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

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.

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…

@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

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

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

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

https://github.com/omcljs/om/tree/new-readme

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

@anmonteiro absolutely, done!

mostly just typos in the code examples

@dnolen left some very minor comments

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

@anmonteiro yes

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

@dustingetz huh ok, thanks will look into it

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