I've used protocols this way. In fact, this pattern meshes quite well with Stuart Sierra's Component lib/pattern. By building system components around protocols, subsystems/components can be made swappable. This is rather integral to the current design of Datsys actually.
Of course, as other's have pointed out, whether this is worth while is totally dependent on whether or not you actually need that kind of polymorphism. But if you do, it's a great way to go. Chris On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:21:43 PM UTC-7, Cameron Barre wrote: > > Has anyone used protocols to create explicit boundaries between the bigger > pieces of their systems? We want to track/control the interactions between > these sub-systems and are considering using protocols to define public > APIs. Is this good practice? Would it be better to simply create our API > like a normal library and be explicit about which functions are part of the > public API? > -- 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.
