Notable rationale for http-wasm
Why is this not defined in the WebAssembly Component Model?
A concrete ABI must be defined in a way that doesn’t break signatures or
constant value mappings (such as flags or enums). The most precise way to
define host and guest ABI is in WebAssembly itself. For example,
WebAssembly Text Format (
%.wat). However, this format was not defined
as an IDL.
%.wat not only defines interfaces (imports and exports), but
also implementations (function definitions, etc.).
It seems that WebAssembly Component Model (
%.wit.md) is a better choice,
as it includes a wit-bindgen code generator. However, it cannot be relied
on for ABI compatability.
There are problems with the current draft of the WebAssembly Component Model which makes it unusable as a concrete ABI specification format. Here are some of them:
Component Model is not yet a standard is in flux. The same is true for
wit-bindgen. This can result in different signatures, which can result in guests having incompatible signatures. For example,
wit-bindgenchanged their representation of 64-bit flags from i64 to a pair of i32s. This would render guests incompatible and complicate signatures that pass flags.
Component model has a Canonical Encoding for strings, but it isn’t the way most compilers work. For example, it has three encoding hints, where most compilers use a simple bytestring (offset/len pair) and defer any UTF-8 or otherwise decoding in standard library code. There are also objections in the community on how strings are treated, notably AssemblyScript. To allow the existing ecosystem to function, we cannot use component model’s canonical string encoding.
Component Model is inflexible in ways that matter. For example, most wasm functions are defined as lower_snake_case, but Component Model requires them as lower-hyphen case. This has knock-on problems including many languages don’t support the hyphen character in function definitions. Concretely, this leads to functions exported like “log-enabled”, but defined like “log_enabled.” Other inflexibility involve constants, particularly enums. If you run code generators, you’ll notice conventionally zero is chosen for the first enum. However, this is not due to spec as defining it was considered out-of-scope: the task of the “concrete ABI”. Take for example,
body_kind. If a guest suddenly starts using 1 instead of zero, they will be affecting the response instead of the request! These opinions may change over time, but as of late 2022, these make the format nearly unusable for brown field work.
Why is everything lower_snake_case instead of lower-hyphen-case?
Module, function and parameter names are defined in lower_snake_case instead of lower-hyphen-case to follow de facto practice and make the ABI less work to implement.
For example, the most commonly imported host module name is “wasi_snapshot_preview1”. Even modules which are single-word tend to use lower_snake_case more often than other case formats. For example, proxy-wasm uses “env” as the module name, and lower_snake_case for functions, such as “proxy_log”.
There are other benefits to doing this. For example, a hyphen is not a valid character for function names in many languages, and compilers like rust default to the function name as the wasm function name. Using lower_snake_case is less work for programmers as they can follow conventions as opposed to needing overriding annotations. Moreover, observability benefits by a consistent case format, as it allows lookup keys to work the same way regardless of language.
These things said, lower_snake_case is not universally adopted. For example, AssemblyScript special imports define parameter names in lowerCamelCase. That said its function names are single words like “trace” so have no case format problems. The emerging wasi-filesytem currently defines both module and function names in lower-hyphen-case. However, this isn’t implemented and could change later. As of mid-2022, wit-bindgen takes the file name as the module name and retains function names in the case format they are declared in. Parameters names are inconsistently mapped, preferring the case format of the language.
Why are the query parameters URI encoded?
Query parameters can contain characters that act as values or as delimiters in the syntax (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-2.2). A query string like
?name=chip&dale can represent two things depending if it was encoded or not:
To remove this ambiguity we require guest to pass the URI encoded to the host as the host
has no reliable means to determine whether a URI is encoded or not. For example, if guest passes
name the URI will be
/disney?name=chip%26dale whereas if it is the case where
chip and an additional query parameter called
dale as empty the URI would be
/disney?name=chip&dale. Requiring the guest to encode the URI MAY involve an overhead in the size of the binary.
As a side effect, as guests control the encoding, they can do assertions on query parameters directly (e.g.
chip&dale) rather than harcoding the encoded values
Why doesn’t the host trap on unencoded URI?
We cannot reliably tell whether the URI is correctly encoded or not, the host has to trust the guest on this and hence we prefer to have false negativs (incorrect URIs which might end up on failing requests anyways) rather than false positives (encoded URIs that might look like unencoded ones).
The log level ordinals are in order where the lower the number the more detail is logged. These levels are a subset of the popular zap library’s levels.
The most voluminous level, DEBUG is -1 to prevent users from accidentally defaulting to it. This is the same rationale as zap who uses the same ordinal.
Logging is expensive in WebAssembly as it often implies garbage collection
which cannot be offloaded to a separate thread. Exposing
handlers to avoid overhead when processing a request.
Why limit to i32 (32 flags)?
WebAssembly Core Specification 1.0 supports i64, but we only use i32 to represent features flags. As we reserve zero to indicate no features, this allows up to 30 feature flags. Unlike WebAssembly’s feature proposals which can easily get into dozens, we don’t expect that many feature flags for the http-wasm host. Notably, the initial version only uses three.