levand

Windows
Linux
iOS
Jira
Excel
WordPress

levand

const pulumi = require("@pulumi/pulumi");
const deepmerge = require('deepmerge');
const isPlainObject = require('is-plain-object');

const merge = function(x, y) {
    return deepmerge(x || {} ,y || {}, { isMergeableObject: isPlainObject });
};

class PulumiContext {

levand

("[ -> tableAll() ]"
 "[ -> (rdf:type rdfs:range rdfs:Class) ]"
 "[ -> (rdfs:Resource rdf:type rdfs:Class) ]"
 "[ -> (rdfs:Literal rdf:type rdfs:Class) ]"
 "[ -> (rdf:Statement rdf:type rdfs:Class) ]"
 "[ -> (rdf:nil rdf:type rdf:List) ]"
 "[ -> (rdf:subject rdf:type rdf:Property) ]"
 "[ -> (rdf:object rdf:type rdf:Property) ]"
 "[ -> (rdf:predicate rdf:type rdf:Property) ]"
 "[ -> (rdf:first rdf:type rdf:Property) ]"

levand

Since it has come up a few times, I thought I’d write up some of the basic ideas around domain modeling in Clojure, and how they relate to keyword names and Specs. Firmly grasping these concepts will help us all write code that is simpler, cleaner, and easier to understand.

Clojure is a data-oriented language: we’re all familiar with maps, vectors, sets, keywords, etc. However, while data is good, not all data is equally good. It’s still possible to write “bad” data in Clojure.

“Good” data is well defined and easy to read; there is never any ambiguity about what a given data structure represents. Messy data has inconsistent structure, and overloaded keys that can mean different things in different contexts. Good data represents domain entities and a logical model; bad data represents whatever was convenient for the programmer at a given moment. Good data stands on its own, and can be reasoned about without any other knowledge of the codebase; bad data is deeply and tightly coupled to specific generating and

levand

;; Say we are writing a model of a zoo, and most of our code depends on
;; values like this:

(s/def :zoo/animal (s/keys :req [:zoo.animal/name
                                 :zoo.animal/num-legs]))
(s/def :zoo.animal/name string?)
(s/def :zoo.animal/num-legs (s/and integer? (complement neg?)))


;; In some of our code, we know we're dealing with a more specific type of

levand

;; Sample of what the new DSL could look like
(config
  (:require
   [arachne.core.dsl :as a]
   [arachne.http.dsl :as http]
   [arachne.pedestal.dsl :as pedestal]
   [arachne.assets.dsl :as asset]
   [arachne.pedestal-assets.dsl :as pedestal-asset]
   [arachne.cljs.dsl :as cljs]
   [arachne.figwheel.dsl :as fig]))

levand

;; Currently, Arachne follows a particular idiom for creating named entities:
;; Every DSL form that creates an entity takes an optional first argument, which is its Arachne ID,
;; and also returns an entity ID

;; This permits two forms of defining and using components

;; Method A
(a/component :my.app/a 'whatever)
(a/component :my.app/b 'whatever {:a :my.app/a})

levand

(def opts {:output-to "main.js"
           :asset-path "js"
           :output-dir "js"
           :optimizations :none
           :main 'arachne.cljs.example})

(a/input-dir :test/input {:dir "src/cljs" :watch? false})
(cljs/build :test/build {:compiler-options opts})
(a/output-dir :test/output {:dir "out"})
  

levand

;; Both of these code samples do exactly the same thing: define an asset pipeline
;; with a ClojureScript build that reads from "src/cljs/*" and compiles to "out/*".
;;The question is, which style of DSL is more readable/natural?

(require '[arachne.assets.dsl :as a])
(require '[arachne.cljs.dsl :as cljs])

(def opts {:output-to "js/main.js"
           :output-dir "js"
           :asset-path "js"

levand

#my/str [
"The first line"
"The second line"
"The third line"
]