-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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.
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
Use automerge traits as opposed to concrete document #6
Comments
I'd like to work on this issue, if you don't mind. We cannot use |
It seems to me we cannot abstract over For example, would the caller be expected to call |
What's the usecase for the user calling |
|
Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I'm just trying to see how that could work for It seems like we'd need an architectural change? But perhaps I'm missing something here... |
Yeah I think I understand you. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure we need to provide access to the methods on
I think there should be no need to call |
I was thinking of the bounds for the (hypothetical) generic parameter |
Ah interesting, I had been thinking of this work as primarily about |
As I've explained before in automerge/automerge#443 (comment) we cannot use Based on the OP description of this issue I'd assumed it's about letting the user choose not to use |
How about something like this:
Which runs Longer term for your usecase I think branches will support this. You would basically branch the document at the point you want to start making changes, add your changes to it, and then when you want to commit you pull it back in to some kind of "main" branch. (branches are still in the design phase but they're the next thing we're planning to work on in automerge proper). |
Do you mean adding that method on |
Sorry no I mean adding it on I've realized I'm not being very clear in this thread about what I'm aiming for. My understanding is that your goal is to be able to make certain sets of changes atomic. One way to achieve this is to make I am wondering if we can find a different approach. I would like to use |
Hmm... I don't get how we could avoid exposing the generic parameter though. |
I think using traits is a good idea, in the meantime, we'll switch to using |
My point is I don't think there's much point in a |
Currently the repo is built around an
AutoCommit
, we could instead abstract it using the existing traits in automerge, so that the user can choose what kind of document to use(automerge or autocommit).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: