent #4.

A few things definitely need to be fixed:

  • Util.equals() should be Util.equiv()
  • methodCache and rq should be final
  • Why does RefWrapper have obj and expect rq to possibly be null?
  • RefWrapper fields should all be final
  • Whitespace errors in patch

Another idea entirely - instead of caching dispatch value, cache based on hasheq of dispatch value then equality check on value. Could then use WeakHashMap and no RefWrapper.

This patch does not cover the protocol cache. Is that just waiting for the multimethod case to look good?

Comment by dennis zhuang [ 10/Sep/14 7:18 PM ]

Hi, alex, thanks for your review.But the latest patch is multifn_weak_method_cache2.diff. I will update the patch soon by your review, but i have a few questions to be explained.

1) I will use Util.equiv() instead of Util.equals().But what's the difference of them?
2) When the RefWrapper is retained as key in ConcurrentHashMap, it wraps the obj in WeakReference.But when trying to find it in ConcurrentHashMap, it uses obj directly as strong reference, and create it with passing null ReferenceQueue.Please look at the multifn_weak_method_cache2.diff line number 112. It short, the patch stores the dispatch value as weak reference in cache,but uses strong reference for cache getting.

3) If caching dispatch value based on hasheq , can we avoid hasheq value conflicts? If two different dispatch value have a same hasheq( or why it doesn't happen?), we would be in trouble.

Sorry, the patch doesn't cover the protocol cache, i will add it ASAP.

Comment by dennis zhuang [ 11/Sep/14 2:02 AM ]

The new patch 'protocol_multifn_weak_ref_cache.diff' is uploaded.

1) Using Util.equiv() instead of Util.equals()
2) Moved the RefWrapper and it's associated methods to Util.java, and refactor the code based on alex's review.
3) Fixed whitespace errors.
4) Fixed PermGen leak in protocol fns.

[CLJ-1141] Allow pre and post-conditions in defprotocol and deftype macros Created: 02/Jan/13  Updated: 04/Sep/13

Status: Open
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.4
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Enhancement Priority: Minor
Reporter: Alexander Kiel Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 2
Labels: deftype, protocols

Dos not matter.


The fn special form and the defn macro allow pre- and post-conditions. It would be nice if one could use that conditions also in method declarations of the defprotocol and deftype macro.

Currently I use the extend function as workaround where one can specify the methods using a map of keyword-name and fn special form.

Comment by Michael Drogalis [ 06/Jan/13 6:22 PM ]

Using :pre and :post, IMO, isn't a good idea. Handling assertions is a two part game. The mechanism needs to account for both detection and reaction, and the latter is missing.

This isn't a perfect work-around, as it's a little verbose, but using Dire might work better than using extend. In addition, you get the "reaction" functionality that's missing from :pre and :post

Example for protocol preconditions: https://gist.github.com/4471276

Comment by Alexander Kiel [ 07/Jan/13 11:52 AM ]

@Michael I read your gist and the README of Dire. I think the supervision concept of Erlang has it's places but I don't like it for pre- and post-conditions. For me, such conditions have two proposes:

  1. they should document the code and
  2. they should fail fast to detect failures early.

To support my first point, your pre- and post-conditions are just lexical too far away from the actual function definition. For the second point: I think in the case of violations the program should just crash. One could maybe wrap some part of the program with one of your exception supervisors handling an AssertionError. But I don't think that handling pre- and post-condition violations for individual functions is a good thing.

Comment by Michael Drogalis [ 07/Jan/13 5:28 PM ]

@Alexander Indeed, your points are correct. Dire is meant to be exactly what you described. Lexically removed from application logic, and opportunity to recover from crashing. That was my best shot at aiding your needs quickly, anyway.

[CLJ-1056] defprotocol: invalid method overload syntax getting accepted Created: 01/Sep/12  Updated: 25/Oct/13  Resolved: 25/Oct/13

Status: Closed
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.5
Fix Version/s: Release 1.6

Type: Defect Priority: Minor
Reporter: VĂ­ctor M. Valenzuela Assignee: Alex Miller
Resolution: Completed Votes: 0
Labels: errormsgs, protocols

Attachments: Text File clj-1056-1.txt     File clj-1056-2.diff     Text File clj-1056-2.txt    
Patch: Code and Test
Approval: Ok


The compiler accepts this erroneous form:

user=> (defprotocol Bar (m [this]) (m [this arg]))

Analysis: defprotocol silently assoc's the last list of signatures found for any particular method name, without checking whether the method name was given earlier.

Patch: clj-1056-2.diff

Approach: Modify defprotocol to check whether each method name has already been encountered earlier, and throw an exception if so. The patch also updates the error message for the case of a protocol function with no args specified.

Behavior with patch clj-1056-2.txt:

user=> (defprotocol Bar (m [this]) (m [this arg]))
IllegalArgumentException Function m in protocol Bar was redefined. Specify all arities in single definition.
user=> (defprotocol Foo (m []))
IllegalArgumentException Definition of function m in protocol Foo must take at least one arg.

Screened by: Stuart Halloway

Comment by Timothy Baldridge [ 29/Nov/12 4:02 PM ]

Can not reproduce the fist error:

user=> (defprotocol Foo (f ([this]) ([this arg])))
CompilerException java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Parameter declaration missing, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:5:1)

But the 2nd one I can reproduce:

user=> (defprotocol Bar (m [this]) (m [this arg]))
user=> Bar
{:on-interface user.Bar, :on user.Bar, :sigs {:m {:doc nil, :arglists ([this arg]), :name m}}, :var #'user/Bar, :method-map {:m :m}, :method-builders {#'user/m #<user$eval71$fn_72 user$eval71$fn_72@1a2b53fb>}}

Notice that :arglists only has one entry


Comment by Alex Miller [ 22/Aug/13 10:36 PM ]

Moving back to Triaged as Rich has not vetted.

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 10/Sep/13 11:24 PM ]

Patch clj-1056-1.txt changes defprotocol to throw an exception if the same method name appears more than once.

Without this patch, the last set of signatures for a method name "wins", silently overriding any earlier ones.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 18/Oct/13 11:08 AM ]

Updated patch to improve error messages and to switch from CompilerException (which is not used outside the Compiler) back to IllegalArgumentException.

I think it would be a good idea to have a general Exception that could carry file/line/col info that could be used by Compiler but also other errors (the EdnReader and LispReader both have their own variants). But I think that should be a separate enhancement, which I have filed as CLJ-1280.

[CLJ-888] defprotocol should throw error when signatures include variable number of parameters Created: 29/Nov/11  Updated: 05/Feb/14

Status: Open
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.3
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Enhancement Priority: Major
Reporter: Greg Chapman Assignee: Stuart Halloway
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 2
Labels: errormsgs, protocols

Attachments: Text File 0001-Forbid-vararg-declaration-in-defprotocol-definterfac.patch    
Patch: Code and Test
Approval: Triaged


I tried to use & in the signature for a method in defprotocol. Apparently (see below), this is compiled so that & becomes a simple parameter name, and there is no special handling for variable number of parameters. I think the use of & in a protocol signature ought to be detected and immediately cause an exception (I also think this restriction on the signatures ought to be documented; I couldn't find it specified in the current documentation, though of course it is implied (as I later realized) by the fact that defprotocol creates a Java interface).

user=> (defprotocol Applier (app [this f & args]))
user=> (deftype A [] Applier (app [_ f & args] (prn f & args) (apply f args)))
user=> (app (A.) + 1 2)
#<core$PLUS clojure.core$PLUS@5d9d0d20> 1 2
IllegalArgumentException Don't know how to create ISeq from: java.lang.Long
clojure.lang.RT.seqFrom (RT.java:487)

Comment by Alex Coventry [ 21/Oct/13 4:21 PM ]

Patch with test code attached. I have it throwing a CompilerException so that it shows source code location. Not sure whether this is kosher in clojure code, but I wish more macros provided this in their error handling.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 22/Oct/13 6:26 AM ]

This issue has already been discussed in CLJ-1024. There I provided a patch that forbids varargs and destructuring forms at various places including defprotocol/definterface. My patch had been applied shortly before clojure 1.5 was released, but it had a bug (forbid too many uses), so it got reverted and the bug closed and declined.

I was told to bring up the issue again after 1.5 has been released.

So here is my patch again. This time it's much more relaxed and only forbids varargs in defprotocol/definterface method declarations, and in deftype/defrecord and reify method implementations.

Comment by Alex Coventry [ 22/Oct/13 7:30 AM ]

Thanks, Tassilo. If there's anywhere in the JIRA system where I could check for prior work like that for other similar issues, I'd be grateful for a pointer.

Best regards,

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 22/Oct/13 7:39 AM ]

New version of my patch.

Now I use a CompilerException with proper file/line/column information like Alex did. I also added his test case (which passes).

Concerning your question, Alex: a search for "varargs" would have listed CLJ-1024, but probably you wouldn't have looked into it anyway, because it's a closed issue...

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 22/Oct/13 7:44 AM ]

Alex, if you don't object could we remove your patch in favor of mine which covers a bit more cases?

Comment by Alex Coventry [ 22/Oct/13 10:57 AM ]

Yep. Just read through 1024 and the associated mailing list discussion. You should totally get the credit: Your patch is more comprehensive and you have been on this a long time. Thanks for folding in the good parts of my patch.

Best regards,

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 22/Oct/13 12:15 PM ]

Ok, great.

It seems I don't have the permissions to delete other peoples' attachments, so could you please delete your patch yourself?

Comment by Alex Coventry [ 23/Oct/13 2:44 PM ]

Sure, Tassilo. It's done.

I think this also needs a regression test for the case hugod originally pointed out. I initially made the same mistake as you there, but amalloy pointed it out[1] before I submitted the patch, so it is a natural mistake to make and should probably be documented in the source code.

Best regards,

[1] http://logs.lazybot.org/irc.freenode.net/%23clojure/2013-10-21.txt search for 14:48:34.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 24/Oct/13 2:00 AM ]

Alex, I've added the regression test you suggested. Thanks for pointing that out.

Also, I added tests checking definterface method declarations, and tests checking inline method implementations made with defrecord, deftype, and reify.

However, there's a problem with the tests for deftype and reify I don't know how to fix. When I eval the macroexpand forms used in the tests in a REPL, I can see that the CompilerException is successfully thrown and printed. But it also seems to be caught somewhere in the middle, so that the macroexpand returns a form and the exception doesn't make it to the (is (thrown? ...)). Therefore, I've commented the these tests and added a big FIXME.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 24/Oct/13 2:28 AM ]

New version of the patch with now all tests uncommented and passing. Andy Fingerhut made me aware that for the 4 deftype and reify tests, I need eval instead of just macroexpand.

Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 25/Oct/13 6:25 PM ]

I have not investigated the reason yet, but patch 0001-Forbid-vararg-declaration-in-defprotocol-definterfac.patch no longer applies cleanly after the latest commits to Clojure master on Oct 25 2013.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 28/Oct/13 2:21 AM ]

I've rebased the patch onto the current master so that it applies cleanly again.

Comment by Tassilo Horn [ 28/Oct/13 2:25 AM ]

Stu, I've assigned this issue to you because you've been assigned to CLJ-1165 which I have closed as duplicate of this issue.

One minor difference between my patch to this issue and CLJ-1165 is that here I use a CompilerException with file/line/column info whereas in CLJ-1165 I've used `ex-info`. I think the CE is more appropriate/informative, as the error is already triggered during macro expansion.

[CLJ-825] Protocol implementation inconsistencies when overloading arity Created: 08/Aug/11  Updated: 10/Jun/14

Status: Open
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.2, Release 1.3, Release 1.4, Release 1.5
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Enhancement Priority: Major
Reporter: Carl Lerche Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 3
Labels: protocols


Attachments: Text File clj-825-1.patch     File scribbles.clj    
Patch: Code and Test
Approval: Triaged


The forms required for implementing arity-overloaded protocol methods are inconsistent between the "extend-*" macros and "defrecord".

The "extend" family of macros requires overloaded method definitions to follow the form used by defn:

(method ([arg1] ...) ([arg1 arg2] ...))

However, "defrecord" requires implementations to be defined separately:

(method [arg1] ...)
(method [arg1 arg2] ...)

Furthermore, the error modes if you get it wrong are unhelpful.

If you use the "defrecord" form with "extend-*", it evals successfully, but later definitions silently overwrite lexically previous definitions.

If you use the "extend-*" form with "defrecord", it gives a cryptic error about "unsupported binding form" on the body of the method.

This is not the same issue as CLJ-1056: That pertains to the syntax for declaring a protocol, this problem is with the syntax for implementing a protocol.

(defprotocol MyProtocol
    [this arg]
    [this arg optional-arg]))

(extend-protocol MyProtocol
    ([this arg] :one-arg)
    ([this arg optional-arg] :two-args)))

;; BAD! Blows up with "Unsupported binding form: :one-arg"
(defrecord MyRecord []
    ([this arg] :one-arg)
    ([this arg optional-arg] :two-args)))

;; Works...
(defrecord MyRecord []
  (mymethod [this arg] :one-arg)
  (mymethod [this arg optional-arg] :two-args))

;; Evals...
(extend-protocol MyProtocol
  (mymethod [this arg] :one-arg)
  (mymethod [this arg optional-arg] :two-args))

;; But then... Error! "Wrong number of args"
(mymethod :obj :arg)

;; 2-arg version is invokable...
(mymethod :obj :arg1 :arg2)

Comment by Paavo Parkkinen [ 17/Nov/13 6:02 AM ]

Attached a patch for this.

For defrecord, I check which style is used for defining methods, and transform into the original style if the new style is used. For the check I do what I believe defn does, which is (vector? (first fdecl)).

For extend-*, I skip the checking, and just transform everything into the same format.

Tests included for both.

All tests pass.

Comment by Rich Hickey [ 10/Jun/14 11:00 AM ]

What the proposal?

Generated at Mon Sep 22 05:18:37 CDT 2014 using JIRA 4.4#649-r158309.