Necessity of handling decisions in separate way by using map

[plucury]

In my development, I often write decisions for different request-method as following code

decision? (fn [ctx]
                   (case (get-in ctx [:request :request-method ])
                      :get do-get-decision
                      :put do-put-decision))

So I want to make this easier like this:

decision? {:get do-get-decision :put do-put decision}

I don't know if there is anyone wants this too.

[ordnungswidrig]

That's not in the spirit of how liberator works. Can you please give an example where you need this decision?

[plucury]

For example, I hava a resource named "User". And I want to use POST method to create a user than use PUT method to modify it. In additional, everyone can create user. But only user itself can modify it. So I have following code:

authorized? (fn [ctx] (case (get-in ctx [:request :request-method]) :post true :put (check-auth?)))

[ordnungswidrig]

That is a good point! I like your idea of using a mapping of methods to decision functions. Another approach would by to provide a higher order function like

(decision? (by-method :get do-get :any:do-default))

with

(defn by-method [& kvs]
    (fn [ctx] 
        (let [m (apply hash-map kvs)
              method (get-in ctx [:request :request-method])]
           (if-let [d (or (get m method) (get m :any))] (d ctx)))))

[plucury]

I think it's a good solution. Hoping for seeing it in version 1.0.
Maybe there can be a determination in by-method for the situation that either method-key or :any is not found?

[plucury]

Pull Request #23