I'd also be very interested in a blog post! Regarding multiple roots - question for David: Is this typical in React apps (and by extension, how you expect Om to be used)? Or do you envision that most Om apps would use a single root?
This is something I hit in my own project too. I'm using 4 roots and it seems like a bit like a smell, but I'm unsure. Modularity is also something I'm struggling with, so I'd be very interested in a discussion on the subject. My code seems to be getting pretty messy, but I'm reluctant to write my own abstractions to fix this since they'll likely be at odds with what David ends up implementing or advocating, but at the same time want to keep working on this project rather than wait for Om to mature. On 17 April 2014 17:13, Jack Schaedler <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good, I'll write something up this weekend! > > After watching your Functional Final Frontier talk I redid the undo > mechanism a few times (trying to make components completely ignorant of the > global undo-strategy), and I think tracking that progression could make for > an interesting writeup. > > Glad to hear that you don't find the multiple roots too nasty. I was > tempted to switch to a single root which passes cursor(s) to all of the > child components, but the multiple roots approach is quite handy! > > Best, > -jack > > > On Thursday, April 17, 2014 5:12:04 PM UTC+2, David Nolen wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Jack Schaedler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks David! > > > > > > > > I apologize in advance for some of the nasty code in there. I've tried > to do everything as idiomatically as possible wrt Om, but have fallen a bit > short due to my own misunderstandings. I'm thinking it might be worthwhile > to write up a little blog post about my experience so far. As an example, > I'm using tx:listen to manage the undo/redo history, but my components > still aren't completely agnostic about the outside app's undo strategy > since they need to tag transactions with a particular tag to invoke the > creation of an undo-step. I also have an embarrassing mess of root > components which seems somehow un-Ommy. > > > > > > > > > > Please do write up a blog post - it would be especially informative to > hear more details about the parts of the application that you're unhappy > with respect to modularity like you've mentioned here. This is certainly an > area in Om that needs work - more discussion and ideas are welcome! > > > > > > > > As far as the multiple root components - that's actually quite a nice > use of that feature in Om! > > > > > > David > > -- > 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.
