Fork me on GitHub
#om
<
2015-10-13
>
dnolen14:10:49

at first I thought om/factory was boilerplate, but it’s actually super sweet. We can provide :keyfn and :validator customization here.

dnolen14:10:20

this means all the manual inline react key stuff can just go away - and :validator is just brand new - validate your props.

dnolen14:10:31

can do this with assert and elide in production etc.

dnolen14:10:52

the other neat thing is that I went ahead and stole another page out of the Relay book which wins over Falcor - automatic normalization

dnolen18:10:51

covers the remaining big ideas in Om Next, will try to get this wrapped up today or tomorrow

dnolen18:10:01

there should be an alpha by Friday or so.

nullptr20:10:14

cool stuff. seems that an app with naming / design conventions could get a lot of that value in a very general way.

dnolen20:10:41

@nullptr: right part of the point is if the backend can deliver identities, great … if it can’t this is flexible enough to make it work still.

dnolen21:10:00

3 tutorials to play with at your leisure, feedback, and bug reports now welcome

rui.yang21:10:13

will there be a example of integrating with traditional db like postgres? that will be very helpful.

dnolen21:10:07

@rui.yang: there will not

dnolen21:10:16

but you should be able to figure out this yourself from the Datomic one

dnolen21:10:28

the Datomic bits are really irrelevant to the overall design

bago21:10:18

hi guys, anyone can point me to a good guide or some documentation about how to write a reusable component in om? i’ll try to explain better, i need a component where i can put inside more component when i use it, see you usually use a component like this:

(om/build my-component {:data …})
what i’m trying to achieve is to put more dom elements in it, like this:
(om/build my-component {:data …} (dom/h1 {} “H1 here”))
thanks

dnolen21:10:41

@iacopo: that’s kind of an anti-pattern in Om, it’s supportable in Om Next.

bago21:10:39

hmm, thanks for your reply, i’ll take a look at Om Next, can ask you why it’s an anti-pattern at this point?

dnolen21:10:13

@iacopo: it’s just not well supported

bago21:10:49

@dnolen: ok, got it, thanks!

monjohn21:10:04

Woot woot!