Yes, it's almost always a good thing to separate the formatting of data from processing its side effects. When talking to a database, there might already be record and list-of-records interface, for step 2.
2013/3/25 Ryan <arekand...@gmail.com> > 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. > > > -- -- 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.
