mirror of
https://github.com/enso-org/enso.git
synced 2024-12-30 04:33:46 +03:00
cfba3c6887
* Add support for https and wss Preliminary support for https and wss. During language server startup we will read the application config and search for the `https` config with necessary env vars set. The configuration supports two modes of creating ssl-context - via PKCS12 format and certificat+private key. Fixes #7839. * Added tests, improved documentation Generic improvements along with actual tests. * lint * more docs + wss support * changelog * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Dmitry Bushev <bushevdv@gmail.com> * PR comment * typo * lint * make windows line endings happy --------- Co-authored-by: Dmitry Bushev <bushevdv@gmail.com>
696 lines
32 KiB
Markdown
696 lines
32 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
layout: developer-doc
|
|
title: The Enso Protocol
|
|
category: language-server
|
|
tags: [language-server, protocol, architecture]
|
|
order: 1
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# The Enso Protocol
|
|
|
|
Enso is a sophisticated language, but in order to provide a great user
|
|
experience to our users we also need the ability to provide great tooling. This
|
|
tooling means a language server, but it also means a set of extra peripheral
|
|
components that ensure we can run Enso in a way that the product requires.
|
|
|
|
These services are responsible for providing the whole-host of language- and
|
|
project-level tooling to the IDE components, whether they're hosted in the cloud
|
|
or locally on a user's machine.
|
|
|
|
This document contains the architectural and functional specification of the
|
|
Enso protocol.
|
|
|
|
For a detailed specification of all of the messages that make up the protocol,
|
|
please see [the protocol message specifications](./README.md).
|
|
|
|
<!-- MarkdownTOC levels="2,3,4" autolink="true" -->
|
|
|
|
- [Architecture](#architecture)
|
|
- [The Project Manager](#the-project-manager)
|
|
- [Language Server](#language-server)
|
|
- [Textual Protocol](#textual-protocol)
|
|
- [Textual Protocol Communication Patterns](#textual-protocol-communication-patterns)
|
|
- [Textual Protocol Transport](#textual-protocol-transport)
|
|
- [The Protocol Format](#the-protocol-format)
|
|
- [Textual Protocol Functionality](#textual-protocol-functionality)
|
|
- [Textual Diff Management](#textual-diff-management)
|
|
- [Handling Multiple Clients](#handling-multiple-clients)
|
|
- [Project State Management](#project-state-management)
|
|
- [File Management and Storage](#file-management-and-storage)
|
|
- [Execution Management](#execution-management)
|
|
- [Caching](#caching)
|
|
- [Progress Reporting](#progress-reporting)
|
|
- [Completion](#completion)
|
|
- [Analysis Operations](#analysis-operations)
|
|
- [Functionality Post 2.0](#functionality-post-20)
|
|
- [Binary Protocol](#binary-protocol)
|
|
- [Binary Protocol Communication Patterns](#binary-protocol-communication-patterns)
|
|
- [Binary Protocol Transport](#binary-protocol-transport)
|
|
- [Binary Protocol Functionality](#binary-protocol-functionality)
|
|
- [Displaying Visualizations](#displaying-visualizations)
|
|
- [Service Connection Setup](#service-connection-setup)
|
|
- [Service Connection Teardown](#service-connection-teardown)
|
|
|
|
<!-- /MarkdownTOC -->
|
|
|
|
## Architecture
|
|
|
|
The divisions of responsibility between the backend engine services are dictated
|
|
purely by necessity. As multi-client editing necessitates careful
|
|
synchronisation and conflict resolution, between the actions of multiple
|
|
clients. This section deals with the intended architecture for the Engine
|
|
Services.
|
|
|
|
The engine services are divided into two main components:
|
|
|
|
1. **The Project Manager:** This component is responsible for listing and
|
|
managing user projects, as well as spawning the language server for a given
|
|
project when it is opened.
|
|
2. **The Language Server:** This component is responsible for dealing with
|
|
incoming connections and resolving conflicts between multiple clients. It is
|
|
also responsible for servicing all of the requests from the clients.
|
|
|
|
Both components will be implemented as akka actors such that we can defer the
|
|
decision as to run them in different processes until the requirements become
|
|
more clear.
|
|
|
|
### The Project Manager
|
|
|
|
The project manager service is responsible for both allowing users to work with
|
|
their projects but also the setup and teardown of the language server itself.
|
|
Its responsibilities can be summarised as follows:
|
|
|
|
- Allowing users to manage their projects.
|
|
- Starting up the language server for a given project upon user selection.
|
|
- Notifying the language server of a pending shutdown on project exit to allow
|
|
it to persist any state that it needs to disk.
|
|
|
|
### Language Server
|
|
|
|
The language server is responsible for managing incoming connections and
|
|
communicating with the clients, as well as resolving any potential conflicts
|
|
between the clients. It is responsible for the following:
|
|
|
|
- Negotiating and accepting connections from multiple clients.
|
|
- Resolving conflicts between messages from multiple clients.
|
|
- Optimising incoming requests wherever possible.
|
|
|
|
It is also responsible for actually servicing all of the incoming requests,
|
|
which includes but isn't limited to:
|
|
|
|
- **Completion Information:** It should be able to provide a set of candidate
|
|
completions for a given location in the code.
|
|
- **Introspection Information:** It should be able to provide introspection
|
|
information from the running interpreter, which consists primarily of types
|
|
and values.
|
|
- **Textual Diff Management:** It needs to be able to accept and publish diffs
|
|
of the program source code. As part of this, it needs to keep the node
|
|
metadata up to date.
|
|
- **Analysis Operations:** It should be able to service various IDE-style
|
|
analysis requests (e.g. jump-to-definition or find usages)
|
|
- **Arbitrary Code Execution:** It should be able to execute arbitrary Enso code
|
|
on values in scope.
|
|
- **Refactoring:** Common refactoring operations for Enso programs, including
|
|
renaming, code formatting, and so on.
|
|
- **IO Management:** Though this is arguably a feature of the runtime rather
|
|
than the language server itself, this refers to the ability to watch files and
|
|
monitor IO in order to recompute minimal subsets of the program.
|
|
|
|
It should be noted that the language server _explicitly does not_ talk using
|
|
LSP. The component is solely responsible for _servicing_ requests, instead of
|
|
dealing with the minutiae of connection negotiation and request handling.
|
|
|
|
Additionally, it is _very important_ to note that the language server _must not_
|
|
depend directly on the runtime (as a compile-time dependency). This would
|
|
introduce significant coupling between the runtime implementation and the
|
|
language server. Instead, the LS should only depend on `org.graalvm.polyglot` to
|
|
interface with the runtime.
|
|
|
|
## Textual Protocol
|
|
|
|
> This section is partially out of date.
|
|
|
|
The protocol refers to the communication format that all of the above services
|
|
speak between each other and to the GUI. This protocol is not specialised only
|
|
to language server operations, as instead it needs to work for all of the
|
|
various services in this set.
|
|
|
|
The protocol we are using intends to be fully compatible with the Microsoft LSP
|
|
[specification](https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/specification-3-145)
|
|
(version 3.15). In essence, we will operate as follows:
|
|
|
|
- Where our use case matches with a function provided by LSP, we will use the
|
|
specified LSP message (e.g. completions).
|
|
- Where our use-case does not match a message provided by LSP, we will use the
|
|
following process:
|
|
1. If we can implement this on top of one of LSP's extensible mechanisms (e.g.
|
|
commands) we will do so.
|
|
2. If this is not possible, we will specify an _extension_ to the protocol.
|
|
This extension will be well-specified within this document, and should be
|
|
in the spirit of the existing protocol. If relevant, we may propose it as a
|
|
future extension to the specification.
|
|
|
|
Aside from the language server protocol-based operations, we will definitely
|
|
need a protocol extension to support Enso's custom language functionality.
|
|
|
|
### Textual Protocol Communication Patterns
|
|
|
|
Whatever protocol we decide on will need to have support for a couple of main
|
|
communication patterns:
|
|
|
|
- **Pub/Sub:** A standard publisher/subscriber model, the server will need to be
|
|
able to support this kind of connection to deal with events that do not occur
|
|
strictly in response to client actions (e.g. updates to observed values).
|
|
- **Req/Res:** A standard request/response model, the server will need to be
|
|
able to support this kind of connection to deal with one-off requests from the
|
|
client, and potentially to make requests to the client (e.g. list modules in
|
|
the current project, please refresh your file state).
|
|
|
|
There are also certain messages that follow the request/response model but where
|
|
the responses are trivial acknowledgements. For simplicity's sake these are
|
|
currently subsumed by the generic request-response model.
|
|
|
|
As we have decided to remain compatible with LSP, we can use any communication
|
|
pattern that we desire, either by employing existing LSP messages, or writing
|
|
our own protocol extensions. Both of the above-listed patterns are supported by
|
|
LSP.
|
|
|
|
We can support additional patterns through LSP's mechanisms:
|
|
|
|
- Asynchronous responses can be sent as notifications.
|
|
- Protocol-level acknowledgements is supported directly in LSP.
|
|
|
|
### Textual Protocol Transport
|
|
|
|
The transport of the protocol refers to the underlying layer over which its
|
|
messages (discussed in [the protocol format](#the-protocol-format) below) are
|
|
sent. As we are maintaining compatibility with LSP, the protocol transport
|
|
format is already defined for us.
|
|
|
|
- Textual messages are sent using
|
|
[JSON-RPC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON-RPC) over a WebSocket connection
|
|
(as defined in the LSP spec).
|
|
- As a protocol extension we also negotiate a secondary binary WebSocket
|
|
connection for sending visualization data. This transport is independent of
|
|
the LSP spec, and hence is defined entirely by us.
|
|
|
|
> The actionables for this section are:
|
|
>
|
|
> - Determine the details for the binary WebSocket, including how we want to
|
|
> encode messages and pointers into the stream, as well as how we set it up
|
|
> and tear it down.
|
|
|
|
### The Protocol Format
|
|
|
|
Protocol messages are defined by LSP. Any extensions to the messages defined in
|
|
the standard should use similar patterns such that they are not incongruous with
|
|
LSP messages. The following notes apply:
|
|
|
|
- Textual messages should be sent as LSP messages or extensions to them.
|
|
- We have a hybrid extension to the protocol to allow us to send binary data
|
|
(for visualizations) over a second WebSocket connection.
|
|
|
|
This means that we have two pipes: one is the textual WebSocket defined by LSP,
|
|
and the other is a binary WebSocket.
|
|
|
|
## Textual Protocol Functionality
|
|
|
|
This entire section deals with the _functional_ requirements placed upon the
|
|
protocol used by the engine services. These requirements are overwhelmingly
|
|
imposed by the IDE, but also include additional functionality for the future
|
|
evolution of the language.
|
|
|
|
All of the following pieces of functionality that are explained in detail are
|
|
those _expected_ for the 2.0 release. Any additional functionality beyond this
|
|
milestone is described in a [dedicated section](#functionality-post-20).
|
|
|
|
### Textual Diff Management
|
|
|
|
The engine services need to support robust handling of textual diffs. This is
|
|
simply because it is the primary form of communication for synchronising source
|
|
code between the IDE and the engine. It will need to support the following
|
|
operations:
|
|
|
|
- Synchronisation requests to ensure that the engine and IDE have the same view
|
|
of the files in the project.
|
|
- Diff update requests, that send a textual diff between client and server (or
|
|
vice versa).
|
|
|
|
Both of these are supported natively within the LSP, and we will be using those
|
|
messages to implement this.
|
|
|
|
It should be noted that we _explicitly_ do not intend to handle updates to node
|
|
metadata within the language server.
|
|
|
|
- These updates should be sent as part of each diff the client provides (as a
|
|
separate segment in the `didChange` message).
|
|
- We may support this _in the future_, but we do not for now.
|
|
|
|
We place the following requirements upon the implementation of this:
|
|
|
|
- We must be able to handle diffs of _any size_, even though we prefer that the
|
|
client sends us minimal diffs. We do not know what _all_ clients will do, and
|
|
hence to remain compatible we must handle all diffs.
|
|
- Diffs may require some AST-based or semantic minimisation in order to assist
|
|
in the compiler's incremental pipeline.
|
|
- The gateway must handle diffs from multiple clients properly.
|
|
|
|
The implementation is as follows:
|
|
|
|
- Support for the LSP messages `didOpen`, `didChange`, `willSaveWaitUntil`,
|
|
`didSave`, `didClose`, and support for informing the runtime on each of these.
|
|
- It must track which files are currently open in the editor.
|
|
- The language server and runtime should watch the project folder in order to
|
|
track updates as necessary.
|
|
|
|
### Handling Multiple Clients
|
|
|
|
Multiple-client support will be implemented while remaining compatible with the
|
|
LSP specification.
|
|
|
|
- In the initial implementation, we will work on the principle of 'write lock',
|
|
where only one of the multiple connected clients has the ability to write to
|
|
the file.
|
|
- In the future we will work on true conflict resolution of edits, mediated by
|
|
the language server.
|
|
|
|
It will work as follows:
|
|
|
|
- We will use as much of the LSP initialisation and connection flow as possible
|
|
to connect additional clients. The extensions should be minimal and should
|
|
_not_ break compatibility with LSP.
|
|
- We will extend the protocol (or use extension mechanisms) to implement
|
|
write-lock negotiation. The first client to connect is granted write-lock, but
|
|
this may be changed later via negotiation.
|
|
- If any client sends a `didChange` message without holding the write lock, it
|
|
should receive an `applyEdit` message that reverts the change, as well as a
|
|
notification of the error.
|
|
- The language server / gateway is responsible for synchronising state with new
|
|
clients as they connect. As part of initialisation it should receive client
|
|
state, and then `applyEdit` to synchronise views of the code.
|
|
|
|
### Project State Management
|
|
|
|
One of the most important functionalities for this service set is the ability to
|
|
manage the state of a project in general. The project state refers to the whole
|
|
set of the project files and metadata and needs to support the following
|
|
functionalities:
|
|
|
|
- Get project metadata (name, maintainer, version, dependencies, and so on)
|
|
- Change requests for the above
|
|
|
|
All file-based operations in the project can be handled by the editor directly,
|
|
or the language server (when doing refactoring operations), and as such need no
|
|
support in this section of the protocol.
|
|
|
|
At the current time, the language server has a 1:1 correspondence with a
|
|
project. In the future, however, we may want to add LSP support for multiple
|
|
projects in a single engine, as this would allow users to work with multiple
|
|
related projects in a single instance of the IDE.
|
|
|
|
### File Management and Storage
|
|
|
|
The nature of LSP means that file management and storage is _not_ handled by the
|
|
language server, and is instead handled by the editor. The protocol makes a
|
|
distinction between:
|
|
|
|
- **Open Files:** These are the ones currently open in the editor, and are
|
|
'owned' by the editor. The language server has to work with an in-memory
|
|
representation for these files.
|
|
- **Closed Files:** These are the ones not open in the editor, and can be
|
|
accessed and modified _directly_ by the language server.
|
|
|
|
The language server must have _direct_ access to the project directory on the
|
|
machine where it is running (either the local machine or in the Enso cloud), and
|
|
file operations between the IDE and that machine are handled _indepdendently_ of
|
|
the language server.
|
|
|
|
### Execution Management
|
|
|
|
The language server process will need to be able to respond to requests for
|
|
various kinds of execution of Enso code. Furthermore, it needs to be able to
|
|
respond to requests to 'listen' to the execution of various portions of code.
|
|
This implies that the following functionalities are needed:
|
|
|
|
- Execution of a function with provided arguments.
|
|
- Execution of a function from a given call site (stack position and code
|
|
position).
|
|
- Attach an execution listener to an arbitrary code span.
|
|
- Detach an execution listener by ID.
|
|
- Implement heartbeat messages for execution listeners. If a heartbeat response
|
|
isn't received before some time-out, the language server should detach the
|
|
listener.
|
|
- Force cache invalidation for arbitrary code spans.
|
|
- Attach an automatic execution request.
|
|
- Detach an automatic execution request.
|
|
- Redirect `stdout`/`stdin`/`stderr` to and from the IDE.
|
|
|
|
All of these functionalities will need to take the form of custom extensions to
|
|
the LSP, as they do not fit well into any of the available extension points. To
|
|
that end, these extensions should fit well with the LSP.
|
|
|
|
A subscription (execution listener) is applied to an arbitrary span of code at a
|
|
given position in the call stack.
|
|
|
|
- A subscription may encompass multiple nodes or a single node. Information is
|
|
received for _all_ nodes covered by the provided span.
|
|
- A subscription will ensure that the client receives information on changes in:
|
|
- Execution state (whether the node is being computed or is cached)
|
|
- Profiling information
|
|
- Values
|
|
- Types
|
|
- Where we are in the call stack (useful for recursive execution)
|
|
- Such subscriptions _must_ be accompanied by heartbeat messages in order to
|
|
allow the language server to cull unused subscriptions.
|
|
- Additionally, it will be important for each subscription to be able to
|
|
configure a _rate limit_, such that the update messages do not overwhelm the
|
|
client. If unspecified this should be set to a sensible default.
|
|
|
|
#### Caching
|
|
|
|
One of the most important elements of execution management for the language
|
|
server is the ability to control and interact with the execution cache state in
|
|
the runtime.
|
|
|
|
- This cache stores intermediate values, and every value can be in one of three
|
|
states: invalid, valid but evicted, and valid but present.
|
|
- The cache works based on dependencies between data, such that if `foo` is used
|
|
by `bar`, then changing `foo` must recompute `bar`.
|
|
|
|
The cache eviction strategy is one that will need to evolve. This comes down to
|
|
the simple fact that we do not yet have the tools to implement sophisticated
|
|
strategies, but we need to be correct.
|
|
|
|
- In the initial version we will invalidate _all_ call sites for a given method
|
|
name when a name is changed. Internally this is implemented as the
|
|
invalidation of all occurrences of a dynamic symbol by name, while ignoring
|
|
the type it was defined on.
|
|
- We also need to account for dependencies between data such that if there is a
|
|
dependency `b => a`, then a change to `a` must invalidate the cache result of
|
|
`b`.
|
|
- In future, the typechecker will be able to help constrain the set of evicted
|
|
methods by exploiting dependencies between values and types with more
|
|
information.
|
|
- There may also be non-obvious data dependencies that can be exploited to make
|
|
better cache-eviction decisions.
|
|
|
|
#### Progress Reporting
|
|
|
|
In the future it will be desirable for long running computations to provide
|
|
real-time progress information (e.g. for training a neural network it would be
|
|
great to know which epoch is running).
|
|
|
|
- This could be achieved by a special kind of Monadic context (similar to
|
|
writer, but mutable buffer based).
|
|
- This would allow the function to log values without needing to return.
|
|
- These would be sent as visualizations for use in the IDE.
|
|
|
|
LSP provides an inbuilt mechanism for reporting progress, but that will not work
|
|
with visualizations. As a result that should be reserved for reporting progress
|
|
of long-running operations within the _language server_ rather than in user
|
|
code.
|
|
|
|
### Completion
|
|
|
|
The IDE needs the ability to request completions for some target point (cursor
|
|
position) in the source code. In essence, this boils down to _some_ kind of
|
|
smart completion. The completion should provide the following:
|
|
|
|
- Sensible suggestions at the cursor position, ranked by relevance.
|
|
- Local variables, where relevant.
|
|
- Suggestions for symbols that would make sense (e.g. by type) but are not
|
|
imported. To support this, selection of such a symbol will trigger the
|
|
automatic addition of the relevant import on the language server.
|
|
- Searching in tags and documentation. This metadata-based search functionality
|
|
should be used to refine suggestions and help suggest functionality relevant
|
|
to user tasks.
|
|
- Browsing the symbol hierarchy. The user should be able to click through
|
|
modules to browse the various symbols contained within.
|
|
- Import Completion for when a user has typed `import` and hits `<tab>`. This
|
|
feature should suggest libraries that are available, along with provide their
|
|
top-level documentation to give users an idea of what they can be used for.
|
|
|
|
Hints should be gathered by the runtime in an un-ranked fashion based upon the
|
|
above criteria. This will involve combining knowledge from both the compiler and
|
|
the interpreter to deliver a sensible set of hints.
|
|
|
|
- Hints should be scored on a type match. For example, if we have a type `5`,
|
|
`foo : 5 -> String` scores higher than `bar : Nat -> Dynamic`, scores higher
|
|
than `baz : Any -> Any`. This should be done by heuristics initially, and
|
|
later by querying the typechecker for subsumption relationships (the notion of
|
|
specificity discussed in the types design document).
|
|
- Information contained in the `tags` section of the documentation should also
|
|
be used to rank candidates.
|
|
- Please note that this ranking algorithm will be required to get more complex
|
|
in the future, so please design it for extensibility _and_ high performance.
|
|
- Local variables should rank higher than global symbols.
|
|
|
|
From an implementation perspective, the following notes apply:
|
|
|
|
- This will be implemented on top of the `completion` and `completionResolve`
|
|
messages provided by the LSP spec.
|
|
- We will extend these messages with an _optional_ field that specifies the type
|
|
being queried upon. This is a stop-gap solution until inference can determine
|
|
the type.
|
|
- The request does _not_ contain the query string, as text matching is handled
|
|
by the IDE. The language server only handles candidate completions.
|
|
- We should determine if there are any sensible ways in which this process can
|
|
be optimised, as we have the potential to return very large completion sets.
|
|
It is probably worth waiting to see if this is necessary before implementing
|
|
any optimisations here.
|
|
|
|
### Analysis Operations
|
|
|
|
We also want to be able to support a useful set of semantic analysis operations
|
|
to help users navigate their code. As these rely on knowledge of the language
|
|
semantics, they must be explicitly supported by the language server:
|
|
|
|
- **List Symbols in Scope:** The scope should be specified by a code span.
|
|
- **Insert Import for Symbol:** This should use an `applyEdit` message to ask
|
|
the IDE to insert an import for the symbol specified in the request. If the
|
|
file is closed, then the edit should be made directly, as the LSP specifies.
|
|
|
|
### Functionality Post 2.0
|
|
|
|
In addition to the functionality discussed in detail above, there are further
|
|
augmentations that could sensibly be made to the Engine services to support a
|
|
much better editing and user-experience for Enso. These are listed briefly below
|
|
and will be expanded upon as necessary in the future.
|
|
|
|
- **Refactoring Operations:** As all of these operations rely on a semantic
|
|
analysis of the source program, they must be performed by the language server.
|
|
These should include (but may not be limited to) the renaming, moving,
|
|
extraction and inlining of entities. In future this could be expanded to
|
|
include refactoring hints a la IntelliJ.
|
|
- **Arbitrary Visualization Code:** Visualizations should be able to be defined
|
|
using Enso code and will require additional support.
|
|
- **IO Manager:** The ability to do sophisticated IO monitoring, such as
|
|
watching for file changes, in order to support minimal re-execution of
|
|
analysis pipelines.
|
|
- **Enhanced Type-Manipulation:** Get fits for holes, case splitting, insert
|
|
type, refine type, solve type, and so on. Inspiration for these operations can
|
|
be taken from programs that provide for interactive type-driven development.
|
|
- **REPL:** Protocol messages to support a REPL-style of interactive
|
|
development. This should include, at a minimum, the ability to execute
|
|
arbitrary code statements in a REPL, but could be enhanced by the ability to
|
|
execute code from the editor in the REPL, and send changes back from the REPL
|
|
to the file.
|
|
- **Debugging:**: The user should be able to place break-points, and easily
|
|
inspect values during execution of a program. This debugging functionality
|
|
should allow for hot-reloading of code, changing of values within a live
|
|
program, and various other debugger functionality (step over, step in, step
|
|
out, continue, etc). Future debugger functionality should be based on the
|
|
standard
|
|
[debug adapter protocol](https://microsoft.github.io/debug-adapter-protocol/specification).
|
|
- **Profiling Information:** Profiling information for the executing code, able
|
|
to be displayed visually in Enso Studio.
|
|
- **Code Formatting:** Automatic formatting of Enso code using the One True
|
|
Style ™.
|
|
- **Server-Side Metadata Management:** The lack of node metadata management in
|
|
the language server currently means that any language client other than Enso
|
|
Studio is guaranteed to corrupt the node metadata when editing Enso code. This
|
|
will reset the node layout and can be quite annoying.
|
|
- **True Multi-Client Support:** The initial release will only support multiple
|
|
connected clients through the use of a write lock. This is not a great user
|
|
experience, and in future we should instead use proper conflict resolution for
|
|
true collaborative editing. This will use a combination of `didChange` and
|
|
`applyEdit` messages to reconcile all clients' views of the files. This is
|
|
also why `willSaveWaitUntil` is important, as it can ensure that no client
|
|
editor saves until it has the authority to do so (all changes are reconciled).
|
|
- **Enhanced Semantic Analysis:** Enhanced semantic analysis operations that
|
|
rely on compiler analysis and typechecking. This includes things like "find
|
|
usages", "jump to definition" and "find symbol", as these can greatly enhance
|
|
a user's development experience.
|
|
- **LSP Spec Completeness:** We should also support all LSP messages that are
|
|
relevant to our language. Currently we only support a small subset thereof.
|
|
|
|
## Binary Protocol
|
|
|
|
The binary protocol refers to the auxiliary protocol used to transport raw
|
|
binary data between the engine and the client. This functionality is _entirely_
|
|
extraneous to the operation of the [textual protocol](#textual-protocol), and is
|
|
used for transferring large amounts of data between Enso components.
|
|
|
|
As the protocol is a binary transport, it is _mediated and controlled_ by
|
|
messages that exist as part of the textual protocol.
|
|
|
|
In order to deserialize a family of messages and correlate responses with
|
|
requests, each request/response/notification is wrapped in an envelope
|
|
structure. There is a separate envelope for incoming and outgoing messages:
|
|
|
|
```idl
|
|
namespace org.enso.languageserver.protocol.binary;
|
|
|
|
//A mapping between payload enum and inbound payload types.
|
|
union InboundPayload {
|
|
INIT_SESSION_CMD: InitSessionCommand,
|
|
WRITE_FILE_CMD: WriteFileCommand,
|
|
READ_FILE_CMD: ReadFileCommand
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
//An envelope for inbound requests and commands.
|
|
table InboundMessage {
|
|
|
|
//A unique id of the message sent to the server.
|
|
messageId: EnsoUUID (required);
|
|
|
|
//An optional correlation id used to correlate a response with a request.
|
|
correlationId: EnsoUUID;
|
|
|
|
//A message payload that carries requests sent by a client.
|
|
payload: InboundPayload (required);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
```idl
|
|
namespace org.enso.languageserver.protocol.binary;
|
|
|
|
//A mapping between payload enum and outbound payload types.
|
|
union OutboundPayload {
|
|
ERROR: Error,
|
|
SUCCESS: Success,
|
|
VISUALIZATION_UPDATE: VisualizationUpdate,
|
|
FILE_CONTENTS_REPLY: FileContentsReply
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
//An envelope for outbound responses.
|
|
table OutboundMessage {
|
|
|
|
//A unique id of the message sent from the server.
|
|
messageId: EnsoUUID (required);
|
|
|
|
//An optional correlation id used to correlate a response with a request.
|
|
correlationId: EnsoUUID;
|
|
|
|
//A message payload that carries responses and notifications sent by a server
|
|
payload: OutboundPayload (required);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
```idl
|
|
namespace org.enso.languageserver.protocol.binary;
|
|
|
|
//This message type is used to indicate failure of some operation performed.
|
|
table Error {
|
|
|
|
//A unique error code identifying error type.
|
|
code: int;
|
|
|
|
//An error message.
|
|
message: string;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
//Indicates an operation has succeeded.
|
|
table Success {}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Binary Protocol Communication Patterns
|
|
|
|
The binary protocol currently only supports a single type of communication
|
|
pattern:
|
|
|
|
- **Push:** Messages containing data are pushed in response to operations
|
|
performed using the textual protocol.
|
|
|
|
### Binary Protocol Transport
|
|
|
|
The binary protocol uses [flatbuffers](https://github.com/google/flatbuffers)
|
|
for the protocol transport format. This choice has been made for a few reasons:
|
|
|
|
- Robust multi-language support, including Rust and Java on the JVM.
|
|
- High performance, including support for zero-copy data handling and streaming
|
|
data.
|
|
- Robust, schema-based messages.
|
|
|
|
## Binary Protocol Functionality
|
|
|
|
The binary protocol exists in order to serve the high-bandwidth data transfer
|
|
requirements of the engine and the GUI.
|
|
|
|
### Displaying Visualizations
|
|
|
|
A major part of Enso Studio's functionality is the rich embedded visualizations
|
|
that it supports. This means that the following functionality is necessary:
|
|
|
|
- Execution of an arbitrary Enso expression on a cached value designated by a
|
|
source location.
|
|
- The ability to create and destroy visualization subscriptions with an
|
|
arbitrary piece of Enso code as the preprocessing function.
|
|
- The ability to update _existing_ subscriptions with a new preprocessing
|
|
function.
|
|
|
|
Visualizations in Enso are able to output arbitrary data for display in the GUI,
|
|
which requires a mechanism for transferring arbitrary data between the engine
|
|
and the GUI. These visualizations can output data in common formats, which will
|
|
be serialised by the transport (e.g. text), but they can also write arbitrary
|
|
binary data that can then be interpreted by the visualization component itself
|
|
in any language that can be used from within the IDE.
|
|
|
|
From the implementation perspective:
|
|
|
|
- This will need to be an entirely separate set of protocol messages that should
|
|
be specified in detail in this document.
|
|
- Visualizations should work on a pub/sub model, where an update is sent every
|
|
time the underlying data is recomputed.
|
|
- Protocol responses must contain a pointer into the binary pipe carrying the
|
|
visualization data to identify an update.
|
|
|
|
## Service Connection Setup
|
|
|
|
As these services need to support multiple clients in future, there is some
|
|
rigmarole around setting up the various connections needed by each client. The
|
|
process for spawning and connecting to an engine instance is as follows:
|
|
|
|
1. **Spawn the Server:** The project manager spawns the language server,
|
|
passing the socket information as part of the initialisation flow.
|
|
2. **Client ID Generation:** The client generates and stores a UUID that will
|
|
be used to identify the client while it is connected.
|
|
3. **Protocol Connection Initialisation:** The client performs the init for the
|
|
textual protocol connection, passing its client identifier as it does so.
|
|
See
|
|
[`session/initProtocolConnection`](./protocol-language-server.md#sessioninitprotocolconnection)
|
|
for more information.
|
|
4. **Data Connection Initialisation:** The client performs the init for the
|
|
data connection, passing its client identifier as it does so. See
|
|
[`session/initDataConnection`](./protocol-language-server.md#sessioninitdataconnection)
|
|
below more information.
|
|
5. **Secure connections:** The language server can expose secure endpoints
|
|
(HTTPS and WSS), when configured appropriately. See
|
|
[HTTPS endpoints](./language-server-http-endpoints.md#https-endpoints) for
|
|
details.
|
|
|
|
## Service Connection Teardown
|
|
|
|
As the engine performs sophisticated caching and persisting of data where
|
|
possible, it is very important that the client informs the engine of the end of
|
|
its session. In contrast to the initialisation flow above, this is not an
|
|
involved process.
|
|
|
|
1. **Notify the Engine:** _Prior_ to disconnecting from the sockets, the client
|
|
must send `session/end` to the server.
|
|
2. **Disconnect:** Once that message has been sent, the client may disconnect
|
|
at any time.
|