[erlang-questions] Misultin EOL

Joe Armstrong erlang@REDACTED
Sat Feb 18 11:14:42 CET 2012

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Tim Watson <watson.timothy@REDACTED> wrote:
> On 17 February 2012 22:49, Jesse Gumm <gumm@REDACTED> wrote:
>> I agree with you about the parameterised modules.  I'm not a big fan
>> of them either (though seeing how it works, I do understand why Rusty
>> went that route), and the deprecation of the tuple modules had me
>> scared for a moment. After that happened, I've been starting to think
>> about a roadmap away from the parameterised modules with
>> simple_bridge.
> I think that's a good idea.
> I would also like to respectfully suggest that api implementations might be
> distributed separately from the api itself, so that I can choose to get
> simple_bridge and simple_bridge_mochiweb (or whatever) but ignore the other
> stuff. Just a suggestion you may wish to consider.

This is *exactly* what I posted yesterday :-)

See https://github.com/joearms/adapter_pattern

I have made three independent adapters (call them bridges if you like)
to misultin, mochiweb and cowboy.

With this you can change the entire backend by changing
*one* module name in one place in the code.

They use parameterised modules to hide all the messy details. Probably
isolation via an addition process would be better - I don't know, but
I suspect this to be the case.


> Cheers,
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list