Improve comment on enrich
This commit is contained in:
parent
43de26fb14
commit
1a6066348c
|
@ -206,10 +206,10 @@ On with the rest of my lies and distortions...
|
|||
|
||||
### reg-sub-raw
|
||||
|
||||
This low level part of the API, provides a way to register a subscription handler - so
|
||||
This low level part of the API provides a way to register a subscription handler - so
|
||||
the intent is similar to `reg-sub`.
|
||||
|
||||
You use it like you do other registration functions:
|
||||
You use it like other registration functions:
|
||||
```clj
|
||||
(re-frame.core/reg-sub-raw ;; it is part of the API
|
||||
:query-id ;; later use (subscribe [:query-id])
|
||||
|
@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ As a result of point 3, each time `app-db` changes, the wrapped `reaction` will
|
|||
`app-db` is an input signal to that `reaction`.
|
||||
|
||||
Unlike `reg-sub`, there is no 3-arity version of `reg-sub-raw`, so there's no way for you to provide an input signals function.
|
||||
Instead, even simpler, you can use `subscribe` within the `reaction` itself. For example:
|
||||
Instead, even simpler, you can just use `subscribe` within the `reaction` itself. For example:
|
||||
```clj
|
||||
(defn some-fn
|
||||
[app-db event]
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -200,16 +200,19 @@
|
|||
|
||||
Almost any action (edit text, add new todo, remove a todo) requires a
|
||||
complete reassesment of duplication errors and warnings. Eg: that edit
|
||||
update might have introduced a new duplicate or removed one. Same with a
|
||||
todo removal.
|
||||
just made might have introduced a new duplicate, or removed one. Same with
|
||||
any todo removal.
|
||||
|
||||
And to perform this enrichment, a function has to inspect all the todos,
|
||||
possibly set flags on each, and set some overall list of duplicates.
|
||||
And this duplication check might just be one check among many.
|
||||
And, to perform this enrichment, a function has to inspect all the todos,
|
||||
possibly set flags on each, and calculate some overall list of duplicates
|
||||
(displayed at the bottom?). And this duplication check might just be one
|
||||
check among many.
|
||||
|
||||
`f` would need to be both adding and removing the duplicate warnings.
|
||||
By applying `f` in an `:after` interceptor, we keep the handlers
|
||||
simple and yet we ensure this important step is not missed."
|
||||
It would need to completely recompute all warnings, from scratch every time.
|
||||
By applying `f` in an `:enrich` interceptor, we keep the handlers
|
||||
simple and yet we ensure this important step (of getting warnings right)
|
||||
is not missed on any change."
|
||||
[f]
|
||||
(->interceptor
|
||||
:id :enrich
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue