0

We have set of common types (mostly structs, scalars, string IDs) that are used across different packages in a project written in Golang. Currently we define them in a package named "models" in the root of the project. It was made to reduce cohesion of different packages and to avoid circular dependencies. Is it considered as good practice to achieve these goals this way? If no, what are the alternative approaches?

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    Cohesion is usually considered a good thing - are you sure the designers intentionally decreased it? Commented Apr 14, 2021 at 11:25
  • @KilianFoth , maybe I've used wrong term. I meant that we strive to make packages not depend from each other, but from abstract interfaces (that are defined where consumed) and common things. That let us keep the package dependencies graph simple. Commented Apr 14, 2021 at 13:17
  • @KilianFoth , so the sake of the question is: what is the best practice to manage such "common things", and is keeping them in the single package "models" considered as good practice? Commented Apr 14, 2021 at 13:20
  • @oare234, where I work we generally create a module called lib with all of the shared packages. We also follow a release process to version them so we can do a go get ... if needed with the changes we are after. Commented Nov 18, 2021 at 4:00

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.