From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54191)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1esB7h-0000ag-7e
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2018 12:39:06 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1esB7e-0006Ve-4G
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2018 12:39:05 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:35073)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1esB7e-0006VY-1I
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2018 12:39:02 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1esB7d-0003AU-Rj
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2018 12:39:01 -0500
Subject: bug#30657: [PATCH] services: messaging: Prosody config supports
	file-like objects.
Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.30657.D30657.152009870612130.done@debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <87o9k6csz9.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20180303013308.12929-1-clement@lassieur.org> <87bmg5b4xu.fsf@gnu.org>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org>
In-reply-to: <87bmg5b4xu.fsf@gnu.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2018 18:38:22 +0100
Message-ID: <87zi3pkqk1.fsf@lassieur.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: 30657-done@debbugs.gnu.org

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

>> +(define (file-like? val)
>> +  (and (struct? val) ((@@ (guix gexp) lookup-compiler) val)))
>
> I’m not fond of the idea of using @@ in real code.  :-)
>
> Could you move ‘file-like?’ to (guix gexp), with a docstring, and with
> ‘->bool’ to avoid exposing internal details:
>
>   (define (file-like? value)
>     (and (struct? value) (->bool (lookup-compiler value))))
>
> ?

I did it.

>> +(define (file-object? val)
>> +  (or (file-like? val) (file-name? val)))
>
> Do we need this predicate?  After all, all we can say is that a file
> name is necessarily a string (or a string-valued gexp), but a string is
> not necessarily a file name (IOW there’s no disjoint type for file
> names.)
>
> I suppose the configuration mechanism needs it though, right?  In that
> context it’s probably OK.

The problem is that the check happens when the user evaluates
(prosody-configuration), which allow them to know right away about type
errors, without running "guix system reconfigure".  So the user doesn't
even need a store.

Plus, not everything should go to the store.  For example, certificate
keys shouldn't, as they are private.  Thus, having both 'file-object?'
and 'file-name?' makes sense to me.

> Apart from this the patch LGTM, thank you!

Pushed as bdcf0e6fd484a54240a98ddf8b6fa433c1b9bd6c, with the
modifications you suggested.

Thank you for the review!
Clément