Support ImmutableJS Map as the state

[zavelevsky]

Although it makes sense to use ImmutableJS Map object as your state object - it currently can't be done because the reducer of redux-simple-router uses simple Object.assign.
Please consider supporting it by allowing to pass a custom reducer, or a reducer's internal state creator, such as (state, obj) => newState.

[mxstbr]

👍 I don't want to keep people from being able to use ImmutableJS if they want to with my boilerplate, would be nice if support for this added! (See react-boilerplate/react-boilerplate#6)

[neverfox]

+1 for a custom state access function. That seems to be the idiomatic way this is handled in other redux libraries that provide their own reducer.

[jlongster]

We support a custom state accessor function in https://github.com/rackt/redux-simple-router#syncreduxandrouterhistory-store-selectrouterstate

[neverfox]

Oh, ha. I just took the OP's issue at face value and didn't check that. I wonder what the problem is then. That should be all you need to support any immutable library.

[jlongster]

I'm considering closing this unless the OP can describe further what's wrong. I know several people that use Immutable.js just fine with this.

[zavelevsky]

Last I checked you return the result of Object.assign from the reducer.
This of course returns an object and not the original Map.
On Jan 1, 2016 1:52 AM, "James Long" notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm considering closing this unless the OP can describe further what's
wrong. I know several people that use Immutable.js just fine with this.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#140 (comment)
.

[zavelevsky]

Original type, which is Map.
On Jan 1, 2016 7:27 AM, "Doron Zavelevsky" zavelevsky@gmail.com wrote:

Last I checked you return the result of Object.assign from the reducer.
This of course returns an object and not the original Map.
On Jan 1, 2016 1:52 AM, "James Long" notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm considering closing this unless the OP can describe further what's
wrong. I know several people that use Immutable.js just fine with this.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#140 (comment)
.

[neverfox]

An original Map of what? Can you be more specific about what you're trying to accomplish?

[zavelevsky]

Sorry, I'm limited to answering by email at the moment.
As I recall, the lib's reducer returns the result of Object.assign,
therefore an object.
If my state is an ImmutableJS Map then after the reducer is called, what I
get is no longer an instance of a Map but a simple object.
Tjis might have changed since last I checked, but I cannot check at the
moment. Just wanted to clarify so the issue won't be closed prematurely.
On Jan 1, 2016 7:49 AM, "Roman Pearah" notifications@github.com wrote:

An original Map of what?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#140 (comment)
.

[neverfox]

So what you're asking for is not just for the reducer to be able to get it's necessary sub-state out via a customer selector, but for the ability to tell the reducer how to write the new state back out, e.g. via fromJS()? Is that just because you want to be able to consistently access state values with the ImmutableJS API, e.g. state.getIn(['routing', 'path']) instead of state.get('routing').path?

[neverfox]

Could you not then just do something like:

syncReduxAndRouter(history, store, state => state.get('routing').toJS())

...

combineReducers({
  routing: (state, action) => routeReducer(state, action).fromJS()
})

[zavelevsky]

Specifically, combineReducers doesn't support immutablejs for the same
reason - it assumes the root of your state is a simple object. But yes - I
can wrap the reducer and import its result. It's not very efficient but the
routing subtree is very small.
I'd rather pass my own state setting function.
On Jan 1, 2016 9:10 AM, "Roman Pearah" notifications@github.com wrote:

Could you not then just do something like:

syncReduxAndRouter(history, store, state => state.get('routing').toJS())

...

combindReducers({
routing: (state, action) => routeReducer(state, action).fromJS()
})

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#140 (comment)
.