[erlang-questions] Parameterized module idioms

[Garrett Smith]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Bob Ippolito <bob@REDACTED> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Garrett Smith <g@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Mark Fine <mark.fine@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> Is there a cleaner, more idiomatic way to use object-like parameterized
>>> modules:
>>>
>>> -module(echo, [PID]).
>>> -behaviour(gen_server).
>>> -export([start_link/0, echo/1]).
>>> -export([init/1, handle_call/3, handle_cast/2, handle_info/2, terminate/2,
>>> code_change/3]).
>>>
>>> start_link() ->
>>>    case gen_server:start_link(?MODULE:new(undefined), [], []) of
>>>        {ok, Pid} ->
>>>            {ok, ?MODULE:new(Pid)};
>>>        Else ->
>>>            Else
>>>    end.
>>>
>>> echo(What) ->
>>>    gen_server:call(PID, {echo, What}).
>>>
>>> handle_call({echo, What}, _From, State) ->
>>>    {reply, What, State}.
>>>
>>> init([]) -> {ok, []}.
>>> handle_cast(_Msg, _State) -> undefined.
>>> handle_info(_Info, _State) -> undefined.
>>> terminate(_Reason, _State) -> undefined.
>>> code_change(_OldVsn, _State, _Extra) -> undefined.
>>>
>>> 17> {ok, E} = (echo:new(undefined)):start_link().
>>> {ok,{echo,<0.82.0>}}
>>> 18> E:echo("hello, world").
>>> "hello, world"
>>> 19>
>>>
>>
>> I realize there are some fans of parameterized modules. I'm wondering
>> though if this:
>>
>>  E:echo("hello")
>>
>> provides enough payoff over this:
>>
>>  echo(E, "hello")
>>
>> to justify the effort.
>>
>> I come from an OO background myself, but for whatever reason, the
>> second form doesn't bother me. It may be that it's so endemic in
>> Erlang that I've gotten used to it.
>
> Technically speaking the difference is:
>
> E:echo("hello") vs. some_module:echo(E, "hello")

Yup, sorry, I did deceptively simplify my example :)

> The biggest reason I've seen to use parameterized modules is that you
> could have a different module that implements the same interface, e.g.
> sets and gb_sets and you could change which one you're using without
> changing any of the code that consumes it.

I've found that custom behaviors also work well for this, at least for
interfaces to processes.

> I would definitely change the original code to use two modules, one
> module to do the start_link stuff, and another module to actually
> implement the interface.
>
> -bob
>