Thanks a lot Leif :) It's really good to have a second opinion on these matter since I am new to clojure.
On Monday, March 25, 2013 3:37:47 AM UTC+2, Leif wrote: > > 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.
