What is the difference (benefits/cons) of using Vuex vs a service for state management.
I am working on an application that displays a catalog of items. These items are fetched from an API. At the moment users have the ability to apply filters and sort the items.
I am using a service to handle updating the view based on what filter the user applies. The items are filtered on the back end so each time a filter is triggered an update method fetches the items from the API.
There's a few levels of component nesting for this application (and these are reused among diff pages with sim functionality) and I used an event bus as a quick way to handle the events and test the API endpoints, but now I need to use Vuex to handle the state.
I am starting to write the Vuex store and I am noticing there's quite a bit of functionality that I'm transferring over from the service.
I would like to know how the too differ?
I'm relatively new to VueJS, so please take this with a grain of salt.
I think it depends on the size of the app, as well as the complexity. If you're emitting a lot of events, using state makes sense because you have a single source of truth (a single file, literally) for your app state vs an event bus which will have to be imported into every component. From the Vuex site,
If you've never built a large-scale SPA and jump right into Vuex, it may feel verbose and daunting. That's perfectly normal - if your app is simple, you will most likely be fine without Vuex. A simple global event bus may be all you need. But if you are building a medium-to-large-scale SPA, chances are you have run into situations that make you think about how to better handle state outside of your Vue components, and Vuex will be the natural next step for you. There's a good quote from Dan Abramov, the author of Redux.
Hope this helps. Good luck :)
Related
I have recently started working in VueJS and I have been instructed by one of the lead devs to never combine emit events and vuex store. Basically, if the project will use a store, take all the events/state through the store.
From one point of view I can understand this, but there are a lot scenarios in which emiting an event is so much faster than taking everything through the store.
Is this the best practice by not combining Vuex and emit events?
As a lead developer myself using Vue, this arbitrary rule is simply narrow-minded.
When using Vuex and deciding to use an emit or not, I look at the relationship. If I have a component that only needs to interact with its parent, then I use an emit. It keeps the store cleaner and the relationships clearer. Your lead is not making scalable or maintainable code.
If he/she argues you shouldn't use emits when you have a store, then following that logic, you shouldn't use props ever either. That is equally nonsensical.
Once you start working with applications that have several children down, you'll realize that jamming the store with every variable you'll need just for a few components way down the hierarchy creates a horrible mess of things.
I disagree with your Lead. Vuex should only be used for data that is truly global. Any data/events that are only shared between a component and its child should go through emit/props.
While there can/should be debate about what should use the store vs props and emit, a blanket "always use store" is almost certainly wrong and will lead to a needlessly bloated store.
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.
I have often heard questions that ' Why one should use redux whether there is also a State in the ReactJs. Which extra facilities redux does provide to the developer ? '
For small applications when there aren't a lot of components, you can do without redux. But in large applications, it becomes pretty complicated/tedious to chain props through components especially if one that is deep 6 levels needs it.
This is a great article that explains it
https://blog.logrocket.com/why-use-redux-reasons-with-clear-examples-d21bffd5835
The Redux docs page about organizing state (here), list out a few reasons one might lean to using Redux store over component state. However, they do clearly state that "using local component state is fine" and that, in the end, the developer should find the proper balance for the work at hand.
Some common rules of thumb for determining what kind of data should be put into Redux:
Do other parts of the application care about this data?
Do you need to be able to create further derived data based on this original data?
Is the same data being used to drive multiple components?
Is there value to you in being able to restore this state to a given point in time (ie, time travel debugging)?
Do you want to cache the data (ie, use what's in state if it's already there instead of re-requesting it)?
Redux is required when your application is big with many components. Redux works as global meaning if you set value in one component you can get that value across components. This is the primary advantage with state management Library.
If your application is small with 10 to 20 components then we don’t need redux. We can pass down state to child components as props but when application grows big you will have so many components and it’s very difficult to play with component level state and you won’t have control of the flow and you can’t track of values between components
So redux is very useful in such cases.
So we are about two months in on a project. This is the first time I have ever managed code writers and not written the code myself. I've been reading their code for the last week. What was suppose to be a simple React app has turned into a spaghetti mess.
I understand: redux helps to manage global state. But should that mean that all buttons should map to a global "action?" This has seemed to create this entire mess of objects scattered throughout the entire app. I keep asking myself, why are we using global state for everything when local state could be used for 90% of the application. This is the kind of code that gives me heartburn:
let subitems = SidebarItems[state.type].sub_items;
Store.dispatch(SidebarSubItemHandler(item.action, subitems[0], null));
if(item.sub_items[subitems[0]].param) {
browserHistory.push(`${item.sub_items[subitems[0]].path}/${item.sub_items[subitems[0]].param}`);
} else {
browserHistory.push(item.sub_items[subitems[0]].path);
}
subItembuttons = Object.keys(this.props.subitems.sub_items).map(subitem => {
let subItem = this.props.subitems.sub_items[subitem];
return <li className={this.props.activeSubItem.action == subItem.action ? "bottom-bar-item active" : "bottom-bar-item"}
onClick={e => this.props.onClickSubItem(e, subItem)}
key={subItem.action} style={this.props.subitems.inlineStyles.mobileSubItemLI}>
{subItem.item}
</li>;
});
The application is littered with all kinds of objects like these that map to "action" objects. So at this point we are making the decision to scrap the entire project and restart from scratch, but without redux. Let's try to do as much as possible using local state only. When it comes time, and we need global state for something, ONLY implement it for that something, not every single action in the app. Does this make sense?
So I guess my question is: If we develop an app using local state and just fundamental React, will we be creating un-reversable problems that would prevent us from implementing redux on a per item basis?
Quoting from the relevant Redux FAQ entry at http://redux.js.org/docs/faq/OrganizingState.html#organizing-state-only-redux-state:
Using local component state is fine. As a developer, it is your job to determine what kinds of state make up your application, and where each piece of state should live. Find a balance that works for you, and go with it.
Some common rules of thumb for determing what kind of data should be put into Redux:
Do other parts of the application care about this data?
Do you need to be able to create further derived data based on this original data?
Is the same data being used to drive multiple components?
Is there value to you in being able to restore this state to a given point in time (ie, time travel debugging)?
Do you want to cache the data (ie, use what's in state if it's already there instead of re-requesting it)?
Per your specific question: if you use the "container component" pattern fairly consistently, it should be relatively straightforward to swap those "plain React" containers for Redux-connected containers down the line. See https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links/blob/master/react-component-patterns.md#component-categories for articles on the "container/presentational component" pattern.
Two other thoughts. First, I recently co-authored an article that discusses why you might want to use Redux in a React application.
Second: yeah, that code looks kinda ugly. I'm hoping those are at least three different snippets from different parts of the codebase, rather than one snippet, but that's rather hard to read. The repeated use of "sub_items" and "subitems" seems like a bit of a red flag, readability-wise.
It also doesn't look like it's following good Redux practices. For example, idiomatic Redux code almost never references the store directly. Instead, references to dispatch and getState are available via middleware, and thus can be used in action creators via redux-thunk and redux-saga. Connected components can also access dispatch.
Overall: you are absolutely welcome to use as much or as little Redux as you want, and as much or as little local component state as you want. I think the larger issue, though, is how well your team actually understands Redux, and how they're trying to use it.
In Flux every action should be handled by the dispatcher.
What about an action that doesn't alter the view or the markup, such as "scroll this element into view"? What is the "Flux-way" of handling such a scenario? To by-pass the dispatcher? Or to handle it in the dispatcher without involving the stores or the components?
Flux is really more about application state management, and is not at all about the details of what components are rendered in the view. That's the domain of React. Flux simply assumes you have some kind of reactive view layer -- usually that's React.
Application state is not the same as component state. Application state is something that needs to be known in multiple components. For component state, React's this.state is perfectly adequate. An input component is a good example of something that might need this.
So in your case, if only one component needs to know the scroll position, there may not be a good case for moving that state to a Flux Store. But as soon as that needs to be known in multiple components -- especially components in different branches of the tree -- you probably want that state being managed in a Store.
The other issue your question raises is the role of Flux Actions. A Flux application always uses Actions as the origin of the data flow. There are a lot of good reasons for doing this: stable application state, keeping the app resilient to new features, keeping it easy to reason about, undo history, reconstitution of application state, stateless view components, etc.
Occasionally people want to write as little code as possible and they use a callback passed between components to change this.state in the parent component instead of dispatching a new action to go through the Flux data flow. I find this to be mixing the view and state management layers of an application, and while expedient, this can lead to a lot of headache. It isn't very flexible in the long run, because now the state is coupled to these few components. Building up a Flux data flow from the start is much simpler in the long run, and much more resilient to new features. That said, it also requires more investment in code up front.
If your app doesn't need to know about scrolling (seems rare that it would), there's no need to fire an action. Since Flux is really there to handle data flow (and subsequent changes based on that data flow), it doesn't need to know about every action that occurs.