The question is probably more theoretical.
I have little experience with Vue and am trying to figure out where my knowledge gaps are and fill them.
There are standard mechanisms for interaction between components:
from top to bottom - input parameters (props) are passed from parent components to child components
from bottom to top - events are thrown from child to parent
And on the other hand, there is VUEX with its own data storage, which is, roughly speaking, a global variable object with a set of methods for working with it.
Data from this storage is available at any time to any component. And it turns out that the use of Vuex seems to make the standard interaction mechanisms of components completely unnecessary.
Well, perhaps, the generation of events is still needed so that one component can quickly make it clear to the other about the completed action, events, etc.
The question is, does Vuex generally override the standard component interactions?
If it is not, how should it be combined in the right way?
I'll try to answer your question.
Vuex will be very usefull to store data that you'll need in a part of the application or globally, like user data.
If you can simply use $emit or props use it, it will be better and simple to understand the code, because it will be overkill to use the store just for "a prop".
So, you will use Vuex in your component to call an action and fetch / store some data you will need in a another view out of your children/parents context.
I don't know if my explanations are well haha, I tried :)
Related
I'm quite new to React, and I'm making a single page application with React.
So far, I've build the application with components and child components, having their own local state, however the child components doesn't really interact with one another, which is what I want them to, basically, with the least amount of boiler plate code...
The problem I'm facing, is that a change in some child component, should be able to update the state of another child component, somewhere else in the component tree.
A selection in one child component should also be able to trigger a function in another component updating it with data and so on.
I've considered having just one global application state, that all components can call and update when something in them changes, and this one application state will then update other components in the tree. Kinda like having a single "controller" with it's own state, that all components "views" can call, and which updates the states of other components as needed. (I'm used to WPF and MVC style of GUI programming).
What I've considered:
One could try to implement this with callback functions defined in the top of the hierarchy, to be sent down through the hierarchy and called from a child component when it changes.
This method however results in a LOT of boilerplate code that just passes functions to their child components. It feels wrong and hard to maintain...
To avoid all this passing around and boilerplate code, I've tried using a React Context, however this is not working as well as I hoped. I can only access the context from within the render function and from lifecycle functions, and sadly I often get complicated errors that are hard to understand. It seems like I'm exploiting React Context to do something you shouldn't use it for...
I've considered using a singleton pattern in JavaScript, however then that singleton needs to have a reference to the root component, and query for the component it needs to change... This seems like kind of a hack, and may not be that pretty, but idk.
I'm considering trying out React Redux however it seems to work in many ways similar to React Context (I'll be honest, I haven't read much into it yet).
What I need:
I need to ask someone with greater React experience than me: How do you keep a global application state, and update child components based on changes to the global application state? Also: Am I thinking about this all wrong? Am I trying to do something in a non-react way, failing to see how I should do it in React?
You can happily go with Redux or MobX, they're fine.
I suggest Taming The State from Robin Wieruch: https://roadtoreact.com/course-details?courseId=TAMING_THE_STATE
There are the book and the course. He shows different ways of handling React state.
Redux was created specifically for the problem yo stated.
Reacts follows a top-down down-top unidirectional flow in essence. Context API is useful in simple use cases but would fail horribly in a large scale application where you'd be creating consumers everywhere.
I'd suggest investing some time in Redux so that will save your precious time in long run.
There's a reason all big three frameworks require a state management library to be useful for large scale complex apps. (Angular has NgRx and Vue has Vuex).
So Basically, I came across many articles where they are referring to manage state via flux or redux.
I wanted to know that how about UI component having its own state? Is it good practice to let redux manage the Api call and success toast messages etc. but UI components should have their own local state?
Kindly someone elaborate what is the best practice in industry?
Though the question calls for opinion, I am going to leave my answer. There is no standard best practice regarding this. It boils down to convenience and ground rules of your team, if there are more than one people writing the code.
I use Redux quite a lot. However, I won't refrain from using local state in components.
Form handling like input onChange handlers require local state. It is not performant to use global state for onChange handlers.
Reusable component uses local state. Again, it boils down to whether the reusability is a technical reusability or business reusability. If you are developing a custom scrollbar component, use local state. However, if you are using a comment form which is used everywhere in your application, use global state.
I prefer to have most of the stuff in global state. I use redux thunk as well. In redux thunk, it is possible to access global state within the thunk function. This is quite useful as it avoids the reliance for props / context being passed all around.
I do keep some simple things in local state -- for example, show / hide some stuff. I don't mind waiting for promises to resolve before hiding some stuff using local state.
Overall, the decision to use global state vs local state is primarily based on convenience. There are no standard rules other than what you and your team are comfortable with.
React is a way to declaratively deal with UI. There are some rules of the framework like state, props, context. It is left upto the developer to make the UI declarative and performant based on these primitives. How, a developer does it does not matter as long as the code is maintainable and understood by others.
After asking many professionals and industry developers, I came to know that managing state through redux depends on your application scope.
but more importantly, If I am working on enterprise Application then the application state must be managed through redux.
Now the question is what should be kept in our redux store. well, you can store almost anything in redux store but better to manage the local state of a component as well. for instance, opening a component Boolean should be managed in local state or any string or header name etc.
Good question! The answer is usually "it depends", but there are clear cases when you'd probably prefer to use one over the other.
Use Redux for storing state relevant to the application. E.g. the current page/panel that should be shown. As you mentioned, showing a notification/message - is something that'd make sense to store in redux state, as the alternative would be passing state all over the place, e.g. an error prop bubbling up to your root component which renders the toast message. Using thunk is also a good idea when you're fetching/manipulating data relevant to the whole app, e.g. a list of things that appear in several places.
Use component state for storing state only relevant to the component. That is, if you're filling in a form, it makes sense to store the value of text inputs, checkboxes etc. in your component state (perhaps in conjunction with container and presentational components) as the values at this point aren't relevant to the rest of the application.
If I have a class with a bunch of properties, it seems like a hassle to put the properties that I modify inside (for example) this.state.myProp1 instead of this.myProp1. and then I need to make a copy of whatever property it is before I send it off to setState (because I can't mutate it directly). Like an array of objects for example.
At some point I display some of these properties so that means that I need to hold all my class properties inside this state, and then keep track of what I need to refresh, instead of refreshing the whole thing.
I almost prefer to use this.forceUpdate() instead and have my render() refer to class properties directly. Why does react "make" people use this.state and setState. Is it for performance reasons?
setState() enqueues changes to the component state and tells React that this component and its children need to be re-rendered with the updated state. This is the primary method you use to update the user interface in response to event handlers and server responses.
So basically setState is there to tell react when to re-render. Also setState behaves asynchronously, and updates the state only when necessary. So if you call setState multiple times immediately it will update only on the last one so as to minimize the number of re-renders and be less taxing on the browser. If there was no setState and react re-rendered every time the data changed, the browser experience would be terrible.
You don't have to use React this.state and setState if you don't want to. You can always use redux or mobx to manage the state.
Never mutate this.state directly, as calling setState() afterwards may replace the mutation you made.
And yeah, that's why you've to make a copy of whatever property it is before I send it off to setState
IMHO, component state is an elegant concept for some special case. for example when you want to monitor the content change of a text input on live, that is, not after hit save or submit button. under such situation, a component state would be ideal place to store the temporary input and you will not get overhead to use redux action to respond on the every incomplete input. it is just like a buffer to provide performance improvement.
1. Reasons behind setState
The main reason for having to use setState is its asynchronous execution, from the react docs:
React intentionally “waits” until all components call setState() in their event handlers before starting to re-render. This boosts performance by avoiding unnecessary re-renders.
If the state object was updated synchronously it would cause consistency issues, since props are not updated until the parent component is re-rendered, so, mutating this.state directly would lead to inconsistency between props and state.
For further reference, you can check this this Github thread.
2. Reasons behind this.state
The main advantage of the state object is its immutability which couldn't be accomplished with component properties, also there is the separation of responsibility between props and state, which is way easier to handle and update individually.
Why does react "make" people use this.state and setState. Is it for performance reasons?
That's a good question - the existing answer from J. Pichardo is quite correct but I wanted to address the why in a little more depth - as opposed to what or how.
Really a better question is - why does React exist? According to this article
React’s one-way data flow makes things much simpler, more predictable, and less bug-prone. One way data flow greatly simplifies your thinking about state because no view can ever mutate the state directly. Views can only send actions up to the global state store.
Really theres a whole bunch of reasons why React has it's place as a useful UI library. But in regards to your question - uni-directional data flow - this is the main reason.
relational UIs get complex. When an app has to consume, display and update even just a modest amount of relational data and have that information displayed across multiple elements, things can get messy fast.
Using state and props the way that React does allows one to differentiate and guarantee whether a piece of the UI will just receive data to display or whether it might change it too.
If you store that data just in a random key you have no real way of knowing whether the value is changed and what changed it. By separating out your state from your component in this way, it decouples the data from the element and makes it much easier to share data between elements and also change that data in different ways.
according to this article on coupled object interfaces a tightly coupled entity is bad because:
A tightly Coupled Object is an object that needs to know about other objects and are usually highly dependent on each other's interfaces. When we change one object in a tightly coupled application often it requires changes to a number of other objects. There is no problem in a small application we can easily identify the change. But in the case of a large applications these inter-dependencies are not always known by every consumer or other developers or there is many chance of future changes.
This very much is applicable in UI development also. In my opinion this is why not setting state is going to cause you some pain later on.
I watched the Getting Started with Redux series and am working through modifying my existing React code to use Redux. However, I've run into a dilemma that I can't seem to find any answers for: I want to modify the store data (which many of my React components will use) on particular events such UI interaction, but I don't want any UI components to subscribe to every change made to the store.
Can/should I instead make a separate .js file with functions that can access the store directly to call .getState() and .dispatch() which my UI components can import and call when needed, instead of subscribing to the store themselves?
Or am I fundamentally misunderstanding something and subscribing to the store would have exactly the same effect? I'm aiming to optimize speed; that's why I switched to Redux.
I want to modify the store data (which many of my React components
will use) on particular events such UI interaction, but I don't want
any UI components to subscribe to every change made to the store.
Checkout react-redux, it's the official binding for react and redux apps. It provides a way to subscribe specific components to redux and only listen for the changes that you are interested in. On top of that it also implements various optimisations to avoid unnecessary re-renders.
Can/should I instead make a separate .js file with functions that can
access the store directly to call .getState() and .dispatch() which my
UI components can import and call when needed, instead of subscribing
to the store themselves?
You can do anything you like, but don't be surprised if it becomes unmaintainable after a while.
Or am I fundamentally misunderstanding something and subscribing to
the store would have exactly the same effect?
Yes, you could use react-redux and only subscribe to parts of the store that you care about.
I'm aiming to optimize speed; that's why I switched to Redux.
Not sure what your particular situation is / was, but in general the point of redux is to provide a predictable and manageable way of maintaining an applications state - it doesn't directly speed up anything.
I'm setting up a site using react.js. the client receives a massive json through ajax that is then used to populate all the necessary fields, graphs, etc. Seeing as this json will cover pretty much all the information contained on the site, it has be accesible in almost every single component. Is there a clean way to pass it to every last component (and there are a lot of them)? Passing it the regular way to ~70 components seems dirty and inefficient.
As React's documentation states, you could have components communicate by integrate a global event system, and then subscribe to an application-data event from all your components, in componentDidMount().
This way, each time you will emit the application-data event from within the code responsible for pulling the website data, all components will receive that data. At that point, you can call setState().
Please be careful and unbind the events once a component goes "out of scope", inside componentWillUnmount().
Failing to do so will result in memory leaks, as you will have the event handler dangling, and it will be called each time you pull the website data, even if your Component's instance has been removed from the DOM.
You could also try to make your components pull data by themselves, as sending a huge JSON around, is not the best solution. I mean, each component should use the data it needs, in order to work, not the whole website data. The way I would alter this would be by parsing the JSON object and storing it for reference in a variable, on a scope that is accessible to all components, and use the event system to only notify the components that the data is ready, and each component would go to the global data object and get their data.
Example(pseudo-code):
XHR.getData
XHR.onReadyState => GlobalNameSpace.data = data
EventSystem.PUBLISH('application-data')
// component code
Component {
EventSystem.SUBSCRIBE('application-data') =>
dataNeededForInit = GlobalNameSpace.data.componentXData
}
Reference: https://facebook.github.io/react/tips/communicate-between-components.html
Context might fit the bill. It might not be particularly tidy solution but perhaps that would be a starting point for you.