On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Leon Grapenthin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. In Annas conj talk, she asserts that "you loose the reference equality > check" if you use swap! instead of transact!. > > How so? A quick skim over the source code of om tells me that transact! > translates to a call to swap! on the app-state atom. > > I see that there are other good reasons to use transact!, but is > performance really one of them or is this related to an older version of om? > If you use transact! there's more information about what has changed. I discouraged people from using swap! as swap! will always require a full re-render. > 2. Are there, or are there going to be significant differences in the > performance characteristics of these calls: > > a: (om/update! cursor [:foo :bar] :baz) > b: (om/transact! cursor #(assoc % [:foo :bar] :baz)) > No. > 3. If I have a service that frequently updates the app-state, do I gain or > loose performance by caching updates for some time to commit the changes in > a single call to om/update!, replacing an outdated value in the cursor, or > would it have better or worse performance to do many small updates as soon > as they are available? > Doesn't really matter. There is a render loop that attempts to render at 60fps. Updates are always batched and never immediately cause re-rendering, only re-rendering scheduling. 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.
