Now *re-frame* is* "Reactive All The Way Down" ™* Thanks to some Googling, at least as far as setting focus on rendered element when they mount and update, we don't have to target the DOM ... I just couldn't believe that React would not honor the autofocus attribute on input and textareas..
https://github.com/Day8/re-frame/issues/25#issuecomment-83873738 *Attributes supported by React:* accept acceptCharset accessKey action allowFullScreen allowTransparency alt async autoComplete autoFocus autoPlay cellPadding cellSpacing charSet checked classID className cols colSpan content contentEditable contextMenu controls coords crossOrigin data dateTime defer dir disabled download draggable encType form formAction formEncType formMethod formNoValidate formTarget frameBorder height hidden href hrefLang htmlFor httpEquiv icon id label lang list loop manifest marginHeight marginWidth max maxLength media mediaGroup method min multiple muted name noValidate open pattern placeholder poster preload radioGroup readOnly rel required role rows rowSpan sandbox scope scrolling seamless selected shape size sizes span spellCheck src srcDoc srcSet start step style tabIndex target title type useMap value width wmode On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Marc Fawzi <[email protected]> wrote: > << > Looking at re-frame from the Flux perspective is like looking at a cone > from the side elevation and seeing a triangle. The view is only useful up > to a point. > >> > > Reminds me of this! > > > https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/planets_in_the_4th_dimension/ > > It's not an ellipse! It's a circle in 4 dimensional space, you puny human! > > I think these metaphors while entertaining create mental fog in the brain > of an elephant. You do want elephants to use use the framework, don't you? > > I would dumb down the explanation and keep it concise and concrete rather > than escaping into higher dimensions whenever someone wants a simple > reduction. > > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Mike Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 9:29:44 AM UTC+11, Karl Guertin wrote: >> > By my understanding, the core pattern is a flux variation. Differences >> from Facebook's original flux pattern: >> > >> > There's only one store and it's a global ratom. >> > >> > You can compute views from the root store or other derived views using >> Reagent's reaction feature. >> > >> > >> > Your handlers are expected to be wrapped using a middleware pattern to >> handle cross-cutting concerns. >> >> >> Given the question, that's a good summary! But I'd be cautious about the >> value of the question. >> >> Looking at re-frame from the Flux perspective is like looking at a cone >> from the side elevation and seeing a triangle. The view is only useful up >> to a point. >> >> I'm sure you know that, but I just wanted to draw the point out. >> >> To me, the Elm Architecture provides a more interesting perspective, than >> Flux. >> >> And from what Facebook said at reactconf, they appear to be heading in >> the "derived data all the way down" kinda direction themselves. The data >> from declarative queries flowing via Relay/GraphQL into components. Etc, >> etc. >> >> -- >> Mike >> >> -- >> 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.
