Not sure if this helps, but remember that components and systems are just records, and records behave like maps. You can construct an empty `system-map` and then `assoc` components or even `merge` other maps into it.
–S On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 1:00:51 PM UTC-4, Pierre-Yves Ritschard wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been using an approximation of what component provides in my > applications for quite a while, and I'm trying to see if it's feasible > to move to component, in the sake of homogeneity with the rest of the > clojure world and to see if there are things that make my life easier. > > I have a couple of apps which expose a somewhat generic way of > manipulating data in a certain way. Most follow the pattern of having > several possible inputs (which must all adhere to a protocol), an engine > that does its work and several possible outputs (again, adhering to a > protocol). > > While configuring each of these inputs or outputs as components is > straightforward, I failed to find a good strategy for storing them and > constructing the system-map correctly. > > Did anyone tackle this yet and if so are they willing to share their > approach ? > > Cheers, > - pyr > -- 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.
