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