I am new to knockout and readings it's tutorials for implementation.
I got to know about 2 different ways of writing view models in early chapters. I just need to know what is the difference between them.
I tried to figure out myself but may be not picking rights words.
Pdf i am refering to is Knockout PDF
There are several ways to create objects in javascript. The first one you're showing in your question is a literal. Another one is defining a constructor and invoking itt to get the object.
Yor AppViewModel is a constructor. If you need to use an instance of it as your viewmodel, you have to invoke the constructor, like this:
var vm = new AppViewModel();
ko.applyBindings(vm);
BTW, your fullName computed observable is incomplete. It's missing closing curly brakects, the second parameter, and closing parenthesis: }, self);
Hi y'all I'm trying out angular and firebase together for some cool 3 way binding action, but I'm running into some problems with binding. I don't really know how the objects ($scope and $firebase) should look like before being binded together. Right now, if I change through firebase, I am able to to see the change in my DOM almost immediately, but I need to be able to do some crud from DOM to FB for some real 3 way binding. Maybe I'm doing this completely wrong. :/
Here's what I have:
html (this creates a huge grid of 400 squares based off of my $scope.myGrid which is a $scope object referencing a $firebase object)
<div class="square" ng-repeat="(position, hex) in myGrid" style="background-color:{{hex}}" ng-click="squareClick({{position}})">
my Controller (anonymous fxn makes my $scope.myGrid object.)
$scope.paletteColor = "#f00";
//FIREBASE
var ref = new Firebase("https://MyAPP.firebaseio.com/");
//angularfire ref to the data
var sync = $firebase(ref);
//download the data into a local object
var syncObject = sync.$asObject();
console.log(syncObject); // firebase object is composed of root node with 400 child nodes with key:value like 01-01:"#f00", 01-02: "#ff0" which is exactly how my $scope.myGrid object looks like
$scope.myGrid = syncObject;
// binding Part taken from the docs which is a huge mystery to me.
// syncObject.bindTo($scope, "myGrid").then(function(){
// console.log($scope.myGrid);
// $scope.myGrid. = "baz";
// ref.$set({foo:"baz"});
// });
You do need to use the syncObject.bindTo syntax as you listed in the comment. This sets up the three-way binding. See this note from the official documentation below:
While 3-way bindings can be extremely convenient, be careful of trying to use them against deeply nested tree structures. Stick to practical uses like synchronizing key-value pairs.
If you need more functionality than basic key-value pairs you may want to look into extending Firebase factories. You can find it in the documentation at https://www.firebase.com/docs/web/libraries/angular/guide.html#section-extending-factories.
I'm in the process of learning Angular, and have come across a bit of a problem. I'm trying to create a set of directives that represent different levels within a javascript object. The object contains a number of different properties that depend on the state of other parts of the model. For example, if one of the sub properties is in an error state, the parent is also. I have an extremely over-simplified example HERE. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Especially if someone could explain what's going wrong with the example and offer advise on high-level best practices for angular design. Thanks.
The problem with your example has to do with the new scope that is created by ng-repeat. I'll refer you here for a very detailed explanation, but here's the takeaway:
For each item/iteration, ng-repeat creates a new scope, which prototypically inherits from the parent scope, but it also assigns the item's value to a new property on the new child
scope.
If item is a primitive, essentially a copy of the value is assigned to the new child scope property. Changing the child scope property's value (i.e., using ng-model) does not change the array the parent scope references.
It's a confusing issue with a simple solution: Make your bindable values objects instead of primitives.
In your example, replace
scope.innerValues = [1,2,3];
with
scope.innerValues = [{value: 1}, {value:2}, {value:3}];
Here's your example modified to work: http://plnkr.co/edit/IXKk75721MHNsI0zeBEG?p=preview
I'm still learning the proper usage of Knockout and I've found myself quickly getting away from ever typing ko.observable when setting up my viewmodel and instead just defining an object literal and passing it through the mapping plugin with something like
var viewModel = ko.mapping.fromJS(data);
or at the very least, something along the lines of stuffing all of my data into an attribute on the viewModel like so
var viewModel = {
... events etc ... ,
"data": ko.mapping.fromJS(data)
}
To be honest, the main reason I've been doing this is to get around having to type ko.observable and ko.observableArray repetitively. I'm just trying to figure out if this is a good approach and if there are any downsides to dropping the specific var x = ko.observable() declaration all together. Also, I'm doing this all on load, not in response to any ajax call etc, which from what I can tell, is what the mapping plugin was designed for.
In your work with knockout, do you still declare the observables manually, one by one, or have you gone with the mapping.fromJS method that I use? Are there any specific downsides to using the mapping plugin so frequently like this?
Edit:
Specific Example
In this article, Steve sets up his viewModel by doing
var initialData = [ { ... } , { ... } ]; // json from the serializer
var viewModel = {
gifts : ko.observableArray(initialData)
};
Normally, I'd just use ko.mapping.fromJS for this situation as well, specifically to make sure the objects within the array are turned into observables as well. Looking at what he did, my approach seems like its overkill and adds a bit of unnecessary overhead.
After using Knockout for a little longer, I've noticed that the mapping plugin has some additional options that give you much more fine grained control over the mapping process.
Control type and amount of properties generated
There are several ways to accomplish this, and I'll go over some, but the end result is that you end up with a lighter result from the mapping plugin because everything isn't observable.
Basically you leave everything that you don't think will change, as a normal property and only make observables out of the specific items that you want to observe.
Make mapping omit certain properties
You can make the mapping plugin omit properties entirely from the end result by specifying things like ignore or include. Both of these accomplish the same thing, just in opposite ways.
Note: Samples are from the knockout.js mapping plugin documentation, comments added by me
Mapping Plugin Argument: include
The following snippet will omit all properties from the source object other than those passed in via the include argument.
// specify the specific properties to include as observables in the end result
var mapping = {
// only include these two properties
'include': ["propertyToInclude", "alsoIncludeThis"]
}
// viewModel will now only contain the two properties listed above,
// and they will be observable
var viewModel = ko.mapping.fromJS(data, mapping);
Mapping Plugin Argument: ignore
If you want to only omit certain properties from the source object, use the ignore argument as shown below. It will make observables from all properties in the source object except for the specified properties.
// specify the specific properties to omit from the result,
// all others will be made observable
var mapping = {
// only ignore these two properties
'ignore': ["propertyToIgnore", "alsoIgnoreThis"]
}
// viewModel will now omit the two properties listed above,
// everything else will be included and they will be an observable
var viewModel = ko.mapping.fromJS(data, mapping);
Control what properties are or are not made observable
If you need to include properties but you don't think that they will need to be made observable (for whatever reason), the mapping plugin has something that can help.
Mapping Plugin Argument: copy
If you want the mapping plugin to simply copy the plain properties and not make them observable, use this argument, as shown below.
// tell the mapping plugin to handle all other properties normally,
// but to simply copy this property instead of making it observable
var mapping = {
'copy': ["propertyToCopy"]
}
var viewModel = ko.mapping.fromJS(data, mapping);
Gain complete control over the mapping process
If you want to have 100% control over what is created in the mapping process, including the ability to put closures and subscriptions in your objects, then you want to use the "create" option.
plain result with calculated properties
Here is an example where I was mapping data from an ajax call to an object with a results property. I didn't want anything observable and I just wanted a simple generated property that would be made of the other simple properties on the object. Maybe not the most compelling example but it demonstrates the functionality.
var searchMappingConfig = {
// specific configuration for mapping the results property
"results": {
// specific function to use to create the items in the results array
"create": function (options) {
// return a new function so we can have the proper scope/value for "this", below
return new function () {
// instead of mapping like we normally would: ko.mapping.fromJS(options.data, {}, this);
// map via extend, this will just copy the properties from the returned json element to "this"
// we'll do this for a more light weight vm since every last property will just be a plain old property instead of observable
$.extend(this, options.data);
// all this to add a vehicle title to each item
this.vehicleTitle = this.Year + "<br />" + this.Make + " " + this.Model;
}, this);
};
}
}
}
subscriptions and closures and mapping, oh my
Another situation is if you want closures and subscriptions in your result. This example is too long to be included in its entirety but its for a vehicle make/model hierarchy. I wanted all the models (children) for a given make (parent) to be un-enabled if the model was un-enabled and I wanted this to be done with a subscription.
// here we are specifying the way that items in the make array are created,
// since makes has a child array (Models), we will specify the way that
// items are created for that as well
var makesModelsMappingConfig = {
// function that has the configuration for creating makes
"create": function (options) {
// return a new function so we can have the proper
// scope/value for "this", below
return new function () {
// Note: we have a parent / child relationship here, makes have models. In the
// UI we are selecting makes and then using that to allow the user to select
// models. Because of this, there is going to be some special logic in here
// so that all the child models under a given make, will automatically
// unselect if the user unselects the parent make.
// make the selected property a private variable so it can be closure'd over
var makeIsSelected = ko.protectedComputed(false);
// expose our property so we can bind in the UI
this.isSelected = makeIsSelected;
// ... misc other properties and events ...
// now that we've described/configured how to create the makes,
// describe/configure how to create the models under the makes
ko.mapping.fromJS(options.data, {
// specific configuration for the "Models" property
"Models": {
// function that has the configuration for creating items
// under the Models property
"create": function (model) {
// we'll create the isSelected as a local variable so
// that we can flip it in the subscription below,
// otherwise we wouldnt have access to flip it
var isSelected = ko.protectedComputed(false);
// subscribe to the parents "IsSelected" property so
// the models can select/unselect themselves
parentIsSelected.current.subscribe(function (value) {
// set the protected computed to the same
// value as its parent, note that this
// is just protected, not the actual value
isSelected(value);
});
// this object literal is what makes up each item
// in the Models observable array
return {
// here we're returning our local variable so
// we can easily modify it in our subscription
"isSelected": isSelected,
// ... misc properties to expose
// under the item in the Model array ...
};
}
}
}, this);
};
}
};
All in all, what I've found is that you rarely need 100% of an object that you'd pass to the plugin and you rarely need 100% of it to be observable. Dig in with the mapping configuration options and create all sorts of complex and simple objects. The idea is to only get everything you need, nothing more or less.
My suggestion to you would the same another questioned I just answered at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7499133/mapping-deeply-hierarchical-objects-to-custom-classes-using-knockout-mapping-plug.
Your reasoning for using mapping plug-in is reasonable and the one that I use. Why type more code than you have to?
In my experience with knockout (all of 4 months), I've found that the less I do manually and let the knockout routines do their thing, the better my apps seem to run. My suggestion is try the simplest approach first. If it doesn't meet your needs, look at how the simple approach is doing it's "thing" and determine what has to change to meet your needs.
Allen, my recent learning experience with Knockout.js has been similar to yours. We work with a deep hierarchical object graph from the server and I have defined explicit instantiable view model functions which preserve the basic structure of it.
I began by defining each property explicitly as an observable on the relevant view model, but that quickly got out of hand. Also, a major reason for switching to using the mapping plugin was that we have to do frequent Ajax posts of the graph back to the server where it is merged with the persisted version, then validated on the server in such a way that numerous properties can change and collections be modified, and a new instance returned as the Ajax result where it has to be re-merged with the client representation. That became seriously difficult, and the mapping plugin helped big time by allowing the specification of identifiers for resolving adds / deletes / updates and to remap an updated graph onto the original.
It also helped in the original graph creation through the use of the "create" option for sub view models. In each view model constructor I receive a reference to the parent view model plus the data with which to construct the child view model, then create further mapping options to create grandchildren from the passed-in child data.
The only (slight) downside I recently found, as detailed in this question, is that when doing ko.mapping.toJSON it doesn't hook into any toJSON overrides you may have defined on the prototypes of your view models in order to exclude properties from serialization. I have been able to get around that by specifying ignore options in the unmapping, as recommended by Ryan Niemeyer in that post.
So in summary, I'll definitely be sticking with the mapping plugin. Knockout.js rules.
A simpler but help-full add-on could be knockout-data-projections
Currently, it does not handle js to viewmodel mappings, but it handles quite well view model to JS mappings.
Can you associate a component or element in EXT-JS with a arbitrary object?
e.g. store(component, 'key', obj) or get(component,'key');
I am not quite sure about the solution to this question, but you should check #extjs # irc.freenode.net if nothing comes up here. They are very helpful people.
Hope this helps somehow.
I just ran across this old unanswered question while retagging, so for posterity...
All referenced elements and created components are automatically cached in global hashes by the Ext framework. For elements, you would retrieve them like so:
var myEl = Ext.get('myId');
Components are managed by the ComponentManager singleton and retrieved like so:
var myComp = Ext.getCmp('myId');
If you simply want to store an arbitrary reference to an element, component or anything else for that matter, you can do so in any way that you would normally do it generically in JS (store off the var reference directly in application-level scope, store it in an array or hash object, etc.)