My goal:
I want to make a compact, reuseable modal. It should take a template name, and render in a modal,
What i got so far:
http://emberjs.jsbin.com/mehabivu/6/edit
How it works:
App.ApplicationRoute has an action, which takes a template name.
It renders it into {{ outlet modal }}
I can use this action
application wide, and reuse templates
My problem:
I dont know how to wrap the outlet into a div or something (to add
css), and show/hide it.
Maybe there is a better practice (component?)
to do this
Sounds like your on the right path. Pretty much exactly what Ember says to do in their cookbook: http://emberjs.com/guides/cookbook/user_interface_and_interaction/using_modal_dialogs/
Wrapping/styling the modal can be done via the view you render into the outlet. Right now your menu2 template doesn't have a view.
App.Menu2View = Ember.View.extend({
tagName: 'section',
classNames: ['modal']
});
The above makes the containing tag a section and adds the modal css class to that container section.
I've updated your JSBin: http://emberjs.jsbin.com/mehabivu/7/edit
Related
A question regarding transclude within an angular 1.5.8 component, and it's uses.
Here is an example of some code;
var app = angular.module('app', [])
function AccordionController () {
var self = this;
// add panel
self.addPanel = function(panel) {
// code to add panel
}
self.selectPanel = function() {
//code to select panel
}
}
// register the accordion component
app.component('accordion', {
template: '<!---accordion-template-->',
controller: AccordionController
}
function AccordionPanelController () {
// use parents methods here
var self = this;
// add panel
self.parent.addPanel(self);
// select panel
self.parent.selectPanel(self);
}
// register the accordion-panel component
app.component('accordionPanel', {
// require the parent component
// In this case parent is an instance of accordion component
require: {
'parent': '^accordion',
template: '<!---accrodion-panel-template-->',
controller: AccordionController
}
My question is would it be better to nest all the according panels within the parent using transclude or alternatively pass in a data array to the parent which this loops out the required number of panels based on the array passed inside using a binding.
Thanks
// added
Many thanks for your reply, an example I have of transclude possibly being necessary is in the following bit of code
<modal modal-id="editCompany" title="Edit Company"> <company-form company="$ctrl.company"></company-form> </modal>
Here we have a modal component which may have a variety of other components used within it, on the example above I am adding the company form, but this could we be an contact form. is there an alternative way?
I've worked with angular pretty extensively. Two enterprise tools managing and displaying large amounts of data, dozens of interactive widget modules, all that.
Never, once, have I had anything to do with transclude. At work we are explicitly told not to use it (link functions too). I thought this was a good thing, and the way Angular 2 turned out it seemed that thinking wasn't totally without reason.
I would go with the iteration to lay out the required number of items. At work this wouldn't be a choice because transclude wouldn't be an option.
The thing with using transclude in a component architecture is that it visually breaks the idea of single responsibility and messes with the architecture.
<html>
<navigation></navigation>
<accordion>
<accordion-panel></accordion-panel>
</accordion>
<footer></footer>
</html>
In this example you know your page has a navigation menu, an accordion and a footer. But at the index level (or root component) you don't want to know / see what the accordion contains.
So the accordion-panel component should only appear in its direct parent component.
As for your other question, through the use of require or attributes you pass an array of panels that you iterate using ng-repeat inside the accordion component.
app.component('accordion', {
template: `<accordion-panel ng-repeat="..."></accordion-panel>`,
controller: AccordionController
}
Lets say I have a backbone view, lets name it view1, which renders a template: template1 with a div having an id="first"
Now, in another view, lets name it view2, I render another template: template2 where I again (by mistake) name a div with id="first"
Question - Will this cause an error if I don't render template1 and template2 together on the same page (I am using Marionette's show() function). In other words, do template 'divs' persist on the DOM?
Thanks for the answers!
It should not cause any issue. Simply template2 will replace template1 kind off.
I'm new to ember and am struggeling with the typical "how would one do that"-Problem. What I've got is fairly simple and I know how to do it, but my way is so complicated that I do not think it's correct.
The case:
<ul>
<li>{{link-to top-level}}</li>
<li>{{link-to another-top-level</li>
<ul class="submenu">
<li>{{link-to submenu</li>
</ul>
</ul>
What should happen is:
When a route is clicked, the corresponding list element should become active.
When a submenu is clicked the corresponding upper ul-element should get the class open
It's a fairly simple case with jQuery, but I understand that this is not scalable and abstracted and stuff.
Therefore I started with this approach:
Create a controller / template construct for the entire navigation to handle it's state (there are some other things I need to check as well, so it came in handy).
since ember adds the active class to the anchor tag I created a component to observe that:
Like:
export default Ember.Component.extend({
tagName: 'li',
classNameBindings: ['active'],
active: function() {
return this.get('childViews').anyBy('active');
}.property('childViews.#each.active')
});
Replacing the li elements with {{linked-list}} does indeed work.
But what next? Do I need to add another component to watch the component to watch the build in behaviour of active links? Do I have to write dedicated MVC-Classes for all the DOM Elements?
There has to be a simpler way, I think. I already created a whole lotta files for such a simple behaviour that I'm thinking I'm totally on the wrong track.
My gut feeling is: That is view logic and the view should just observe a few states in the template and that's it.
What's the leanest approach to the problem?
I don't know if I understand your question right, but why you want to add the class open to the corresponding upper element? It automatically get active assigned. And with correct CSS it should work as expected.
I have created a small example demonstrating what I mean. Please have a look and let me know, if that's the solution for you or what's your problem with this solution.
http://emberjs.jsbin.com/wifusosadega/7/edit
EDIT
Here is a Bootstrap flavored version: http://emberjs.jsbin.com/wifusosadega/9/edit .
Routing in Ember.js is troubling me, and I can't seem to find the "correct" way of doing what I want to do.
I have a route, let's call it #/map, which contains a series of top-level and containers of child views.
Hierarchically, I have a top map_view, which contains 4 additional views: A topbar (which has topbar menu item triggers within it), a sidebar (which has sidebar menu item triggers in it), and two containerViews (a sidebar menu containerView and a topbar menu containerView), which will contain one or more nested views that are programatically inserted on clicking a menu item trigger.
My issue is that while this works, and I can embed all of these views into their various templates, none of them are linking with controllers, and the controller they are picking up is the map_controller (which makes sense as that is the linked outlet controller for the top level view). Currently I am using a method described on Ember's github here, but it seems a little...hacky?
Here is a JSFiddle showing the problem. Notice that the controller for level-one-entry and level-two-entry is the index_controller: http://jsfiddle.net/fishbowl/Z94ZY/3/
Here are some code snippets for what I am doing to get around it:
map.hbs:
<section id='map'>
{{view App.SidebarView}}
{{view App.TopbarView}}
<div id='map-canvas'></div>
</section>
topbar_view.js:
var TopbarView = Em.View.extend({
templateName: 'topbar',
classNames: ['topbar-container'],
init: function() {
var content = this.get('content'),
controller = App.TopbarController.create({
view: this
});
this.set('controller', controller);
this._super();
}
});
module.exports = TopbarView;
topbar_controller.js
var TopbarController = App.ApplicationController.extend({
content: Ember.computed.alias('view.content'),
trigger: null,
start_date: null,
end_date: null,
travelling: null,
word: 'topbar'
});
module.exports = TopbarController;
I'm not doing anything special in the router other than declaring this.route('map'). A further problem i'm having is that whenever I declare needs: ['some_other_controller'], I get an error
<App.TopbarController:ember413> specifies 'needs', but does not have a container. Please ensure this controller was instantiated with a container.
Am I missing something blindingly obvious about how to go about linking these together. I'm guessing that i'm using routing incorrectly. I don't want to change what the URL is, as i'm technically not moving pages, just opening and closing menus on the page, but I don't really understand how else i'm supposed to use the router to achieve this.
EDIT 2: i've mocked up another jsfiddle of what I could do with outlets and link-to's, but i'm not sure that I want the URL changing (as you'd probably be able to do odd things with the back button etc): jsfiddle - The alternative to this is to set location: 'none' in the Router, but I don't really like that option either...
In my backbone app I create a popover in parent view and add it to the DOM like this
afterRender: function() {
this.$el.append(
new Popover.Views.Default({
stick:'right',
offsetTop: 3,
offsetRight: 5,
content: "Foo",
reference: this.$el
}).render().$el
);
},
toggle: function(){
app.vent.trigger('popover34:toggle');
}
However the popover is appended to its parent view. The parent view is a link and this causes some css issues in the popover.
My question is, is it safe to do something like:
afterRender: function() {
$('body').append(
new Popover.Views.Default({
stick:'right',
offsetTop: 3,
offsetRight: 5,
content: "Foo",
reference: this.$el
}).render().$el
);
}
Or is there a way to set it just beside the parent view? The problem is that when I toggle the popover it will be added to the DOM multiple times.
To second (and hopefully clarify) Isaac's answer here, your 'parent' view should be in one region, the Popover view should be in another region.
Brian Mann has done an excellent set of videos on Marionette.js and good application design, one specifically that demonstrates your exact scenario.
Good luck,
Aaron
It looks like you're using Marionette. Using Marionette, one way to handle this is with regions. From the docs:
Regions provide a consistent way to manage your views and show / close them in your application. They use a jQuery selector to show your views in the correct place.
You can put your region anywhere you like and trigger it using the Event Aggregator. In addition, it automatically closes old views so you don't end up with zombies.