Discourage structs in api

Structs make api harder to evolve:
deprecated unused properties,
change how data is represented.

Classes with accessors allow more graduated and safer api evolution.

Bug: None
Change-Id: I8ebd5e072d51cf7f5800666cfdac523d0f9a937f
Reviewed-on: https://webrtc-review.googlesource.com/c/src/+/317520
Reviewed-by: Harald Alvestrand <hta@webrtc.org>
Commit-Queue: Danil Chapovalov <danilchap@webrtc.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#40714}
This commit is contained in:
Danil Chapovalov 2023-09-07 12:29:43 +02:00 committed by WebRTC LUCI CQ
parent 8fd09016e6
commit 541756ff6b

View file

@ -13,8 +13,9 @@ Mostly, just follow the regular [style guide](/g3doc/style-guide.md), but:
mountain of technical debt that were trying to shrink.
* `.cc` files in `api/`, on the other hand, are free to `#include` headers
outside `api/`.
* Avoid structs in api, prefer classes.
That is, the preferred way for `api/` code to access non-`api/` code is to call
The preferred way for `api/` code to access non-`api/` code is to call
it from a `.cc` file, so that users of our API headers wont transitively
`#include` non-public headers.
@ -25,3 +26,12 @@ usual [rules](/g3doc/style-guide.md#forward-declarations) still apply, though.
`.cc` files in `api/` should preferably be kept reasonably small. If a
substantial implementation is needed, consider putting it with our non-public
code, and just call it from the `api/` `.cc` file.
Avoid defining api with structs as it makes harder for the api to evolve.
Your struct may gain invariant, or change how it represents data.
Evolving struct from the api is particular challenging as it is designed to be
used in other code bases and thus needs to be updated independetly from its usage.
Class with accessors and setters makes such migration safer.
See [Google C++ style guide](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Structs_vs._Classes) for more.
If you need to evolve existent struct in api, prefer first to convert it into a class.