I have a base component that creates a channel and then I pass the channel via the :opts key-value to its children. However, another user posted recently that the :shared data could be modified as it is passed down the hierarchy. It seems to me this would be a DRYer way to pass the channel down to descendants as you would not have to explicitly pass the channel in :opts at each descendant.
Thoughts? Cheers, Jamie On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:21 PM, Brian Crescimanno <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've been playing with Om the past few days both due to my own interest in Om > itself as well as my long-standing desire to learn ClojureScript. With that > in mind, I'm relatively new to both. > > After following the Om "Basic Tutorial" I set about creating my own demo app > (a drag-and-drop rank-voting UI). One of the concepts I saw introduced in > the tutorial was using Core.async channels to deal with events and I > initially copied that paradigm into my app. Within a few minutes, I was > realizing that I must be going down an anti-pattern path. > > One of the things I like best about Om so far is that it seems to encourage > me to always be thinking about pieces of functionality as actual "components" > rather than the traditional MVC paradigm. As I went along, I realized I was > passing a channel down (via :init-state) through 4+ levels of component > nesting. Any time I have to write the same block of code more than twice, I > question it. > > After thinking on it a while, I assume it's probably better to pass the right > cursor and modify the cursor directly from the interior components. In my > case, my hierarchy looked like: > > items-view > item-view > item-detail > vote-button > > ...with the bottom 3 all sharing the same cursor. > > That said, I wanted to ask around to folks using Om what the "idiomatic" > approach is. I quickly started to think that the Basic Tutorial was likely > introducing Core.async to help people get familiar with ClojureScript and not > anticipating the anti-pattern it was establishing. But, since I don't know > idiomatic approaches yet; I thought I would ask if there was something I'm > missing in terms of using async channels more effectively. > > Thanks for the advice! > > Brian > > -- > 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.
