On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 3:47:59 AM UTC-4, Sergey Kamardin wrote:
>
> > 1. there are a lot of similar functions, for example NewBook and
> NewAuthor.
> > The difference is type of argument passed into the function. Is it a
> good
> > idea to combine those 2 functions with a generic New(interface{})
> (string,
> > error) function and reflect the actual type inside?
>
> I would not recommend to do this. Eventually logic of insertion may
> become much different and your generic function's code will become a
> very hard to read. Also, there is a little bit overhead on using
> interfaces for non-pointer structs like `Book` and so on.
>
Yes I agree. It might get messy in future. So I guess creating insertion
function for each struct type might make sense here.
>
> > 2. Sometimes we query based on one or more conditions (where clause),
> for
> > example find books based on author/release data/ price. Should I create
> a
> > generic function like:
> > func FindBooks(map[string]interface{}) ([]Book, error)
>
> It can be done in this way, but I could suggest to use some struct
> `BookCriteria` with non-interface fields, say `Author string` and so on.
> Then, your `FindBooks` implementation may accept that struct instance.
>
> Or, for example, `FindBooks` may accept variadic functional options that
> can fill appropriate fields of criteria. For more about functional
> options you could find in Dave Cheney's article:
>
> https://dave.cheney.net/2014/10/17/functional-options-for-friendly-apis
>
I didn't thought of functional option previously. Thanks for the hint. I
will try to refactor the code base.
Thanks!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
