[Ur] Key-value store extension

[Ziv Scully]

It seems like it should be simple to implement a Functor that has the same
semantics (if not number-of-tables efficiency) as the proposed keyword.
This approach is taken in, for instance, UPO's linear state machine
<https://github.com/achlipala/upo/blob/master/linearStateMachine.ur>.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Athene Noctua <steenuil.owl at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I have, but in my opinion it's convenient to be able to change some
> less important things from within the application.
>
> For example, I have a sort of readme in the front page of my
> application which I don't want to put in its own table because it's
> the only one in the whole application, but I also don't really want to
> hardcode it in and have to recompile and upload a new binary every
> time I want to fix a typo or edit it. It's also useful if I'm not the
> only administrator of the website but don't want to give others access
> to the server.
>
> I would find it useful for a few things like that, though admittedly
> it wouldn't be much more than some compiler checks and some syntactic
> sugar over what I'm doing right now.
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:32 PM, Adam Chlipala <adamc at csail.mit.edu>
> wrote:
> > That's an interesting idea.  It is not a feature that has ever occurred
> to
> > me to suggest.  I prefer to settle configuration at compile time, so that
> > the compiler can specialize code to chosen settings.  Have you considered
> > that path, too?
> >
> >
> > On 01/29/2018 10:43 AM, Athene Noctua wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I find it useful to have a module for storing global configuration
> >> settings and the likes in my applications, using a single table with
> >> key and value fields and a simple get/set interface. Unfortunately
> >> this approach breaks the nice encapsulation properties you get with
> >> Ur/Web tables, as there's no way to control which module can access
> >> which key, and trying to generate the keys to avoid collisions would
> >> likely be cumbersome and break through multiple versions of the same
> >> application.
> >>
> >> I was wondering if this was a useful enough feature to be added into
> >> the language, and if I should bother trying to hack it into the
> >> compiler, or if I should just stick with writing a functor and make a
> >> key-val table for each module that needs it instead.
> >>
> >> For example:
> >>
> >>      key test : string
> >>
> >>      fun set_test { Test = t } =
> >>        storeSet test t
> >>
> >>      val main =
> >>        t <- storeGet test;
> >>        return <xml>
> >>          The value of test is {[Option.get "test" t]}.
> >>          <form><textbox{#Test}/><submit action={set_test}/></form>
> >>        </xml>
> >>
> >> "key" is probably not a very good name, as adding it as a keyword it
> >> would likely break a lot of existing code, but that's easy to change.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> - Francesco
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ur mailing list
> > Ur at impredicative.com
> > http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ur mailing list
> Ur at impredicative.com
> http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.impredicative.com/pipermail/ur/attachments/20180201/1b91324a/attachment.html>