As long as you're willing to do all the work required for custom types - no I don't forsee any real problems.
David On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:04 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Up till now, I've only ever put plain maps and vectors into the Om state > atom. I'm now working on a few things where it would be *really* nice to > have polymorphic dispatch on stuff that has come from the app state (once > it's been deref-ed, via a cursor). > > I've done a few tests, replacing some maps with defrecord instances, and > dispatching the downstream logic via protocols, and this seems to work just > fine. > > But it's not something I've seen done in any of the examples. And I'm sure > I've seen guidance to avoid putting *certain* types (from memory, native > base types) into the atom, which makes me (perhaps overly) cautious. > > So before I get too far into this, figured it was worth checking if there > are any theoretical problems here? Is there anything in the underlying Om > or cursor assumptions that is likely to break or get complicated if I start > putting lots of defrecord (or possibly, later, deftype or reify) instances > in there? > > Advice appreciated. > > J. > > -- > 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.
