We could briefly describe that this.props is data flow from parent component and this.state is for keeping the current state of the component, and the mechanism we massively depend when we develop in React is re-rendering after setState().
If my understanding of the usage of these two are not wrong,
except holding function object, is it proper to utilize the extendability of this to hold some values considered as global variables?
For example, if I want to make 'swipe' manner available on my component, I may could do something like:
class Slider extends React.Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.state = {
movement: 0,
touchStartX: 0,
prevTouchX: 0,
beingTouched: false
};
this.handleTouchStart = this.handleTouchStart.bind(this);
this.handleTouchMove = this.handleTouchMove.bind(this);
this.handleTouchEnd = this.handleTouchEnd.bind(this);
}
handleTouchStart(e) {
this.setState({
touchStartX: e.targetTouches[0].clientX,
beingTouched: true
});
}
handleTouchMove(e) {
if (this.state.beingTouched) {
let deltaX = e.targetTouches[0].clientX - this.state.touchStartX;
this.setState({
movement: deltaX,
prevTouchX: e.targetTouches[0].clientX
});
}
}
handleTouchEnd(e) {
// handle the sliding and set state touchStartX and beingTouched to 0 and false.
}
render() {
return (<div className = 'sliderBox'
onTouchStart = {e => this.handleTouchStart(e)}
onTouchMove = {e => this.handleTouchMove(e)}
onTouchEnd = {e => this.handleTouchEnd(e)}></div>);
}
}
export default Slider;
This is a part of my built application, it just works well. But I still wonder if it's a good way to use state property.
Or it's just OK to do something like:
class Slider extends React.Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props);
this.movement = 0;
this.touchStartX = 0;
this.prevTouchX = 0;
this.beingTouched = false;
this.handleTouchStart = this.handleTouchStart.bind(this);
this.handleTouchMove = this.handleTouchMove.bind(this);
this.handleTouchEnd = this.handleTouchEnd.bind(this);
}
handleTouchStart(e) {
this.touchStartX = e.targetTouches[0].clientX;
this.beingTouched = true;
}
handleTouchMove(e) {
if (this.beingTouched) {
let deltaX = e.targetTouches[0].clientX - this.state.touchStartX;
this.movement = deltaX;
this.prevTouchX = e.targetTouches[0].clientX;
}
}
handleTouchEnd(e) {
// handle the sliding and set state touchStartX and beingTouched to 0 and false.
}
render() {
return (<div className = 'sliderBox'
onTouchStart = {e => this.handleTouchStart(e)}
onTouchMove = {e => this.handleTouchMove(e)}
onTouchEnd = {e => this.handleTouchEnd(e)}></div>);
}
}
export default Slider;
But it seems that the utilization of the extendability of this above is rarely seen?
Sorry if my question is meaningless, I just wonder if is there any spirit or principle to utilize the extendability of this? Props and cons?
Yes, you can attach variables directly to the component's this. It's proper in your use case.
In React's Documentation itself, in the state and lifecycle section, it gives an example of storing a timer id directly in this:
componentDidMount() {
this.timerID = setInterval(
() => this.tick(),
1000
);
}
Note how we save the timer ID right on this.
While this.props is set up by React itself and this.state has a special meaning, you are free to add additional fields to the class manually if you need to store something that is not used for the visual output.
If you don’t use something in render(), it shouldn’t be in the state.
We will tear down the timer in the componentWillUnmount() lifecycle hook:
componentWillUnmount() {
clearInterval(this.timerID);
}
And as of Gleb Kost's answer, I agree that it's a normal practice.
You've nailed it. If it doesn't make sense to be in props, neither in state, feel free to attach it directly to this, if it also makes sense.
It seems that extendability of this in the react component is a normal practice, I've seen it being used in almost every more or less complex React project I have worked on.
As for deciding where to put the data in the state or on the component itself, I usually ask myself a question: does the component need to react to the change of those properties? If yes, they are going in the state, if not - on the component.
In your case, since you are using those properties only in event handlers and don't really need the component to re-render every time they change, I'd say optimal would be to utilise this, as you do.
On the other hand, if you want to use beingTouched property in the render method, for example, to change the background color of the component when it's touched than you need to put it in the state, otherwise the component would not react as expected, because it will be unaware that the property has changed.
When I call ReactDom.render in init() only one g tag is created and all circles are created inside this g tag. but I want that on every ReactDom.render call a separate g tag must be created. My knowledge of components in React is that we can instantiate as many components as we want using React.createClass. How can I do this?
var Rect = React.createClass({
render: function() {
return (
React.createElement('circle', {
cx: this.props.cx,
cy: this.props.cy,
r: this.props.r,
fill: '#00ff00'
});
);
}
});
var globalArray = [];
var someFunc = function(cx, cy, r) {
var Factory = React.createClass({
render: function() {
var localArray = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 1; i++) {
localArray[i] = React.createElement(Rect, {
key: globalArray.length,
cx: cx,
cy: cy,
r: r
})
}
globalArray[globalArray.length] = localArray[0];
return (
React.createElement('g', {}, globalArray)
)
}
});
return Factory;
}
var randomNumber = function (x,y) {
return ~~(Math.floor(((Math.random()*x) + y )));
}
var obj = {
init: function() {
var element;
for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
var cx = randomNumber(1200,40);
var cy = randomNumber(600,40);
var r = randomNumber(30,20);
element = someFunc(cx,cy,r);
ReactDOM.render(
React.createElement(element,{}),
document.getElementById('svg')
);
}
}
}
You'll probably find that you benefit from letting the structure of your code be defined by React components, rather than your own functions and global variables.
Generally, if you find yourself calling ReactDOM.render lots of times, then something has probably gone wrong.
Top Level Component
Rather than rendering 100 components into one element, define a top level component which is made up of 100 subcomponent instances, then render that once.
var Graphics = React.createClass({
// ...
});
ReactDOM.render(
React.createElement(Graphics, null),
document.getElementById('svg')
);
We'll create a Graphics component that we can use as a parent for the rest of the components. We only need to render this once.
State
Rather than storing your list of circles in a global array, use the state property on your new top level component. This way, whenever you update it, the component will re-render to reflect the changes.
getInitialState: function() {
// by default there are no circles (empty array)
return { circles: [] };
},
componentWillMount: function() {
var circles = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
// rather than storing actual circles, we just store
// the props that are needed to create them
circles.push({
cx: randomNumber(1200, 40),
cy: randomNumber(600, 40),
r: randomNumber(30,20)
});
}
this.setState({ circles: circles });
}
getInitialState allows us to define default values for the properties on this.state and componentWillMount allows to run code just before the component is rendered in the DOM.
Render
Now that the Graphics component knows about the circles list, we have to describe the way it should be rendered.
render: function() {
var circles = this.state.circles.map(function(props) {
return React.createElement(Circle, props);
});
return React.createElement('g', null, circles);
}
This function uses map to create a Circle component using the props that we stored in this.state.circles.
Conclusion
React is most effective when you structure your components to live within one top level container component, like we've created here. Rather than ever doing any imperative actions (like looping and rendering components each time) you should look for declarative alternatives.
React wants you to tell it what you want, not how it should be done.
In this case, what you wanted was a component with a number of randomly sized and positioned circles inside it, but what you tried to do was explain to React how it should go about making that happen.
var Circle = React.createClass({
render: function() {
// ...
}
});
var Graphics = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
// ...
},
componentWillMount: function() {
// ...
},
render: function() {
// ...
}
});
The resulting code should not only be shorter and easier to follow, but also easy to refactor. Without much work you could move configuration details — like the number of circles — out to being a prop of Graphics.
I just got started with ReactJS and am a little stuck on a problem that I have.
My application is essentially a list with filters and a button to change the layout.
At the moment I'm using three components: <list />, < Filters /> and <TopBar />, now obviously when I change settings in < Filters /> I want to trigger some method in <list /> to update my view.
How can I make those 3 components interact with each other, or do I need some sort of global data model where I can just make changes to?
The best approach would depend on how you plan to arrange those components. A few example scenarios that come to mind right now:
<Filters /> is a child component of <List />
Both <Filters /> and <List /> are children of a parent component
<Filters /> and <List /> live in separate root components entirely.
There may be other scenarios that I'm not thinking of. If yours doesn't fit within these, then let me know. Here are some very rough examples of how I've been handling the first two scenarios:
Scenario #1
You could pass a handler from <List /> to <Filters />, which could then be called on the onChange event to filter the list with the current value.
JSFiddle for #1 →
/** #jsx React.DOM */
var Filters = React.createClass({
handleFilterChange: function() {
var value = this.refs.filterInput.getDOMNode().value;
this.props.updateFilter(value);
},
render: function() {
return <input type="text" ref="filterInput" onChange={this.handleFilterChange} placeholder="Filter" />;
}
});
var List = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
listItems: ['Chicago', 'New York', 'Tokyo', 'London', 'San Francisco', 'Amsterdam', 'Hong Kong'],
nameFilter: ''
};
},
handleFilterUpdate: function(filterValue) {
this.setState({
nameFilter: filterValue
});
},
render: function() {
var displayedItems = this.state.listItems.filter(function(item) {
var match = item.toLowerCase().indexOf(this.state.nameFilter.toLowerCase());
return (match !== -1);
}.bind(this));
var content;
if (displayedItems.length > 0) {
var items = displayedItems.map(function(item) {
return <li>{item}</li>;
});
content = <ul>{items}</ul>
} else {
content = <p>No items matching this filter</p>;
}
return (
<div>
<Filters updateFilter={this.handleFilterUpdate} />
<h4>Results</h4>
{content}
</div>
);
}
});
React.renderComponent(<List />, document.body);
Scenario #2
Similar to scenario #1, but the parent component will be the one passing down the handler function to <Filters />, and will pass the filtered list to <List />. I like this method better since it decouples the <List /> from the <Filters />.
JSFiddle for #2 →
/** #jsx React.DOM */
var Filters = React.createClass({
handleFilterChange: function() {
var value = this.refs.filterInput.getDOMNode().value;
this.props.updateFilter(value);
},
render: function() {
return <input type="text" ref="filterInput" onChange={this.handleFilterChange} placeholder="Filter" />;
}
});
var List = React.createClass({
render: function() {
var content;
if (this.props.items.length > 0) {
var items = this.props.items.map(function(item) {
return <li>{item}</li>;
});
content = <ul>{items}</ul>
} else {
content = <p>No items matching this filter</p>;
}
return (
<div className="results">
<h4>Results</h4>
{content}
</div>
);
}
});
var ListContainer = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
listItems: ['Chicago', 'New York', 'Tokyo', 'London', 'San Francisco', 'Amsterdam', 'Hong Kong'],
nameFilter: ''
};
},
handleFilterUpdate: function(filterValue) {
this.setState({
nameFilter: filterValue
});
},
render: function() {
var displayedItems = this.state.listItems.filter(function(item) {
var match = item.toLowerCase().indexOf(this.state.nameFilter.toLowerCase());
return (match !== -1);
}.bind(this));
return (
<div>
<Filters updateFilter={this.handleFilterUpdate} />
<List items={displayedItems} />
</div>
);
}
});
React.renderComponent(<ListContainer />, document.body);
Scenario #3
When the components can't communicate between any sort of parent-child relationship, the documentation recommends setting up a global event system.
There are multiple ways to make components communicate. Some can be suited to your usecase. Here is a list of some I've found useful to know.
React
Parent / Child direct communication
const Child = ({fromChildToParentCallback}) => (
<div onClick={() => fromChildToParentCallback(42)}>
Click me
</div>
);
class Parent extends React.Component {
receiveChildValue = (value) => {
console.log("Parent received value from child: " + value); // value is 42
};
render() {
return (
<Child fromChildToParentCallback={this.receiveChildValue}/>
)
}
}
Here the child component will call a callback provided by the parent with a value, and the parent will be able to get the value provided by the children in the parent.
If you build a feature/page of your app, it's better to have a single parent managing the callbacks/state (also called container or smart component), and all childs to be stateless, only reporting things to the parent. This way you can easily "share" the state of the parent to any child that need it.
Context
React Context permits to hold state at the root of your component hierarchy, and be able to inject this state easily into very deeply nested components, without the hassle to have to pass down props to every intermediate components.
Until now, context was an experimental feature, but a new API is available in React 16.3.
const AppContext = React.createContext(null)
class App extends React.Component {
render() {
return (
<AppContext.Provider value={{language: "en",userId: 42}}>
<div>
...
<SomeDeeplyNestedComponent/>
...
</div>
</AppContext.Provider>
)
}
};
const SomeDeeplyNestedComponent = () => (
<AppContext.Consumer>
{({language}) => <div>App language is currently {language}</div>}
</AppContext.Consumer>
);
The consumer is using the render prop / children function pattern
Check this blog post for more details.
Before React 16.3, I'd recommend using react-broadcast which offer quite similar API, and use former context API.
Portals
Use a portal when you'd like to keep 2 components close together to make them communicate with simple functions, like in normal parent / child, but you don't want these 2 components to have a parent/child relationship in the DOM, because of visual / CSS constraints it implies (like z-index, opacity...).
In this case you can use a "portal". There are different react libraries using portals, usually used for modals, popups, tooltips...
Consider the following:
<div className="a">
a content
<Portal target="body">
<div className="b">
b content
</div>
</Portal>
</div>
Could produce the following DOM when rendered inside reactAppContainer:
<body>
<div id="reactAppContainer">
<div className="a">
a content
</div>
</div>
<div className="b">
b content
</div>
</body>
More details here
Slots
You define a slot somewhere, and then you fill the slot from another place of your render tree.
import { Slot, Fill } from 'react-slot-fill';
const Toolbar = (props) =>
<div>
<Slot name="ToolbarContent" />
</div>
export default Toolbar;
export const FillToolbar = ({children}) =>
<Fill name="ToolbarContent">
{children}
</Fill>
This is a bit similar to portals except the filled content will be rendered in a slot you define, while portals generally render a new dom node (often a children of document.body)
Check react-slot-fill library
Event bus
As stated in the React documentation:
For communication between two components that don't have a parent-child relationship, you can set up your own global event system. Subscribe to events in componentDidMount(), unsubscribe in componentWillUnmount(), and call setState() when you receive an event.
There are many things you can use to setup an event bus. You can just create an array of listeners, and on event publish, all listeners would receive the event. Or you can use something like EventEmitter or PostalJs
Flux
Flux is basically an event bus, except the event receivers are stores. This is similar to the basic event bus system except the state is managed outside of React
Original Flux implementation looks like an attempt to do Event-sourcing in a hacky way.
Redux is for me the Flux implementation that is the closest from event-sourcing, an benefits many of event-sourcing advantages like the ability to time-travel. It is not strictly linked to React and can also be used with other functional view libraries.
Egghead's Redux video tutorial is really nice and explains how it works internally (it really is simple).
Cursors
Cursors are coming from ClojureScript/Om and widely used in React projects. They permit to manage the state outside of React, and let multiple components have read/write access to the same part of the state, without needing to know anything about the component tree.
Many implementations exists, including ImmutableJS, React-cursors and Omniscient
Edit 2016: it seems that people agree cursors work fine for smaller apps but it does not scale well on complex apps. Om Next does not have cursors anymore (while it's Om that introduced the concept initially)
Elm architecture
The Elm architecture is an architecture proposed to be used by the Elm language. Even if Elm is not ReactJS, the Elm architecture can be done in React as well.
Dan Abramov, the author of Redux, did an implementation of the Elm architecture using React.
Both Redux and Elm are really great and tend to empower event-sourcing concepts on the frontend, both allowing time-travel debugging, undo/redo, replay...
The main difference between Redux and Elm is that Elm tend to be a lot more strict about state management. In Elm you can't have local component state or mount/unmount hooks and all DOM changes must be triggered by global state changes. Elm architecture propose a scalable approach that permits to handle ALL the state inside a single immutable object, while Redux propose an approach that invites you to handle MOST of the state in a single immutable object.
While the conceptual model of Elm is very elegant and the architecture permits to scale well on large apps, it can in practice be difficult or involve more boilerplate to achieve simple tasks like giving focus to an input after mounting it, or integrating with an existing library with an imperative interface (ie JQuery plugin). Related issue.
Also, Elm architecture involves more code boilerplate. It's not that verbose or complicated to write but I think the Elm architecture is more suited to statically typed languages.
FRP
Libraries like RxJS, BaconJS or Kefir can be used to produce FRP streams to handle communication between components.
You can try for example Rx-React
I think using these libs is quite similar to using what the ELM language offers with signals.
CycleJS framework does not use ReactJS but uses vdom. It share a lot of similarities with the Elm architecture (but is more easy to use in real life because it allows vdom hooks) and it uses RxJs extensively instead of functions, and can be a good source of inspiration if you want to use FRP with React. CycleJs Egghead videos are nice to understand how it works.
CSP
CSP (Communicating Sequential Processes) are currently popular (mostly because of Go/goroutines and core.async/ClojureScript) but you can use them also in javascript with JS-CSP.
James Long has done a video explaining how it can be used with React.
Sagas
A saga is a backend concept that comes from the DDD / EventSourcing / CQRS world, also called "process manager".
It is being popularized by the redux-saga project, mostly as a replacement to redux-thunk for handling side-effects (ie API calls etc). Most people currently think it only services for side-effects but it is actually more about decoupling components.
It is more of a compliment to a Flux architecture (or Redux) than a totally new communication system, because the saga emit Flux actions at the end. The idea is that if you have widget1 and widget2, and you want them to be decoupled, you can't fire action targeting widget2 from widget1. So you make widget1 only fire actions that target itself, and the saga is a "background process" that listens for widget1 actions, and may dispatch actions that target widget2. The saga is the coupling point between the 2 widgets but the widgets remain decoupled.
If you are interested take a look at my answer here
Conclusion
If you want to see an example of the same little app using these different styles, check the branches of this repository.
I don't know what is the best option in the long term but I really like how Flux looks like event-sourcing.
If you don't know event-sourcing concepts, take a look at this very pedagogic blog: Turning the database inside out with apache Samza, it is a must-read to understand why Flux is nice (but this could apply to FRP as well)
I think the community agrees that the most promising Flux implementation is Redux, which will progressively allow very productive developer experience thanks to hot reloading. Impressive livecoding ala Bret Victor's Inventing on Principle video is possible!
OK, there are few ways to do it, but I exclusively want focus on using store using Redux which makes your life much easier for these situations rather than give you a quick solution only for this case, using pure React will end up mess up in real big application and communicating between Components becomes harder and harder as the application grows...
So what Redux does for you?
Redux is like local storage in your application which can be used whenever you need data to be used in different places in your application...
Basically, Redux idea comes from flux originally, but with some fundamental changes including the concept of having one source of truth by creating only one store...
Look at the graph below to see some differences between Flux and Redux...
Consider applying Redux in your application from the start if your application needs communication between Components...
Also reading these words from Redux Documentation could be helpful to start with:
As the requirements for JavaScript single-page applications have
become increasingly complicated, our code must manage more state than
ever before. This state can include server responses and cached data,
as well as locally created data that has not yet been persisted to the
server. UI state is also increasing in complexity, as we need to
manage active routes, selected tabs, spinners, pagination controls,
and so on.
Managing this ever-changing state is hard. If a model can update
another model, then a view can update a model, which updates another
model, and this, in turn, might cause another view to update. At some
point, you no longer understand what happens in your app as you have
lost control over the when, why, and how of its state. When a system
is opaque and non-deterministic, it's hard to reproduce bugs or add
new features.
As if this wasn't bad enough, consider the new requirements becoming
common in front-end product development. As developers, we are
expected to handle optimistic updates, server-side rendering, fetching
data before performing route transitions, and so on. We find ourselves
trying to manage a complexity that we have never had to deal with
before, and we inevitably ask the question: is it time to give up? The
answer is no.
This complexity is difficult to handle as we're mixing two concepts
that are very hard for the human mind to reason about: mutation and
asynchronicity. I call them Mentos and Coke. Both can be great in
separation, but together they create a mess. Libraries like React
attempt to solve this problem in the view layer by removing both
asynchrony and direct DOM manipulation. However, managing the state of
your data is left up to you. This is where Redux enters.
Following in the steps of Flux, CQRS, and Event Sourcing, Redux
attempts to make state mutations predictable by imposing certain
restrictions on how and when updates can happen. These restrictions
are reflected in the three principles of Redux.
This is the way I handled this.
Let's say you have a <select> for Month and a <select> for Day.
The number of days depends on the selected month.
Both lists are owned by a third object, the left panel. Both <select> are also children of the leftPanel <div>
It's a game with the callbacks and the handlers in the LeftPanel component.
To test it, just copy the code into two separated files and run the index.html. Then select a month and see how the number of days changes.
dates.js
/** #jsx React.DOM */
var monthsLength = [0,31, 28, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31];
var MONTHS_ARR = ["Jan","Feb","Mar","Apr","May","Jun","Jul","Aug","Sep","Oct","Nov","Dec"];
var DayNumber = React.createClass({
render: function() {
return (
<option value={this.props.dayNum}>{this.props.dayNum}</option>
);
}
});
var DaysList = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {numOfDays: 30};
},
handleMonthUpdate: function(newMonthix) {
this.state.numOfDays = monthsLength[newMonthix];
console.log("Setting days to " + monthsLength[newMonthix] + " month = " + newMonthix);
this.forceUpdate();
},
handleDaySelection: function(evt) {
this.props.dateHandler(evt.target.value);
},
componentDidMount: function() {
this.props.readyCallback(this.handleMonthUpdate)
},
render: function() {
var dayNodes = [];
for (i = 1; i <= this.state.numOfDays; i++) {
dayNodes = dayNodes.concat([<DayNumber dayNum={i} />]);
}
return (
<select id={this.props.id} onChange = {this.handleDaySelection}>
<option value="" disabled defaultValue>Day</option>
{dayNodes}
</select>
);
}
});
var Month = React.createClass({
render: function() {
return (
<option value={this.props.monthIx}>{this.props.month}</option>
);
}
});
var MonthsList = React.createClass({
handleUpdate: function(evt) {
console.log("Local handler:" + this.props.id + " VAL= " + evt.target.value);
this.props.dateHandler(evt.target.value);
return false;
},
render: function() {
var monthIx = 0;
var monthNodes = this.props.data.map(function (month) {
monthIx++;
return (
<Month month={month} monthIx={monthIx} />
);
});
return (
<select id = {this.props.id} onChange = {this.handleUpdate}>
<option value="" disabled defaultValue>Month</option>
{monthNodes}
</select>
);
}
});
var LeftPanel = React.createClass({
dayRefresh: function(newMonth) {
// Nothing - will be replaced
},
daysReady: function(refreshCallback) {
console.log("Regisering days list");
this.dayRefresh = refreshCallback;
},
handleMonthChange: function(monthIx) {
console.log("New month");
this.dayRefresh(monthIx);
},
handleDayChange: function(dayIx) {
console.log("New DAY: " + dayIx);
},
render: function() {
return(
<div id="orderDetails">
<DaysList id="dayPicker" dateHandler={this.handleDayChange} readyCallback = {this.daysReady} />
<MonthsList data={MONTHS_ARR} id="monthPicker" dateHandler={this.handleMonthChange} />
</div>
);
}
});
React.renderComponent(
<LeftPanel />,
document.getElementById('leftPanel')
);
And the HTML for running the left panel component
index.html
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>Dates</title>
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.6.0/underscore-min.js"></script>
<script src="//fb.me/react-0.11.1.js"></script>
<script src="//fb.me/JSXTransformer-0.11.1.js"></script>
</head>
<style>
#dayPicker {
position: relative;
top: 97px;
left: 20px;
width: 60px;
height: 17px;
}
#monthPicker {
position: relative;
top: 97px;
left: 22px;
width: 95px;
height: 17px;
}
select {
font-size: 11px;
}
</style>
<body>
<div id="leftPanel">
</div>
<script type="text/jsx" src="dates.js"></script>
</body>
</html>
I saw that the question is already answered, but if you'd like to learn more details, there are a total of 3 cases of communication between components:
Case 1: Parent to Child communication
Case 2: Child to Parent communication
Case 3: Not-related components (any component to any component) communication
I once was where you are right now, as a beginner you sometimes feel out of place on how the react way to do this. I'm gonna try to tackle the same way I think of it right now.
States are the cornerstone for communication
Usually what it comes down to is the way that you alter the states in this component in your case you point out three components.
<List /> : Which probably will display a list of items depending on a filter
<Filters />: Filter options that will alter your data.
<TopBar />: List of options.
To orchestrate all of this interaction you are going to need a higher component let's call it App, that will pass down actions and data to each one of this components so for instance can look like this
<div>
<List items={this.state.filteredItems}/>
<Filter filter={this.state.filter} setFilter={setFilter}/>
</div>
So when setFilter is called it will affect the filteredItem and re-render both component;. In case this is not entirely clear I made you an example with checkbox that you can check in a single file:
import React, {Component} from 'react';
import {render} from 'react-dom';
const Person = ({person, setForDelete}) => (
<div>
<input type="checkbox" name="person" checked={person.checked} onChange={setForDelete.bind(this, person)} />
{person.name}
</div>
);
class PeopleList extends Component {
render() {
return(
<div>
{this.props.people.map((person, i) => {
return <Person key={i} person={person} setForDelete={this.props.setForDelete} />;
})}
<div onClick={this.props.deleteRecords}>Delete Selected Records</div>
</div>
);
}
} // end class
class App extends React.Component {
constructor(props) {
super(props)
this.state = {people:[{id:1, name:'Cesar', checked:false},{id:2, name:'Jose', checked:false},{id:3, name:'Marbel', checked:false}]}
}
deleteRecords() {
const people = this.state.people.filter(p => !p.checked);
this.setState({people});
}
setForDelete(person) {
const checked = !person.checked;
const people = this.state.people.map((p)=>{
if(p.id === person.id)
return {name:person.name, checked};
return p;
});
this.setState({people});
}
render () {
return <PeopleList people={this.state.people} deleteRecords={this.deleteRecords.bind(this)} setForDelete={this.setForDelete.bind(this)}/>;
}
}
render(<App/>, document.getElementById('app'));
Extending answer of #MichaelLaCroix when a scenario is that the components can't communicate between any sort of parent-child relationship, the documentation recommends setting up a global event system.
In the case of <Filters /> and <TopBar /> don't have any of the above relationship, a simple global emitter could be used like this:
componentDidMount - Subscribe to event
componentWillUnmount - Unsubscribe from event
React.js and EventSystem code
EventSystem.js
class EventSystem{
constructor() {
this.queue = {};
this.maxNamespaceSize = 50;
}
publish(/** namespace **/ /** arguments **/) {
if(arguments.length < 1) {
throw "Invalid namespace to publish";
}
var namespace = arguments[0];
var queue = this.queue[namespace];
if (typeof queue === 'undefined' || queue.length < 1) {
console.log('did not find queue for %s', namespace);
return false;
}
var valueArgs = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
valueArgs.shift(); // remove namespace value from value args
queue.forEach(function(callback) {
callback.apply(null, valueArgs);
});
return true;
}
subscribe(/** namespace **/ /** callback **/) {
const namespace = arguments[0];
if(!namespace) throw "Invalid namespace";
const callback = arguments[arguments.length - 1];
if(typeof callback !== 'function') throw "Invalid callback method";
if (typeof this.queue[namespace] === 'undefined') {
this.queue[namespace] = [];
}
const queue = this.queue[namespace];
if(queue.length === this.maxNamespaceSize) {
console.warn('Shifting first element in queue: `%s` since it reached max namespace queue count : %d', namespace, this.maxNamespaceSize);
queue.shift();
}
// Check if this callback already exists for this namespace
for(var i = 0; i < queue.length; i++) {
if(queue[i] === callback) {
throw ("The exact same callback exists on this namespace: " + namespace);
}
}
this.queue[namespace].push(callback);
return [namespace, callback];
}
unsubscribe(/** array or topic, method **/) {
let namespace;
let callback;
if(arguments.length === 1) {
let arg = arguments[0];
if(!arg || !Array.isArray(arg)) throw "Unsubscribe argument must be an array";
namespace = arg[0];
callback = arg[1];
}
else if(arguments.length === 2) {
namespace = arguments[0];
callback = arguments[1];
}
if(!namespace || typeof callback !== 'function') throw "Namespace must exist or callback must be a function";
const queue = this.queue[namespace];
if(queue) {
for(var i = 0; i < queue.length; i++) {
if(queue[i] === callback) {
queue.splice(i, 1); // only unique callbacks can be pushed to same namespace queue
return;
}
}
}
}
setNamespaceSize(size) {
if(!this.isNumber(size)) throw "Queue size must be a number";
this.maxNamespaceSize = size;
return true;
}
isNumber(n) {
return !isNaN(parseFloat(n)) && isFinite(n);
}
}
NotificationComponent.js
class NotificationComponent extends React.Component {
getInitialState() {
return {
// optional. see alternative below
subscriber: null
};
}
errorHandler() {
const topic = arguments[0];
const label = arguments[1];
console.log('Topic %s label %s', topic, label);
}
componentDidMount() {
var subscriber = EventSystem.subscribe('error.http', this.errorHandler);
this.state.subscriber = subscriber;
}
componentWillUnmount() {
EventSystem.unsubscribe('error.http', this.errorHandler);
// alternatively
// EventSystem.unsubscribe(this.state.subscriber);
}
render() {
}
}
There is such possibility even if they are not Parent - Child relationship - and that's Flux. There is pretty good (for me personally) implementation for that called Alt.JS (with Alt-Container).
For example you can have Sidebar that is dependent on what is set in component Details. Component Sidebar is connected with SidebarActions and SidebarStore, while Details is DetailsActions and DetailsStore.
You could use then AltContainer like that
<AltContainer stores={{
SidebarStore: SidebarStore
}}>
<Sidebar/>
</AltContainer>
{this.props.content}
Which would keep stores (well I could use "store" instead of "stores" prop). Now, {this.props.content} CAN BE Details depending on the route. Lets say that /Details redirect us to that view.
Details would have for example a checkbox that would change Sidebar element from X to Y if it would be checked.
Technically there is no relationship between them and it would be hard to do without flux. BUT WITH THAT it is rather easy.
Now let's get to DetailsActions. We will create there
class SiteActions {
constructor() {
this.generateActions(
'setSiteComponentStore'
);
}
setSiteComponent(value) {
this.dispatch({value: value});
}
}
and DetailsStore
class SiteStore {
constructor() {
this.siteComponents = {
Prop: true
};
this.bindListeners({
setSiteComponent: SidebarActions.COMPONENT_STATUS_CHANGED
})
}
setSiteComponent(data) {
this.siteComponents.Prop = data.value;
}
}
And now, this is the place where magic begin.
As You can see there is bindListener to SidebarActions.ComponentStatusChanged which will be used IF setSiteComponent will be used.
now in SidebarActions
componentStatusChanged(value){
this.dispatch({value: value});
}
We have such thing. It will dispatch that object on call. And it will be called if setSiteComponent in store will be used (that you can use in component for example during onChange on Button ot whatever)
Now in SidebarStore we will have
constructor() {
this.structures = [];
this.bindListeners({
componentStatusChanged: SidebarActions.COMPONENT_STATUS_CHANGED
})
}
componentStatusChanged(data) {
this.waitFor(DetailsStore);
_.findWhere(this.structures[0].elem, {title: 'Example'}).enabled = data.value;
}
Now here you can see, that it will wait for DetailsStore. What does it mean? more or less it means that this method need to wait for DetailsStoreto update before it can update itself.
tl;dr
One Store is listening on methods in a store, and will trigger an action from component action, which will update its own store.
I hope it can help you somehow.
If you want to explore options of communicating between components and feel like it is getting harder and harder, then you might consider adopting a good design pattern: Flux.
It is simply a collection of rules that defines how you store and mutate application wide state, and use that state to render components.
There are many Flux implementations, and Facebook's official implementation is one of them. Although it is considered the one that contains most boilerplate code, but it is easier to understand since most of the things are explicit.
Some of Other alternatives are flummox fluxxor fluxible and redux.
The following code helps me to setup communication between two siblings. The setup is done in their parent during render() and componentDidMount() calls.
It is based on https://reactjs.org/docs/refs-and-the-dom.html
Hope it helps.
class App extends React.Component<IAppProps, IAppState> {
private _navigationPanel: NavigationPanel;
private _mapPanel: MapPanel;
constructor() {
super();
this.state = {};
}
// `componentDidMount()` is called by ReactJS after `render()`
componentDidMount() {
// Pass _mapPanel to _navigationPanel
// It will allow _navigationPanel to call _mapPanel directly
this._navigationPanel.setMapPanel(this._mapPanel);
}
render() {
return (
<div id="appDiv" style={divStyle}>
// `ref=` helps to get reference to a child during rendering
<NavigationPanel ref={(child) => { this._navigationPanel = child; }} />
<MapPanel ref={(child) => { this._mapPanel = child; }} />
</div>
);
}
}
Oddly nobody mentioned mobx. The idea is similar to redux. If I have a piece of data that multiple components are subscribed to it, then I can use this data to drive multiple components.