Replies: 3 comments
-
|
Ok, looking at #137 and pure-frame I can tell I'm late at the party I thought was just starting. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
The best (modern and maintained) fork I'm aware of is: https://github.com/nextjournal/freerange |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
What's the current plan on EP 002? Do we want to do the above? Something else? Further pondering? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
On 002-ReframeInstances.md.
Before I attempt a PR, I'd like feedback/approval of the design that follows.
It has no breaking changes to current public API.
How the frame is passed in Reagent is not in scope here.
A. Proposal
1. Frame
a). A "partial"
framehas anapp-dband ankind->id->handlerregistrar.b). A "full"
framealso has anEventQueuethat has the partial frame. (See code samples below.)c). The "default global frame" is a full frame instance: it's app-db is
re-frame.db/app-db, registrar isre-frame.registrar/kind->id->handlerand has it'sEventQueueisre-frame.router/event-queue.2. The internal API
a) Is changed to pass (at least) a partial frame around, and to operate within that frame.
b) For dispatch/d-sync we pass the queue (or the full frame).
3. The public API
a) Has a new ns
re-frame.frame. Mostly mirrorsre-frame.core, fns take an extra 1st arg, a full frame.c) "Old"
re-frame.coreAPI remains, but it's implementation delegates tore-frame.framewith the "defaultglobal frame" frame.
4. EventQueue
a) Has an extra partial frame field.
b) Passes it on internal API calls.
B. Code Samples
1. Public Frame API
2. Frame Implementation
3. EventQueue(s)
4. re-frame.core
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions