Michael is right, but I'll expand a bit. Jig is based on Stuart's tools.namespace and workflow-reloaded pattern, and I released it before I was really aware of Stuart's component library. Neale Swinnerton introduced me to 'component' and persuaded me of the strengths of Stuart's approach, in particular, constructing components in Clojure code. (I originally planned to 'rebase' Jig onto component but it was going to require a complete overhaul and I didn't want to put existing users Jig through that transition). I really like component, it's much better than Jig!
My current plan is to recreate Jig's browser-based tooling as a set of components that can be integrated into the dev-system of any component-based project. For example, I have an Om component that present a live visualisation of a system's dependency graph as a diagram. I used this in my EuroClojure slides and I want to make this available to developers, via a lein new modular +switch or direct inclusion in the system.clj namespace. Michael is right about the fact there is no 'retro-fitting' issue. I very much welcome Daniel's work - I don't think duplication of effort is a concern, the fact is there's duplication of effort everywhere, we mostly don't see it. Actually, that's exactly what we're trying to tackle here. The nice thing is that components in Daniel's 'system' project and compatible with modular's - where there is overlap the code is almost identical (a good sign!), and there are components in 'system' that don't exist in modular and vice versa. Since they both use Stuart's component library idioms, you can pick and choose between the collections. I do hope others in the community will contribute to an existing collection or create their own. On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:26:16 AM UTC+1, Michael Klishin wrote: > > On 29 July 2014 at 10:21:33, Daniel Szmulewicz (daniel.s...@gmail.com > <javascript:>) wrote: > > > I wasn't aware of it. > > > > How does it relate to Jig (of which I was aware), if it does? > > Jig originally was reinventing parts of Component + did what Modular does. > Malcolm will likely correct me but I believe Modular is what Jig meant to > be, > built on top of Component (which has taken off in the community). > > > Anyway, modular looks neat and has more components, for sure. > > The example in the README shows usage via a Leiningen template. > > I found it was difficult to retrofit changes on existing projects > > with the template approach. > > You can use the modules individually, the template simply brings together > a few commonly used for Web development. You can use e.g. the Netty module > w/o the template or any other modules. > -- > @michaelklishin, github.com/michaelklishin > -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
