[tptacek]

No, 'r' is request-specific; it's owned by the goroutine that's dispatching the current request.

If you had actual shared state that needed to be mutated by concurrent handlers, the idiomatic solution would be to park it behind a channel on its own goroutine; that's why goroutines are so cheap, is so you can allocate them to problems like this. If you want your solution to be general and unfussy, you'd have the channel be of closures; you'd just pass whatever mutating code you want to run to the goroutine.

[hundt]

Actually (https://github.com/gorilla/context/blob/master/context.go):

  var (
          mutex sync.Mutex
          data  = make(map[*http.Request]map[interface{}]interface{})
          datat = make(map[*http.Request]int64)
  )

  // Set stores a value for a given key in a given request.
  func Set(r *http.Request, key, val interface{}) {
          mutex.Lock()
          defer mutex.Unlock()
          if data[r] == nil {
                  data[r] = make(map[interface{}]interface{})
                  datat[r] = time.Now().Unix()
          }
          data[r][key] = val
  }

The map is needed because 'r' is not actually (and cannot be) modified, so for a later handler (for the same request) to access the data it must be stored in this map, so 'Get' can get it back. And the map is global, so you need a mutex.

As a side note, my understanding is that it is not necessarily un-idiomatic to use a mutex in Go, particularly for shared state. See https://code.google.com/p/go-wiki/wiki/MutexOrChannel

[elithrar]

> As a side note, my understanding is that it is not necessarily un-idiomatic to use a mutex in Go, particularly for shared state. See https://code.google.com/p/go-wiki/wiki/MutexOrChannel

It's definitely not unidiomatic (heck, one of the Go team members inspired gorilla/context). It's not ideal, but at the same time a context map a) is simple b) does not impart significant complexity on middleware and c) should still perform well, even with a fair bit of contention. Map access is pretty fast, and most of the time you're only storing small things in it.

I'd be curious to see/benchmark the results of a more complex, less map-reliant solution vs. a context map: my gut feel is that the map route wouldn't have any problems hitting 10,000req/s on a small 2GB VM. Most of the time, the context map won't be your bottleneck.