We are planning to switch new technologies like react for my CMS project which is under development for 10 years.
Until now everything was simple and plain on the front end.
First include jquery.js then if necessary include the components and third party scripts, then code and dance with the DOM.
But now while trying to jump into a higher level of technology and different approach, things can easily get very complicated for me.
After spending more than 10 hours with React documents and tutorials I have a very good understanding about what it is and how it works.
But I realized that I am very unfamiliar with some popular concepts. I never used node.js, never used npm, babel, webpack, and may other many "new" things I have seen every where. I am face to face with these tools because of React and I am convinced that these are the inevitable for modern front end development.
Now the question
Our CMS runs on PHP and depends on MooTools heavily at the front end. Instead of a complete rewrite of a 10 years old CMS I just want to try new technologies partially for some cases. Decided to starting with React.
For the case I want to integrate ag-Grid to React also.
What I did not understand is that how to bring all these tools together.
I won't be able to use the simply include js way of react because of ag-Grid.
In the examples the code written has some JSX. Which means that we write JSX and run it translated for the browser to test if it is ok.
Each time before testing do I need to translate these files?
And more over if the files are translated does debugging become very
complicated?
Can babel make it on the run time? If yes is it a good practice.
There are lots of file in the node_modules folder. Which of them
should I include for production?
All sources on the net are very theoretical and assumes a knowledge. Need some guidance for best practices.
There are lots of questions and not a single step by step guide from beginning to production.
JSX is an extension over spec-compliant JavaScript. It is syntactic sugar for React.createElement(...) and is optional in React development.
React can be written in plain ES5:
React.createElement("div", { foo: "foo" });
Instead of JSX:
<div foo="foo" />
Or with helper functions like h that achieve the same goal, e.g. react-hyperscript.
The fact that there is PHP backend application doesn't prevent from developing React frontend application with JSX. This may require to configure React project to not use built-in Express web server and build client-side application to custom location, i.e. existing app's public folder. In case create-react-app is used, this may require to eject the project).
Each time before testing do I need to translate these files?
They should be transpiled to plain JavaScript (ES5 if it targets older browsers). They can be translated on every change in source files when client-side project runs in watch mode (conventionally npm start).
And more over if the files are translated does debugging become very
complicated?
This is what source maps are for.
Can babel make it on the run time? If yes is it a good practice.
It's possible to use Babel at runtime, and this isn't a good practice, even in development environment.
There are lots of file in the node_modules folder. Which of them
should I include for production?
The contents of node_modules doesn't matter. Almost all of them are development dependencies that are needed to build client-side app. This is the task for a bundler, which is Webpack in create-react-app template. It builds project dependencies to plain JS in dist folder.
Related
I have started to learn react and I am very confused with the concept of packages.
and why we can't just use a simple link as cdn and there is a module which i don't understand it and what's npm and why i have to use it with react
Not trying to give the definite answer here, but trying to explain the 3 terms as simple as I can:
A module is just a file containing lines of JavaScript code.
A library uses one or many modules to provide a set of features.
A package is a downloadable, versioned library. Think of someone putting it in a box and shipping it to you, so you can import it and use it in combination with your own code.
so I came with conclusion and hope you tell me if I get it right or not .
-Module : it is justba javascript file but it's different from normal script that it has its own scope so you have to use import or export to exchange information between modules.
-Library : it is a group of modules or scripts that it is responsible for the function you want .
-package : can be one or more libraries but it is also contain files that don't deal with the functionality but it's only role to make sure the libraries and functional file work properly .
like react package it is come with react library deals with the functionality and also has babel compiler to make browser read and understand react library.
It is very much possible to use a simple link such as a CDN. Many packages also have links available, such as material UI. However, it quickly becomes unmanageable to use CDN links when your project grows, and it can affect performance and load times of your site.
Npm stands for Node package manager. It handles packaging for Node, where it would not be suitable to use a simple link.
It turns out that it is possible to also use npm for web applications, by combining it with a bundler. The bundler (such as webpack) takes all of your modules (JavaScript files and npm packages) and bundles it together so that you get a single script which you can run in the browser.
I wrote a clojurescript project. It is a reagent component. Now i want to use this component in other clojurescript project. That is what i do: I compiled my cljs project and then i put a result compiled file to js folder in other project. Further i require that file from index.html. At the end i invoke my component from cljs file
(.slider-view (.-views js/swipe) (clj->js [[:p "1"]
[:p "2"]
[:p "3"]]))
and it works. But i have a question. My project and project where i connect my component have common requirements. For example React and ReactDOM. How to exclude this two references from my project and then connect it from another project? Is there alternative approaches? For example require cljs namespace from another cljs project directly
Even if you could prevent JavaScript libraries from being included twice, you will still have huge chunks of the ClojureScript standard library compiled in twice. As you suggested, you will want to put your first project on the classpath of your second project (by adding it to your project.clj or equivalent) and then include that namespace directly.
Building on Justin's quite correct answer...
What you describe is exactly the normal ClojureScript dependency relationship. In this case, the dependency is something you have created, rather than someone else's existing library, but it is still the same situation.
There is one important subtlety to note. You may want to develop both of your projects simultaneously. This may seem tricky, since dependencies normally require a version number, deploying, and all the rest of the heavy lifting that is just too painful for quick development.
Fortunately, the standard ClojureScript tooling offers a solution to this, called the Leiningen checkouts directory, which works by letting you put a symlink to your dependency inside your main project's directory.
Details are in the checkout-dependencies section of the Leiningen documentation; or just web search for "Clojure checkouts", if that ever decays.
As you get further into these techniques, you may hit some more subtle problems involving the Figwheel tooling. When you reach that stage, this article may also be useful.
I have a production application whose folder structure is much like you would expect:
/project
/css
/js
/php
/fonts
/images
/index.php
I have recently begun learning to use react.js and I would like to start developing new features using react while leaving all existing functionality as is and I understand that react.js can certainly be used this way.
What isn't entirely clear, is how to structure the files in my non node.js project and access them.
For example, I tried searching for this and found this article which proposes the following structure
and states:
Here index.jsx works as the entry point of the application. It uses ReactDOM.render to render App and gets the party started. App in turn does something interesting with Note. If I wanted yet another component, you would simply add it below /components.
Presumably this is a node.js project where index.jsx can call something like require('components/App.jsx');, but how do I achieve the same in my non node.js project.
Consider if I set the following folder structure:
/project
/css
/js
/php
/fonts
/images
/react
/components
/App.jsx
/Note.jsx
/scripts
/featureFoo.jsx
/index.php
Given the above, I'd like to have index.php load react/scripts/featureFoo.jsx which would somehow include/use react/components/App.jsx and react/components/Note.jsx
I figure I could have script tags in index.php to load all of the components then featureFoo.jsx but I feel like there is a more react way to do this.
So
How can I structure/access the react components of my non node.js application?
Im tagging node.js as I feel those users may well bring insight regarding this possibly from having to deal with multiple projects/aproaches.
In order to import/require other modules in a non-node.js (i.e. browser-based) JS application, you'll need to use a bundler such as webpack or browserify.
They work by starting at your "entry" file (index.jsx in your case) and recursively following all of your imports/requires. Then it smartly bundles everything up into a single "output" file, which includes everything your application uses, that you can link in your HTML.
You can also use more complex configurations with multiple entry and output files, or even dynamic loading of "chunks" at certain points in your application. But the above is the most basic use case, and works well for most simpler projects.
These bundlers have some other cool features as well. For instance, with webpack (with additional plugins and loaders) you can:
Write ES6/ES7 JavaScript that gets compiled (via babel) into cross-browser compatible ES5
minify/uglify your output JS
import/require non-js files such as CSS, images, and webfonts, and choose how to process these imports (e.g. pre/post-process your CSS, or optimize your images)
Extract all imported CSS into a single .css file
Use webpack-dev-server (or webpack-dev-middleware) to take advantage of hot module replacement, which makes developing JS apps easier by letting you see your changes take effect instantly in the browser without having to refresh or lose your app's state.
And a lot more. The world of bundlers is a pretty big ecosystem with a lot to learn, but it's totally worth getting into.
A good place to get started is the excellent Survive JS series of tutorials.
However, if you're still learning React, then diving into webpack and the entire ecosystem of JavaScript tooling can be overwhelming. It will probably be easier and a more efficient use of your time to keep things simple at first, and then only get into bundlers etc. after you get comfortable with React.
I'm trying to get into Grunt, which I am new to, but I do not understand its utility.
I understand that it is a taskrunner. I understand that it can be used to do things like bundle, uglify, jshint, minify, etc etc etc, anything that can be turned into a scripted task.
But I don't see what advantage this gives. Nearly all of these can be run from the command line anyway, which is to say you could just combine them using a simple shell script. It seems to me that setting up grunt + gruntfiles and writing tasks is more work than writing a shell script, rather than less.
What am I missing about this?
Grunt is basically a build / task manager written on top of NodeJS. I would call it the NodeJS stack equivalent of ANT for Java. Here are some common scenarios you would want to use grunt under:
You have a project with javascript files requiring minification, and generally generating a front end build seperately (in case you're using say JAVA for your backend). (grunt-contrib-uglify)
When you save code on your machine during development, you want the browser to reload your page automatically (might seem like a small thing, but believe me this has saved me lots of time). (Live reload)
When a developer saves code on his machine, he wants a comprehensive list of JS errors / general best practice violations to be shown. (grunt-contrib-jshint)
You have a project with SASS/ LESS files which need to be compiled to CSS files on the developers machine during development, For example whenever he saves a SASS file, you want it to be compiled to a CSS file automatically, for inclusion in your page. (grunt-contrib-sass)
You have a team of front end developers who're working on the UI, and a team of backend developers working on the backend, you want the front end devs to use the backend REST API's without having to compile & deploy code everytime on their own machines. In case you were wondering, this isn't possible with a typical web server setup because XHR isn't allowed to be cross-domain by browser. Grunt can setup a proxy for you redirecting XHR requests on your own system within the grunt connect server to another system! (grunt-contrib-proxy, grunt-contrib-connect)
I do not think your shell script can do ALL of these. To summarize, yes, setting up a Gruntfile.js is tedious for someone who has had little exposure to javascript / is new to nodeJS, I went through the same pains as a learner, but Grunt is an amazing piece of software. DO invest the time to setup a proper Gruntfile.js for your front end project, and you'll thank god for making your life a lot easier :)
The Advantage vs shell script:
If you write shell script for every one of these tasks, it is tedious to maintain and then customize for every one of your needs. Gruntfile.js is actually pretty easy. there is a config that you init it with, specifying what tasks you want to perform, the sources and targets for each.
The integration with project seed generators on Yeoman, Gulp is another major factor to consider. Yeoman and Gulp come with Gruntfile.js' with intelligent defaults. For someone who is the sole UI contributor on his team, this is priceless to me!
For someone who is working on frontend technologies, if you have more than one person working with you, its rather easy for them to get to know Grunt, which is already well documented with a lot of answers on SO, than to get to know your shell scripts. This might be a factor in large teams.
The numerous plugins for Grunt extend base functionality. Unless your shell script is VERY popular, and VERY modular, I dont see plugins being built for it. This also extends to inclusion of new front end technologies in your project. Say, if you want to use typescript in your project tomorrow, your shell script will need to incorporate this and account for it with your own effort. With Grunt, its just as simple as "npm install " and adding a config.
Even though I agree with most advantages pointed in Accepted Answer, I still have to consider the disadvantages that are highlighted by Keith Cirkel in Why we should stop using Grunt & Gulp
Thus, some advantages are rebut by Grunt overheads and at least you should consider all this in your final decision of using Grunt, or not.
I'm creating a javascript library, and i want it to be environment agnostic (It will not use DOM, AJAX, or NodeJS api. It will be vanilla javascript). So, it's supposed to run in any javascript environment (browsers, npm, meteor smart packages, V8 C bindings...).
My currently approach is creating git repo with the library, with all the library inside a single global variable, without thinking about patterns like CommonJS or AMD.
Later, i'll create another git repo, using my library as a git submodule, and create what is needed to release it as a npm module. I'm concerned if it's a good approach, i didn't found anyone doing this way.
Pros: code will be vanilla javascript, without awareness of environment patterns. It will not bind itself to CommonJS. It will be repackable (copy and paste or git submodule) to any javascript environment. It will be as small as needed to be sent to browsers.
Cons: I'll have to maintain as many git as environments i want to support. At least a second git repo to deliver on npm.
Taking jQuery as example, it runs in both browser and nodejs, with just one git repo. There is some code to be aware of the "exports" variable to run on nodejs or other CommonJS compatible enviroment.
Pros: Just one git repo to mantain.
Cons: It will be binded to CommonJS pattern (to achieve npm compatibility)
My question is: Am i following a correct (or acceptable) approach? Or should i follow jquery's path, and try to create a single git repo?
Update 1:
Browserify and other require() libraries are not valid answers. My question is not how to use require() on the browser, instead, it's about the architecture pattern to achieve enviroment agnosticism.
Update 2:
Create a browser/nodejs module is not the question, it's known. The question is: can make a real enviroment agnostic library? This example is binded to CommonJS pattern, used in NodeJS.
If you are looking for design recommendation for your future library work then in my opinion you can think-future and just use usual Object Oriented Practices well proven in other languages, systems and libraries.
Mainly concentrate on the UML view of your design.
Forget the "one variable" requirement.
Use features proposed in the planned next version of JavaScript.
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:maximally_minimal_classes
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:modules_rationale
There is an experimental compiler available that allows you to write ES6-style code even today (see https://www.npmjs.org/package/es6-module-transpiler-rewrite).
Node.js has a --harmony command line switch that allows for the same (see What does `node --harmony` do?)
So in my opinion correct approach is to follow best practices and "think future"
"Use a build tool" is the answer for this question. With a build tool, you can develop with the best code pratices, without accopling your code to some enviroment standard of today (AMD, commonjs...) and still publish your code to these kind of enviroments.
For example, I'm using Grunt.js to run some tasks, like build, lint, test, etc.
It perform tedious operations (minification, compilation...) like Make, Maven, Gulp.js, and various others.
The build task can handle standards (like commonjs) for the compiled code. So, the library can be totally enviroment agnostic, and the build process handle enviroment adaptations.
Note that i'm not talking about compiling to binaries. It's compiling source to another source, like CoffeScript to JavaScript. In my case, it's compilation of JavaScript without enviroment standard to JavaScript with commonjs standard (to run as a Node.js module).
The final result is that i can compile my project to various standards without messing with my code.
Aditionally, with a build phase i can "think-future", like xmojmr answered and use the EcmaScript 6 features on my JavaScript code, using Grunt plugins like grunt-es6-transpiler or grunt-traceur to compile JavaScript code from ES 6 to 5 (so it can run on enviroments of today)
According to modular your library (if you need modules). Read this question Relation between CommonJS, AMD and RequireJS?
Take bootstrap for example, it uses npm to manage project dependencies and use bower to publish as static content for other web apps.
Take a look at browserify as reference, it's a little heavy because it provides the capability to bundle dependent npm modules as resource for browsers.