Here's an example https://github.com/knewter/time-tracker/tree/master/elm/src
I've experimented with this approach, but it didn't "feel" right to me. On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 1:11:54 PM UTC+2, Eirik Sletteberg wrote: > > Is it an option to make all the updaters deal with the root model and the > root message? > And in the "main" updater, just compose the other updaters? > It could make things simpler, but hurt isolation. Also I'm not sure > whether that would introduce circular dependencies between modules? > > mandag 20. mars 2017 12.58.38 UTC+1 skrev Eirik Sletteberg følgende: >> >> In larger Elm apps, it makes sense to divide Updaters so you can >> package-by-feature. >> For example, a single page application could have updaters like this: >> >> - Configuration updater >> - Session updater >> - User Profile updater >> - User Settings updater >> - Content updater >> - Some other business specific updater >> >> The challenge is when there are dependencies between Updaters, for >> example the User Profile model might need data from the Session model, the >> Session updater might need to send messages to the User updater (Load user >> profile when session is updated), or the Content updater may need to check >> for the Session updater (get session ID to send as parameter to the API >> when fetching content), or some business-specific updater may need to >> interact with both the Content updater, the User updater, and the >> Configuration updater. >> >> In Redux, one would use combineReducers to mount each reducer under its >> own path, and then one can trigger actions across reducers. How would you >> solve this in Elm? >> >> -- 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.
