Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Expose and rehydrate server resolved data. Closes #22 #34

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

Expose and rehydrate server resolved data. Closes #22 #34

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

iamdustan
Copy link
Contributor

Example WIP for #22.

@iamdustan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Updated to not require changing tests for a new object return type. That said, this is subtly different in assert.equal uses == which does coerce its arguments to strings.

Also, I have a simplistic rehydration method that does immediate rerendering on the client. I suspect that this has holes, but need to try it out in a project to find them.

@iamdustan iamdustan changed the title WIP: Expose server resolved data. Starts #22 Expose and rehydrate server resolved data. Closes #22 Apr 22, 2015
@iamdustan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Alright. I now added support for resolving from a global __resolver__ key. This implements exactly what is referenced in the primary description of #22.

The holes references previously are now patched. I’m using my branch on a few prototypes now. It resolves safely now that it is based on the component id instead of arbitrary keys. Currently avoiding all Store, flux or serialization. It’s just raw output/input.

@iamdustan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Potential additional work would be to automatically delete the __resolver__ key after rendering.

@iamdustan iamdustan force-pushed the expose-client-data branch 2 times, most recently from 8164960 to bf3f8b7 Compare April 27, 2015 11:19
@iamdustan iamdustan mentioned this pull request May 27, 2015
Closed
@gilesbradshaw gilesbradshaw mentioned this pull request May 29, 2015
Closed
@gilesbradshaw
Copy link

I think I found some problems with this - please see my pull request to @iamdustan 's branch iamdustan#1

@ericclemmons
Copy link
Owner

Is this mergeable, or do I need to combine this with iamdustan#1 ?

@ericclemmons ericclemmons mentioned this pull request Aug 6, 2015
Closed
@ericclemmons ericclemmons modified the milestone: v1 Aug 6, 2015
@iamdustan
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just merged that into my branch. Fixing the conflict now.

@iamdustan
Copy link
Contributor Author

rebased with master. tests are passing for me locally now.

@ericclemmons
Copy link
Owner

@iamdustan I'll have to manually merge this into the v1 branch. No problem, though!

@ericclemmons ericclemmons self-assigned this Aug 10, 2015
@ericclemmons
Copy link
Owner

Just merged this into the v1 branch as v1.3.0! Thanks @iamdustan!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@ericclemmons ericclemmons

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@iamdustan @gilesbradshaw @ericclemmons