I think both start_producer_consumer and into_producer_consumer will be welcome then. We can probably rename from_stages to from_producers and support start_producers as well as into_consumers and start_consumers. What do you think? Can you open up an issue with this summary of this discussion?
josevalim
Creator of Elixir
1
CptnKirk
I think I’d try and keep the function name the same and have the behavior be polymorphic on the 2nd parameter type.
I could see value in passing in:
- some tuple (we’d have to think about the format but I think GenServers and Registries may already have a useful convention)
- a pid
- a Flow
I can file the issue. Do you want me to file now and continue the discussion on GitHub, or finish up the conversation here and then file the issue with the digest from the thread?
0
josevalim
Creator of Elixir
The issue is that the name in itself can be an atom (then we already conflict between module name or process_name), a tuple, etc. Plus semantically they are all very different. One start the processes under the same tree, the other does not. So I think they deserve different names. Let’s tidy this up on github though.
1
CptnKirk
ream88
I never thought I would be involved in shaping the future of flow (and/or Elixir I guess 
). Thx everybody here for the help, and @josevalim for this awesome language! I’m closing this now!
0
lackac
Looks like I’m coming back late to the discussion, but it’s great to see these ideas. start_consumers is something we will be able to use and will simplify our current implementation as well. I also liked the changes in 0.14. Thanks, @josevalim and @CptnKirk for hashing this out.
1
josevalim
Creator of Elixir
This feature is now in master: Provide a better mechanism for external GenStages to participate in Flows · Issue #52 · dashbitco/flow · GitHub
6
CptnKirk
Flow 0.14 incorporates the GenStage integration enhancements requested in this thread: What's new in Flow v0.14 « Plataformatec Blog
Thanks @josevalim
0