dry-rb/chat

WE MOVED TO ZULIP => https://dry-rb.zulipchat.com <=

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Lol, yeah, need to organise it more like ROM I guess

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

(byebug) view_class.config
#<struct engine=:slim, layout="app", template="users">
(byebug) Class.new(view_class).config
#<struct engine=nil, layout=nil, template=nil>

@AMHOL is this expected?

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Hmm, nah, looks like a bug

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@AMHOL it works with setting :foo, ‘bar’

this one will be inherited

but the configured settings won't

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Ahh ok, i'll have a look tomorrow if thats ok?

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

no rush at all

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Cool, going to meet friends for drinks soon

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

@solnic dryrb/dry-configurable@992d16a

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

@solnic dryrb/dry-container@7f905a6

Saw you mentioned that in a comment in Rodakase too

François Bernier

@fbernier

Hey, there is this API client at my workplace which uses Hashie::Mash and I don't like it. I am checking out dry-data. Looks like it could replace it right?

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@fbernier kinda :) dry-data’s structs require you to define attributes

François Bernier

@fbernier

yeah that's mostly the part I want to replace.

Looks neat so I'll give it a try!

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

ok, that’s cool :) remember it’s very alpha though

I have big plans for this lib, but for now I’m busy with other stuff

fwiw it’s been very useful for me already, but there are some rough edges

François Bernier

@fbernier

yeah that's fine. I'll try helping if I hit any unmet needs or issues.

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

that’s awesome :)

François Bernier

@fbernier

Not possible to set a default value to an attribute right?

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

nope, it’s not this kind of a library

François Bernier

@fbernier

alright

so if I have those kind of needs, should I be looking into virtus instead ?

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@AMHOL wdyt about a feature in dry-container to memoize resolved object?

container.register(‘foo’, singleton: true) { Foo.new }

would that be too much?

I think it’s gonna be a common pattern that you only want to have one instance

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

@solnic just do container.register('foo', Foo.new)

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

I can’t in some places

becauase Foo.new may need Bar.new

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

If Foo#call is implemented, you'll need container.register('foo', Foo.new, call: false)

Fair point

Yep, I think we could add that interface

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

that would be awesome

it would give a speed boost

ie my current rails app has everything provided by the container, on each request we build a lot of objects and many of them can be singletons

like rom repos etc

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Yeah, makes sense, I didn't think about that when I made the register('blah', Blah.new) interface, I think I might remove that

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

it shouldn’t be too hard to do on the container side and it would simplify things

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Could probably simplify things if I remove that and the proc interface and only allow block registration with options

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

yes

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@AMHOL it would also allow us to require files within the block

and it would be called just once

I basically want a way of having complete isolation wrt deps

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Yeah, although that feels a bit wrong, dunno why lol

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

so ie I want to write a test, require only the container, and when I ask for a specific dep I know only min will be required and instantiated

I dunno, I had the same feeling initially, but now if kinda feels right

Where communities thrive

People

Repo info

Activity