I'm totally in favor of your alternate approach, for these reasons: 1. As you noted, it's easier to test. 2. I separates your data processing from the side-effects, which lets you implement batching, switch to another DB, etc. without touching the data processing code.
So I would trust your instincts on this one. :) --Leif On Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:24:53 AM UTC-4, Ryan wrote: > > Hello all, > > I am trying to figure out which is the most idiomatic way to go in a > project I am doing. I've noticed the following pattern in my code and I > started wondering if there is a more clojurish approach to go with it. For > the shake of readability and simplicity, I will provide a pseudo-code that > represents the actual flow of the code piece I wanna show. > > So, to get thing started, this is the pseudo-code: > > (defn process-bar-item [bar-item] >> (let [sub-items (. bar-item getSubItems)] >> (doseq [a-sub-item sub-items] >> ;make an update to database >> ))) >> > > > (defn my-function [a-list another-list] >> (doseq [item a-list >> :let[foo (. item getFoo) >> foo-id (. foo getID)]] >> ;make an update to database >> ;make a second update to database >> ;make a third update to database >> ) >> > > > (doseq [item another-list >> :let[foo (. item getFoo) >> foo-id (. foo getID) >> bar-list (. foo getBars)]] >> ;make an update to database >> (doseq [bar-item bar-list] >> (process-bar-item bar-item)))) > > > Just a quick note here, process-bar-item is more complex than that, I > just made it simpler so I can make this example. > > So, what I was wondering is this. Would it be better to: > > 1. Create a list/hash-map with the use of reduce which will include all > the values that I need to construct each query. > 2. Pass that list to a separate function, loop that list and make the > side-effects (the database queries in my case) > > Does the above approach sounds better than what I am doing? Is there > a preferred way to do things like this? or what I am already doing is just > fine (even though I believe it will be more difficult to test it) ? > > Thank you for your time > -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
