Experiment with relaxing the Orphan Rule

Metadata
Owner(s)
Teams	lang, types
Status	Not accepted

Summary

Experimental implementation and draft RFCs to relax the orphan rule

Motivation

Relax the orphan rule, in limited circumstances, to allow crates to provide implementations of third-party traits for third-party types. The orphan rule averts one potential source of conflicts between Rust crates, but its presence also creates scaling issues in the Rust community: it prevents providing a third-party library that integrates two other libraries with each other, and instead requires convincing the author of one of the two libraries to add (optional) support for the other, or requires using a newtype wrapper. Relaxing the orphan rule, carefully, would make it easier to integrate libraries with each other, share those integrations, and make it easier for new libraries to garner support from the ecosystem.

The status quo

Suppose a Rust developer wants to work with two libraries: lib_a providing trait TraitA, and lib_b providing type TypeB. Due to the orphan rule, if they want to use the two together, they have the following options:

• Convince the maintainer of lib_a to provide impl TraitA for TypeB. This typically involves an optional dependency on lib_b. This usually only occurs if lib_a is substantially less popular than lib_b, or the maintainer of lib_a is convinced that others are likely to want to use the two together. This tends to feel "reversed" from the norm.

• Convince the maintainer of lib_b to provide impl TraitA for TypeB. This typically involves an optional dependency on lib_a. This is only likely to occur if lib_a is popular, and the maintainer of lib_b is convinced that others may want to use the two together. The difficulty in advocating this, scaled across the community, is one big reason why it's difficult to build new popular crates built around traits (e.g. competing serialization/deserialization libraries, or competing async I/O traits).

• Vendor either lib_a or lib_b into their own project. This is inconvenient, adds maintenance costs, and isn't typically an option for public projects intended for others to use.

• Create a newtype wrapper around TypeB, and implement TraitA for the wrapper type. This is less convenient, propagates throughout the crate (and through other crates if doing this in a library), and may require additional trait implementations for the wrapper that TypeB already implemented.

All of these solutions are suboptimal in some way, and inconvenient. In particular, all of them are much more difficult than actually writing the trait impl. All of them tend to take longer, as well, slowing down whatever goal depended on having the trait impl.

The next six months

We propose to

• Experiment on nightly with alternate orphan rules
  • Idea 1. Try relaxing the orphan rule for binary crates, since this cannot create library incompatibilities in the ecosystem. Allow binary crates to implement third-party traits for third-party types, possibly requiring a marker on either the trait or type or both. See how well this works for users.
  • Idea 2. Try allowing library crates to provide third-party impls as long as no implementations actually conflict. Perhaps require marking traits and/or types that permit third-party impls, to ensure that crates can always implement traits for their own types.
• Draft RFCs for features above, presuming experiments turn out well

The "shiny future" we are working towards

Long-term, we'll want a way to resolve conflicts between third-party trait impls.

We should support a "standalone derive" mechanism, to derive a trait for a type without attaching the derive to the type definition. We could save a simple form of type information about a type, and define a standalone deriving mechanism that consumes exclusively that information.

Given such a mechanism, we could then permit any crate to invoke the standalone derive mechanism for a trait and type, and allow identical derivations no matter where they appear in the dependency tree.

Design axioms

• Rustaceans should be able to easily integrate a third-party trait with a third-party type without requiring the cooperation of third-party crate maintainers.

• It should be possible to publish such integration as a new crate. For instance, it should be possible to publish an a_b crate integrating a with b. This makes it easier to scale the ecosystem and get adoption for new libraries.

• Crate authors should have some control over whether their types have third-party traits implemented. This ensures that it isn't a breaking change to introdice first-party trait implementations.

Ownership and team asks

Owner:

This section defines the specific work items that are planned and who is expected to do them. It should also include what will be needed from Rust teams.

• Subgoal:
  • Describe the work to be done and use ↳ to mark "subitems".
• Owner(s) or team(s):
  • List the owner for this item (who will do the work) or if an owner is needed.
  • If the item is a "team ask" (i.e., approve an RFC), put and the team name(s).
• Status:
  • List if there is an owner but they need support, for example funding.
  • Other needs (e.g., complete, in FCP, etc) are also fine.

Subgoal	Owner(s) or team(s)	Notes
Ownership and implementation
RFC authoring
Design consultation/iteration	Josh Triplett
Design meeting	lang types	Up to 1 meeting, if needed

Frequently asked questions

Won't this create incompatibilities between libraries that implement the same trait for the same type?

Yes! The orphan rule is a tradeoff. It was established to avert one source of potential incompatibility between library crates, in order to help the ecosystem grow, scale, and avoid conflicts. However, the presence of the orphan rule creates a different set of scaling issues and conflicts. This project goal proposes to adjust the balance, attempting to achieve some of the benefits of both.

Why was this goal not approved for 2024H2?

Primarily for capacity reasons:

• lcnr commented that there was no capacity on the types team for reviewing.
• tmandry commented that the goal as written was not necessarily focused on the right constraints (text quoted below).

It strikes me as quite open ended and not obviously focused on the right constraints. (cc Josh Triplett as mentor)

For example, we could choose to relax the orphan rule only within a restricted set of co-versioned crates that we treat as "one big crate" for coherence purposes. This would not meet the axioms listed in the goal, but I believe it would still improve things for a significant set of users.

If we instead go with visibility restrictions on impls, that might work and solve a larger subset, but I think the design will have to be guided by someone close to the implementation to be viable.

I would love to have a design meeting if a viable looking design emerges, but I want to make sure this feedback is taken into account before someone spends a lot of time on it.

These points can be considered and addressed at a later time.