> I will update and give the code a try. Thanks for the fast turnaround! >
No problem. > As far as your first and last questions, they both sort of came from the > same scenario I was pondering. I was thinking about an application made > with many small dependencies and maybe several of them all were using tower > to handle translations and such. But they don't about each other and, > therefor, expect to work the same regardless of whether or not there are > other libraries that also use tower. Each library might want a different > default locale, or different mode (:dev/other), etc. I was just thinking > about what happens in that case since there is but one "config" state in > the tower namespace. Again, this isn't an issue for me I was just > pondering the scenario. > Hmm, let me think about this a little more. There's a number of options, the simplest of which is probably just to offer a dynamic binding for the config atom. That way each library can bind over the atom and get its own config. Regarding the separate dictionary thing, I was still talking about the > centralized dictionary where the arbitrary keys allow easy separation of > the dictionary parts. I was heading down the path where multiple sections > of the dictionary were created by different libraries merging in different > dictionaries from different resources in their own code bases (using > something like load-dictionary-from-map-resource!). If one of those > resources changes (in dev mode) then I think we might want to just re-merge > that resource's contents into the dictionary, replacing just the parts > merged from that resource while leaving the rest of the dictionary > unscathed. I was wondering if a "merging" version of > load-dictionary-from-map-resource might be useful for that situation. > I'm sort of half-following what you mean here... I think between the 1.2.0 update and the dynamically-bindable config, you'll probably have what you need. Could I ask you to create an issue for this on the GitHub page, then I can come back to you when I've got something implemented? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
