A dash of API sugar to simplify summoning of implicit codec.

[metasim]

Allows AvroRecordCodec[Tile] instead of implicitly[AvroRecordCodec[Tile]], a pattern used a lot in the avro2spark PoC.

[pomadchin]

I like that idea, but mb to have a better name for it? like AvroRecordCodec.deriveCodec instead of apply. (yep, i know that your version looks a bit more pretty, but probably we can add semantics there?)

// circe styled example
import AvroRecordCodec._
val codec: AvroRecordCodec[Tile] = deriveCodec

[metasim]

I see it more like a type-level factory method. Like the apply on a companion object for a case class. I want a AvroRecordCodec[Tile], so I just ask the companion object for it, just like I would if I were dealing with a case class. So I think apply is appropriate. I can't remember where I first saw this technique, but was reminded of it here, described in this article

[lossyrob]

In an interesting play on words, it feels like implicitly is more explicit than having an object apply do the work here: it hides a bit of the magic in an already magical function.

That being said, it does do the work of an object apply; it creates the thing that is the type of the companion object. If it's an established pattern that wouldn't throw people off, I'd say this change is cool. Should it be applied more broadly?

[echeipesh]

It's consistent with object apply for sure. 👍 to making this code-base standard. Won't be able to apply to things outside our control like JsonFormat, but 🤷‍♂️ there.

[fosskers]

Apologies, pressed the wrong button trying to cancel my comment.

In general, if this pattern means an increase in boilerplate and an increase in the number of entries for "machinery classes" that get rendered into Scaladocs, then I'm against it.

[metasim]

FWIW, it's also the pattern/convention used by avro4s. Just to be clear, I'm primarily interested in it just for this class; no stake in whether it's used more broadly.