> ...but Andrew Cooke pointed out that using a global var would preclude you > from being able to use multiple, independent graph "instances" in your > program, whereas you can in the Python version > (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10540999/how-to-configure-a-clojure-library-at-runtime). > > And so I came up with this: > > (defn graph > [& config] > (let [config (get-config (first config))] > (fn [func & args] > (apply func config args)))) > > (defn create-vertex > [config data] > (let [path (build-path vertex-path) > params (remove-null-values data)] > (rest/post config path params))) > > (defn gremlin > [config script & params] > (rest/post config gremlin-path {:script script :params (first params)}))
You got the basic idea right, that of creating a lexical closure over the config map. But I personally don't like the approach of returning a function that takes a function and applies it over the other args. I suggest that you take a look at Deftype & Protocols. You can have two types (Neo4J & Rexster) that can hold the config map in each instance. Then you can have factory functions that take the config map and return new instances of those types. Since the config map will remain in the type instances you can have multiple of those lying around with potentially different configurations. This would be quite similar to what you did in Python, sans the mutable fields and mixing of behaviour and state. Regards, BG -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose at gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
