Hey Michael! 👋 Thank you for chipping in! 🤓
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 11:42:55 AM UTC+3, Michael Jones wrote: > > I can second Mark's point. At my company we had a little experiment where > chunks of state where sent in the messages. Not the whole model but not a > single unit either. It seemed really promising for a moment and quite clean > but then we started getting bugs which were very hard to understand. Turned > out to be exactly what Mark suggested. Between messages and commands we'd > have multiple copies of the same chunk of state in flight, each based on > some original value but each ignorant of the changes that the other were > representing. The end result was to just get the last state and lose > anything associated with other messages or commands happening around the > same time. > > We moved back to the standard strategy and all is well. > So — just to check my understanding — the standard strategy is to only send enough bits of data with the message to describe the change that the update function needed to carry on, an not the actual changed bits of state. Am I close? 🤔 -- 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.