On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:36 PM, David Nolen <[email protected]> wrote:
Ok this sounds like an interesting problem :) > Om attempts to address consistency issues. Just because you have a cursor > doesn't mean you actually have the most current value in the application > state, thus read. read is always guaranteed to give the latest value. But if > you read only to put the cursor back into an asynchronous channel of course > all bets are off! So is the recommendation to put the cursor itself on the channel, and then delay read until the last possible moment? > To me pipelining cursors into a series of asynchronous operations just > doesn't make any sense, you're bound to end up in an inconsistent state. The reason I want to do this is client/server communication. Eventually some data needs to escape your application, and yes this implies that the remote system will see state that is not completely up to date. In this context, I want to use a (short) sequence of go blocks to process the data as its getting funneled towards the server connection. -- Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ClojureScript" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
