Nhan Thai

@smatting I believe we have complete control over this. We can make a Deity resolver: ```haskell deityResolver :: (DeityData, Maybe [PlaceData]) -> ResolverM Deity deityResolver (deity, maybePlaces) = Deity {...,...

> 1. `placesVisited` is resolved lazily (places are fetched only when requested) > 2. No N + 1 selects That would be really cool. @nalchevanidze What is the state of...

@nalchevanidze @theobat And discussed with @nalchevanidze, How hard is it to make another intepretation: resolver by field instead of by type as that of mu-haskell, on top of what we...

Can you elaborate? Under the hood what are shared between executions (query/mutation/subscription)? Why can't we do mutations concurrently?

Ahh, it says that in **each** request, top-level selection set of **mutation** should be executed in sequence. This makes senses. At first I thought all the mutation requests send to...

> but i think we have control over Execution. `ResultT m` transformer can decide how to execute monad `m` for `lists` and `object fields`. Yeah. But not over a scotty...

I might have some ideas, but let me do experiments first.