On 01/23/2014 08:19 PM, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:16, Chas Emerick wrote:
Nice, thanks for digging in!
It looks like you're not yet accommodating arbitrary JS expressions, which can
appear in the test command vector; this is documented here:
https://github.com/cemeric
On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:16, Chas Emerick wrote:
> Nice, thanks for digging in!
>
> It looks like you're not yet accommodating arbitrary JS expressions, which
> can appear in the test command vector; this is documented here:
>
> https://github.com/cemerick/clojurescript.test#configuring-tests-vi
Well, at the moment the code is a little scatter-brained, and I'm not sure I
can make it work for 100% of the intended use-cases, yet.
For one, I want to better support "collaborative" events -- for example,
distinguishing drag-enter and drag-leave events requires tracking across
multiple comp
It'd be a nice to get a detailed writeup about your approach if you have
the time and feel inclined :)
David
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:42 PM, David Pidcock wrote:
> On Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:13:49 AM UTC-8, David Nolen wrote:
> > Om's current API more or less follows this line of thinki
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:13:49 AM UTC-8, David Nolen wrote:
> Om's current API more or less follows this line of thinking - components are
> machines. However both the opaque nature of machines and the lack of fine
> grained control around immutable value storage (app state wrapped in an
Om's current API more or less follows this line of thinking - components
are machines. However both the opaque nature of machines and the lack of
fine grained control around immutable value storage (app state wrapped in
an atom) have their downsides. I want Om components to have knobs. So while
a c
> > Not true. React has exactly the same problem. There's no public way to get
> > at component state deep in the render tree.
>
> Fair enough. I'm still in the "local state is poison" camp though.
To be fair, React really doesn't implement component state as "local state".
Such a thing can't ex
On 01/23/2014 12:03 AM, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 21:07, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 15:20, Chas Emerick wrote:
Correct, clojurescript.test only supports phantomjs and phantomjs-compatible
environments (e.g. slimer and derivatives) at the moment. As no
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:18 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> Fair enough. I'm still in the "local state is poison" camp though.
>> Hard to get at, and against the grain of the value that Om provides.
>> Being able to hold the complete state in your hand, rather than
>> scattered across implementation de
