update program structure post, it might be good to go?

_drafts/program-structure-and-composability.md

@@ -6,12 +6,6 @@ description: >-
     complex structures, and a pattern which helps in solving those problems.
 ---
 
-TODO:
-* Double check if I'm using "I" or "We" everywhere (probably should use "I")
-* Part 2: Full Example
-* Standardize on "programs", not "apps" or "services"
-* Prefix all relevant code examples with a package name
-
 ## Part 0: Introduction
 
 This post is focused on a concept I call "program structure", which I will try
@@ -20,7 +14,7 @@ discussing why complex structures can be problematic to deal with, and finally
 discussing a pattern for dealing with those problems.
 
 My background is as a backend engineer working on large projects that have had
-many moving parts; most had multiple services interacting with each other, using
+many moving parts; most had multiple programs interacting with each other, using
 many different databases in various contexts, and facing large amounts of load
 from millions of users. Most of this post will be framed from my perspective,
 and will present problems in the way I have experienced them. I believe,
@@ -31,10 +25,10 @@ domain can help to translate the ideas between the two.
 Also note that I will be using Go as my example language, but none of the
 concepts discussed here are specific to Go. To that end, I've decided to favor
 readable code over "correct" code, and so have elided things that most gophers
-hold near-and-dear, such as error checking and comments on all public types, in
-order to make the code as accessible as possible to non-gophers as well. As with
-before, I trust someone with a foot in Go and another language can translate
-help me translate between the two.
+hold near-and-dear, such as error checking and proper documentation, in order to
+make the code as accessible as possible to non-gophers as well. As with before,
+I trust someone with a foot in Go and another language can translate help me
+translate between the two.
 
 ## Part 1: Program Structure
 
@@ -62,7 +56,7 @@ src/
 ```
 
 What I grew to learn was that this conflation of "program structure" with
-"directory structure" is ultimately unhelpful. While I won't deny that every
+"directory structure" is ultimately unhelpful. While can't be denied that every
 program has a directory structure (and if not, it ought to), this does not mean
 that the way the program looks in a filesystem in any way corresponds to how it
 looks in our mind's eye.
@@ -80,27 +74,34 @@ src/
 
 If I were to ask you, based on that directory strucure, what the program does,
 in the most abstract terms, you might say something like: "The program
-establishes an http server which listens for requests, as well as a connection
-to the redis server. The program then interacts with redis in different ways,
-based on the http requests which are received on the server."
+establishes an http server which listens for requests. It also establishes a
+connection to the redis server. The program then interacts with redis in
+different ways, based on the http requests which are received on the server."
 
 And that would be a good guess. Here's a diagram which depicts the program
 structure, wherein the root node, `main.go`, takes in requests from `http` and
 processes them using `redis`.
 
-TODO diagram
+{% include image.html
+    dir="program-structure" file="diag1.jpg" width=519
+    descr="Example 1"
+    %}
 
 This is certainly a viable guess for how a program with that directory structure
-operates, but consider another: "A component of the program called `server`
-establishes an http server which listens for requests, as well as a connection
-to a redis server. `server` then interacts with that redis connection in
-different ways, based on the http requests which are received on the http
-server.  Additionally, `server` tracks statistics about these interactions and
-makes them available to other components. The root component of the program
-establishes a connection to a second redis server, and stores those statistics
-in that redis server."
+operates, but consider another answer: "A component of the program called
+`server` establishes an http server which listens for requests. `server` also
+establishes a connection to a redis server. `server` then interacts with that
+redis connection in different ways, based on the http requests which are
+received on the http server. Additionally, `server` tracks statistics about
+these interactions and makes them available to other components. The root
+component of the program establishes a connection to a second redis server, and
+stores those statistics in that redis server." Here's another diagram to depict
+_that_ program.
 
-TODO diagram
+{% include image.html
+    dir="program-structure" file="diag2.jpg" width=712
+    descr="Example 2"
+    %}
 
 The directory structure could apply to either description; `redis` is just a
 library which allows for interacting with a redis server, but it doesn't specify
@@ -112,9 +113,9 @@ program will use those components.**
 
 ### Global State vs Compartmentalization
 
-The directory-centric approach to structure often leads to the use of global
+The directory-centric view of structure often leads to the use of global
 singletons to manage access to external resources like RPC servers and
-databases. In the above example the `redis` library might contain code which
+databases. In examples 1 and 2 the `redis` library might contain code which
 looks something like:
 
 ```go
@@ -130,33 +131,34 @@ func Get(name string) *RedisConn {
 ```
 
 Even though this pattern would work, it breaks with our conception of the
-program structure in the more complex case shown above. Rather than having the
-`server` component own the redis server it uses, the root component would be the
-owner of it, and `server` would be borrowing it. Compartmentalization has been
-broken, and can only be held together through sheer human discipline.
+program structure in more complexes cases like example 2. Rather than the
+`redis` component being owned by the `server` component, which actually uses it,
+it would be practically owned by _all_ components, since all are able to use it.
+Compartmentalization has been broken, and can only be held together through
+sheer human discipline.
 
-This is the problem with all global state. It's shareable amongst all components
-of a program, and so is owned by none of them. One must look at an entire
-codebase to understand how a globally held component is used, which might not
-even be possible for a large codebase. And so the maintainers of these shared
-components rely entirely on the discipline of their fellow coders when making
-changes, usually discovering where that discipline broke down once the changes
-have been pushed live.
+**This is the problem with all global state. It's shareable amongst all components
+of a program, and so is accountable to none of them.** One must look at an
+entire codebase to understand how a globally held component is used, which might
+not even be possible for a large codebase. And so the maintainers of these
+shared components rely entirely on the discipline of their fellow coders when
+making changes, usually discovering where that discipline broke down once the
+changes have been pushed live.
 
-Global state also makes it easier for disparate services/components to share
-datastores for completely unrelated tasks. In the above example, rather than
-creating a new redis instance for the root component's statistics storage, the
-coder might have instead said "well, there's already a redis instance available,
-I'll just use that." And so compartmentalization would have been broken further.
-Perhaps the two instances _could_ be coalesced into the same one, for the sake
-of resource efficiency, but that decision would be better made at runtime via
-the configuration of the program, rather than being hardcoded into the code.
+Global state also makes it easier for disparate programs/components to share
+datastores for completely unrelated tasks. In example 2, rather than creating a
+new redis instance for the root component's statistics storage, the coder might
+have instead said "well, there's already a redis instance available, I'll just
+use that." And so compartmentalization would have been broken further. Perhaps
+the two instances _could_ be coalesced into the same one, for the sake of
+resource efficiency, but that decision would be better made at runtime via the
+configuration of the program, rather than being hardcoded into the code.
 
 From the perspective of team management, global state-based patterns do nothing
 except slow teams down. The person/team responsible for maintaining the central
-library which holds all the shared resources (`redis`, in the above example)
-becomes the bottleneck for creating new instances for new components, which will
-further lead to re-using existing instances rather than create new ones, further
+library in which shared components live (`redis`, in the above examples) becomes
+the bottleneck for creating new instances for new components, which will further
+lead to re-using existing instances rather than creating new ones, further
 breaking compartmentalization. The person/team responsible for the central
 library often finds themselves as the maintainers of the shared resource as
 well, rather than the team actually using it.
@@ -174,16 +176,10 @@ some IO functionality of their own.
 Let's look at an even more complex structure, still only using the `redis` and
 `http` component types:
 
-TODO diagram:
-```
-    root
-        rest-api
-            redis
-            http
-        redis // for stats keeping
-        debug
-            http
-```
+{% include image.html
+    dir="program-structure" file="diag3.jpg" width=729
+    descr="Example 3"
+    %}
 
 This component structure contains the addition of the `debug` component. Clearly
 the `http` and `redis` components are reusable in different contexts, but for
@@ -212,8 +208,8 @@ func NewRestAPI() *RestAPI {
 
     // mux will route requests to different handlers based on their URL path.
     mux := http.NewServeMux()
-    mux.Handle("/foo", http.HandlerFunc(r.fooHandler))
-    mux.Handle("/bar", http.HandlerFunc(r.barHandler))
+    mux.HandleFunc("/foo", r.fooHandler)
+    mux.HandleFunc("/bar", r.barHandler)
     r.httpSrv := http.NewServer(mux)
 
     // Listen for requests and serve them in the background.
@@ -235,9 +231,9 @@ func (r *RestAPI) barHandler(rw http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
 }
 ```
 
-As can be seen, `rest-api` coalesces `http` and `redis` into a simple REST api,
-using pre-made library components. `main.go`, the root component, does much the
-same:
+As can be seen, `rest-api` coalesces `http` and `redis` into a simple REST-like
+api, using pre-made library components. `main.go`, the root component, does much
+the same:
 
 ```go
 func main() {
@@ -262,14 +258,14 @@ One thing which is clearly missing in this program is proper configuration,
 whether from command-line, environment variables, etc.... As it stands, all
 configuration parameters, such as the redis addresses and http listen addresses,
 are hardcoded. Proper configuration actually ends up being somewhat difficult,
-as the ideal case would be for each component to set up the configuration
-variables of itself, without its parent needing to be aware. For example,
-`redis` could set up `addr` and `pool-size` parameters. The problem is that
-there are two `redis` components in the program, and their parameters would
-therefore conflict with each other. An elegant solution to this problem is
-discussed in the next section.
+as the ideal case would be for each component to set up its own configuration
+variables, without its parent needing to be aware. For example, `redis` could
+set up `addr` and `pool-size` parameters. The problem is that there are two
+`redis` components in the program, and their parameters would therefore conflict
+with each other. An elegant solution to this problem is discussed in the next
+section.
 
-## Part 2: Context, Configuration, and Runtime
+## Part 2: Components, Configuration, and Runtime
 
 The key to the configuration problem is to recognize that, even if there are two
 of the same component in a program, they can't occupy the same place in the
@@ -296,54 +292,45 @@ components in that program would set up:
 ```
 
 So how can we enable each component to know its path in the component structure?
-To answer this we'll have to take a detour through go's `Context` type.
+To answer this we'll have to take a detour through a type, called `Component`.
 
-### Context and Configuration
+### Component and Configuration
 
-As I mentioned in the Introduction, my example language in this post is Go, but
-there's nothing about the concepts I'm presenting which are specific to Go. To
-put it simply, Go's builtin `context` package implements a type called
-`context.Context` which is, for all intents and purposes, an immutable key/value
-store. This means that when you set a key to a value on a Context (using the
-`context.WithValue` function) a new Context is returned. The new Context
-contains all of the original's key/values, plus the one just set. The original
-remains untouched.
+The `Component` type is a made up type (though you'll be able to find an
+implementation of it at the end of this post). It has a single primary purpose,
+and that is to convey the program's structure to new components.
 
-(Go's Context also has some behavior built into it surrounding deadlines and
-process cancellation, but those aren't relevant for this discussion.)
-
-Context makes sense to use for carrying information about the program's
-structure to it's different components; it is informing each of what _context_
-it exists in within the larger structure. To use Context effectively, however,
-it is necessary to implement some helper functions. Here are their function
-signatures:
+To see how this is done, let's look at a couple of `Component`'s methods:
 
 ```go
-// Package mctx
+// Package mcmp
 
-// NewChild creates and returns a new Context based off of the parent one. The
-// child will have a path which is the parent's path appended with the given
-// name.
-func NewChild(parent context.Context, name string) context.Context
+// New returns a new Component which has no parents or children. It is therefore
+// the root component of a component hierarchy.
+func New() *Component
 
-// Path returns the sequence of names which were used to produce this Context
-// via calls to the NewChild function.
-func Path(ctx context.Context) []string
+// Child returns a new child of the called upon Component.
+func (*Component) Child(name string) *Component
+
+// Path returns the Component's path in the component hierarchy. It will return
+// an empty slice if the Component is the root component.
+func (*Component) Path() []string
 ```
 
-`NewChild` is used to create a new Context, corresponding to a new child node in
-the component structure, and `Path` is used retrieve the path of any Context
-within that structure. For the sake of keeping the examples simple let's pretend
-these functions have been implemented in a package called `mctx`. Here's an
-example of how `mctx` might be used in the `redis` component's code:
+
+`Child` is used to create a new `Component`, corresponding to a new child node
+in the component structure, and `Path` is used retrieve the path of any
+`Component` within that structure. For the sake of keeping the examples simple
+let's pretend these functions have been implemented in a package called `mcmp`.
+Here's an example of how `Component` might be used in the `redis` component's
+code:
 
 ```go
 // Package redis
 
-func NewConn(ctx context.Context, defaultAddr string) *RedisConn {
-    ctx = mctx.NewChild(ctx, "redis")
-    ctxPath := mctx.Path(ctx)
-    paramPrefix := strings.Join(ctxPath, "-")
+func NewConn(cmp *mcmp.Component, defaultAddr string) *RedisConn {
+    cmp = cmp.Child("redis")
+    paramPrefix := strings.Join(cmp.Path(), "-")
 
     addrParam := flag.String(paramPrefix+"-addr", defaultAddr, "Address of redis instance to connect to")
     // finish setup
@@ -355,59 +342,69 @@ func NewConn(ctx context.Context, defaultAddr string) *RedisConn {
 In our above example, the two `redis` components' parameters would be:
 
 ```
-// This first parameter is for stats redis, whose parent is the root and
+// This first parameter is for the stats redis, whose parent is the root and
 // therefore doesn't have a prefix. Perhaps stats should be broken into its own
 // component in order to fix this.
 --redis-addr
 --rest-api-redis-addr
 ```
 
-The prefix joining stuff will probably get annoying after a while though, so
-let's invent a new package, `mcfg`, which acts like `flag` but is aware of
-`mctx`. Then `redis.NewConn` is reduced to:
+`Component` definitely makes it easier to instantiate multiple redis components
+in our program, since it allows them to know their place in the component
+structure.
+
+Having to construct the prefix for the parameters ourselves is pretty annoying
+though, so let's introduce a new package, `mcfg`, which acts like `flag` but is
+aware of `Component`. Then `redis.NewConn` is reduced to:
 
 ```go
 // Package redis
 
-func NewConn(ctx context.Context, defaultAddr string) *RedisConn {
-    ctx = mctx.NewChild(ctx, "redis")
-    addrParam := flag.String(ctx, "-addr", defaultAddr, "Address of redis instance to connect to")
+func NewConn(cmp *mcmp.Component, defaultAddr string) *RedisConn {
+    cmp = cmp.Child("redis")
+    addrParam := flag.String(cmp, "-addr", defaultAddr, "Address of redis instance to connect to")
     // finish setup
 
     return redisConn
 }
 ```
 
+Easy-peazy.
+
+#### But What About Parse?
+
 Sharp-eyed gophers will notice that there's a key piece missing: When is
-`mcfg.Parse` called? When does `addrParam` actually get populated? Because you
-can't create the redis connection until that happens, but that can't happen
-inside `redis.NewConn` because there might be other things after `redis.NewConn`
-which want to set up parameters. To illustrate the problem, let's look at a
-simple program which wants to set up two `redis` components:
+`flag.Parse`, or its `mcfg` counterpart, called? When does `addrParam` actually
+get populated? You can't use the redis connection until that happens, but that
+can't happen inside `redis.NewConn` because there might be other components
+after `redis.NewConn` which want to set up parameters. To illustrate the
+problem, let's look at a simple program which wants to set up two `redis`
+components:
 
 ```go
 func main() {
-    // Create the root context, an empty Context.
-    ctx := context.Background()
+    // Create the root Component, an empty Component.
+    cmp := mcmp.New()
 
-    // Create the Contexts for two sub-components, foo and bar.
-    ctxFoo := mctx.NewChild(ctx, "foo")
-    ctxBar := mctx.NewChild(ctx, "bar")
+    // Create the Components for two sub-components, foo and bar.
+    cmpFoo := cmp.Child("foo")
+    cmpBar := cmp.Child("bar")
 
     // Now we want to try to create a redis sub-component for each component.
 
     // This will set up the parameter "--foo-redis-addr", but bar hasn't had a
     // chance to set up its corresponding parameter, so the command-line can't
     // be parsed yet.
-    fooRedis := redis.NewConn(ctxFoo, "127.0.0.1:6379")
+    fooRedis := redis.NewConn(cmpFoo, "127.0.0.1:6379")
 
     // This will set up the parameter "--bar-redis-addr", but, as mentioned
     // before, redis.NewConn can't parse command-line.
-    barRedis := redis.NewConn(ctxBar, "127.0.0.1:6379")
+    barRedis := redis.NewConn(cmpBar, "127.0.0.1:6379")
 
     // If the command-line is parsed here, then how can fooRedis and barRedis
-    // have been created yet? Creating the redis connection depends on the addr
-    // parameters having already been parsed and filled.
+    // have been created yet? It's only _after_ this point that `fooRedis` and
+    // `barRedis` could possibly be usable.
+    mcfg.Parse()
 }
 ```
 
@@ -417,14 +414,14 @@ We will solve this problem in the next section.
 
 Let's break down `redis.NewConn` into two phases: instantiation and initialization.
 Instantiation refers to creating the component on the component structure and
-having it declare what it needs in order to initialize. After instantiation
-nothing external to the program has been done; no IO, no reading of the
-command-line, no logging, etc... All that's happened is that the empty shell of
-a `redis` component has been created.
+having it declare what it needs in order to initialize (e.g. configuration
+parameters). During instantiation nothing external to the program is performed;
+no IO, no reading of the command-line, no logging, etc... All that's happened is
+that the empty template of a `redis` component has been created.
 
-Initialization is the phase when that shell is filled. Configuration parameters
-are read, startup actions like the creation of database connections are
-performed, and logging is output for informational and debugging purposes.
+Initialization is the phase when that template is filled in. Configuration
+parameters are read, startup actions like the creation of database connections
+are performed, and logging is output for informational and debugging purposes.
 
 The key to making effective use of this dichotemy is to allow _all_ components
 to instantiate themselves before they initialize themselves. By doing this we
@@ -436,40 +433,51 @@ sense to leave instantiation related code where it is, but we need a mechanism
 by which we can declare initialization code before actually calling it. For
 this, I will introduce the idea of a "hook".
 
+#### But First: Augment Component
+
+In order to support hooks, however, `Component` will need to be augmented with
+a few new methods. Right now it can only carry with it information about the
+component structure, but here we will add the ability to carry arbitrary
+key/value information as well:
+
+```go
+// Package mcmp
+
+// SetValue sets the given key to the given value on the Component, overwriting
+// any previous value for that key.
+func (*Component) SetValue(key, value interface{})
+
+// Value returns the value which has been set for the given key, or nil if the
+// key was never set.
+func (*Component) Value(key interface{}) interface{}
+
+// Children returns the Component's children in the order they were created.
+func (*Component) Children() []*Component
+```
+
+The final method allows us to, starting at the root `Component`, traverse the
+component structure, interacting with each `Component`'s key/value store. This
+will be useful for implementing hooks.
+
+#### Hooks
+
 A hook is, simply a function which will run later. We will declare a new
 package, calling it `mrun`, and say that it has two new functions:
 
 ```go
 // Package mrun
 
-// WithInitHook returns a new Context based off the passed in one, with the //
-given hook registered to it.
-func WithInitHook(ctx context.Context, hook func()) context.Context
+// InitHook registers the given hook to the given Component.
+func InitHook(cmp *mcmp.Component, hook func())
 
-// Init runs all hooks registered using WithInitHook. Hooks are run in the order
+// Init runs all hooks registered using InitHook. Hooks are run in the order
 // they were registered.
-func Init(ctx context.Context)
+func Init(cmp *mcmp.Component)
 ```
 
 With these two functions we are able to defer the initialization phase of
-startup by using the same Contexts we were passing around for the purpose of
-denoting component structure. One thing to note is that, since hooks are being
-registered onto Contexts within the component instantiation code, the parent
-Context will not know about these hooks. Therefore it is necessary to add the
-child component's Context back into the parent. To do this we add two final
-functions to the `mctx` package:
-
-```go
-// Package mctx
-
-// WithChild returns a copy of the parent with the child added to it. Children
-// of a Context can be retrieved using the Children function.
-func WithChild(parent, child context.Context) context.Context
-
-// Children returns all child Contexts which have been added to the given one
-// using WithChild, in the order they were added.
-func Children(ctx context.Context) []context.Context
-```
+startup by using the same `Component`s we were passing around for the purpose of
+denoting component structure.
 
 Now, with these few extra pieces of functionality in place, let's reconsider the
 most recent example, and make a program which creates two redis components which
@@ -478,61 +486,54 @@ exist independently of each other:
 ```go
 // Package redis
 
-// NOTE that NewConn has been renamed to WithConn, to reflect that the given
-// Context is being returned _with_ a redis component added to it.
+// NOTE that NewConn has been renamed to InstConn, to reflect that the returned
+// *RedisConn is merely instantiated, not initialized.
 
-func WithConn(parent context.Context, defaultAddr string) (context.Context, *RedisConn) {
-    ctx = mctx.NewChild(parent, "redis")
+func InstConn(cmp *mcmp.Component, defaultAddr string) *RedisConn {
+    cmp = cmp.Child("redis")
 
     // we instantiate an empty RedisConn instance and parameters for it. Neither
     // has been initialized yet. They will remain empty until initialization has
     // occurred.
     redisConn := new(RedisConn)
-    addrParam := flag.String(ctx, "-addr", defaultAddr, "Address of redis instance to connect to")
+    addrParam := mcfg.String(cmp, "-addr", defaultAddr, "Address of redis instance to connect to")
 
-    ctx = mrun.WithInitHook(ctx, func() {
+    mrun.InitHook(cmp, func() {
         // This hook will run after parameter initialization has happened, and
-        // so addrParam will be usable. redisConn will be usable after this hook
-        // has run as well.
+        // so addrParam will be usable. Once this hook as run, redisConn will be
+        // usable as well.
         *redisConn = makeRedisConnection(*addrParam)
     })
 
-    // Now that ctx has had configuration parameters and intialization hooks
-    // instantiated into it, return both it and the empty redisConn instance
-    // back to the parent.
-    return mctx.WithChild(parent, ctx), redisConn
+    // Now that cmp has had configuration parameters and intialization hooks
+    // set into it, return the empty redisConn instance back to the parent.
+    return redisConn
 }
+```
 
-////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-
+```go
 // Package main
 
 func main() {
-    // Create the root context, an empty Context.
-    ctx := context.Background()
+    // Create the root Component, an empty Component.
+    cmp := mcmp.New()
 
-    // Create the Contexts for two sub-components, foo and bar.
-    ctxFoo := mctx.NewChild(ctx, "foo")
-    ctxBar := mctx.NewChild(ctx, "bar")
+    // Create the Components for two sub-components, foo and bar.
+    cmpFoo := cmp.Child("foo")
+    cmpBar := cmp.Child("bar")
 
-    // Add redis components to each of the foo and bar sub-components. The
-    // returned Contexts will be used to initialize the redis components.
-    ctxFoo, redisFoo := redis.WithConn(ctxFoo, "127.0.0.1:6379")
-    ctxBar, redisBar := redis.WithConn(ctxBar, "127.0.0.1:6379")
+    // Add redis components to each of the foo and bar sub-components.
+    redisFoo := redis.InstConn(cmpFoo, "127.0.0.1:6379")
+    redisBar := redis.InstConn(cmpBar, "127.0.0.1:6379")
 
-    // Add the sub-component contexts back to the root, so they can all be
-    // initialized at once.
-    ctx = mctx.WithChild(ctx, ctxFoo)
-    ctx = mctx.WithChild(ctx, ctxBar)
+    // Parse will descend into the Component and all of its children,
+    // discovering all registered configuration parameters and filling them from
+    // the command-line.
+    mcfg.Parse(cmp)
 
-    // Parse will descend into the Context and all of its children, discovering
-    // all registered configuration parameters and filling them from the
-    // command-line.
-    mcfg.Parse(ctx)
-
-    // Now that configuration has been initialized, run the Init hooks for each
-    // of the sub-components.
-    mrun.Init(ctx)
+    // Now that configuration parameters have been initialized, run the Init
+    // hooks for all Components.
+    mrun.Init(cmp)
 
     // At this point the redis components have been fully initialized and may be
     // used. For this example we'll copy all keys from one to the other.
@@ -544,117 +545,37 @@ func main() {
 }
 ```
 
-### Full example
+## Conclusion
 
-TODO
+While the examples given here are fairly simplistic, the pattern itself is quite
+powerful. Codebases naturally accumulate small, domain specific behaviors and
+optimizations over time, especially around the IO components of the program.
+Databases are used with specific options that an organization finds useful,
+logging is performed in particular places, metrics are counted around certain
+pieces of code, etc...
 
-## Part 3: Annotations, Logging, and Errors
+By programming with component structure in mind we are able to keep these
+optimizations while also keeping the clarity and compartmentalization of the
+code in-tact. We are able to keep our code flexible and configurable, while also
+re-usable and testable. And the simplicity of the tools involved means it can be
+extended and retrofitted for nearly any situation or use-case.
 
-Let's shift gears away from the component structure for a bit, and talk about a
-separate, but related, set of issues: those related to logging and errors.
+Overall, it's a powerful pattern that I've found myself unable to do without
+once I began using it.
 
-Both logging and error creation share the same problem, that of collecting as
-much contextual information around an event as possible. This is often done
-through string formatting, like so:
+### Implementation
 
-```go
-// ServeHTTP implements the http.Handler method and is used to serve App's HTTP
-// endpoints.
-func (app *App) ServeHTTP(rw http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
-    log.Printf("incoming request from remoteAddr:%s for url:%s", r.RemoteAddr, r.URL.String())
+As a final note, you can find an example implementation of the packages
+described in this post here:
 
-    // begin actual request handling
-}
-```
+* [mcmp](https://godoc.org/github.com/mediocregopher/mediocre-go-lib/mcmp)
+* [mcfg](https://godoc.org/github.com/mediocregopher/mediocre-go-lib/mcfg)
+* [mrun](https://godoc.org/github.com/mediocregopher/mediocre-go-lib/mrun)
 
-In this example the code is logging an event, an incoming HTTP request, and
-including contextual information in that log about the remote address of the
-requester and the URL being requested.
-
-Similarly, an error might be created like this:
-
-```go
-func (app *App) GetUsername(userID int) (string, error) {
-    userName, err := app.Redis.Command("GET", userID)
-    if err != nil {
-        return "", fmt.Errorf("could not get username for userID:%d: %s", userID, err)
-    }
-    return userName, nil
-}
-```
-
-In that example, when redis returns an error, the error is extended to include
-contextual information about what was attempting to be done (`could not get
-username`) and the userID involved. In newer versions of Go, and indeed in many
-other programming languages, the error will also include information about where
-in the source code it occurred, such as file name and line number.
-
-It is my experience that both logging and error creation often take up an
-inordinate amount of space in many programs. This is due to a desire to
-contextualize as much as possible, since in a large program it can be difficult
-to tell exactly where something is happening, even if you're looking at the log
-entry or error. For example, if a program has a set of HTTP endpoints, each one
-performing a redis call, what good is it to see the log entry `redis command had
-an error: took too long` without also knowing which command is involved, and
-which endpoint is calling it? Very little.
-
-Many programs end up looking like this:
-
-```go
-func (app *App) httpEndpointA(rw http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
-    err := app.Redis.Command("SET", "foo", "bar")
-    if err != nil {
-        log.Printf("redis error occurred in EndpointA, calling SET: %s", err)
-    }
-}
-
-func (app *App) httpEndpointB(rw http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
-    err := app.Redis.Command("INCR", "baz")
-    if err != nil {
-        log.Printf("redis error occurred in EndpointA, calling INCR: %s", err)
-    }
-}
-
-// etc...
-```
-
-Obviously logging is taking up the majority of the code-space in those examples,
-and that doesn't even include potentially pertinent information such as IP
-address, or log entries for non-error events.
-
-Another aspect of the logging/error dichotemy is that they are often dealing in
-essentially the same data. This makes sense, as both are really dealing with the
-same thing: capturing context for the purpose of later debugging. So rather than
-formatting strings by hand for each use-case, let's instead use our friend,
-`context.Context`, to carry the data for us.
-
-
-### Annotations
-
-I will here introduce the idea of "annotations", which are essentially key/value
-pairs which can be attached to a Context and retrieved later. To implement
-annotations I will introduce two new functions to the `mctx` package:
-
-```go
-// Package mctx
-
-// Annotate returns a new Context with the given key/value pairs embedded into
-// it, which can be later retrieved using the Annotations method. If any keys
-// conflict with previous annotations, their values will overwrite the
-// previously annotated values for those keys.
-func Annotate(ctx context.Context, keyvals ...interface{}) context.Context
-
-// Annotations returns all annotations which have been set on the Context using
-// Annotate.
-func Annotations(ctx context.Context) map[interface{}]interface{}
-```
-
-### Aside: Structural vs Runtime Contexts
-
-It may seem strange that we're about to use Contexts for a use-case that's
-completely different than the one discussed in Part 1, and I've been asked
-before if perhaps that doesn't indicate the two should be separated into
-separate entities: a structural context type which behaves as shown in Part 1,
-and a runtime context type whose behavior we've just looked at.
-
-I think this is a compelling idea...
+The packages are not stable and are likely to change frequently. You'll also
+find that they have been extended quite a bit from the simple descriptions found
+here, based on what I've found useful as I've implemented programs using
+component structures. With these two points in mind, I would encourage you to
+look in and take whatever functionality you find useful for yourself, and not
+use the packages directly. The core pieces are not different from what has been
+described in this post.