> > AppCommand seems like overkill. We need to prioritize our HTTP requests. > Do we really need a drop-in replacement an entire foundational core library > to do that? Why not just say "we have a business need to do HTTP requests > in a certain way, so everybody on the team, use this way instead of making > vanilla elm-http calls" instead? > > > Because everyone who reads the Elm guide will have learned that the way to > make an HTTP request is to construct a Task and convert it into a Cmd and > return that in the second part of the update result. So, I'm looking for a > way to say "same routing pattern, different call to create the prioritized > request". Keeping code to the same code flow keeps different programmers > from finding different ways to update the priority queue in the root model > with their request. Instead, they just code mostly like they would > otherwise and the root model takes care of the actual priority queue > management. >
I see where you're coming from on that. I don't personally think that's the way to go - personally I would say "we are doing this part differently, here is why we're doing it differently, here is how to use it properly" - but now I understand the motivation for the drop-in replacement. :) I haven't personally tried doing anything like that, and I'm not honestly sure how it would feel in practice. I'd be curious to know, though! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
