No problem. If you'd like me to test any changes, just let me know!

On Monday, April 28, 2014 9:46:38 PM UTC+2, David Nolen wrote:
> Thanks for the report! This seems like a bug, I went ahead and filed an issue 
> for it.
> 
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Jack Schaedler <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 0.6.2 seems to work great! I did have one issue with the tx-listen mechanism. 
> I have a bunch of root components, and had to move the registration of the 
> tx-listen function to the first call to om/root. Otherwise, the tx-listen 
> function would not get called. I noticed that there was a bug-fix commit 
> related to multi-root apps using tx-listen, so this is probably just a case 
> of me misusing the feature in pre 0.6.1 versions. See the commit in the Goya 
> repo here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://github.com/jackschaedler/goya/commit/21e26869e2ceeb44a5fc8e132f4a72e697ca0fc3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 24, 2014 7:03:37 PM UTC+2, David Nolen wrote:
> 
> > Om 0.6.1 significantly changes how component local state works - we now 
> > rely on React's forceUpdate to update components that use local state. This 
> > is a significant change so I would like people test this out on their 
> > existing code bases as soon as possible.
> 
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > The immediate benefit is that components now use `=` for the 
> > shouldComponentUpdate logic instead of `identical?`. This means 
> > considerably more flexibility with regards to what a component may receive 
> > without taking a performance hit with respect to rendering. Even more 
> > importantly it's a big step towards independently addressable components.
> 
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > What are independently addressable components? Currently many people 
> > struggle with the fact that parent components must take all the data 
> > associated with their children. This often results in a tight coupling that 
> > is not ideal for real applications. The next few releases of Om will be 
> > focused on providing a sensible solution to this issue without backing away 
> > from the existing efficient time travel capabilities.
> 
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > Feedback welcome!
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > http://github.com/swannodette/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.

Reply via email to