Besides pitching Joist, going through OP, I'm not following how verbose the nested examples would get, i.e. ProductLoadBundle is loading "products & widgets".
But what if I need "products & widgets & widget orders". And like sometimes I want "just products & widgets" (2 levels) and sometimes I want "products & widgets & widget orders (3 levels)"?
Would these be the same "ProductLoadBundle" with some conditionals to the Product.LoadBundle method? Would the result of those conditionals be seen in the type-safe as, i.e. sometimes the 3rd level is available, sometimes it is not?
Or would it be two separate bundles, a 2-level Product.LoadTwoLevelBundle and a 3-level Product.LoadWidgetsAndOrdersBundle, which has the pro of better type-safety, but a con of repeating the bundle boilerplate for each unique shape/tree of data your app needs to load.
My guess/hope is that it's the 2nd, if only because I assume brandur also values type-safety over verbosity.
It took me awhile to find again, but this OG scala library in theory handled these adhoc shapes (called "enrichments" in their readme) somewhat elegantly:
Mea culpa another Joist pitch, but TypeScript makes this "give me an adhoc type based on the call-site specific tree of data" super-pleasant, i.e. Loaded<Product, "widgets"> vs. Loaded<Product, { widgets: "orders" }> gets you the two different 2-level vs. 3-level types.
...granted, you just have to accept non-Go/non-native levels of performance., but tradeoffs. :-)
Comments
Besides pitching Joist, going through OP, I'm not following how verbose the nested examples would get, i.e. ProductLoadBundle is loading "products & widgets".
But what if I need "products & widgets & widget orders". And like sometimes I want "just products & widgets" (2 levels) and sometimes I want "products & widgets & widget orders (3 levels)"?
Would these be the same "ProductLoadBundle" with some conditionals to the Product.LoadBundle method? Would the result of those conditionals be seen in the type-safe as, i.e. sometimes the 3rd level is available, sometimes it is not?
Or would it be two separate bundles, a 2-level Product.LoadTwoLevelBundle and a 3-level Product.LoadWidgetsAndOrdersBundle, which has the pro of better type-safety, but a con of repeating the bundle boilerplate for each unique shape/tree of data your app needs to load.
My guess/hope is that it's the 2nd, if only because I assume brandur also values type-safety over verbosity.
It took me awhile to find again, but this OG scala library in theory handled these adhoc shapes (called "enrichments" in their readme) somewhat elegantly:
https://index.scala-lang.org/getclump/clump
Mea culpa another Joist pitch, but TypeScript makes this "give me an adhoc type based on the call-site specific tree of data" super-pleasant, i.e. Loaded<Product, "widgets"> vs. Loaded<Product, { widgets: "orders" }> gets you the two different 2-level vs. 3-level types.
...granted, you just have to accept non-Go/non-native levels of performance., but tradeoffs. :-)