Awesome, thanks again! On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:35:32 PM UTC-5, Shaun Parker wrote: > > Hey Jarrod, > > You're welcome! I'm glad to hear that's helpful. As far as using map or > doseq; I'd use map if you want to use the results for further processing, > if not, I'd use doseq. This is a guess, but it seems like you don't have > any need for the results, you just want the side effects of updating the DB > and storing the file, so I'd just use doseq. I hope that helps! > > Shaun > > On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:15:05 PM UTC-7, Jarrod Swart wrote: >> >> Shaun, >> >> Thanks a lot for your response. >> >> This is a much nicer version of what I came up with. I have one question >> remaining: would you (map) over a seq of db-entities or would you use >> something else (doseq, for, etc). >> >> I typically use map/filter/reduce 99% of the time and I'm just wander if >> (map api-call-pipeline! seq-of-db-entities) is idiomatic in this case. >> >> Best, >> Jarrod >> >> On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:36:49 PM UTC-5, Shaun Parker wrote: >>> >>> Hey Jarrod, >>> >>> Whenever I find myself writing out steps, like you just did, I like to >>> use a method described by Stuart Sierra, >>> pipelines<http://stuartsierra.com/2012/05/16/syntactic-pipelines>. >>> In your case, I'd write something like this: >>> >>> (defn make-api-call! >>> [{:keys [db-entity] :as state}] >>> (let [result (client/post "https://cool-api.com/entity"; >>> {:form-params {:x 42 :y (:id db-entity) >>> ...}}) >>> status (:status result)] >>> (assoc state :api-result result >>> :api-call-successful? (<= 200 status 299)))) >>> >>> (defn write-response! >>> [{:keys [api-result] :as state}] >>> (let [file ...] >>> (spit file (:body api-result)) >>> (assoc state :api-result-file file))) >>> >>> (defn update-db-entity! >>> [{:keys [db-entity] :as state}] >>> (let [updated-db-entity (...)] >>> (assoc state :db-entity updated-db-entity))) >>> >>> (defn process-api-result! >>> [{:keys [api-call-successful?] :as state}] >>> (-> state >>> (update-db-entity!) >>> (cond-> >>> api-call-successful? (write-response!)))) >>> >>> (defn api-call-pipeline! >>> [db-entity] >>> (-> {:db-entity db-entity} >>> (make-api-call!) >>> (process-api-result!) >>> ;; do whatever you want with the state, for now return the entity >>> and the result file >>> (select-keys [:db-entity :api-result-file]))) >>> >>> >>> In this example you'd just call api-call-pipeline! with the database >>> entity. This lets you test each of these steps in isolation. Hope that >>> helps! >>> >>> Shaun >>> >>> On Monday, February 10, 2014 3:07:22 PM UTC-7, Jarrod Swart wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm having a hard time coming up with a satisfactory way to implement >>>> the following: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Call an API with a map from the DB containing various endpoint >>>> data like URL, etc. >>>> 2. If the response has an HTTP 200, update the map-from-db and then >>>> write response body to a file. >>>> 3. If step 2 yields a HTTP > 2xx, update the map-from-db but do not >>>> write file >>>> >>>> Because this is mostly imperative it feels "icky" in Clojure. I would >>>> just call the api query function mapped across them all, but I am making >>>> many API requests and writing many files. It seemed better to attempt >>>> them >>>> one at a time. Is this wrong-headed? >>>> >>>> Suggestions? >>>> >>>>
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
