This document is a specification of Fuchsia Interface Definition Language (FIDL) bindings. It is meant to provide guidance and best practices for bindings authors, and recommend specific approaches for their ergonomic use.
In this document, the following keywords are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119: MAY, MUST, MUST NOT, OPTIONAL, RECOMMENDED, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT.
A comment must be placed at the top of machine-generated code to indicate it is machine generated. For languages with a standard on how to indicate generated sources (as opposed to human-written code), that standard must be followed.
In Go for instance, generated sources must be marked with a comment following the pattern
// Code generated by <tool>; DO NOT EDIT.It is RECOMMENDED to namespace machine-generated code to avoid clashing with user-defined symbols. This can be implement using scoping constructs provided by the language, like namespaces in C++, modules in Rust, or packages in Go and Dart. If the generated scope can have a name, it SHOULD be named using components of the name of the FIDL library that contains the definitions for the generated code, which allows each FIDL library to exist in a unique scope. In cases where scoping is not possible and the namespace is shared, some processing of the generated names (see Naming) may be necessary.
In general, the names used in the generated code SHOULD match the names used in the FIDL definition. Possible exceptions are listed in the following sections.
For inline layouts, bindings SHOULD use the names generated by fidlc since
they are guaranteed to be unique.
Bindings MAY generated scoped names corresponding to a FIDL name's naming context if it is supported in the target language. For example, for some FIDL:
type Outer = struct {
middle struct {
inner struct {};
};
};
The generated code would allow referring to the value corresponding to the
innermost FIDL struct using a name scoped to the parent naming context (e.g.
in C++, something like Outer::Middle::Inner).
Casing changes SHOULD be made to fit the idiomatic style of the language (e.g.
using snake_case or CamelCase). fidlc will ensure that identifier uniqueness
is enforced taking into account potential casing differences (see RFC-0040).
The generated code MUST take into account the reserved keywords in the target
language to avoid unexpected when a keyword from the target language is used in
the FIDL definition. An example scheme would be to prefix conflicting names with
an underscore _ (assuming no keywords begin with an underscore).
The generated code MUST avoid generating code that causes naming conflicts. For example, in a function whose parameters are generated based on a FIDL definition, it MUST be impossible for the names of the local variables in the generated to clash with possible generated names.
Ordinals used for methods are large 64-bit numbers. Bindings SHOULD emit these
ordinals in hexadecimal, i.e. 0x60e700e002995ef8, not 6982550709377523448.
Ordinals used for union and table start at 1, and must form a dense space.
Therefore, these numbers are typically small, and bindings SHOULD emit these
ordinals in decimal notation.
It is RECOMMENDED that bindings use the most specific and ergonomic native types
where possible when converting built-in FIDL types to native types in the target
language. For example, the Dart bindings use Int32List to represent a
vector<int32>:N and array<int32>:N rather than the more generic List<int>.
Generated code MUST generate variables containing matching values for each
const definition in the corresponding FIDL. These variables SHOULD be marked
as immutable in languages that support this (e.g. const in C++, Rust, and Go,
or final in Dart).
Bindings MUST provide generated values for each bits member. They MAY also generate values representing the bits with no flags set, as well as the bits with every flag set (the "bits mask"). These values SHOULD be scoped to each set of bits.
It is RECOMMENDED to support the following operators over generated values:
- bitwise and, i.e
& - bitwise or, i.e
| - bitwise exclusive-or, i.e
^ - bitwise not, i.e
~
To provide bitwise operations that always result in valid bits values, implementations of bitwise not should further mask the resulting value with the mask of all values. In pseudo code:
~value1 means mask & ~bits_of(value1)
This mask value is provided in the JSON IR for convenience.
In languages where operator overloading is supported, such as C++, bitwise
negation MUST be implemented by overloading the built in operator in a manner
that always unsets the unknown members of the bitfield. In languages that do
not support operator overloading, such as Go, values SHOULD provide an
InvertBits() method (cased in the manner most appropriate for the language)
for executing the masked inversion.
Bindings SHOULD NOT support other operators since they could result in invalid bits value (or risk a non-obvious translation of their meaning), e.g.:
- bitwise shifts, i.e
<<or>> - bitwise unsigned shift, i.e
>>>
For cases where the generated code includes a type wrapping the underlying numeric bits value, it SHOULD be possible to convert between the raw value and the wrapper type. It is RECOMMENDED for this conversion to be explicit.
Bindings MAY provide functions for converting a primitive value of the underlying
type of a bits to the bits type itself. These converters may be of several
flavors:
- Possibly failing (or returning null) if the input value contains any unknown bits.
- Truncates any unknown bits from the input value.
- For flexible bits only: Keeps any unknown bits from the input value.
For flexible bits:
- Bindings MUST provide methods for checking if the value contains any unknown bits, and additionally MAY provide methods for retrieving those unknown bits.
- The bitwise not operator unsets all unknown members, regardless of their previous values (but works as expected for known members). The other bitwise operators retain the same semantics for unknown bits members as for known members.
Strict bits MAY provide the above APIs as well in order to simplify transitions betwen strict and flexible.
In some languages, it is difficult or impossible to prevent users from
manually creating an instance of a bits type from a primitive, therefore
preventing bindings designers from restricting strict bits values to having a
properly restricted domain. In this case, bindings authors SHOULD provide the
unknown data related APIs for strict bits.
In languages with compile-checked deprecation warnings such as Rust, the unknown data related APIs SHOULD be provided for strict bits but marked as deprecated.
Bindings MUST provide generated values for each enum member. These values SHOULD be scoped to each enum.
For cases where the generated code includes a type wrapping the underlying numeric enum value, it SHOULD be possible to convert between the raw value and the wrapper type. It is RECOMMENDED for this conversion to be explicit.
For flexible enums:
- Bindings MUST provide a way for users to determine if an enum is unknown,
including making it possible to match against the enum (for
languages that support
switch,match, or similar constructs). - Bindings MAY expose the (possibly unknown) underlying raw value of the enum.
- Bindings MUST provide a way to obtain a valid unknown enum, without the
user needing to provide an explicit unknown raw primitive value. If one of the
enum members is annotated with the [
[Unknown]][unknown-attr] attribute, then this unknown enum constructor MUST use the value of the annotated member. Otherwise, the value used by the unknown constructor is unspecified. - The
[Unknown]member MUST be treated as unknown in any function that determines whether a value is unknown.
Bindings MUST provide a type for each struct that supports the following operations:
- Construction with explicit values for each member.
- Reading and writing members.
Bindings MUST provide a type for each union that supports the following operations:
- Construction with an explicit variant set. It is NOT RECOMMENDED for bindings to offer construction without a variant. This should be considered only for performance reasons or due to limitations of the target language.
- Reading/writing the variant of the union and the data associated with that variant.
For languages without union types or union value literals, it is RECOMMENDED to support factory methods for constructing new unions given a value for one of the possible variants. For example, in a C like language, this would allow replacing code like:
my_union_t foo;
foo.set_variant(bar);
do_stuff(foo);with something like:
do_stuff(my_union_with_variant(bar));These factory methods SHOULD be named as "[Type]-with-[Variant]", cased properly for the target language.
Examples of this exist for the HLCPP and Go bindings.
For flexible unions:
- Bindings MAY provide a constructor to create a union with an unknown variant
with specified ordinal, bytes, and handles.
- Such a constructor is useful not just for testing the bindings, but also for end-developer testing needs (e.g. to check that unknown data is handled correctly in a proxy).
- Having a constructor also prevents end-developers from constructing unions with unknown variants in roundabout ways, such as by manually decoding raw bytes.
- Usage of this constructor is discouraged in production code.
- Bindings MUST provide a way to determine whether the union has an unknown variant.
- Bindings MAY provide getters and setters for the unknown variant, similar to methods generated for the union's known variants.
Bindings MUST provide a type for each table that supports the following operations:
- Construction where specifying values for each member is optional.
- Reading and writing each member, including checking whether a given member is
set. These SHOULD follow the naming scheme:
get_[member],set_[member], andhas_[member], cased properly for the target language.
Bindings MAY provide constructors for tables that only require specifying values
for fields that have a value. For example, in Rust this can be accomplished
using the ::empty() constructor along with struct update syntax. Supporting
construction this ways allows users to write code that is robust against
addition of new fields to the table.
All tables are flexible.
Bindings MUST provide a way to determine whether the table included any unknown fields during decoding.
For bindings that store the unknown data in the decoded value, bindings MAY provide a way for users to read and write the unknown ordinals, bytes, and handles. Being able to modify the unknown data is useful for testing, but should be discouraged in production code.
Examples of FIDL types and their corresponding unknown data include:
| FIDL Type | Unknown Data | Unknown Data Type |
|---|---|---|
| union | unknown variant | ordinal, bytes, and handles |
| table | unknown fields | map from ordinal to corresponding bytes and handles |
| enum | unknown variant | same as the underlying type of the enum |
| bits | unknown bits | same as the underlying type of the bits |
Strict types MUST fail to decode when encountering any unknown data. Flexible types MUST succeed when decoding a value with unknown data (with one exception, see value types and resource types).
In general, the underlying unknown data can either be discarded during decoding, or be stored within the decoded type. In either case, the type SHOULD indicate whether it encountered unknown data or not when decoding. If the unknown data is stored, bindings MAY provide ways for the user to access this data, though bindings SHOULD either provide access to all of the parts of the unknown data (e.g. for unions and tables: handles, bytes, and ordinals) or to none of them. Refer to the enum support, bits support, union support, and table support sections for specific guidance on the design of these APIs.
If any part of the unknown data is discarded, the decoded value SHOULD fail to re-encode rather than send a message with missing data. On the other hand, if all of the unknown data is stored, the decoded value SHOULD support re-encoding back onto the wire.
Bindings authors SHOULD favor optimizing strict types, possibly at the expense
of flexible types. For example, if there is a design tradeoff between the two,
bindings authors SHOULD prefer optimizing the strict types.
Changing a type from strict to flexible MUST be transitionable.
Value types MUST NOT contain handles, and resource types MAY contain handles.
In the interaction between value types and flexible types, the requirements of the value type supersedes the requirements of the flexible type when they are in conflict. In other words, in the case where:
- a type stores unknown data, and encounters handles in the unknown data during decoding, and
- the type is value type.
decoding MUST fail.
Bindings MUST provide support for handling or ignoring events in a protocol. Bindings MAY allow the user to specify handling logic for some events, and omit handling logic for some other events in a protocol.
When the handling logic for an event was not specified by the user, bindings MUST carry on normal communication upon receiving the event. In other words, it is not an error to send an event for which the user did not specify corresponding handling logic on the client side.
Bindings SHOULD seek to minimize racy behavior between specifying an event handler and events arriving on the endpoint.
Bindings MUST close the connection upon receiving an unknown strict event.
It is OPTIONAL that bindings provide some form of special support for protocol methods with an error type matching the idiomatic way errors are handled in the target language.
For example, languages that provide some form of a "result" type (i.e. a union
type that contains a "success" variant and an "error" variant), such as Rust's
result::Result, or fpromise::result in C++ MAY provide automatic conversions
to and from these types when receiving or sending method responses with an error
type.
Languages with exceptions can have the generated protocol method code optionally raise an exception corresponding to the error type.
In cases where this is not possible, the generated code MAY provide convenience functions for responding directly with a successful response or error value, or for receiving an error type response, in order avoid boilerplate user code for initializing result unions.
Protocols MAY surface transport errors back to the user. Transport errors can be
categorized as errors encountered when converting between the native type and
the wire format data, or as errors from the underlying transport mechanism (for
example, an error obtained from calling zx_channel_write_etc). These errors
MAY consist of the error status, as well as any other diagnostics information.
Bindings MUST enforce handle type and rights checking in both the incoming and
outgoing directions. This means that zx_channel_write_etc,
zx_channel_read_etc and zx_channel_call_etc MUST be used instead of their
non-etc equivalents.
In the outgoing direction, rights and type information must be populated based
on the FIDL definition. Concretely, this metadata should be placed in a
zx_handle_disposition_t in order to invoke zx_channel_write_etc or
zx_channel_call_etc. These system calls will perform type and rights checking
on behalf of the caller.
In the incoming direction, zx_channel_read_etc and zx_channel_call_etc
provide type and rights information in the form of zx_handle_info_t objects.
The bindings themselves must perform the appropriate checks as follows:
Suppose a handle h is read and its rights in the FIDL file are R:
- It is an error for handle h to be missing rights that are present in rights R. The channel MUST be closed if this condition is encountered.
- If handle h has more rights than rights R, its rights MUST be reduced to
R through
zx_handle_replace.
Additionally, it is an error for h to have the wrong type. The channel MUST be closed if this condition is encountered.
See Life of a handle for a detailed example.
Bindings may optionally use the vectorized zx_channel_write_etc and
zx_channel_call_etc syscalls. When these are used, the first iovec entry MUST
be present and large enough to hold the FIDL
transactional message header
(16 bytes).
Bindings MUST support the following attributes:
@transitional
It is OPTIONAL for bindings to provide alternative output methods to the FIDL wire format.
One type of output could be user-friendly debug printing for the generated types. For example, printing a value of the bits:
{% includecode gerrit_repo="fuchsia/fuchsia" gerrit_path="examples/fidl/fuchsia.examples.docs/misc.test.fidl" region_tag="mode" %}
could print the string "Mode.Read | Mode.Write" rather than the raw value
"0b11".
Similar user-friendly printing can be implemented for each of the generated FIDL types.
Bindings MAY provide the option for users to provide their own memory to use when sending or receiving messages, which allows the user to control memory allocation.
Bindings MAY have the in memory layout of the generated FIDL types match the wire format of the type. Doing this can in theory avoid extra copies, as the data can be used directly as the transactional message, or vice versa. In practice, sending a FIDL message may still involve a copying step where the components of a message are assembled into a contiguous chunk of memory (called "linearization"). The downside of such an approach is that it makes the bindings more rigid: changes to the FIDL wire format become more complex to implement.
The LLCPP bindings are the only binding that take this approach.
For aggregate types such as structs, tables, and unions, bindings MAY provide equality operators that perform a deep comparison on two instances of the same type. These operators SHOULD NOT be provided for resource types (see RFC-0057 and deep equality) as comparison of handles is not possible. Avoiding exposing equality operators for resource types prevents source breakages caused by an equality operation 'disappearing' when a handle is added to the type.
For aggregate types such as structs, tables, and unions, bindings MAY provide functionality for copying instances of these types. Copying SHOULD NOT be provided for resource types (see RFC-0057) as making copies of handles is not guaranteed to succeed. Avoiding exposing copy operators for resource types prevents source breakages caused by a copy operation 'disappearing' or having its signature change when a handle is added to the type.
It is OPTIONAL for bindings to generate additional code specifically to be used during testing. For example, the bindings can generate stub implementations of each protocol so that users only need too verride specific methods that are going to be exercised in a test.
Bindings SHOULD provide support for epitaphs, i.e. generated code that allows servers to send epitaphs and clients to receive and handle epitaphs.
Bindings MAY provide setters and getters for fields on aggregate types (structs, unions, and tables). Even in languages where getter/setter methods are un-idiomatic, using these methods will allow renaming internal field names without breaking usages of that field.
When implementing a FIDL protocol using the FIDL bindings in a target language, the bindings provide an API to read the request parameters, and a way to write the response parameters, if any. For example, the request parameters could be provided as the arguments to a function, and the response parameters could be provided as the return type of the function.
For a FIDL protocol:
{% includecode gerrit_repo="fuchsia/fuchsia" gerrit_path="examples/fidl/fuchsia.examples.docs/misc.test.fidl" region_tag="hasher" %}
A binding might generate:
// Users would implement this interface to provide an implementation of the
// Hasher FIDL protocol
interface Hasher {
// Respond to the request by returning the desired response
hash: (value: string): Uint8Array;
};Bindings MAY provide a responder object that is used to write responses. In the example above, this would mean passing an additional responder object in the function arguments, and having the function return void:
interface Hasher {
hash: (value: string, responder: HashResponder): void;
};
interface HashResponder {
sendResponse(value: Uint8Array);
};The use of a responder object has the following benefits:
- Improved ergonomics: responders can be used to provide any type of interaction with the client. For example, responders can have methods that close the channel with an epitaph, or provide APIs for sending events. For two-way methods, the responder could provide the mechanism to send a response.
- Increased flexibility: encapsulating all these behaviors in a single type makes it possible to add or remove behavior from the bindings without making breaking changes to bindings users, by only changing the responder object, and not the protocol object.
When providing a responder object, bindings should be careful about responders being invoked on a different thread than the one the request was processed on. Responders may also be invoked much later than the request was processed, for instance when implement a handing get pattern. In practice this could be implemented by allowing users to move ownership of the responder out of the request handler class, e.g. into a callback for an asynchronous function.
The object MAY NOT necessarily be called responder. For example, it could have a different name depending on whether the method is fire and forget or two way:
interface Hasher {
// the Hash method is a two-way method, so the object is called a responder
hash: (value: string, responder: HashResponder): void;
// the SetSeed method is a fire and forget method, so it gets a different name
setSeed: (seed: number, control: HasherControlHandle): void;
}GIDL is a test definition language and tool that is used in conjunction with FIDL to define conformance tests. These tests are standardized across bindings and ensure consistency in implementation of encoders and decoders and coverage of corner cases.
Comparing object equality can be tricky and particularly so in the case of
decoded FIDL objects. During decode, zx_handle_replace may be called on
handles if they have more handle rights than needed. When this happens, the
initial input handle will be closed and a new handle will be created to
replace it with reduced rights.
Because of this, handle values cannot be directly compared. Instead, handles can be compared by checking that their koid (kernel id), type and ensuring their rights are the same.