The Workflow package does logging (and recovery), and you can orchestrate
the process using the normal do notation. You can also inspect the log
after or during the process. You can also stop and restart it.
main= exec1 "weekllystuff" $ do
result <- step mylittleprocess1
result2 <- step mylittleprocess2
. ...
At the end you have a single log with the intermediate result (in the
folder .tcachedata/workflows) . If it is interrupted at any step,
re-executing the program continue in the following step.
if you use read-show instances for the intermediate result, the log will be
textual and you can inspect it with a text editor.
2013/11/25 Bryan Vicknair
Hello,
I have a bunch of little database IO functions. Each does something to the database, and returns a log string describing what it did, and possibly a meaningful result from the database.
query :: IO (String, a) update :: a -> IO (String, ())
...and a few functions that orchestrate all the little functions into doing useful work.
syncWeek :: Week -> IO () syncAll : : IO ()
I don't want the individual functions to know what is done with the log string describing what they did. Top-level orchestrating functions should make that decision, which can be one of:
1) Collect and print all to a log once all computations are done. 2) Print to stdout *as each computation is run*. 3) Ignore them.
Here is my understanding of how common monads would handle these requirements:
Writer: 1 and 3 are easy. This is what I originally attempted to use, but I couldn't figure out how to accomplish #2. Reader: 2 and 3 can be accomplished if each function reads a shouldLog config variable from the reader and does a putStrLn depending on the value. Very ugly, as now each function has to know how to log output. State: Not sure, but the Writer docs in the transformers package points to this monad as maybe solving requirement #2 above.
The use case is that when I call the top-level functions from a command line script, I want to see logging happening in real-time to stdout, but I may call the same top-level functions from a larger application that may be logging to somewhere other than stdout, and may call the top-level functions from yet another larger application which doesn't want anything to be logged.
How can I glue together a bunch of smaller computations, which may call each other, and decide at a higher level what to do with the logging result of each computation? Seems like a perfect fit for Writer, except for the requirement to be able to print to stdout at each step.
Bryan Vicknair _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Alberto.