It seems reasonable to me to skip field names while encoding records if we can share record definitions between CLJ and CLJS, so (map->Person {:a 1 :b 2}) will become ["user.Person" 1 2]. This way we can save some space in the wire. If you are interested, I can try to come up with PR eventually, what do you think?
It seems reasonable to me to skip field names while encoding records if we can share record definitions between CLJ and CLJS, so
(map->Person {:a 1 :b 2})will become["user.Person" 1 2]. This way we can save some space in the wire. If you are interested, I can try to come up with PR eventually, what do you think?