I'm migrating my code from 'vanilla' to WebPack. Previously the backbone.js and backbone.stickit.js were loaded in index.html so that the code that was running later has seen stickit() function under Backbone.View.prototype (which is what my views extend from.
However, after migrating to WebPack I've started getting errors, that this.stickit() is not defined, which I've get rid of via adding the require to every JS file defining views extending from Backbone.View:
import Backbone from 'backbone';
require('backbone.stickit/backbone.stickit');
I don't feel good about that solution. In that specific case it is not so bad becasue my views explicitely use stickit. However, there are modules and extensions that alter the default behaviour, and I'd like to define them in one place.
How should I go about handling it? I've got a concept of importing Backbone, applying all plugins, and re-exporting it:
import Backbone from 'backbone';
require('backbone.stickit/backbone.stickit');
....
const Backbone2 = Backbone;
export {Backbone2};
which looks a bit too tricky...
How should I go about it? Shouldn't the webpack layer contain only one copy of Backbone after build, no matter in how many places it was imported, and which plugins were required?
Related
I've been looking to develop a method for loading modules and/or components into an AOT-compiled Angular 4 application and been stymied by a variety of solutions that never quite seem to get me where I want to be.
My requirements are as such:
My main application is AOT compiled, and has no knowledge of what it is loading until runtime, so I cannot specifically identify my dynamic module as an entry component at compile time (which is explicitly necessary for the 'dynamic' component loading example presented on Angular.io)
I'd ideally love to be able to pull the code from a back end database via a GET request, but I can survive it simply living in a folder alongside the compiled site.
I'm using Webpack to compile my main application, breaking it into chunks - and so a lot of the SystemJS based solutions seem like dead ends - based on my current research, I could be wrong about this.
I don't need to know or have access to any components of my main application directly - in essence, I'd be loading one angular app into another, with the dynamically loaded module only perhaps having a few tightly controlled explicit interface points with the parent application.
I've explored using tools like SystemJsNgModuleLoader - which seems to require that I have the Angular compiler present, which I'm happy to do if AOT somehow allowed me to include it even if I'm not using it elsewhere. I've also looked into directly compiling my dynamic module using ngc and loading the resulting ngfactory and compiled component/module, but I'm not clear if this is at all possible or if so - what tools Angular makes available to do so. I have also seen references to ANALYZE_FOR_ENTRY_COMPONENTS - but can't clearly dig up what the limitations of this are, as first analysis indicates its not quite what I'm looking for either.
I had assumed I might be able to define a common interface and then simply make a get request to bring my dynamic component into my application - but Angular seems painfully allergic to anything I try to do short of stepping outside of it alltogether and trying to attach non-angular code to the DOM directly.
Is what I'm trying to do even possible? Does Angular 2+ simply despise this kind of on the fly modification of its internal application architecture?
I think I found an article that describes exactly what you are trying to do. In short you need to take over the bootstrap lifecycle.
The magic is in this snippet here.
import {AComponentNgFactory, BComponentNgFactory} from './components.ngfactory.ts';
#NgModule({
imports: [BrowserModule],
declarations: [AComponent, BComponent]
})
export class AppModule {
ngDoBootstrap(app) {
fetch('url/to/fetch/component/name')
.then((name)=>{ this.bootstrapRootComponent(app, name)});
}
bootstrapRootComponent(app, name) {
const options = {
'a-comp': AComponentNgFactory,
'b-comp': BComponentNgFactory
};
https://blog.angularindepth.com/how-to-manually-bootstrap-an-angular-application-9a36ccf86429
I'm trying to load multiple modules on the fly via chokidar (watchdog) using Meteor 1.6 beta, however after doing extensive research on the matter I just can't seem to get it to work.
From what I gather require by design will not take in anything other than static strings, i.e.
require("test/string/here")
Since if I try:
var path = "test/string/here"
require(path)
I just get Error: Cannot find module, even though the strings are identical.
Now the thing is I'm uncertain how to go on about this, am I really forced to either use import or static strings when using meteor or is there some workaround this?
watchdog(cmddir, (dir) => {
match = "." + regex_cmd.exec(dir);
match = dir;
loader.emit("loadcommand", match)
});
loader.on('loadcommand', (file) => {
require(file);
});
There is something intrinsically weird in what you describe.
chokidar is used to watch actual files and folders.
But Meteor compiles and bundles your code, resulting in an app folder after build that is totally different from your project structure.
Although Meteor now supports dynamic imports, the mechanism is internal to Meteor and does not rely on your actual project files, but on Meteor built ones.
If you want to dynamically require files like in Node, including with dynamically generated module path, you should avoid import and require statements, which are automatically replaced by Meteor built-in import mechanism. Instead you would have to make up your own loading function, taking care of the fact that your app built folder is different from your project folder.
That may work for example if your server is watching files and/or folders in a static location, different from where your app will be running.
In the end, I feel this is a sort of XY problem: you have not described your objective in the first place, and the above issue is trying to solve a weird solution that does not seem to fit how Meteor works, hence which may not be the most appropriate solution for your implicit objective.
#Sashko does a great job of explaining Meteor's dynamic imports here. There are also docs
A dynamic import is a function that returns a promise instead of just importing statically at build time. Example:
import('./component').then((MyComponent) => {
render(MyComponent);
});
The promise runs once the module has been loaded. If you try to load the module repeatedly then it only gets loaded once and is immediately available on subsequent requests.
afaict you can use a variable for the string to import.
I'm learning React and am looking for a solid model system - something simplifies querying/posting to RESTful endpoints.
Backbome's collection/model functionality is exactly what I need, and their website indicates that jQuery is not required except for view-related code.
I'm using webpack, and including Backbone:
import Backbone from 'backbone`;
However, it's throwing errors about jQuery:
ERROR in ./~/backbone/backbone.js
Module not found: Error: Cannot resolve module 'jquery' in node_modules/backbone
# ./~/backbone/backbone.js 18:4-22:6
No change if I limit my import to Collection or Model.
Is there any way around this - jquery is entirely unnecessary for my project and is a lot of bloat I don't want.
I'm not seeing any good alternative model/rest type libraries either...
If you only want the model use backbone-model. If you also want the collection, add backbone-collection.
Based on recommendations for the preparation for Ember 2.0...
• In general, replace views + controllers with components
• Only use controllers at the route level...
...we're supposed to eschew Controllers and Views in favor of Components. I haven't been able to figure out and/or understand how to generate Components that aren't direct parents of the components folder, i.e. components/component-name.js.
My current controllers folder looks something like:
/controllers
/account
index.js
edit.js
/business
index.js
Basically, there are sub-folders that group logic based on the sections of the application. How do I accomplish this with just components?
Seeing that components must have a "-" in them, I tried, but get an error...
ember generate component account/index-module.js
You specified "account/index-module.js", but due to a bug in Handlebars (< 2.0) slashes within components/helpers are not allowed.
Do all components have to be like
components
account-index.js
account-new.js
business-index.js
i.e. all in the same folder? This will start to get out of hand with the addition of what I actually consider to be components (things like video-viewer.js, text-editor.js, radio-button.js).
I would really like to have components in sub-folders, but unsure how to do this.
components
/media
/audio
audio-player.js
/video
video-player.js
/text-editing
text-editor.js
editor-toolbar.js
My components folder is already gross and I just got started:
Is it okay to leave the account/business logic in Controllers (seeing that it does say you should only use controllers at the Route level)?
I'm really confused about this "all components, all the time" convention.
Ok, so I had the same problem and as of ember 1.9-beta.3 (that's the version I tested). It is possible to have components nested under resource directories.
That means that you can have a "user" route or resource. And let's say you have a component which you only want to use with the user resource, so you want to put the component under the resource directory.
The way to do it is to put the component under the resource directory app/pods/user/component-name/template.hbs. The important part is to remember that components must have a dash in their name. It can't be just .../user/component it has to be .../user/component-name with a dash. Then you can use the component as {{user/component-name}} in your templates.
Also I think this is only possible when you're using the pod structure.
Ok, I think this question/answer needs a bit of an update for 2019. I have been using Ember for all of about a month, and my components folder has already become a pigpen. And the tutorial and main API docs don't really cover how to organize your components.
So I did a search of course. And the only answers I could find (like this one) are from around 2014-2015, and don't reflect modern Ember. I was about to accept my fate when I found this in the Ember syntax conversion guide.
(Note to the Ember folks: This is an important issue, one that almost every new user will encounter. It should feature a bit more prominently in the documentation. Maybe not the tutorial, but definitely in Components section)
You can in fact generate components under a sub-folder in Ember as such:
$ ember generate component foo/bar-baz
installing component
create app/components/foo/bar-baz.js
create app/templates/components/foo/bar-baz.hbs
installing component-test
create tests/integration/components/foo/bar-baz-test.js
So that's great, the files are created under components/foo and templates/components/foo. And to resolve the name of the component for use in another template, you can use either the old style syntax:
{{foo/bar-baz }}
Or the new style angle bracket syntax:
<Foo::BarBaz />
As the assertion suggests this is due to Handlebars 1.x, and will be available soon.
Ember 1.9 beta builds currently support this, though I'm not positive if ember-cli's resolver would work with it right now. You can read more about Handlebars 2.0 here.
Using a pods structure will also help with organization, and I believe is going to be the recommended strategy going forward.
For now, I'd suggest not to worry about it! Remember the transition plan will be smooth, and as the official releases come out for Ember and Ember CLI, you'll get deprecation warnings.
uhh it's hard to come with a right title for this problem excuse me.
In a backbone.js application i am building. Models, Views, Templates are all in separate javascript, html files. I want to export the Models, Views and Templates to the application bootstapper file (app.js) without polluting the global variable i.e doing window.App.Model = myModel; that. By export i mean make the code inside the files available to app.js for initialization and running
How do i go about doing this?
Are there any patterns that will solve the problem? Could you provide me a example
Description
In cases where models,views and templates are split to many disparate files the application bootstrapper file app.js should have some means to access these M,V,C components. Hence common approach is to do below inside the model.js file
window.App.Model.PersonModel = Backbone.Model.extend({});
App.js
var instance = new window.App.Model.PersonModel();
var personView = new window.App.Views.PersonView({model:instance});
Finally you see that everything derives from the Global object App which i think is not safe, improper and weak way to build application dependencies
Suggestions
Just to the above question, could someone suggest a template loading library(javascript templates regardless of engine used) that can be used to load the templates
Take a look on RequireJS, which support asynchronous module definitions/loading. You would have to rewrite your modules to and app.js to satisfy AMD api, but it would take only few strings of code.