This is a basic introduction to EBDB, an EIEIO re-write of BBDB.
What does that mean?
BBDB is the insidious Big Brother DataBase, Emacs’ principle contact-management/addressbook package. EIEIO apparently stands for “Enhanced Implementation of Emacs Interpreted Objects”, otherwise known as Emacs Lisp’s version of Common Lisp’s CLOS, which itself stands for the Common Lisp Object System. Ergo, EBDB stands for the “Enhanced-implementation-of-emacs-interpreted-objects/common-lisp-object-system version of the insidious big Brother DataBase”.
In plain English, EBDB is a rewrite of BBDB using Emacs’ CLOS-inspired object-orientation package. It’s currently on Github, though I’d like to move it to Emacs’ ELPA repository once it’s out of beta. This post touches on some observations I made during the course of the rewrite.
First of all: why do this at all? There were two reasons. One was the observation that the object-oriented paradigm is nicely suited to keeping a database of records, and that BBDB could be made quite a bit more extensible via subclassing. The other was simply to gain some practice in using EIEIO.
There are three main classes in EBDB:
- Databases, which hold records and persist them somehow
- Records, which represent people/organizations
- Fields, which represent record data such as email addresses or phone numbers
There are multiple implementations of each class, and room for third-party developers to create more. The idea was to make the framing code as class-agnostic as possible: ie, the classes themselves are responsible for nearly all behavior, and simply accept messages from user-initiated code. Fairly standard object-oriented stuff. However, CLOS/EIEIO differs from other OO systems in some fundamental ways.
Classes and Generic Functions
My current excuse for being a smug Lisp weenie is generic methods with multiple dispatch. I can’t explain it any better than Peter Seibel did, but if you’re too lazy to read that: Lisp’s object-oriented Copernican revolution was to make methods top-level objects (I’d be curious to hear if Lisp borrowed this from another language). They no longer “belong to” classes, instead they behave just like normal functions. In Python you might write:
class ThingOne(): def foo(self): print("calling thing one foo on %s" % self) class ThingTwo(): def foo(self): print("calling thing two foo on %s" % self) ThingOne().foo() ThingTwo().foo()
In Lisp you would write the exact equivalent code like so:
(defclass thing-one () nil) (defclass thing-two () nil) (cl-defmethod foo ((obj thing-one)) (message "calling thing one foo on %s" obj)) (cl-defmethod foo ((obj thing-two)) (message "calling thing two foo on %s" obj)) (foo (make-instance 'thing-one)) (foo (make-instance 'thing-two))
Note that the only difference between the two is that the
cl-defmethod definition is top-level. Its only relationship to the
classes is that it expects a class instance as its first argument.
The implication of this is that methods are essentially orthogonal to classes. Generic functions can dispatch not only on argument class, but also on argument type or equality. They can easily be used without defining classes at all:
(cl-defmethod type-test ((arg string)) (message "I was called with string argument %s" arg)) (cl-defmethod type-test ((arg integer)) (message "I was called with integer argument %d" arg)) (cl-defmethod type-test (arg) (message "I don't know what %s is" arg))
The last version is a “catch-all” definition. In “normal” elisp, you’d
do this with a
(defun type-test (arg) (cond ((stringp arg) (message "I was called with string argument %s" arg)) ((integerp arg) (message "I was called with integer argument %d" arg)) (t (message "I don't know what %s is" arg))))
Exactly equivalent, the only difference being that the methods can be defined anywhere you like.
So: methods are top-level creatures, can specialize on the type of their arguments, and can accept more than one argument. The upshot is that you can have methods that behave differently depending on the class of more than one object – aka “multiple dispatch”. That looks like:
(cl-defmethod bar ((obj1 thing-one) (obj2 thing-two)) (message "bar called with thing-one %s and thing-two %s" obj1 obj2))
Methods can dispatch on an arbitrary number of arguments, by examining their class, their type, or a few other tricks. More-specific specializers override less-specific specializers.
EBDB uses multiple dispatch all over the place – for instance, when editing a field on a record. When the user hits “e” on a field to edit it, that eventually results in a call to this (simplified for explanatory purposes) method:
(cl-defmethod ebdb-record-change-field ((record ebdb-record) (old-field ebdb-field) &optional new-field) "Change the value of FIELD belonging to RECORD." (let* ((fieldclass (eieio-object-class old-field)) (new-field (or new-field (ebdb-read fieldclass nil old-field)))) (ebdb-record-delete-field record old-field) (ebdb-record-insert-field record new-field)))
ebdb-field are low-level base classes,
this call works for everything in the database. A new field instance
is read, using the old field instance as a default, and the old field
is replaced with the new field. The code knows nothing about records
or fields, it just makes a new field instance by calling
on the field class, and then adds that instance to the record with
It gets more complicated, of course.
For instance, person records can have “role” fields at organization records. The role is a relationship that can include a label, a special email address, and an arbitrary number of other fields. The roles are kept in a slot on the person record, and that’s how they’re saved in the database. But when you’re looking at the record for the organization, you also want to see the people who have roles there, right? So when displaying organizations, a hashtable is used to do a reverse lookup, and display all the role fields as if they were part of the organization record.
Once the role fields are visible on an organization record, of course, then users are bound to try to edit/delete the role fields from there. Technically the role fields don’t belong to the organization, so some trickery has to be perpetrated: we need to special-case the situation where the user tries to edit a role field on an organization record. This turned out to be remarkably simple, by adding a new method:
(cl-defmethod ebdb-record-change-field ((org ebdb-record-organization) (old-field ebdb-field-role) &optional new-field) (let ((person (ebdb-gethash (slot-value old-field 'record-uuid) 'uuid))) (cl-call-next-method person old-field new-field)))
We use more-specific record and field subclasses as specializers, so
that this method only fires when editing a role field on an
organization record. The method looks up the person record that the
role field “actually” belongs to, switches out the organization for
the person, and then uses
cl-call-next-method (the lisp equivalent
super) to pass the new arguments to the more-general
I was a little surprised that it worked out so well. All the code “above” this call treats the organization as the record being edited: it has change hooks called on it, and gets redisplayed after editing. All the code “below” this treats the person as the record being edited: its slots are altered, and its databases are alerted to the edit.
Calling down through a “stack” of descendant-to-ancestor methods is
common practice, and EBDB does it quite a bit, again using
cl-call-next-method. For instance, here’s a simplified outline of
ebdb-record-field-slot-query method, which is used to figure out
which fields go in which slot.
(cl-defmethod ebdb-record-field-slot-query ((class (subclass ebdb-record-person)) &optional query alist) (cl-call-next-method class query (append '((aka . ebdb-field-name-complex) (relations . ebdb-field-relation) (organizations . ebdb-field-role)) alist))) (cl-defmethod ebdb-record-field-slot-query ((class (subclass ebdb-record-entity)) &optional query alist) (cl-call-next-method class query (append `((mail . ebdb-field-mail) (phone . ebdb-field-phone) (address . ebdb-field-address)) alist))) (cl-defmethod ebdb-record-field-slot-query ((class (subclass ebdb-record)) &optional query alist) (let ((alist (append '((notes . ebdb-field-notes) (image . ebdb-field-image)) alist))) (pcase query (`(nil . ,class) (or (rassq class alist) (signal 'ebdb-unacceptable-field (list class)))) (`(,slot . nil) (or (assq slot alist) (signal 'ebdb-unacceptable-field (list slot)))) (_ alist))))
These methods go from specific to general:
ebdb-record-entity which subclasses
subclass’s method adds its own fields to the alist argument, then
passes that argument down to the next ancestor class, all the way to
the “bottom”, where the base implementation handles the actual query:
it either tells us which slot the field class belongs to, or which
field class a slot can accept, or (if “query” is nil) just returns a
full list of slots and field classes which the record can accept.
The above also illustrates how EIEIO provides for class-level methods, with the “subclass” specializer.
The most complicated aspect of generic methods is qualifiers. In addition to the usual stack of main methods (called “primary” methods), EIEIO (following CLOS) provides for supplementary stacks that run before, after, or around the primary stack. You do this with the :before, :after or :around qualifier tags, inserted after the method name. Methods with no qualifier tags are assumed to be :primary methods.
When a method is called, the “first half” of the :around methods are run first. Then all the :before methods run. Then the :primary methods. Then the :after methods. Then the “second half” of the :around methods.
The :around and :primary methods get to choose where in their body the
next method is called, by placing
cl-call-next-method where they
Clear as mud? Here’s what it looks like:
(defclass parent () nil) (defclass child (parent) nil) (cl-defmethod foo :around ((obj child)) (message "one") (cl-call-next-method) (message "eleven")) (cl-defmethod foo :around ((obj parent)) (message "two") (cl-call-next-method) (message "ten")) (cl-defmethod foo :before ((obj child)) (message "three")) (cl-defmethod foo :before ((obj parent)) (message "four")) (cl-defmethod foo ((obj child)) (message "five") (cl-call-next-method) (message "seven")) (cl-defmethod foo ((obj parent)) (message "six")) (cl-defmethod foo :after ((obj child)) (message "nine")) (cl-defmethod foo :after ((obj parent)) (message "eight")) (foo (make-instance 'child))
Overuse of method qualifiers is a great way to get yourself turned around quick. A few things to note:
- The :before and :after methods cannot use
cl-call-next-method. This means they are always run, in order from most-specific to least-specific, independently of the rest of the code.
- Because of this, :before and :after methods can’t interact with other methods at all. This means they’re only good for general set-up and tear-down, though of course, if a :before method signals an error, nothing after it runs (which is one of the main uses of :before methods). And if a :primary method signals an error, none of the :after methods run.
- The methods which are allowed to use
cl-call-next-method(the :around and :primary methods), can use it to fundamentally alter the behavior of the composed method call. Callers can replace the arguments to the next method call, and/or intercept the return value and do something with it. If
cl-call-next-methodis called with no arguments, it receives the same arguments as the caller did. If the caller wants to replace any arguments, all arguments must be explicitly passed again. You can see this happening in the
- In the :around methods,
cl-call-next-methodwill move down the :around stack. At the bottom of the :around stack, the next call will run the :before, :primary, and :after stacks, after which control is passed back up the :around stack. The :around methods should always contain a call to
cl-call-next-method, that’s their whole point.
- The :primary methods can call
cl-call-next-methodto run the next :primary method, but they don’t have to. If they don’t, they fully override all less-specific methods.
In practice, I found having more than one :around method to be fairly baffling. It simply got too complicated to keep track of. Later I decided not to use :around methods at all, and to reserve them for user customization (that’s not entirely true, but I didn’t use them much).
Did I mention the :extra methods? No, I didn’t.
There’s one more qualifier, called :extra. This is a way of piling
multiple methods onto the same set of specializers (otherwise each
method would clobber the last). Each one carries the :extra tag, plus
a string label for identification. They are run just before the
:primary methods, and calling
cl-call-next-method within them calls
down through the :extra stack, to the :primary methods.
This turned out to be perfect for implementing internationalization for EBDB.
BBDB –and vanilla EBDB – are mostly unaware of different countries and scripts: they have a mild North American bias. I wanted to set things up so that developers could write their own country-specific customization libraries, which users could load as they liked, to extend EBDB’s basic behavior. If we know the country code of a phone number, for example, we should be able to display the number according to the standards of that country.
So we have the ebdb-i18n library. This file does nothing on its own, it only provides the hooks for country-specific libraries. As EBDB is a work in progress, I’ve so far only written support for my own needs, which are China-centric.
It always bothered me that Chinese names were displayed in BBDB as (given name)(space)(surname), ie “锦涛 胡”, rather than the proper order of (surname)(given name): “胡锦涛”. If you gave records a name-format field, you could get “胡, 锦涛”, which was better, but still not right. (Other people have also addressed this problem.)
Loading ebdb-i18n.el will load (among other things) the following :extra method for the display of name fields:
(cl-defmethod ebdb-string :extra "i18n" ((name ebdb-field-name-complex)) (let* ((str (cl-call-next-method name)) (script (aref char-script-table (aref str 0)))) (unless (memq script ebdb-i18n-ignorable-scripts) (condition-case nil (setq str (ebdb-string-i18n name script)) (cl-no-applicable-method nil))) str))
This method shadows the primary method. The first thing it does is to
call that :primary method, using
cl-call-next-method, so it can
examine the results. It looks at the first character of the name,
looks up the script the character is written in, and attempts to call
ebdb-string-i18n with the name field and the script symbol as
arguments. If no country-specific libraries have been loaded, there
will be no method that can catch these particular arguments, in which
case the original string is returned.
Loading ebdb-chn.el defines this method:
(cl-defmethod ebdb-string-i18n ((field ebdb-field-name-complex) (_script (eql han))) (with-slots (surname given-names) field (format "%s%s" surname (car given-names))))
Chinese characters register as the ’han script. So we specialize on
the symbol ’han (using
(_script (eql han))), and if it matches,
format the name the way it’s usually formatted in China.
If :extra methods didn’t exist, the internationalized
method would clobber the primary method completely. We’d have to
replicate that primary method here, or continually check some variable
funcall different functions, or even subclass the name field
class with a new “internationalized” version. None of those options
are as elegant as the :extra trick.
The ebdb-chn.el library defines many other internationalized methods, notably some that memoize Chinese characters as romanized “pinyin”, so you can search for contacts with Chinese names without having to switch input methods. Very nice.
Other internationalized methods allow for dispatch on the country code of phone numbers, or the symbol names of countries (as per ISO 3166-1 alpha 3).
Apart from bird’s-nests of :around methods, I’ve found two other ways to make yourself miserable with generic methods. One is combinatorial explosion: if you have a method that dispatches on three arguments, and each argument has three potential values, you may be writing 27 different method definitions. Obviously one tries to avoid this, but sometimes it creeps up on you. EBDB’s formatting routines come close to drowning in this way – I suspect the whole formatting system is overengineered.
The system’s other weakness is a byproduct of its strength: you don’t know where code is defined. The same flexibility that allows you to alter fundamental object behavior by defining new methods outside the codebase means that you don’t necessarily know where those definitions are.
The original BBDB code “did polymorphism” the way that most Elisp code
does polymorphism: with great big
cond branches. This has the
disadvantage that every function needs to be aware of every type of
object it might encounter. But it has the advantage that everything is
right there where you can see it (and it almost certainly goes
There’s not much to be done about this, it’s a trade-off that has to be accepted. Emacs’ self-documenting features do an okay job of showing you all the implementations of a particular method, but that’s all the help you get. Otherwise you need to keep your code under control, not pile the methods up too high, and always know where your towel is.
I think it’s worth it.