fceruti
I’m working on a cool library (news about that in a few weeks
), and there’s no sugar coating this: I really want to use inheritance.
I’m no Elixir n00b, at least not completely. I’ve enjoyed the functional paradigm shift very much, but in this particular case, I can’t help but feel like I’m jumping all kinds of hoops just to emulate what simple inheritance stuff would fit perfectly.
Let me describe the problem, then the best solution I’ve come up with, and I hope you can help me come up with a better one.
So, in this library, there’s lots of configuration to do. Most of this configuration will be written by the author of the library, lets call them starting points, and there are many of them. Users can use one of these starting points and just modify whatever they want to change and keep the rest. A config that uses a base “template” can also be a template for another config, and they would catch these config definitions in a cascade manner.
That’s probably the longest I’ve written about inheritance without mentioning it.
Right now I’ve got something like this:
defmodule Config do
@callback __attr_value(atom(), atom()) :: atom()
@optional_callback __attr_value: 2
defmacro __using__(_opts) do
quote do
@behaviour Config
def attr_value(category, item) do
try do
__MODULE__.__attr_value(category, item)
rescue
_e in [UndefinedFunctionError, FunctionClauseError] ->
variables = __MODULE__.__info__(:attributes)
if parent = Keyword.get(variables, :parent) do
parent.__attr_value(category, item)
else
default_value(category, item)
end
end
end
end
end
end
defmodule BaseConfig do
use Config
def __attr_value(:category, :name), do: :my_value
def __attr_value(:category, :picture), do: :my_picture
end
defmodule ChildConfig do
use Config
@parent BaseConfig
def __attr_value(:category, :name), do: :another_value
end
It works, but I don’t know, I’m feeling uneasy with it.
What do you think? Have you seen this in the wild? Is there a better way?
Trending in Questions
Other Trending Topics
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #deployment
- #library
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #channels
- #elixirconf
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #javascript
- #podcasts
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #elixir-ls
- #blog-post
- #ai
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #elixirconf-us
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #api
- #forms
- #hex
- #security
- #metaprogramming










Showing Posts 1 to 6- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
dimitarvp
Quick shot at this: why not use
defdelegatein the derived (child) configs?fceruti
hehe nice! That’s it. Inheritance solved!
Now it looks like this
Now a tiny little detail. How can I “annotate the information” of who I’m delegating to, at the top of the module instead of the bottom.
I’m thinking something like using a macro that injects at the end what is defined at the top. Is that possible?
cmo
I presume you mean something more advanced than a module attribute?
fceruti
Oh man, thanks this is awesome. I got lost in a sea of macros when the solution was so simple
Thanks!
eksperimental
First, do not use
Configas the name for your behaviour since it is a module in Elixir.Then I would work with module attributes and do compile time checks.
What i usually do is create functions in the behaviour module that are called by default with the default implementations defined in
__using__/1. Also look into how to play withòptionspassed to this macro.Then also make use of
defoverridable/1to let the user rewrite the default implementation.You should be covered by all this.
krasenyp
This is what I’ve implemented numerous times and works well. Something similar is shown in the article Macro Madness: How to use `use` well - DockYard.