dfg•2y ago

DanielFGray – 20-58 Jan 8

im using a library with an api like foo.method(...args).run(pool) and i want to abstract it so i dont need to add .run(pool) to every call.. whats the best way to approach this, without having to change anything to the usage except for removing the .run(pool)? is a proxy useful here, or is there something else that doesnt require maintaining a list of methods on the original object?

8 Replies

Unknown User•2y ago

Message Not Public

dfg•2y ago

im not sure how currying would help here, can you give an example?

Unknown User•2y ago

Message Not Public

dfg•2y ago

that would work if i knew what method to use ahead of time, but there are many and i dont want to map them in my own object i want to allow all possible methods without having to code them in my own object

Unknown User•2y ago

Message Not Public

dfg•2y ago

Types are another matter, I want to replicate the same API foo[method](...args) without needing an object with every method

{
  method1(...args) {
    return foo.method1(...args).run(pool)
  },
  method2(...args) {
    return foo.method2(...args).run(pool)
  },
  // yeah I don't wanna do this
}

{
  method1(...args) {
    return foo.method1(...args).run(pool)
  },
  method2(...args) {
    return foo.method2(...args).run(pool)
  },
  // yeah I don't wanna do this
}

Pretty sure I need a proxy for this 🤔

Unknown User•2y ago

Message Not Public

reactibot•2y ago

This thread hasn’t had any activity in 12 hours, so it’s now locked. Threads are closed automatically after 12 hours. If you have a followup question, you may want to reply to this thread so other members know they're related. https://discord.com/channels/102860784329052160/565213527673929729/1061750790068371487