[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization
From: |
Maxime Devos |
Subject: |
Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:30:00 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.38.3-1 |
Andrew Tropin schreef op do 20-01-2022 om 16:20 [+0300]:
> [...]
>
> From what I understood from Liliana's and Maxime's replies: I'm not the
> only one finding the original implementation to be more intuitive and
> consistent with the rest of Guix API. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
To be clear:
* >> source \
>> /gnu/store/00fl96dj2aak4i1vqvdqzlhbmmskc7fx-blabla.sh
How about defining a procedure
(define (source-file file-like)
(mixed-text-file "source " file-like)),
the 'concatenated-file' described below, and giving an example or
two in the manual on how to use it?
(concatenated-file ""
(source-file (local-file "some-bash-functions.sh"))
(mixed-text-file "" (file-append coreutils "/bin/echo")
"hello Guix Home!) "\n"
"invoke-some-function" "argument"))
* I don't like 'slurp-file-gexp' (what are G-exps doing there, and
what's slurping?). A better name would improve things though.
Also, we already have 'mixed-text-file', so maybe we can create
an ‘concatenated-file'?
(appended-file name (plain-file "" "foo") (local-file "bar"))
-->
foo
<contents of the file "bar">
A slight downside is that the plain-file needs to be given a name,
in this case "", as you have noted for 'mixed-text-file', but that
can be avoided to a degree by giving it "" as name.
* IIUC, the reason why 'slurp-file-gexp' or the like was necessary,
was because the implementation doesn't use records for
configuration, but rather some mixture of S-exps and ‘copy this
and that file is the serialisation here and there’.
I would prefer not using S-exps like
(home-service barfoo-service-type
(barfoo-configuration
(config
`((this-option "that")
(foo (bar z)
(foobar (include ,(local-file ...)))))))
and instead write these 'this-option', 'foo', 'bar' and 'foobar'
in records, such that there's to some degree a type system and
some discoverability.
Yes, if there's a lot of options that can be configured,
then initially Guix won't support all, but it should be easy
to patch Guix to support more options on an as-needed basis.
There can also be an 'extra-content' escape hatch.
For software that doesn't support inclusion directives in
configuration, we could:
1. patch upstream to support it (it's free software and
it's potentially useful outside Guix, so why not?)
2. or do something like 'concatenated-file'
with a preference for (1).
As such, I'm not exactly agreeing, since there appear to be better
options than 'slurp-file-gexp'. Renaming 'slurp-file-gexp' to
something more descriptive would help, but there's more that could be
done.
Greetings,
Maxime.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization, (continued)
Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization, Maxime Devos, 2022/01/09
Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization, Maxime Devos, 2022/01/09
Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization, Ludovic Courtès, 2022/01/18
Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization, Andrew Tropin, 2022/01/26
Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization, Ludovic Courtès, 2022/01/24
Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization, Andrew Tropin, 2022/01/26
Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization, Andrew Tropin, 2022/01/26