Thank you for explaining, Malcolm. And +1 for the positive mindset. My idea with 'system' is to provide a repository for ready-made components, much like 'modular'. Everyone is invited to contribute their components to either projects, or both. And Malcolm is right, corresponding components should be similar/identical by their very nature, and if not, we'll learn from each other. It's all good.
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:49:16 PM UTC+3, Malcolm Sparks wrote: > > Michael is right, but I'll expand a bit. > > Jig is based on Stuart's tools.namespace and workflow-reloaded pattern, > and I released it before I was really aware of Stuart's component library. > Neale Swinnerton introduced me to 'component' and persuaded me of the > strengths of Stuart's approach, in particular, constructing components in > Clojure code. (I originally planned to 'rebase' Jig onto component but it > was going to require a complete overhaul and I didn't want to put existing > users Jig through that transition). I really like component, it's much > better than Jig! > > My current plan is to recreate Jig's browser-based tooling as a set of > components that can be integrated into the dev-system of any > component-based project. For example, I have an Om component that present a > live visualisation of a system's dependency graph as a diagram. I used this > in my EuroClojure slides and I want to make this available to developers, > via a lein new modular +switch or direct inclusion in the system.clj > namespace. Michael is right about the fact there is no 'retro-fitting' > issue. > > I very much welcome Daniel's work - I don't think duplication of effort is > a concern, the fact is there's duplication of effort everywhere, we mostly > don't see it. Actually, that's exactly what we're trying to tackle here. > The nice thing is that components in Daniel's 'system' project and > compatible with modular's - where there is overlap the code is almost > identical (a good sign!), and there are components in 'system' that don't > exist in modular and vice versa. Since they both use Stuart's component > library idioms, you can pick and choose between the collections. I do hope > others in the community will contribute to an existing collection or create > their own. > > > > On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:26:16 AM UTC+1, Michael Klishin wrote: >> >> On 29 July 2014 at 10:21:33, Daniel Szmulewicz (daniel.s...@gmail.com) >> wrote: >> > > I wasn't aware of it. >> > >> > How does it relate to Jig (of which I was aware), if it does? >> >> Jig originally was reinventing parts of Component + did what Modular >> does. >> Malcolm will likely correct me but I believe Modular is what Jig meant to >> be, >> built on top of Component (which has taken off in the community). >> >> > Anyway, modular looks neat and has more components, for sure. >> > The example in the README shows usage via a Leiningen template. >> > I found it was difficult to retrofit changes on existing projects >> > with the template approach. >> >> You can use the modules individually, the template simply brings together >> a few commonly used for Web development. You can use e.g. the Netty >> module >> w/o the template or any other modules. >> -- >> @michaelklishin, github.com/michaelklishin >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
