This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2021-08-29
Channels
- # announcements (2)
- # beginners (17)
- # calva (3)
- # cljdoc (3)
- # cljsrn (7)
- # clojure (99)
- # clojure-europe (6)
- # clojurescript (18)
- # clojureverse-ops (2)
- # cryogen (1)
- # cursive (11)
- # datomic (2)
- # duct (6)
- # figwheel-main (2)
- # fulcro (3)
- # graalvm (2)
- # honeysql (1)
- # introduce-yourself (5)
- # leiningen (4)
- # meander (11)
- # membrane (14)
- # practicalli (1)
- # re-frame (4)
- # reagent (5)
- # rum (1)
- # shadow-cljs (17)
- # spacemacs (13)
- # tools-deps (6)
hey all, i'm trying to figure out a bit about structuring subscriptions which i wasn't able to find an answer to in the docs. now, i fully understand the difference between layer 2 and layer 3 subscriptions, but what i don't understand is whether or not i am allowed to have multiple layer2 subscriptions, or multiple layer3 subscriptions, or whether it's better to just decompose those things using functions. e.g. i could have a bunch of layer2 subscriptions which consume each other, each being very trivial. then i could have a layer3 subscription which does a lot of computation, which is also consumed by other layer 3 subscriptions which do even more computation based on its input. is this a common practice, or would it be better to "compose" these things using functions, not subscriptions? i assume it's mostly about the overhead involved in managing complex subscription hierarchies
> a bunch of layer2 subscriptions which consume each other They would become layer 3 then. Layer 2 subs don't have any signal subs. As far as I can tell, it is a common practice. Composing using functions will not really achieve anything but will make some thing slower because there can be repeated computations, whereas subs cache their values.