Yep, I'll keep playing around with om.core/join and see if we can make it worthwhile.
David On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Ruslan Prokopchuk <[email protected]>wrote: > David, thanks for reply. I like idea of om.core/join and vote for it if > one will not complicate things. Because in my current project I have some > global app options which could be changed and are used in several places of > component hierarchy. I know, it is cheap to merge them to components' props > passing down render tree, but it is annoying to do by hand in many places, > and I like possibility to make join in any subcomponent and to be sure that > it will be updated properly. But I don't know how join with such behavior > will complicate om or create danger for consistency. > > > Your intuitions are correct. om.core/get-shared and om.core/join are not > really related at all. om.core/get-shared is about accessing data global to > an entire render tree that will never change. om.core/join is very > experimental, I'm not sure what this functionality should look like yet. > The idea is that you can compose component data out of smaller pieces of > data in the application state. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
