Metadata
- Source
- FLUID-5602
- Type
- Improvement
- Priority
- Major
- Status
- Open
- Resolution
- N/A
- Assignee
- Antranig Basman
- Reporter
- Antranig Basman
- Created
2015-03-03T17:36:04.816-0500 - Updated
2015-03-03T17:36:04.816-0500 - Versions
- N/A
- Fixed Versions
- N/A
- Component
-
- Framework
Description
In a recent report on gpii-architecture list
[placeholder for link to post from 3/3/15 from Tony Atkins "Can't seem to wire in" which has not yet appeared on http://lists.gpii.net/pipermail/architecture/2015-March/date.html ]
there was a problem where the extra containment level "events" was missed out from a compound event boiling specification: "The events block was omitted from Antranig's otherwise excellent example, and is necessary to avoid cryptic errors about not having a base event name."
This syntax is documented at https://github.com/fluid-project/infusion-docs/blob/master/src/documents/EventInjectionAndBoiling.md#boiling-multiple-events - we should consider whether we can
i) provide a better diagnostic in this case and/or
ii) remove the need for the "events" container entirely.
It's unclear how many more FRP-like event conjunctions we might need to support here, and/or whether we will be able to remove almost all cases of such explicit boiling by means of a) promise-like semantics applied to configuration in general (causing "multiple waits" in the case of multiple dependencies) and/or b) "integral models" derived from streams of differential model changes