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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
