It's definitely the same problem, but I don't think it helps me. This part, in particular:
"If you treat this object like a sequence, it will fully consume the input stream and fully realize the decoded data in memory." I'm specifically trying to avoid realizing the full collection in memory, because it won't fit. On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 11:22:36 AM UTC-7, Josh Tilles wrote: > > I think the “reducible streams” approach described by Paul Stadig here > <http://paul.stadig.name/2016/08/reducible-streams.html> has potential. > It might not cover all of the scenarios you’re thinking of, though. > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-4, Brian Craft wrote: >> >> The with-open style is used a lot in the jdbc lib, and elsewhere. It's >> pretty simple when data is very small, as you can just evaluate the entire >> result with doall, etc. >> >> How do you deal with larger data, where you need to evaluate iteratively? >> If there's only one with-open it can be reasonably simple to pass the >> consumer into that context (though from ring it's pretty convoluted, due to >> needing to pass control to ring first). But if there are multiple with-open >> you have to nest them, with a continuation passing style, or middleware >> pattern, or something, which quickly becomes onerous as it affects all the >> code surrounding the with-open. >> >> Is there some simpler pattern? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
