Alexander Ioffe

Hi Magnolia folks. Have there been any thoughts on this? I'm working for a company that would like to adopt Desert to do long-term serialization (hence the need for schema...

I think that's reasonable. Just like calling .get on a `None` or a `Failure`.

Is lazy-derivation at compile-time possible? How do you do it?

Would `@deriveTransient` still be possibility for Scala 2? I think annotations, even non-configurable ones, are fine so long as they are simple and scarce. Coming from the DB world I...

I agree that a more configurable design is very desirable for Scala 3 but it would be nice to have at least something for Scala 2. Perhaps we could worry...

I think the configuration approach is really elegant, it would give different authors the ability to define custom annotations for their derivations resolving many potential separation-of-concerns issues. My question is,...

...maybe in Scala 2 we can just do one simple annotation and in Scala 3 have it be configurable: ```scala // In Scala 3... object CsvConfig extends Magnolia.Config { type...

Wait a minute, how is it possible to read value-level elements e.g. `final val minFields = 0` from `CsvConfig` inside of the macro? You can CsvConfig fields as `Tree` elements...

If it was a literal type e.g. `type minFields = 0` that should be possible. There's maybe one other way you could do it but that involves multiple compilation units.

Anyway, implementing this thing seems like a pretty big task for a fairly small feature that we need. In the least you would need to: 1. Create `genWith` which I'm...