What are some (concrete) use-cases for metaclasses?
I have a friend who likes to use metaclasses, and regularly offers them as a solution.
I am of the mind that you almost never need to use metaclasses. Why? because I figure if you are doing something like that to a class, you should probably be doing it to an object. And a small redesign/refactor is in order.
Being able to use metaclasses has caused a lot of people in a lot of places to use classes as some kind of second rate object, which just seems disastrous to me. Is programming to be replaced by meta-programming? The addition of class decorators has unfortunately made it even more acceptable.
So please, I am desperate to know your valid (concrete) use-cases for metaclasses in Python. Or to be enlightened as to why mutating classes is better than mutating objects, sometimes.
I will start:
Sometimes when using a third-party library it is useful to be able to mutate the class in a certain way.
(This is the only case I can think of, and it's not concrete)
Answer
I was asked the same question recently, and came up with several answers. I hope it's OK to revive this thread, as I wanted to elaborate on a few of the use cases mentioned, and add a few new ones.
Most metaclasses I've seen do one of two things:
Registration (adding a class to a data structure):
models = {} class ModelMetaclass(type): def __new__(meta, name, bases, attrs): models[name] = cls = type.__new__(meta, name, bases, attrs) return cls class Model(object): __metaclass__ = ModelMetaclassWhenever you subclass
Model, your class is registered in themodelsdictionary:>>> class A(Model): ... pass ... >>> class B(A): ... pass ... >>> models {'A': <__main__.A class at 0x...>, 'B': <__main__.B class at 0x...>}This can also be done with class decorators:
models = {} def model(cls): models[cls.__name__] = cls return cls @model class A(object): passOr with an explicit registration function:
models = {} def register_model(cls): models[cls.__name__] = cls class A(object): pass register_model(A)Actually, this is pretty much the same: you mention class decorators unfavorably, but it's really nothing more than syntactic sugar for a function invocation on a class, so there's no magic about it.
Anyway, the advantage of metaclasses in this case is inheritance, as they work for any subclasses, whereas the other solutions only work for subclasses explicitly decorated or registered.
>>> class B(A): ... pass ... >>> models {'A': <__main__.A class at 0x...> # No B :(Refactoring (modifying class attributes or adding new ones):
class ModelMetaclass(type): def __new__(meta, name, bases, attrs): fields = {} for key, value in attrs.items(): if isinstance(value, Field): value.name = '%s.%s' % (name, key) fields[key] = value for base in bases: if hasattr(base, '_fields'): fields.update(base._fields) attrs['_fields'] = fields return type.__new__(meta, name, bases, attrs) class Model(object): __metaclass__ = ModelMetaclassWhenever you subclass
Modeland define someFieldattributes, they are injected with their names (for more informative error messages, for example), and grouped into a_fieldsdictionary (for easy iteration, without having to look through all the class attributes and all its base classes' attributes every time):>>> class A(Model): ... foo = Integer() ... >>> class B(A): ... bar = String() ... >>> B._fields {'foo': Integer('A.foo'), 'bar': String('B.bar')}Again, this can be done (without inheritance) with a class decorator:
def model(cls): fields = {} for key, value in vars(cls).items(): if isinstance(value, Field): value.name = '%s.%s' % (cls.__name__, key) fields[key] = value for base in cls.__bases__: if hasattr(base, '_fields'): fields.update(base._fields) cls._fields = fields return cls @model class A(object): foo = Integer() class B(A): bar = String() # B.bar has no name :( # B._fields is {'foo': Integer('A.foo')} :(Or explicitly:
class A(object): foo = Integer('A.foo') _fields = {'foo': foo} # Don't forget all the base classes' fields, too!Although, on the contrary to your advocacy for readable and maintainable non-meta programming, this is much more cumbersome, redundant and error prone:
class B(A): bar = String() # vs. class B(A): bar = String('bar') _fields = {'B.bar': bar, 'A.foo': A.foo}
Having considered the most common and concrete use cases, the only cases where you absolutely HAVE to use metaclasses are when you want to modify the class name or list of base classes, because once defined, these parameters are baked into the class, and no decorator or function can unbake them.
class Metaclass(type):
def __new__(meta, name, bases, attrs):
return type.__new__(meta, 'foo', (int,), attrs)
class Baseclass(object):
__metaclass__ = Metaclass
class A(Baseclass):
pass
class B(A):
pass
print A.__name__ # foo
print B.__name__ # foo
print issubclass(B, A) # False
print issubclass(B, int) # True
This may be useful in frameworks for issuing warnings whenever classes with similar names or incomplete inheritance trees are defined, but I can't think of a reason beside trolling to actually change these values. Maybe David Beazley can.
Anyway, in Python 3, metaclasses also have the __prepare__ method, which lets you evaluate the class body into a mapping other than a dict, thus supporting ordered attributes, overloaded attributes, and other wicked cool stuff:
import collections
class Metaclass(type):
@classmethod
def __prepare__(meta, name, bases, **kwds):
return collections.OrderedDict()
def __new__(meta, name, bases, attrs, **kwds):
print(list(attrs))
# Do more stuff...
class A(metaclass=Metaclass):
x = 1
y = 2
# prints ['x', 'y'] rather than ['y', 'x']
class ListDict(dict):
def __setitem__(self, key, value):
self.setdefault(key, []).append(value)
class Metaclass(type):
@classmethod
def __prepare__(meta, name, bases, **kwds):
return ListDict()
def __new__(meta, name, bases, attrs, **kwds):
print(attrs['foo'])
# Do more stuff...
class A(metaclass=Metaclass):
def foo(self):
pass
def foo(self, x):
pass
# prints [<function foo at 0x...>, <function foo at 0x...>] rather than <function foo at 0x...>
You might argue ordered attributes can be achieved with creation counters, and overloading can be simulated with default arguments:
import itertools
class Attribute(object):
_counter = itertools.count()
def __init__(self):
self._count = Attribute._counter.next()
class A(object):
x = Attribute()
y = Attribute()
A._order = sorted([(k, v) for k, v in vars(A).items() if isinstance(v, Attribute)],
key = lambda (k, v): v._count)
class A(object):
def _foo0(self):
pass
def _foo1(self, x):
pass
def foo(self, x=None):
if x is None:
return self._foo0()
else:
return self._foo1(x)
Besides being much more ugly, it's also less flexible: what if you want ordered literal attributes, like integers and strings? What if None is a valid value for x?
Here's a creative way to solve the first problem:
import sys
class Builder(object):
def __call__(self, cls):
cls._order = self.frame.f_code.co_names
return cls
def ordered():
builder = Builder()
def trace(frame, event, arg):
builder.frame = frame
sys.settrace(None)
sys.settrace(trace)
return builder
@ordered()
class A(object):
x = 1
y = 'foo'
print A._order # ['x', 'y']
And here's a creative way to solve the second one:
_undefined = object()
class A(object):
def _foo0(self):
pass
def _foo1(self, x):
pass
def foo(self, x=_undefined):
if x is _undefined:
return self._foo0()
else:
return self._foo1(x)
But this is much, MUCH voodoo-er than a simple metaclass (especially the first one, which really melts your brain). My point is, you look at metaclasses as unfamiliar and counter-intuitive, but you can also look at them as the next step of evolution in programming languages: you just have to adjust your mindset. After all, you could probably do everything in C, including defining a struct with function pointers and passing it as the first argument to its functions. A person seeing C++ for the first time might say, "what is this magic? Why is the compiler implicitly passing this to methods, but not to regular and static functions? It's better to be explicit and verbose about your arguments". But then, object-oriented programming is much more powerful once you get it; and so is this, uh... quasi-aspect-oriented programming, I guess. And once you understand metaclasses, they're actually very simple, so why not use them when convenient?
And finally, metaclasses are rad, and programming should be fun. Using standard programming constructs and design patterns all the time is boring and uninspiring, and hinders your imagination. Live a little! Here's a metametaclass, just for you.
class MetaMetaclass(type):
def __new__(meta, name, bases, attrs):
def __new__(meta, name, bases, attrs):
cls = type.__new__(meta, name, bases, attrs)
cls._label = 'Made in %s' % meta.__name__
return cls
attrs['__new__'] = __new__
return type.__new__(meta, name, bases, attrs)
class China(type):
__metaclass__ = MetaMetaclass
class Taiwan(type):
__metaclass__ = MetaMetaclass
class A(object):
__metaclass__ = China
class B(object):
__metaclass__ = Taiwan
print A._label # Made in China
print B._label # Made in Taiwan
Edit
This is a pretty old question, but it's still getting upvotes, so I thought I'd add a link to a more comprehensive answer. If you'd like to read more about metaclasses and their uses, I've just published an article about it here.