> > Map specs are about attribute aggregation, not about types. >
I understand the design philosophy. I think that's great. What I meant I guess is that it would be nice to also have a declarative way to relate Types to Specs, for when Specs fall short of types. Then you'd have the best of both world. Specs where Types fall shorts, and Types where Specs fall shorts. You can effectively do this already. When you have s/keys maps which are > sets of attributes, you can simply combine sets (base and extensions) using > s/merge. Or when needing more polymorphism, s/multi-spec. > I guess I'm talking about Types as in primitive types included. So if I create a String type, I can describe what is the set of values for the type using a spec. Similarly, I now know that the Type and the Spec used to describe its possible set of values are equivalent. So I now know the relationship between them. The real reason I want this is so that I can auto-generate client code in different languages for my Specs. I'm thinking of it as a more generic Swagger OpenAPI specification. Maybe what I'm thinking off doesn't make sense, its all kind of at the blurry idea phase in my head. Currently, I manually have an equivalent set of Java Classes which correspond to the specs of my data which gets shared between Java and Clojure systems. And I manually have functions which converts a piece of data from a given Spec, into its Java equivalent representation and back. I've been thinking about how I could have the equivalent Java classes be auto-generated, as well as the conversion be automatic. The biggest challenge is knowing what Java types would a given Spec map too. So I thought if I my spec could have a mapping on them too, then it wouldn't be too hard. When you write your Spec, you could associate it with an enclosing Type, and then from the Specs I might be able to auto-generate the Java model classes. Anyways, the whole thing is incubating in my head. And I can probably do it on top of Spec if I really needed too. On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:47:20 UTC-8, Alex Miller wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:34:00 PM UTC-6, Didier wrote: >> >> I would actually love it if Spec was extended to have the concept of >> types. >> > > Map specs are about attribute aggregation, not about types. > > https://clojure.org/about/spec#_map_specs_should_be_of_keysets_only > > >> Something where every spec could be tied to a Type, and types could be >> constructed to have Hierarchies. >> > > You can effectively do this already. When you have s/keys maps which are > sets of attributes, you can simply combine sets (base and extensions) using > s/merge. Or when needing more polymorphism, s/multi-spec. > > -- 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/d/optout.
