Fork me on GitHub
#om
<
2017-06-09
>
swlabrtyr08:06:10

thanks a lot @danielstockton ! I’ll keep at it

danielstockton12:06:00

Relating to my earlier question, I've noticed two almost identical join queries where one was being normalized and one wasn't. The difference was that the normalized result was a parameterized query. Sure enough, the other one was normalized when I modified the ast to include a random param. Can anyone suggest why that might be? {:join [:p1 :p2]} vs ({:join [:p1 :p2]} {:test :test}) with the parameters having no effect other than forcing through normalization.

bbktsk12:06:15

Is there any reason not to use sablono instead of om/dom? Sablono seems to work ok (in my simple, beginner’s app) and is slightly easier to use, but all om tutorials use om/dom, so maybe there’s something I’m missing? I’d hate to hit some problem later and have to rewrite all back to om/dom…

symfrog12:06:09

@bbktsk I think the only thing to keep in mind when choosing Sablono at the moment is that it does not support server-side rendering

bbktsk12:06:35

@symfrog Thanks, that’s definitely not an issue for me.

danielstockton14:06:18

Has anyone else had problems with checkboxes since react was bumped?

dnolen17:06:12

looking for feedback on the new README, it’s mostly just pairing the whole thing down and linking to om.next docs

anmonteiro17:06:24

@dnolen can you open a PR so I can leave some inline comments?

dnolen17:06:03

@anmonteiro absolutely, done!

anmonteiro17:06:30

mostly just typos in the code examples

anmonteiro17:06:15

@dnolen left some very minor comments

anmonteiro17:06:51

a more general comment is that the README looks very slim currently, but we can improve on that / add more content later

dustingetz18:06:32

@dnolen om-cljs google group isn’t public readable without membership

dnolen18:06:52

@dustingetz huh ok, thanks will look into it

julianwegkamp20:06:01

@dnolen I think there should be a line explaining that the readme is about om.next to avoid confusion.