RFC: Use-able module

[scohen]

When using elixir-thrift, I found myself doing a lot of this:

defmodule UsingThrift do  
  alias Thrift.Service.MyEnum
  alias Thrift.Service.MyOtherEnum
  require MyEnum
  require MyOtherEnum
end

I was thinking that it would be nice if we'd have something that would do the require of all the enums for us so I could do

defmodule ThriftUser do 
  use Thrift.Service
  alias Thrift.Service.{MyEnum, MyOtherEnum}
end

or

defmodule ThriftUser do 
  use Thrift.Service
end

I don't have opinions about much here, I just want to spur conversations and improve the ergonomics of our enums.

@pguillory @jparise @dantswain

[jparise]

It could be nice to support just use Thrift.Service. I like being explicit about the aliases, but we could perhaps extend to use statement to make that shorter:

use Thrift.Service,
  aliases: [MyEnum, MyOtherEnum]

I'm not sure that really gets us anything that the explicit aliases don't already provide though.

[scohen]

I think controlling aliases has to be up to the user; and I think it should be a passthrough to the normal alias params.

I really am most concerned about eliminating the requires.

[pguillory]

Thrift.Service in this example is a namespace, right? As if there's a whatever.thrift like:

namespace elixir Thrift.Service
enum MyEnum {}
enum MyOtherEnum {}

We don't currently generate a module that corresponds to a namespace like that. There would be a couple of edge cases to consider if we wanted to do so. First, things can go in the root namespace, which is another discussion but that's the current behavior. Second, different IDL files can specify the same namespace, so this would introduce a kind of name collision that otherwise doesn't exist.

I don't find require to be that onerous. When writing code, the Elixir compiler tells you when you need one, then you add it, done. It's a small fixed cost. The difficulty of reading code is a much more important consideration generally, and in that respect a require costs basically nothing. You just page down past boilerplate like that. So it's hard to justify much complexity or abstraction around reducing that cost.

[scohen]

I don't find require to be that onerous.

@pguillory, I couldn't disagree more, in using our event thrift, I grew very tired of aliasing and requiring a half-dozen or so enums in every file.
In the above example, you'd simply do

use Thrift.Service.Enums 

And you're done.