Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Allow arbitrary objects to be backends? #39

Open
sethaxen opened this issue Jan 24, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Allow arbitrary objects to be backends? #39

sethaxen opened this issue Jan 24, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
design Package structure and correctness

Comments

@sethaxen
Copy link
Member

Currently the fallbacks in the package constrain the backend type to be an AbstractBackend. Is this necessary? e.g. as I think @oxinabox proposed on Slack, in relation to #11, it would be nice if a user-created ChainRules.RuleConfig could directly be used as a backend. Otherwise, one would probably end up implementing a duplicate object or implementing a loose wrapper around it.

How does this package intend to use these types in a way that can't be satisfied by overloading some interface functions?
@sethaxen sethaxen mentioned this issue Jan 26, 2022
Open
10 tasks
@mohamed82008
Copy link
Member

I thought some more about this and I think a wrapper around a RuleConfig makes more sense than allowing it to be a backend. In particular allowing RuleConfig to be a backend directly will mess with the HigherOrderBackend stuff.

@mohamed82008 mohamed82008 mentioned this issue Feb 8, 2022
Merged
@gdalle gdalle added the design Package structure and correctness label Oct 5, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
design Package structure and correctness
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@sethaxen @mohamed82008 @gdalle