This would only work if there was only one global channel needed. It wouldn't work if you needed separate channels for different branches of the tree - say if you had multiple items in a list and each of those items needed a channel to pass to sub-components.
On 17 October 2014 16:02, Jamie Orchard-Hays <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
