Re: Return back original implementation for text-config serialization

[Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2931 bytes --]

Andrew Tropin schreef op do 20-01-2022 om 16:20 [+0300]:
> [...]
> 
> From what I understood from Liliana's and Maxime's replies: I'm not the
> only one finding the original implementation to be more intuitive and
> consistent with the rest of Guix API.  Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

To be clear:

  * >> source \
    >> /gnu/store/00fl96dj2aak4i1vqvdqzlhbmmskc7fx-blabla.sh

    How about defining a procedure

    (define (source-file file-like)
      (mixed-text-file "source " file-like)),

    the 'concatenated-file' described below, and giving an example or
    two in the manual on how to use it?

    (concatenated-file ""
      (source-file (local-file "some-bash-functions.sh"))
      (mixed-text-file "" (file-append coreutils "/bin/echo")
                          "hello Guix Home!) "\n"
                       "invoke-some-function" "argument")) 

  * I don't like 'slurp-file-gexp' (what are G-exps doing there, and
    what's slurping?).  A better name would improve things though.
    Also, we already have 'mixed-text-file', so maybe we can create
    an ‘concatenated-file'?

    (appended-file name (plain-file "" "foo") (local-file "bar"))
    -->
    foo
    <contents of the file "bar">

    A slight downside is that the plain-file needs to be given a name,
    in this case "", as you have noted for 'mixed-text-file', but that
    can be avoided to a degree by giving it "" as name.

  * IIUC, the reason why 'slurp-file-gexp' or the like was necessary,
    was because the implementation doesn't use records for
    configuration, but rather some mixture of S-exps and ‘copy this
    and that file is the serialisation here and there’.

    I would prefer not using S-exps like

    (home-service barfoo-service-type
      (barfoo-configuration
        (config
          `((this-option "that")
            (foo (bar z)
                 (foobar (include ,(local-file ...)))))))

    and instead write these 'this-option', 'foo', 'bar' and 'foobar'
    in records, such that there's to some degree a type system and
    some discoverability.

    Yes, if there's a lot of options that can be configured,
    then initially Guix won't support all, but it should be easy
    to patch Guix to support more options on an as-needed basis.
    There can also be an 'extra-content' escape hatch.

    For software that doesn't support inclusion directives in
    configuration, we could:

      1. patch upstream to support it (it's free software and
         it's potentially useful outside Guix, so why not?)
      2. or do something like 'concatenated-file'

    with a preference for (1).

As such, I'm not exactly agreeing, since there appear to be better
options than 'slurp-file-gexp'.  Renaming 'slurp-file-gexp' to
something more descriptive would help, but there's more that could be
done.


Greetings,
Maxime.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]