0

I'm learning Om.

The Om documentation makes frequent use of the phrase "the backing Om component". I'm fairly sure that should be "the backing React component", a phrase that is used in the Om Basic Tutorial.

Can someone verify that?

Edit: Actually I'm not sure at all. But I guess either the documentation or the tutorial is wrong.

Simon K
  • 171
  • 5

2 Answers2

2

I spoke to an Om expert. The backing components are React components.

Simon K
  • 171
  • 5
-2

Would be lovely to have David here to answer but I'd rather go with Om component. Om is not only wrapper around React, it goes a little further. Therefore working with Om you should rely on Om documentation. In Om docs you can find annotations: "identical to React", "conceptually analogous to React", etc... but not every function is like that.

Going to the end: when working with Om using name "Om component" is, surely, more appropriate than "React comp", cause, even vastly similar, those are two different libs.

yonki
  • 583
  • 5
  • 10
  • It sounds as if you interpreted my question a one of terminology ("what should we call this thing?"). But I think there are two things (Om components and React components), and I was asking which was meant in this case. If "backing", wouldn't that be a React component? The basic tutorial (at https://github.com/swannodette/om/wiki/Basic-Tutorial#omcoreroot) has a sentence that uses both phrases: "The first argument is a function that takes the application state data and the backing React component, here called owner. This function must return an Om component." – Simon K Aug 19 '14 at 18:12
  • Yeah, but we should call this thing Om component cause it is, actually, an Om component. Backing component isn't more React'ish than any other. All components in Om app are Om components, if you want to be precise – yonki Aug 20 '14 at 18:21