Friday, April 13, 2018

Golang Web Server Auth

An example of authentication and authorization in a simple web server written in go.



As described in my previous blog post, I recently rewrote my image viewer desktop app as a web app, for which I wrote the web server in go.

Since I was adding a new potential attack vector, I wanted to add security; but since this is only available on my internal network, and it's not critically valuable data, I did not need enterprise-grade security. In this post I describe how I implemented a relatively simple authentication and authorization mechanism, in particular highlighting the features of go I used that made that easy to do. For a simple app such as this one, the third of the three As of security, auditing, can be done with simple logging if desired.

The code I present here is taken from the github repo for my mimsrv project, with links to specific commits and versions of various files. You can visit that project if you'd like to see more of the code than I present in this post.

Before Auth

Go has good support for writing simple web servers. The net.http package allows setting up a web server that routes requests based on path to specific functions. In the first commit for mimsrv, before there was any code for authentication or authorization, the http processing code looked like this:

In mimsrv.go:
func main() { ... mux := http.NewServeMux() ... mux.Handle("/api/", api.NewHandler(...)) ... log.Fatal(http.ListenAndServe(":8080", mux)) }
In api/api.go:
func NewHandler(c *Config) http.Handler { h := handler{config: c} mux := http.NewServeMux() mux.HandleFunc(h.apiPrefix("list"), h.list) mux.HandleFunc(h.apiPrefix("image"), h.image) mux.HandleFunc(h.apiPrefix("text"), h.text) return mux } func (h *handler) list(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { ... }
The above two functions set up the routing and start the web server. The code in mimsrv.go creates a top-level router (mux) that routes any request with a path starting with "/api/" to the api handler that is created by the NewHandler function in api.go. The top-level router also defines routes for other top-level paths, such as "/ui/" for delivering the UI files.

The api code in turn sets up the second-level routing for all of the paths within /api (the h.apiPrefix function adds "/api/" to its argument). So when I make a request with the path /api/list, the main mux passes the request to the api mux, which then calls the h.list function.

Adding Authentication

To implement authentication in mimsrv, I added a new "auth" package with three files, and modified mimsrv.go to use that new auth package. The most interesting part of this change is that it implements the enforcement of the constraint that all requests to any path starting with "/api/" must be authenticated, yet I did not have to make any changes to any of the api code that services those requests.

When I originally wrote my request routing code, it could have been simpler if I had defined everything in one mux. I didn't do that because I think the approach I took provides better modularity, but in addition, that structure made it easy for me to require authentication for all of the api calls.

The authentication code itself is not trivial, but wiring that code into the request routing to enforce authentication for whole chunks of the request path space was. I wrote a wrapper function and inserted it in the middle of the request-handling flow for requests where I wanted to require authentication.

To wire in the authentication requirement for all requests starting with "/api/", I changed mimsrv.go to replace this line:
mux.Handle("/api/", api.NewHandler(...))
with these lines:
apiHandler := api.NewHandler(...)) mux.Handle("/api/", authHandler.RequireAuth(apiHandler))
Here is the RequireAuth method from the newly added auth.go:
func (h *Handler) RequireAuth(httpHandler http.Handler) http.Handler { return http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){ token := cookieValue(r, tokenCookieName) idstr := clientIdString(r) if isValidToken(token, idstr) { httpHandler.ServeHTTP(w, r) } else { // No token, or token is not valid http.Error(w, "Invalid token", http.StatusUnauthorized) } }) }
The RequireAuth function looks at a cookie to see if the user is currently logged in (which means the user has been authenticated). If so, RequireAuth calls the handler it was passed, which in this case is the one created by api.NewHandler. If not, then RequireAuth calls http.Error, which prevents the request from being fulfilled and instead returns an authorization error to the web caller. When the mimsrv client gets this error it displays a login dialog.

The other code I added handles things like login, logout, and cookie renewal and expiration, but all of that code other than RequireAuth is specific to my implementation of authentication. You could instead, for example, use OAuth to authenticate, in which case you would have a completely different mechanism for authenticating a user, but you could still use a function similar to RequireAuth and wire it in the same way.

Adding Authorization

Wrapping selected request paths as described above makes it so that authentication provides authorization for those requests. This coarse-grained authorization is a good start, but for mimsrv I wanted to be able to use fine-grained authorization as well. As this is a simple program with a very small number of users, I don't need anything sophisticated such as role-based authorization. I chose to implement a model in which I only define permissions for global actions, then assign those permissions directly to users.

For this simple permissions model, I needed to be able to define permissions, assign them to users, and check them at run-time before performing an action that requires authorization. My permissions are simple strings, stored in a column in the CSV file that defines my users. To give a permission to a user, I manually edit that CSV file, and to check for authorization before taking an action, the code looks for that permission string in the set of permissions for the current user.

The one piece that is not obvious is how to pass the user's permissions to the code that needs to check them. The reason this is not obvious is because the http routing package defines the function signature for the functions that process an http request, and that function signature includes only the request and a writer for the response. You can't simply add another argument in which you pass your user information, so you have to dig a little deeper to figure out how to pass along that information.

The solution relies on the fact that there is a Context attached to the Request that is passed to the handler function. By adding the user info to the Context, you can then extract that information further along in the processing when you need to check the permission.

The RequireAuth function validates that the user making the request is authenticated, so it already has information about who the user is, and this is the point at which we want to add the user info to the Context. We do this in our RequireAuth function by replacing this line:
httpHandler.ServeHTTP(w, r)
with these lines:
user := userFromToken(token) mimRequest := requestWithContextUser(r, user) httpHandler.ServeHTTP(w, mimRequest) func requestWithContextUser(r *http.Request, user *users.User) *http.Request { mimContext := context.WithValue(r.Context(), ctxUserKey, user) return r.WithContext(mimContext) }
When the code needs to know whether the current user is authorized for an action, it can call the new CurrentUser function, which retrieves the user info from the Context attached to the Request, from which the code can query the user's permissions:
func CurrentUser(r *http.Request) *users.User { v := r.Context().Value(ctxUserKey) if v == nil { return nil } return v.(*users.User) }


While implementing authentication and authorization in a web server takes more than just a few lines of code, at least the part about how it gets tied in to the http processing in go is only a few lines. Although that part is only a few lines of code, it took me a while to dig around and find exactly how to do that. I hope that this article can save some other people a bit of time when doing their own research on how to add auth to a go web server.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Golang server, Polymer Typescript client

Finally, a web development environment I enjoy using.



I have found Go to be a nice tool for developing a small web server, and Polymer + Typescript to be a nice combination for developing a web UI. The Go server acts as both the API server and the static content server delivering the UI pages. If you think you might want to try this approach, you can look at my mimsrv program on github as an example. If it looks too complicated, browse in the git history back to some of the earliest commits, such as the first ui commit and the first api commit, to see how things looked at a simpler time.


I have been developing web pages and apps for a long time, since the earliest days of HTML when there were no tools more sophisticated than a text editor, and server-side scripts were the only form of executable web code. In 1994 I wrote htimp, an experiment in how to attach a web browser to an interactive program with a lifetime longer than a single message.

Over the years I tried many technologies, including JavaServer Pages, JavaServer Faces, PHP, jQuery, and others I have forgotten. Some were better than others (more accurately, some were bad and some were excruciating), but I never felt any of them provided a reasonable mental model for how to put together an application.

I was away from the web UI scene for a while, and when I got back to doing some web development a couple of years ago, things seemed to have improved quite a bit. In the last year, I have been introduced to a few technologies that, in combination, provide me with a development environment with a working mental model of how to put together a program, and a set of tools that makes it easy to do that at a good clip.

The three technologies that together have brought pleasure back to my web programming are:
  1. The Go language and development environment
  2. The Typescript language
  3. Polymer-2 (and Web Components) with decorators
Below I describe the project on which I tried out these technologies, followed by a discussion of what I liked about them.


Mimsrv is a web server and UI to view a collection of photos. It is a replacement for mimprint, which is a desktop app that I originally wrote starting in 2001 in Java, and converted to Scala starting in 2008.

A couple of years ago I started looking into rewriting mimprint once again, this time as a web app. As a web app, I would no longer have to worry about distributing a desktop application to the various machines I have on which I wanted to view my photos. I also thought I should be able to leverage the web browser's media capabilities so that I would not have to develop or support that whole chunk of code.

The tools I tried were never nice enough to pull me in and get me going on that replacement, and I had moved my rewrite-mimprint project way down on my TODO-list.

At Google last year I worked on the open-source Datalab project. When I started on it, we were using jQuery and Javascript. I liked it when we converted to Polymer-2 and Typescript, and I liked it more when we switched to using Polymer decorators.

I started learning Go in order to review code from my teammates. It took a little getting used to, but the more I learned, the more it made sense to me. I felt it was much easier to understand the existing Go codebase than similar codebases I had looked at in other languages. It grew on me, and after I started adding my own Go code to the project, I was surprised at how much I liked using it, and I felt that I was making pretty good coding progress.

I thought the combination of Go for the server, and Polymer and Typescript with decorators for the client, worked quite well, and I decided to try it for my personal project. So far that combination has worked well for me, and I have been quite happy with it.

What I Like

Offline Development

One of my requirements is that I be able to develop when I am offline. I insist on this because one of the situations in which I have the most amount of time available for programming on my personal projects is when I am traveling and often don't have network access.

In a previous attempt at putting together a collection of technologies for developing web apps, some of the pieces used maven, and I was unable to figure out how to convince it not to go out looking for new versions of the snapshots I needed every time it compiled.

After using Go on a project at work and being pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed using it, I decided to see it if would work for my personal projects. When I downloaded and installed it, I was delighted to discover that, not only did the installation provide everything I needed to compile and run my programs, but it also included all of the documentation and the Go Tour, so those would all be available to me offline!

Similarly, the Typescript and Polymer tools allow just building the code, without attempting to do any dependency resolution, so can easily be used offline.

Simple Mental Model

There are a couple of changes to the web app landscape that have made for a much simpler mental model than in the old days. The main one is the Single Page Application (SPA). With the old approach of having to move to a new page every time the user took an action, saving state across those page changes required mental and technical gyrations. With a SPA, you make AJAX calls to the server using XMLHttpRequest, and just keep your state in variables as in any other program.

The SPA model also allows for a clean separation of responsibility between the server and the client. With Polymer, all of the UI manipulation is handled in the client, so the server doesn't need to deal with any kind of templating of client-side functionality. This means the server can focus on the API and on just delivering the UI code to the client, and the client can focus on managing the UI and making API calls.

The other big change on the client side is the progress that has been made on the asynchronous programming model. At first we had to pass around success and failure callbacks, which requires splitting code up in unwieldy ways around every asynchronous call. The introduction of Promises provided a nice way to avoid the "callback hell" of deeply nested callbacks, but still requires chopping your code up around every asynchronous call. Lastly, the introduction of the async and await keywords made asynchronous programming almost as straightforward as synchronous programming. I'm particularly impressed that you can do things like have an if-statement with synchronous code on one side and asynchronous code on the other side, or a loop with an asynchronous call in it. This is so much simpler to reason about than if you had to figure out how to do that with callbacks or even Promises.

Simple Dependency Management

The few times I had to deal with Maven were unpleasant. I found it hard to control, hard to configure, and hard to understand what it was doing. Perhaps it's just that, with the march of time, people have figured out how to make dependency management better, but I found the dependency management in both Go and Polymer to be pleasant to use.

In Go, when you need a package, you just say go get package, and it downloads that package and all its dependencies. Assuming you follow the Go conventions when naming and locating your package, when someone then wants to download your package, they do the same thing, and Go will also download all of your dependencies to their system.

Polymer-2 uses bower for its package management, and it is almost as easy to use. The bower.json file lists the packages needed, and running bower install installs those packages and their dependencies. When you add a new dependency to one of your Polymer components, you just run bower install --save new-package to download that new package, and you're done. Not quite as effortless as go, but much better than my experience with maven.

For both Go and bower, they don't attempt to download anything except when you explicitly tell them to with go get or bower install, which is good for offline development.

Simple Compilation

For pretty much my whole programming career, I have been accustomed to using some kind of build tool that requires a configuration file: make, ant, maven, sbt, grunt, bazel, gradle, and others.

Go is different: it is so opinionated about where you have to put your packages and how you have to name stuff, that it has all the dependency information it needs by looking at the source files. You just tell it to build your program with the command go build, and it does it. No build config file required.

The Typescript compiler and Polymer build commands do require config files, but they were pretty simple to set up and understand, and seldom need to be modified. Running tsc compiles all the Typescript files to Javascript, and running polymer build packages all the Polymer Javascript and HTML files into a directory where they are served by the Go server.

Type Safety

I like the compiler to catch as many errors in my code as possible. Using compile-time types allows the compiler to spot more errors. This is why I greatly prefer Typescript over Javascript.

Go is also a compiled and typed language, so it catches a lot of problems before execution time.

Separation of Concerns

While I don't think having to use multiple languages is a benefit, the ability to select the best tools for different parts of the problem is. Go works very well as a web server for API calls and static content. Most people using Polymer embed Javascript code in their HTML file, but I prefer using Typescript and am happy putting that in a separate file from the HTML, where my editor understands it better.

Go http support

Go has a nice http package that makes it easy to define web routing and implement handler functions.

Because Go supports functions as first-class values, it's easy to define a function that can take a function as an argument and return another function. In my case, I used that approach to create a function that I could use to specify that certain parts of my API required authentication.

I wrote my http handlers to do only the marshaling and unmarshaling of data and then call the underlying routine that implements the requested functionality. This made it easy to write unit tests of the underlying function. But Go also provides a nice testing package for http handlers that makes it relatively easy to test the http handler as well.

Room for Improvement

I'm pretty happy with this collection of technologies, but there are a couple of things I would like to see improved.

Polymer/Typescript type mismatch

Polymer decorators are a nice improvement over the previous approach, as there is now much less boilerplate and repeated code. But I still have to specify a type in each line, and that type is not quite the same as the Typescript type (for example, string vs String, any vs Object).

I suppose this is not that surprising, given that Typescript is not officially supported by Polymer. I guess that's really what I would like to see happen.

Debugging Typescript

Writing Typescript rather than Javascript is nice, but when it gets loaded into the browser it's Javascript, so debugging in the browser uses the transpiled Javascript. The Javascript is usually close enough to the source Typescript that it's manageable, but it would be nice to be able to debug with the Typescript source code.

Maybe this situation will get better when WebAssembly gets implemented.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

FiOS - A Cautionary Tale

I delayed signing up for Frontier FiOS because I was concerned they might screw things up. I should have been more concerned.

This is a long post. Consider it entertainment. Or just skip to the Answers.


The Need for Speed

I have had internet connectivity for decades, starting back with modems so slow, I knew people who had to pause in their typing to let the modem catch up. I appreciated every doubling of speed as each generation of modem arrived. I was surprised when modem speeds reached 4800 and then 9600 baud - how could you get more bits per second than the 3K bandwidth of a phone line? - and I was astounded with the jump to 56K modems.

When DSL came out, I waited impatiently for it to be available in my neighborhood, and signed up as soon as I could. After years of using a 56K modem, my 740Kbps DSL line was satisfyingly fast.

I lived with 740Kbps for six years, until one day my DSL modem broke. While researching new modems, I learned that I could have my service switched from Frame Relay to ATM and bump up my speed to 3Mbps. Normally this would mean my service would be out for 10 days while they did that, but since it was already out, it seemed like a good time to make the switch. The speed bump from 740Kbps to 3Mbps was a mere 4x, far less than the 13x increase from the 56K modem to 740Kbps DSL, but still, 3Mbps was satisfyingly fast.

Verizon actually offered FiOS in my neighborhood fairly early, but I was pretty happy with my DSL service, and I wasn't doing anything that I thought needed more than 3Mbps bandwidth. I remained happy with my 3Mbps for over a decade. But technology marches on; I bought some HDTVs, started watching more YouTube, and started working from home more often using bandwidth-hungry remote desktop applications. My 3Mbps connection was not sufficient to stream HDTV movies and YouTube clips, and my remote desktop experience was annoyingly slow. I was finally feeling the bandwidth squeeze.

Still, I delayed upgrading to FiOS. I had heard that I would have to give up my copper-wire land lines, which I was not keen to do. Some years ago our power was out for over a week; batteries everywhere ran down - even the local cell towers ran out of juice after a few days, so there was no cell service in our neighborhood - but, with our copper wires, we had phone service the whole time. I liked that.

In addition, by this time Verizon had sold to Frontier, and based on my experience and anecdotes I read, I was concerned that Frontier would mess something up when dealing with my service change request, particularly since my situation was rather unusual.

My Unusual Situation

In my case, there were a number of things about my situation that gave me pause when thinking about asking for any kind of change.
  1. I have a land line. This has become increasingly rare, and it seems Frontier is deprioritizing phone service so they can focus on providing internet and television service. It seems they want to provide packages that include everything, or at least include both internet and television.
  2. Actually, I have two land lines. I'm not sure I know anybody else who has two land lines at home any more. I used to have three, but finally got rid of the third line after disposing of my last FAX machine years ago. Although I have two lines, they have not both shown up on my monthly bill for many years now. Oh, I am paying for two lines, it's just that the second line is not itemized anywhere. If you didn't know a-priori that I had two phone lines, you would hardly be able to tell that by looking at my phone bill. Based on conversations I have had with support and billing people at Frontier, it's not obvious to them either, although after I point it out, and with enough digging, some of them could figure it out.
  3. I had a DSL line. As I mentioned, I delayed for quite some time in switching from DSL to FiOS. The longer I delayed, the fewer people had DSL lines, and the less Frontier cared about them. For this particular problem, I suppose my delaying upgrading perhaps made things worse.
  4. My DSL service provider was not Frontier. This caused a fair amount of frustration any time I had a service issue with my DSL line.
My DSL service was perhaps the most unusual part of my situation. Back in 1999, when I originally ordered DSL, GTE (yes, it was that long ago!) had partnerships with Internet Service Providers who provided the actual internet service. These are known as CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers). So GTE provided the line, and my selected ISP provided the internet service. Originally I paid GTE directly for the line and I paid the ISP for the internet service. But when I switched from Frame Relay to ATM service, my billing also changed so that I paid everything to the CLEC, and they paid Verizon for the line.

Back then many of the carrier ISPs had annoying policies such as blocking some ports, so it was nice to be a customer of a smaller ISP that was more interested in making its customers happy. The downside was that, whenever there was a service problem, I had to deal with two companies, and they each tended to say it was the other company's problem.

By the time I was considering switching from DSL to FiOS this year, it had become perhaps comically bad: when I talked to support and billing people at Frontier, they were completely unaware that I had DSL service on my Frontier phone line, and even with a lot of digging, nobody I talked to at Frontier this year was ever able to find even a trace of information about my DSL line.

On the other side, my ISP had been acquired multiple times over the years, each time by a larger and more remote company, until by this year they were no longer in the DSL business and no longer in the residential ISP business. Somehow through all this, my residential DSL line kept working, but I did start to feel I was skating on ever-thinning ice.

It was time to take the plunge and upgrade.


Before ordering FiOS service, I wanted to get the answers to four questions:
  1. What service options do I have?
  2. What equipment will be installed and where?
  3. What is the installation process?
  4. How much will it cost?
How does one answer questions like these in today's world? Hit up the internet, of course.


Frontier's Web Site

I started by browsing Frontier's web site looking for information about their service offerings.

NOTE: Frontier's offerings are regional, so you may see different web pages than what I describe.

Their FiOS page shows four levels of service: 50Mbps, 75Mbps, 100Mbps or 150Mbps. Since I wanted both internet and phone service, I headed over to the bundles page to see what I could get. I don't want their television service, so I unchecked the "Video" box. This shows three bundles: two that include 30Mbps internet service (30? that's not one of the speeds listed on their FiOS page!) and one that includes 50Mbps. Do they offer bundles that include internet service faster than 50Mbps? Their web site doesn't say.

Their Phone page shows me information about copper-line phone service (lower in the page it says "Our reliable copper power stays on even when the power goes out or in an emergency"), where they list two plans that differ by $3. Confusingly, this phone service - you know, POTS using analog signals on copper wires - is called "Digital Essentials." Are there any other optional add-ons? There are a fair number of features bundled with the basic phone service, and a lot more bundled with that extra $3, but is that it? Like, I currently have an unlisted phone number, what's the charge for that? Sorry, that kind of stuff is not on their web site. Ah, here on the the Digital Phone Unlimited page, it says "Optional international calling packages are available for great savings", so apparently there are other options available - but it's not a link, so I have no idea what kind of packages they might offer.

How about a second phone line, how much does that cost? Sorry, that's not on the web page. VoIP? Oh, maybe you mean FiOS Digital Voice. Beats me what the scoop is on that. If you go to Frontier's FiOS Bundles page, where it says the phone service in their bundles is Digital Phone Unlimited, and you click on the Learn More button for the phone service, it takes you to that phone page I mentioned above - you know, the one that says "Our reliable copper power stays on even when the power goes out or in an emergency." So, if I get a bundle that includes FiOS internet, does that bundle include Digital Phone Unlimited running on copper wires?

The details of the above web pages are what they look like now, in June 2017. I believe they have changed since I did my initial research a few months ago, but the gist is the same: I was unable to figure out what options were available to me by reading their web site.

Besides looking at Frontier's web pages, I did a lot of Googling and browsing of other web sites. I learned a lot in general about equipment, but it was hard to know how much of it would apply to my situation. Although I did not record the time I spent browsing Frontier's and others' web sites, I estimate it was probably about five hours.

It was time to move on to online chat to get more answers.

Online Chat

I had six online chats with Frontier, totaling about 4 1/2 hours. Between each chat I did more online research, looking for details about the equipment and the installation experience both inside and outside the house. It was difficult to get a good handle on these details, particularly since I sometimes got conflicting answers from the Frontier people I chatted with.

For example, one of my questions was whether I could keep my copper phone lines, or whether I would be required to switch my phone service to fiber. One of the people I chatted with said this:
You would have to switch to a digital phone service ! Voip. Which basically means Voice over Internet
Another one said I could keep my phone service on copper and get their "Simply FiOS" service, which is fiber with only internet service.


Once I reached the point where I felt I had as good answers as I could get - which admittedly were not always very good - it was time to place my order.

On April 9 I called Frontier to place my order. I would say the fact that it took me well over an hour to place my order was the first hint of trouble, but in truth there were plenty of hints during the many chats I had, where I was not getting consistent answers.

Part of the reason the phone call took so long was due to my unusual situation. The DSL was not much of an issue during ordering, since it was completely invisible to them and they couldn't do anything about it. The real trouble was that second phone line. Figuring out how to deal with that took probably 45 minutes.

When I asked if I was required to switch my phone service from copper to fiber, the service rep first said no, but then went and asked someone else, came back and said yes, I would have to switch. I would have preferred to keep my phones on copper (and especially I would have preferred it given how much trouble I have had with the switch), but I was not given that option. So I placed the order to switch both of my phone lines over to fiber.

At some point I learned that each phone number at Frontier is on a separate account. This was completely invisible to me because both of my phone lines are billed on the account for my primary number, so that's the only account I see. Some of the Frontier people I talked to were able to find the separate account for the secondary line, but it always seemed to take them a while. In the end, I think that the fact that the secondary phone was actually a separate account has saved me some hassle with it: because it was on a separate account, the order to change the second phone over to fiber was done with a separate work order, scheduled for the day following the primary work order. Once the trouble started, I was able to cancel that second work order before anything was done to the second line; but the work had already started on the first line, and that has been the headache. I wonder now if there was any way I could have convinced them to just treat the internet service as a new internet-only account and so leave the phone lines and their account completely untouched.

I was pleased that my installation was scheduled very quickly, just two days later, on April 11. I should not have been. As it turned out, I did not actually get my FiOS service until April 18.

I wonder, had I known then what I know now, what I might have been able to do to avoid any of the troubles I have had.


On the morning of April 11, I was a bit surprised that the installer did not call first to confirm I was home before coming by. When he arrived, I learned why: although he had two different phone numbers for me, somehow he had typos in both of them. These two numbers were for my two Frontier phone lines. I would have thought the computer would have just copied those numbers into the work order, but I assume now that a person manually put in those phone numbers, and somehow got them both wrong.

Unfortunately, the person who took my order scheduled my installer visit without first scheduling the preceding two steps of the installation process. As a result, when the installer came out for the April 11 appointment, he was unable to do his work, and had to leave having done nothing.

Before that first installer left, he told me he would call in the work orders to do the steps that should have been done before he got there. He might have done this right away, but when I called Frontier a little bit later that day, I was still unable to reschedule the installation because they didn't have the notes from that day's work order yet. So I had to wait and call back a couple of days later.

I was disappointed that I would have to wait longer to get my fast internet service, but that was just a mild disappointment. What was more annoying was that my DSL service went out on April 13, two days after that original installation date.

As I mentioned above, due to my unusual DSL situation, it was very difficult for me to get anyone to take any action on my DSL line. I called my ISP, and they said everything looked fine to them. I called Frontier and they couldn't help me at all; they had absolutely zero visibility into my DSL service. One tech said he would run a DSL line check on my line, but the computer wouldn't let him because it said there was no DSL service on my line.

My ISP suggested that my DSL modem may have died, and while I admit that is a possibility, the timing of the outage, plus the fact that the modem lights indicated no DSL carrier, leads me to believe that the work order to switch my copper line to fiber triggered some follow-on internal work order to turn off the DSL on that line, and because my DSL service was invisible to everyone who looked at my account, they had no way to manage that internal work order.

After a few frustrating and fruitless phone calls trying to get my DSL line fixed, I decided to forget it and hope that my new fiber internet connection would be running soon. In the meantime, I tethered my computer to my phone when I wanted to use the internet, so I did not have to suffer internet withdrawal while waiting for FiOS. Ironically, this gave me a faster connection than my 3Mbps DSL line, although I never got it working as a gateway for my entire LAN, but only used it on one computer at a time.

The first step in the installation process is for the utility locators to come out and spray lines marking the location of the existing utilities so that the people burying the fiber don't damage any existing buried utilities. Two days after the aborted initial installation appointment, on the same day my DSL service went out, various colored lines started appearing in my front yard marking the utilities. The following morning the fiber installers came out and buried the fiber cable running from the curb to my house (yay!). BUT - that afternoon, yet another utility locator came out to locate more utilities. So the fiber installers jumped the gun by installing the fiber before all of the utilities were located. Fortunately, they did not damage any of the unlocated utilities, so although they did not follow the prescribed procedure, at least no harm resulted from that mistake.

On April 18, now that the fiber was in place, the second installer came out to finish the installation. In about two hours he installed all the equipment and got the FiOS internet service working (yay!). For much of the next hour he worked over the phone with a technician trying to get the primary phone line working over fiber. After some discussion with me, they finally gave up and moved the phone line back to copper.

I was perfectly happy keeping my phone service on copper, as that's what I had originally wanted anyway. If only it had been so easy.

I learned from the installer that the second phone line was on a separate work order, to be moved from copper to fiber the next day. Given that they were unable to move the first line, and were willing to keep it on copper (I thought), I called and canceled the service call that was scheduled for the next day. I'm pretty sure doing that has saved me a lot of grief on my second phone line, as so far I have not had any problems with it, and it has continued working just fine on copper, as well as being billed properly.

On April 25, one week after the FiOS installation, I learned that my primary phone was not working properly. It may be that it stopped working a day or two sooner, but this is the day I realized it. It was broken in a strange way: I could place outgoing calls, and I could receive incoming calls from another phone number in the same exchange, such as my second phone line, but calls from outside the exchange would not go through. When I called from my mobile phone, which has a different area code, I could hear a ringback on my mobile, but my landline never rang. When I called from my wife's mobile phone, which is in the same area code but not in the same exchange, I immediately got a message saying "Your call can not be completed." I spent a couple of hours on the phone with Frontier over this.

On April 30, five days later, they finally managed to get the phone working again. We got a call at 8:15am that Sunday morning from a repair man testing to see if the line was working. Fortunately, we were already awake.

Two days later, on May 2, the phone service went out again, in the same way. Another hour on the phone with Frontier, and this time it "only" took them two days to get it fixed. So far, from then until now (mid-June), the phone service has not gone out again, so I am hopeful that they really have fixed it.

On May 8, I received my first bill from Frontier since getting my new FiOS service. It had a couple of minor errors on it, which I was able to deal with on the phone to Frontier in about 15 minutes.

On June 7, I received my second bill from Frontier since getting my new FiOS service. This one had more serious problems, and I spent closer to an hour on the phone with Frontier. The most significant problem is that, although my phone service never got switched over to fiber, which also would have included switching to a new service plan, the billing did get switched to the new plan. My old plan was $18.90/month, the new plan is $30.99/month. So I am being charged an extra $12.09 for exactly the same service that I was getting before the FiOS installation. The billing person I talked to told me she was unable to change my phone service back to the old plan because I had been grandfathered in at that old rate. I assume the computer did not provide her any way to go back to that grandfathered rate.

So here I am, two months after ordering FiOS, trying to figure out what I should do about my phone service. Try harder to get it back to the old rate? Try to get it changed to the service plan I am now being forced to pay for?

Or maybe I should just cancel it. Who has land lines these days anyway?


Here is a list of what I believe are the mistakes Frontier made that led to the above trouble.
  • When taking my order, the service rep scheduled the equipment installation without first scheduling utility location and fiber installation
  • Both of my phone numbers were entered incorrectly in the original work order
  • The fiber installers buried the fiber before all of the utilities were located
  • When the original installation was postponed, the order to disconnect my DSL service was not also postponed
  • When the installer was unable to move the phone service to fiber, and kept it on copper, he should have canceled the rest of the service order for moving the phone service (although I suspect the computer would not have let him do that, since he had already done some of the work on it)
  • When the phone went out the first time, and the repair man got it working again, he must have missed some piece of the puzzle, since it went out again two days later
  • Given that the phone service never actually got switched to the new plan on fiber, the billing likewise should not have changed

Good Stuff

While I think far more has gone badly than is reasonable, not everything has gone wrong. In fairness, I list here some good things.
  • The fiber installer did a very nice job burying the fiber line from the curb to the house. We could hardly see where they ran it, including through sod, and even where they had to run it under a bed of solid pachysandra, they only damaged a strip a few inches wide.
  • The equipment installer cheerfully ran ethernet cable from the ONT, across the ceiling in my garage, through a wall, into my network equipment closet, and to a wall-mounted jack.
  • My 100/100 internet service came up smoothly on the (second) scheduled date, and has been working well ever since. It is satisfyingly fast.
  • When I run speed tests, I consistently do get 100Mbps both up and down.
  • The Arris wifi router they included in the installation was actually pretty nice (although it would be better if there were some documentation available somewhere). If I were a less technically demanding customer, I would probably still be using it.
  • Both installers who came to my house were friendly and competent. A few of the tech support people I talked to also seemed quite competent.
  • Almost everyone I have communicated with at Frontier has been friendly and has (as far as I can tell) tried their best to help me. They always let me stay on the line asking questions as long as I wanted to; I never felt anyone was trying to get me to hang up.
  • I have not had any trouble getting credits applied to my bill.


This section lists what I think are the answers to the four questions I started with. YMMV: service, equipment, processes and prices may vary across regions and over time, and depending on your situation.

What service options do I have?

Sadly, I can't give you good answers here, so you will probably have to call or chat with Frontier and experience your own frustration at getting a different answer each time.

I do, however, have a few things to point out.

One point, that was always unclear to me when researching FiOS, is that there is no technical reason you can not keep your copper-wire phone along with FiOS. The fiber line is installed completely independently of the copper wires, and the service is likewise independent. Frontier may tell you that you must switch your phone service over to fiber service (either TDM, in which the phone signal is sent over the fiber separately from the Internet signal, or VoIP, where it is sent on top of the Internet signal), but that is purely a business issue.

A possible sticking point is the way Frontier handles their accounts: if your phone service is on the same account as your FiOS internet service, they are constrained as to what the computer will let them do with that phone service. If you want to keep your copper phone lines and they are telling you you can't, perhaps you can ask to put the Internet service on a separate account. You can then ask to have both accounts billed together. But you might lose out on some bundling discounts this way.

One of the differences between POTS over copper wires and VoIP is that POTS is regulated phone service, but VoIP is not. More specifically, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 VoIP is considered an information service rather than a communications service, the upshot being that you don't have the same level of guarantees as POTS, which is regulated as a communications service. However, IANAL, and I was unable to determine whether or how later laws may have modified this situation, or whether those regulations are still being enforced, so this may be a moot point.

What equipment will be installed and where?

Not including the fiber from the street to your house that gets buried as part of the installation process, the installer installs three pieces of equipment:
  1. The ONT (Optical Network Terminal), which converts between the optical signal carried on the fiber to the electrical signals used in the house. The ONT has the following connections:
    • An optical connection that gets connected to the fiber from the street
    • Two 8P8C (RJ45) ethernet jacks for the internet connection
    • Two RJ-11 jacks for phone connections
    • A coaxial connector for the cable connection
    The ONT can be configured to provide internet service either through the 8P8C connector on a standard ethernet cable, or through the coaxial cable using MOCA.
    The ONT is typically mounted on the outside of the garage. The fiber from the street is routed first into a holding box, typically mounted behind the actual ONT, where the excess cable is wrapped in big loops to take up all the slack, then from there it enters the ONT.
  2. A power supply that includes a small battery backup for the ONT. This is typically mounted inside the garage, ideally just opposite where the ONT is mounted on the outside, and near a power outlet. The installer will then drill a hole through the garage wall to feed through the power wire from the supply to the ONT, and possibly another to bring the ethernet and coaxial cables into the garage if they will be routed through the garage. By default, the battery backup provides power only for the phone lines. It can be hacked to provide power for the internet portion of the ONT, or you can just buy your own UPS and plug the ONT power supply into that (although Frontier recommends plugging the ONT power supply directly into an outlet).
  3. A MOCA-capable router. In my case this was an Arris NVG468MQ, which is a reasonably nice wireless router, except that they didn't give me a manual, and I was unable to find anything of substance online. The router has the following connections:
    • A WAN ethernet port
    • Four LAN ethernet ports
    • A coax connector in case the internet signal is being supplied using MOCA
    • A four-wire RJ-11 phone jack for up to two phone lines
    If you have a good installer, they should be willing to let you decide where you want to put your router, and run ethernet cable (or coax if using MOCA) to that location, including drilling holes and installing a wall jack.
The internet signal from the ONT to the router can run either over an ethernet cable or over a coax cable. If you are getting TV service, they will have to run a coax cable for the TV service. If your internet service is slower than 100/100, it is possible to run the internet service over that same cable to the MOCA-capable router. If your internet service is 100/100 or faster, you probably want to run that over an ethernet cable; and you might someday want to upgrade to 100/100 or faster service later, so you probably should have them install that ethernet cable now anyway and have them run the internet signal through that to the router. Plus, that gives you the option of replacing their router with one of your own choice that doesn't do MOCA.

What is the installation process?

Installation of new FiOS service - not including preliminary research, placing the order, and post-installation followup to correct problems - consists of three sequential steps:
  1. Locate existing utilities: one or more people come out with metal detectors that they use to locate existing utilities such as power, water, sewer, gas, phone, and cable, and paint different colored lines marking those locations so that the fiber installers don't accidentally damage the existing utilities.
  2. Bury fiber from curb to house: a fiber installer puts in that last piece of fiber from the drop point (by the street near your house) to your house, typically to the garage. In the other direction, the fiber at the curb runs to a nearby junction box, where the installer connects it to an available port. At this point a signal is available at the fiber end by the house.
  3. Install equipment outside and inside the house: an equipment installer installs the equipment on the outside of your house and inside your house, and connects everything up. If you have existing POTS service and are switching to FiOS phone service, the phone lines that lead into the house are disconnected from the old copper lines and connected to the output of the ONT. The installer calls the plant and works with them to bring up the services you have ordered.

How much will it cost?

Perhaps because I am a long-time customer, Frontier did not charge me any kind of installation fee, which was nice. I don't know if that is standard. One person told me the regular installation fee is $80.

For the monthly fees, it may cost significantly more than you expect.

Frontier advertises their 100/100 internet service as $60 per month. They have not yet managed to send me a clean monthly bill since my upgrade, but based on my estimate of what that monthly amount is going to be, I believe the effective cost of my 100/100 service is actually over $100 per month. Here's how that breaks down:
  • The $60 rate is only if you sign a two year contract and only for the first six months. This is stated in the fine print on their web page, along with "Equip. and other fees apply." I did not sign a contract, so my monthly fee is $85.
  • After Frontier told me I was required to change my phone service to a new plan, and then was unable to deliver, my old grandfathered-in rate of $18.90 disappeared and was replaced by the $30.99 rate for Digital Phone Unlimited, despite the fact that I don't actually have that service. So I am currently paying an additional $12.09 per month for exactly the same phone service that I had before ordering FiOS internet service.
  • Taxes look like they will be about an additional $6 per month.
One other annoyance relating to cost: Frontier offered me a $100 gift card for signing up with them for FiOS internet. When I went to activate the gift card on their web site, I was presented with a terms and conditions screen requiring me to agree to a new 1 year term agreement. I had chosen not to sign a contract and to pay $85/month rather than $60/month, so it felt kind of like they were trying to pull a fast one on me by hoping I would activate the gift card without reading the fine print.

Frontier's Problems

  • Frontier's web site does not provide very good information about what service options are available.
  • If you call their Customer Service outside of their working hours, you get a message telling you they are closed, but that message does not tell you when they are open, and it's not an easy thing to find on their web site.
  • Different people at Frontier will give you different answers to the same questions. For example, I asked whether I would need to upgrade my copper-wire phone service to fiber; some said yes, some said no. Or sometimes first one answer then the other. One person suggested I put my phone service on a separate account from my internet service; another told me I could not do that.
  • Frontier's phone bills provide tons of details about taxes, but almost no details about regular charges. For example, I have two phone lines, and for most of the last few years they were billed as one line item labeled "Residence Line", with no indication that there were two lines.
  • Frontier's computers significantly constrain what their people can see and do. Or maybe their programs are just really hard to use. The customer service reps can't see the details of service calls, and the service techs can't see the account details. It is apparently not obvious when a customer has multiple accounts being billed together. And nobody could see anything about my DSL line.


Date Event
2017-03-02 Th Online chat #1 with Frontier (43 minutes)
2017-03-06 Mo Online chat #2 with Frontier (23 minutes)
2017-03-15 We Online chat #3 with Frontier (55 minutes)
2017-03-18 Sa Online chat #4 with Frontier (20 minutes, then cut off)
2017-03-20 Mo Online chat #5 with Frontier (estimated 20 minutes)
2017-03-21 Tu Online chat #6 with Frontier (1 hour and 38 minutes)
2017-04-09 Su Phone call with Frontier to order FiOS, service scheduled for Apr 11 (1 hour and 17 minutes)
2017-04-11 Tu Installer came out, couldn't do anything because they have not yet buried the fiber from the curb to the house
2017-04-11 Tu Called Frontier to reschedule installation, was told the current installer has not yet entered his notes, please call back in 24 hours (12 minutes)
2017-04-13 Th DSL service died at about 12:30pm
2017-04-13 Th Utility locators started painting colored lines where existing services are buried
2017-04-13 Th Called Frontier to try to get DSL line fixed (24 minutes)
2017-04-14 Fr Fiber installers installed the curb-to-house fiber (before all the locators had painted their lines)
2017-04-14 Fr Another locator came out to paint lines; when I pointed out that the fiber had already been installed, he stopped painting, took his final photos, and left
2017-04-14 Fr Called ISP to try to get DSL line fixed (12 minutes)
2017-04-14 Fr Called Frontier (multiple times) to check on status of FiOS order (the fiber was installed this morning, but they said the order had not yet been updated to show that) (8 minutes + 13 minutes + 12 minutes + 25 minutes)
2017-04-15 Sa Called Frontier to check on the status of my FiOS order (8 minutes)
2017-04-18 Tu Installer came out and completed the physical installation of the equipment, got the FiOS internet service working. He was unable to get the phones working over fiber, so switched everything back to copper and left, with everything working (3 hours and 10 minutes)
2017-04-18 Tu Called Frontier, canceled the remaining order to move the second line over to fiber (scheduled for tomorrow) (7 minutes)
2017-04-25 Tu Our main line stopped working, was unable to be reached from outside our exchange
2017-04-25 Tu Called Frontier to report our main phone line not working (44 minutes)
2017-04-26 We Called Frontier to continue discussions about non-working phone (1 hour and 35 minutes)
2017-04-30 Su Received a call from Frontier at about 8:15am this morning on the main line, he said it was now fixed (1 minute)
2017-05-01 Mo Phone seems to have been working today, we received at least one incoming phone call
2017-05-02 Tu Called Frontier in the morning because my main phone was not working again (39 minutes, then was cut off)
2017-05-02 Tu My wife called Frontier mid-day about the non-working phone (15 minutes)
2017-05-02 Tu Called Frontier in the evening to continue the call from this morning (14 minutes)
2017-05-04 Th Frontier called, the line is working again
2017-05-08 Mo Called Frontier to have them correct errors on my April bill (the first received since I started FiOS service) (12 minutes)
2017-06-07 We Received second bill since switching to FiOS - still wrong
2017-06-14 We Called Frontier to deal with problems on my May bill (48 minutes)

Total time (as of June 14): 20.3 hours
  • Web research: 5 hours
  • Chat: 4.3 hours
  • Place order: 1.3 hours
  • Installer: 3.2 hours
  • Followup phone calls (through June 14): 6.5 hours

Selected Quotes

I took notes on all my phone calls with Frontier, including writing down certain things verbatim. For your entertainment, I present here some of those quotes, in no particular order. I will let you imagine the context.
  • That is very confusing.
  • Why can't I see that one?
  • I don't know why they didn't just leave it alone.
  • The program is wrong.
  • How are you an R-U out of Washington?
  • ... and that's what I'm not seeing.
  • We don't do these very often.
  • Within our system we have nine different portals where we have to test things.
  • This is very new to me, I have never dealt with two lines like this.
  • Sorry this is taking so long, we'll get it figured out for you.
  • It's not giving me anything.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

The Rule Of Law

A layman's view of The Rule of Law. IANAL.


This I Believe

Some years ago NPR started running a series called This I Believe as a tribute to Edward R. Murrow and his original 1951 radio program of the same name. As I commuted I would occasionally catch an episode and hear an essay about the topic in which a contributor believed. I would listen to an essay around a weighty topic as God, Love, Funerals, Good and Evil or Public Service and think, "no", "maybe", or "yeah, sure". Then one day I heard Michael Mullane's essay on The Rule Of Law and I thought "Yes! This I believe!"

I particularly liked Michael's point that the Tinkerbell effect applies to the Rule of Law. As he says, God exists (or does not exist) whether or not you or I believe that to be so, but with the Rule of Law, it can only exist if almost all of us believe in it and follow it. As Death says to a human near the end of Terry Pratchett's Discworld book Hogfather, "YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" (Death always talks IN CAPITAL LETTERS.)

The Importance of Law

Why is law important? The American Declaration of Independence asserts that "all men are created equal" and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." To support that position we need a system of law that in fact treats all people equally. But even if the law does not protect all of the fundamental human rights, it can provide an important benefit to its society: stability through predictability.

To be predictable, the system of laws must be:
  • Understandable - the laws can be understood by most people.
  • Consistent - individual laws do not conflict with each other.
  • Extensive - the laws cover all common situations and a large portion of less common situations.
There have been many successful nations that followed the Rule of Law with different laws for different classes of people, including Rome and Greece. A system of law can provide stability and a foundation for an orderly and effective society without treating all people equally.

Prescriptive and Proscriptive Law

Prescriptive laws are those that tell us what we must do, such as Honour thy father and thy mother. Proscriptive laws are those that tell us what we must not do, such as "Thou shalt not kill".

You can think of prescriptive law as additive manufacturing: you can start with nothing, and add pieces until you get something useful, like building up a sculpture by adding little pieces of clay, or 3D printing.

Proscriptive law is more like subtractive manufacturing: you start with a block of something and carve away pieces until you get the desired result, like starting with a chunk of marble and carving a sculpture out of it, or machining.

(But don't try searching for additive law or subtractive law unless you are working with primary colors. :-) )

Given the assumption of freedom in both of the Declarations above, it's easier to start by saying people can do anything, then add proscriptive laws specifying what they can't do. Compared to the complete freedom and anarchy of a society with no laws, you can get pretty far down the road to stability just with proscriptive laws. Of the Ten Commandments, eight are proscriptive and only two are prescriptive.

Law versus Convention

While the Rule of Law normally refers to the explicit and codified laws on the books, which can be enforced by the state, there is another set of rules that most of us live by which are not legally mandated. These conventions include social guidelines that prescribe how to behave and communicate, including when and how it is appropriate to touch (such as shaking hands or a pat on the back), to ask for something (with "please" and "thank you"), to offer advice ("true/kind/necessary") or apologies, and many other behaviors.

These conventions don't have the force of law. If you break these rules, you won't be sent to jail or be forced to pay someone monetary damages - but you might find that you are a little less successful and your life might be a little less pleasant. Like laws, conventions are only useful if most of us agree on them, and like laws, a widely accepted and understood set of conventions helps make the world a little bit more predictable, which in turn makes it a little bit easier for people to make plans and be successful.

In effect, social conventions are simply another layer of "laws" that sit below the constitutional laws and the statute laws (and in reality the American legal system has many other levels than just those two).

Multiple Systems of Law

I am intrigued by the fact that we have so many different implementations of the Rule of Law. Every nation on Earth that abides by the Rule of Law has its own system of law. The ways in which the laws of nations interact is as varied as the relationships between the nations. For example, American Law has specific sections dealing with the fact that there are Native American "domestic dependent nations" within its borders that have their own laws.

Similarly, every nation has a different set of social conventions, those unwritten rules that lubricate our everyday interactions.

On top of all those different systems of law, we have International Law, with the intent of providing structure for interactions between nations when those nations have different and possibly incompatible systems of laws. Two aspects of International Law that I find particularly thought-provoking are the Law of War, and Jurisdiction.

(For an interesting bit of history about Jurisdiction, read about Peine forte et dure.)

Meta Law

In order to be predictable, the laws must be stable and not change often; but the laws must sometimes be changed in order to cover new situations or to correct problems in existing laws. One approach to improving the predictability of the system of laws while still allowing for change is to use a layered approach, where some laws are considered more important than others and are thus harder to change. The set of harder-to-change laws typically includes the rules on how to change the laws. This is the basis of the constitutional model, as is used in the United States, in which the most important laws are embodied in the constitution, with rules that make those laws much harder to change than regular laws. A constitution will typically include rules on how both "normal" rules and the rules embodied in the constitution can be changed.

Back in 1982, a "constitution" game by Peter Suber called Nomic appeared in Douglas R. Hofstadter's column, "Metamagical Themas," in Scientific American. In this game, players take turns proposing changes to the rules of the game. The rules start out in two categories, "immutable" and "mutable", corresponding to the simple two-level "constitutional" and "statute" law that Americans are taught in civics classes. The rules of the game tell how a player wins the game, and also tell how the rules can be changed - including how to change the rules that tell how to win and how to change the rules. The Nomic game is intended to illustrate the mechanisms and possibilities described in Peter Suber's book The Paradox of Self-Amendment, available online. For the quickest read on the game, you can jump straight to the rules, but the game description, although somewhat lengthy, is also interesting.

In Suber's book he starts by asking how a legal system can deal with paradox, when there are laws that directly contradict each other, and he notes that "paradoxes come and go without much notice and are dealt with without much ado."

Given that systems of laws seem always to be self-referential (since they include rules about how to change the rules), attempting to craft a system of laws that is also complete and consistent would seem to run into a version of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. In practice, systems of laws are not really complete and still blithely violate consistency, yet manage to be quite useful despite their flaws.

Law and Software

The title of this section might refer to laws that affect software, such as copyright law, or it might refer to the use of software to assist in the application of law, such as computerized law indexes or Regulation by Software; but in fact, I am referring to the use of law as a concept in defining how software works.

As in a society, a programming language is built on a set of rules that describe how statements in the language are interpreted by the computer. The developer uses his knowledge of these rules to create a program that instructs the computer to do something that is useful to the developer.

Imagine trying to program in a computer language with no rules. How could you get anything done? You could never predict the results of a statement, so you could never make a program that produced anything predictable.

Just as different societies each have their own set of rules, different programming languages each have their own set of rules. And just as with social conventions, different groups of programmers typically adopt programming conventions that are not enforced by the compiler but are intended to make life a bit simpler for the developers in the group.

In fact, all of the concepts discussed above are applicable to software. You can consider that as we take a look at what it means to define software in terms of laws.

Law and Object-Oriented Programming

Back in 1987 Naftaly Minsky and David Rozenshtein published "A Law-Based Approach to Object-Oriented Programming" (available for purchase on-line) in which they discussed how an object-oriented system can be described in terms of the laws that control the exchange of messages between objects. (Minsky has published quite a few other papers on related topics concerning law and software.)

They start by defining objects as containing state and program, with four primitive messages (prefixed by the octothorpe character, #) to create (#new) and destroy (#kill) objects and to get (#get) and set (#mutate) state. Messages are defined as a triplet of sender, message text, and target. Message delivery goes through the law system, which can take one of three actions:
  1. The message can be delivered to its target.
  2. The message text and/or target can be modified and then delivered.
  3. The message can be blocked and thus not delivered.
With these definitions and a permissive law that allows any object to send any message to any other object, the system does not exhibit many of the characteristics typically associated with object-oriented systems.

They then examine the effect of different kinds of laws, such as allowing primitive messages to be sent only by the same object. Through this approach they show how to implement common object-oriented features such as encapsulation, inheritance, and class variables as well as less common features such as multiple inheritance, exclusion of methods from inheritance, and triggers.

Given that the program is part of the state of the object, it can be modified with a #mutate message, so it is possible to describe self-modifying programs within this framework. The laws of the system control whether and how this message is allowed to be sent.

By defining the laws in objects that are themselves part of the system, those laws can then be changed. The system could start with a separate subset of laws that control how the laws can be changed, making this approach look very much like Suber's Constitution game.

The law system allows the laws to modify the content of a message or redirect it to a different target, allowing for the implementation of security checks and other forms of enforced delegation.

I am not aware of a production system that directly uses this style of law-based control of message passing, but there are some systems that use a conceptually similar method of applying a set of rules to some messages to control their delivery. For example, in the Java security model different environments can have different implementations of the SecurityManager, each with its own definition of the security policy (i.e. rules) that controls whether certain actions are allowed to be taken, which can be viewed as allowing the messages requesting those actions to be delivered. The OSGi security model goes further towards being a general law-based system, including the ability to specify rules via a string and to compose multiple security policies.

Law and Mind

For both societies and software, laws are rules telling us what we must and must not do, or do differently, and conventions are rules telling us what we should and should not do, or do differently. By following these rules and conventions, a society or a software system can be far more productive than one with the same underlying capabilities but where the rules and laws are less cohesive and effective or are not followed.

Could it be that the same is true for our minds? According to Marvin Minsky's theory of the mind as set forth in Society of Mind, our minds are composed of many small agents communicating with each other. Minsky's agents are very small pieces, and the communication between them is below our level of awareness. Perhaps our minds use something like Naftaly Minsky's law-based message delivery mechanism to monitor and control these low-level communications between agents.

Maybe the biggest difference between people who are productive and those who are not is in the different internal rules the two minds follow, and not so much a difference in raw underlying capability. Maybe productive people have a better set of mental rules controlling the messages within their minds. And if that is true, that leads to an interesting question: to what extent is it possible for people to rewrite their own low-level internal communication rules to improve their performance, and how might that be accomplished?

Sunday, July 6, 2014

From Obvious To Agile

What do you do when obvious isn't?

Installing new fence posts

Many years ago I had a fence that needed to be repaired. I got a recommendation for a fence repair man from a friend and had him come out to take a look. He said the panels between the posts were fine and did not need to be replaced, I just needed new posts. He quoted me a price for installing new fence posts that seemed quite reasonable, and I accepted his bid.

A few days later he came back to do the job. After he had been out there working for a while, I went out to take a look. I was surprised when I saw how he had installed the new fence posts. He had not removed the old posts and put new posts in their places, as I had assumed; instead, he simply planted a new post next to each old post and strapped them together. I was flabbergasted, and complained to him that my expectation was that he was going to take out the old posts and replace them with new posts. He was nonplussed. "I told you I would install new posts," he said. "Taking out the old posts would be way more work, and I would have to charge you more."

Well, he had me: he had indeed said only that he would install new posts. I was the one who assumed he would take out the old posts. I grumbled, paid him extra to replace a few of the old posts where it was particularly troublesome to have an extra post sticking out, and had the whole fence replaced the right way a few years later.

Keep using gmail

One of the startups at which I worked used gmail and was acquired by a large company that used Exchange. Concerned about the possibility of having to move to what we felt was a worse system, we asked what would happen with email. We were relieved when they said we could keep using gmail.

On the very first day that we were officially part of the new company, we were all told that we now had Exchange email accounts. "Hey!," we said, "you told us we could keep our gmail accounts." "Yes, you can," came the response, "but you also need to have an Exchange account for all official company email."

This was, of course, not what we had expected when we asked if we could keep our gmail accounts. But, as with the new fence posts, they had in fact kept their word and let us keep our gmail accounts; it was we who assumed that that would continue to be our only email account.

Everything under SCCS

At one of the places I worked, we hired a contractor to work on a subsystem. At one point we became concerned about how he was managing his source code, so we asked how he was doing that. "Everything is under sccs," he said. (This was well before the days of git, subversion, cvs, or even rcs; at the time, sccs (Source Code Control System) was what most people in our industry were using.) When he finally delivered the source code to us, we were annoyed to discover that he simply had a directory named "sccs", and all of his source code was contained in that directory; there was in fact no versioning or history.

Once again, this was not what we had expected. When he said "sccs" we assumed he was talking about the source code control system, when in fact he was just referring to a directory name; and when he said "under" we assumed he meant "managed by", when in fact he just meant "contained in."

A new and improved version of Android

My first smart phone was an Android phone running version 2.2. I watched as the newer versions of Android came out, filled with interesting new features. Finally, an over-the-air update was available for my phone. I eagerly updated and started playing with the new features. My first disappointment was with the new and definitely not improved performance: my phone was slow and laggy, and it no longer lasted even one day on a full charge.

I was even more dismayed to discover that they had removed USB Mass Storage Mode (MSC or UMS) and replaced it with a significantly less functional alternative, MTP (Media Transfer Protocol). In my case, it was completely non-functional for my use, because my home desktop machine was running Linux, and at the time there was not a working Linux driver for MTP mode.

I was, as you might expect, pretty ticked off. I had assumed without thinking about it that they would not remove a significant feature from a new version of the software, but they never said that.

Alternate Interpretations

Ask yourself: when reading the above anecdotes, did you realize in advance of the denouement what the problem would be for all of them? If it had been you, would you have made the same assumptions as I did?

Sometimes something seems so obvious to us that it does not even cross our minds that there might be an alternate interpretation.

I don't think it is possible for us to see these alternative interpretations in every case; often it is something with which we have had no experience, so could not be expected to know. We do, of course, sometimes consider alternative interpretations. In the future, if someone tells me they will install new fence posts, I will be sure to ask for more details. But we have to make assumptions as we deal with the world every day. If we examined every statement and every experience for alternative interpretations, that would consume all of our time, and we would not have any time left to pursue new thoughts. We learn to make instant and unconscious judgment calls: as long as what we hear and see has a high enough probability of an unambiguous interpretation, the possibility that there is an alternate interpretation does not bubble up to our conscious minds. Overall this is a very effective strategy that lets us focus our mental energies on situations where an unusual outcome is more likely. But this does mean that every once in a while we will miss something, with undesired results.

Going beyond obvious

I have already given my recommendation to State The Obvious. However, as you can see from the above anecdotes, this is not always enough. But what else can we do?

If you consider the anecdotes above, you might notice that, in most of them, by the time I realized that I had made an incorrect assumption, the deed was done and I was stuck with an undesired result. But the fence post story was a little different: in that case, I checked up on the work before it was done. Because I discovered the problem while it was happening, I was able to ask for changes and get a result that was closer to what I wanted.

Software Development

Not all of my blog posts are about software development, but in this case the application is obvious. Well, it seems obvious to me, but just in case it is not obvious to everyone, I will follow my own advice and explain in detail.

In the traditional waterfall process, a complete and detailed specification of the desired system is created before doing any of the implementation work. Once that spec is done, the system is built to match it. But, as we have seen from the anecdotes above, even a very simple spec, such as "install new fence posts", might be interpreted in a bizarre way that still matches the letter of the specification. In this case, the result might be something that arguably matches what was specified, but is not what was wanted.

Based on my personal experience and anecdotes I have heard from others, I believe that it is very difficult to write a good spec for something new, and impossible to write a spec that can not be interpreted by somebody in some bizarre way that satisfies the spec but is not the desired result.

Given that we can't guarantee that we can write a spec that will not be misinterpreted, what is the alternative? I think the only alternative is to do what I did in the fence-post case: check up on the work and make corrections along the way. This is embodied in a couple of the value statements in The Agile Manifesto: "Customer collaboration over contract negotiation" and "Responding to change over following a plan".

If you are asking someone to create something that is very similar to things that have been created before, and through previous common experience there is already a shared vocabulary sufficient to describe how the desired result compares to those previous creations, then you can perhaps write a spec that will get you what you want. The closer the new thing is to those previously created things, the easier that will be. But in software development, where the goal is often specifically to create something novel, this is particularly difficult. In that situation, I think that creating and then relying solely on a detailed spec is less likely to result in a satisfactory outcome; I believe an agreement on direction and major points, followed by keeping a close eye on progress, paying particular attention when something is being done for the first time, is the key to good results.

Writing a Spec

I'm not saying don't write a spec. I'm saying you need to recognize that a spec won't take you all the way, and a poorly written spec can hinder your progress. Writing a spec is like looking at a map and planning your route: often necessary but seldom sufficient. You need to be prepared for construction closures, blocking accidents, or even additional interesting sights you might decide to see along the way. For any of these diversions, you will need to reexamine your route in the middle of the trip and select an alternative. For a short trip, you might not run into any such problems and thus not need to modify your route, but the longer the journey the more likely that at some point you will need or want to deviate from your original route.

If you are familiar with the roads and have a clear destination, you might be able to dispense with the initial route planning completely: just head in the right direction and follow the signs. Or if you are on a discovery road trip and don't have a specific destination, then heading out without a planned route is fine. In most cases, though, some level of advance route planning will save time. You just need to stay agile and be prepared to change your route along the way.