Yes we spoke about how the idea of having "sections" within a page that 
function as independent units. The idea of mini-apps seems to encompass the 
approach of splitting out the app into Pages and page Sections. I don't 
have time now but I'll try to put down a description of our app later on 
today. ICYMI I posted a gist of the rough folder/file structure we use 
at https://gist.github.com/opsb/d0977bcb30b42302f3f2dc3daf0befec

On Thursday, 20 April 2017 06:49:22 UTC+2, Richard Feldman wrote:
>
> We did spend the first 6 months or so of our project following the advice 
>> to not use nested TEA components. Our experience was that the perceived 
>> complexity of the app grew exponentially to the point where it was 
>> difficult to make progress. We refactored into a nested TEA structure and 
>> are far happier since (the change was made at the start of the year).
>>
>
> Fair enough!
>
> *Reusable view components* 
>> We view these as distinct from the mini-apps that I mentioned earlier.  
>
>
> Ahh, right, this "mini-apps" design sounds familiar to me. I think I 
> remember talking to you about this awhile back - as I recall, you had some 
> really interesting business requirements in terms of how and when parts of 
> the page were loaded.
>
> If you have time, would you mind describing how the app works?
>

-- 
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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to