Thanks for the clarifications!
On 07/07/2015 11:52 PM, Stuart Sierra wrote:
> Hi pyr,
>
> There are many downsides to hierarchical structure of components and
> systems. The effects are complicated and hard to understand. See, for
> example, the discussion at
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!t
Hi pyr,
There are many downsides to hierarchical structure of components and
systems. The effects are complicated and hard to understand. See, for
example, the discussion at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clojure/2-baBp61XTs/discussion
I recommend that system maps be kept "flat," witho
Hi,
I did get this far indeed. My general question was rather: what's your
general approach ?
Say I happen to have a config that loosely looks like:
{:inputs [{:type :inputA ...} {:type :inputB ...}]
:engine {:engine-opt1 :engine-arg1}
:outputs [{:type :outputA ...} {:type :outputB ..
This could be a nice example of how to use component in practise:
https://github.com/bevuta/pepa
Internally we configure the system map differently. This is based on yet
another library https://github.com/RedBrainLabs/system-graph We have
extended the idea of this library and we now have a file ba
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:
