[erlang-questions] Avoiding boilerplate code when using gen_server

Garrett Smith g@REDACTED
Wed Mar 21 21:17:23 CET 2012

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Garrett Smith <g@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Garrett Smith <g@REDACTED> wrote:
>>>> Here's a "gen_server" equivalent in e2:
>>>> https://github.com/gar1t/e2v2/blob/master/examples/ping/src/ping_server.erl
>>> That's nice - but one could with a little thought and a few conventions
>>> make this even shorter. Something like:
>>>    -module(ping_service).
>>>    -behavior(e2_service).
>>>    -interface([ping/0]).
>>>    ping(_From, State) -> {reply, pong, State}.
>>> And just let all undefined values default to sensible values.
>>> As in your version you could use
>>>    init() -> State to prime the state
>>> A counter would just be:
>>>    -module(counter).
>>>    -behaviour(e2_service).
>>>    -interface([inc/1, dec/1, get/0])
>>>    init() -> 0.
>>>    deposit(_From, X,N) -> {reply,ack,N+X}.
>>>    withdraw(_From,N) ->
>>> {reply,ack,N-1}.
>>>    get(_From, N) -> {reply,N,N}.
>> Joe, in this case, what would the "interface" documentation look like?
> It should expose the interface from the external point of view.
> The ping_service interface is.
>   ping_service ? ping => pong
> meaning if you send the ping service a 'ping' message it will reply
> with a 'pong' message.
> All the stuff *inside* the implementation (the From, and State)
> is basically junk (as seen from the outside) and should not be
> in seen in the interface type signatures.
> Re: your comments on parse_transforms - Yes and No :-)
> In my experience very few people break open abstractions to see how
> things work if they do in fact work. Very few people seem to
> look inside the gen_server to see how they work and even fewer modify
> gen_server etc.
> How many people have changed error_handler.erl ? I designed it
> specifically so that you could drop in you own replacement. A lot
> of the things in the code server/io system etc are designed with hooks
> so they can be customised later - but virtually nobody does this.
> Probably a case of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' - all this would argue
> in favor of a fixed set of boiler plate transformations aimed at truly
> minimalistic code for the commonest use cases.
> /Joe

This is indeed where I started with e2 -- the impulse was get
something like Objective C, where the underlying mechanics were
message passing, but the user code didn't expose that.

It started to move further away from the Erlang that you see
everywhere else -- and that wasn't a goal. My main objective is to
help people (in particular the folks I work with) leverage the
outstanding patterns in OTP, which are currently harder to use than
they need to be.

If done right, e2 should feel mostly like OTP, but clearer and easier.

But dammit, now you've got me thinking again ;)


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list