Hm due to the macro currently used this seems like it is quite a lot harder to do as generics wouldnt work as wanted. I am currently trying to understand how actix solved this, as it seems non trivial.

As Data<Config<'a>> in the command handler would conflict with Data<T> in the macro

To be exact this is the issue the macro currently faces:

error[E0308]: mismatched types
 --> example-bot\src\commands\mod.rs:7:1
  |
7 | #[command_generate(bot_name = "Example", description = "This bot prints hello!")]
  | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected struct `config::Config`, found type parameter `T`
  |
  = note: expected struct `mrsbfh::utils::Data<config::Config<'_>>`
             found struct `mrsbfh::utils::Data<T>`
  = note: this error originates in the attribute macro `command_generate` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)

It seems we would need something like this https://docs.rs/actix-web/latest/src/actix_web/handler.rs.html#124-153 But that seems restricting. I will check how axum does data passing. Maybe that has a nicer solution

It seems the best would be to use a trait approach, where commands implement a trait. Instead of using the proc macro.

My only issue with that is it would break backwards compatibility, but we are still v0 😁

My only issue with that is it would break backwards compatibility, but we are still v0 😁

I dont think I can not break that while implementing this. But I will try to make it non breaking. Also I likely go more for the way axum does it then actix. As it seems easier to implement :)

Also I am trying to still keep the macro and use the traits internally. But the handlers probably will change and possibly also how you init it. But I am still in the experimentation phase and hope to later share a first working iteration.