We Keep Coding

Is firing off events from a RactiveJS components a common pattern?

http://examples.ractivejs.org/comments
There is a line in the above example:
// fire an event, so we can (for example)
// save the comment to our server
this.fire( 'newComment', comment );
I'm curious if this is a common practice in Ractive? Firing the event rather than shooting of an AJAX request in the component? Or instantiating some model object and calling a #save method on that object to fire off the request?
Is this separation of concerns? Testing? Just simplified example code?
var user = new Comment({ text: "text is here", author: "author name" });
user.save()
The only thing I can think of is that by firing the event off and letting something else handle it would possibly make testing simpler? It helps with separation of concerns, but it also seems to me like it would make it more difficult to track down who is actually handling the actual creation of the data?
In your opinions, who would handle the firing of the event? In the example it looks like you just tack it on to the "root" ractive instance and let it handle it up there? That seems like it would get really full in a real world application?
Also, as a side question to his one, how often do you find yourself using "models" with ractive on a real world application? Coming from the server-side world, I'm pretty used to thinking of things in terms of classes and domain models. However, the only "model" library I've seen to be popular on front-end side of things is Backbone. However, Backbone seems to be a little overkill for what I'm thinking about?

I'm curious if this is a common practice in Ractive? Firing the event rather than shooting of an AJAX request in the component? Or instantiating some model object and calling a #save method on that object to fire off the request?
Let's say your app needs an <input> element to call an endpoint via AJAX when someone types in something. It's not the <input> that calls the AJAX. It's the surrounding code that hooks on to some known event fired by the input that does the AJAX when the event is fired. Ractive components are given the facilities needed to operate in that way, but you're not necessarily required to do so.
how often do you find yourself using "models" with ractive on a real world application?
Ractive doesn't impose a convention. That's why the authors prefer to call it a library than a framework. You can use any programming pattern you think is necessary. I have used Ractive in the same way React components operate (one-way binding), and I know people who use Ractive merely as a templating engine. What you're provided is a set of API to be able to do stuff. It's up to you how you use it.
If you want to know if Ractive's the only one doing this, that's a no. Several other frameworks do components in one form or another: Ember, Angular (directives), React (Flux + stateless components), Riot, Polymer (web components).

Backbonejs, Event Aggregation and Instantiating Views [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
tl;dr
To what extent is the Event Aggregator pattern duplicating what Backbone.Router already does? Wouldn't it be better if Views didn't communicate with each other, even with events?
The trouble
I'm having a conceptual problem with the use of an Event Aggregrator in a Backbone application. My very basic implementation is derived from Derick Bailey's post about it.. I'm using it in Requirejs and I just define a module that extends Backbone.Events and require it in the modules where I need it.
A bit of background: The problem I was trying to solve in the first place was how best to handle transitions between views in my app. Especially automated transitions. It was clear from my reading that two obvious methods were discouraged:
Manually firing a navigation callback on the router with something likerouter.navigate("login", { trigger: true })
Manipulating the browser window.location.replace("/#login") and thus triggering the relevant routing callback.
As far as I can tell, the main objection to both these methods is a loss of the proper separation of concerns. As I can certainly see the value in avoiding Views having to know too much about each other, I looked about for a better way and found the Event Aggregator.
The problem I'm facing with the Event Aggregator, though, is made quite obvious from Derick Bailey's example on his blog post. The views that respond to the events are already instantiated. Any view that is not already instantiated will naturally not respond to any events. So if, for example, I want an event to instantiate a new View as a result of some logic, I either:
Instantiate a new instance inside the current View. In this case I lose most of the advantage of the approach, because now my Views need to know about each other again.
OR
Create some kind of central event-handler that instantiates new Views based on specific events. Which sounds a lot like the original Backbone Router to me. It seems like I could just separate the logic for each Router callback into various Controllers and I'd have the same clarity.
My second problem is perhaps more general. I feel like the Event Aggregator encourages active inter-communication between Views: admittedly in a decoupled way. Ideally though I'd like to keep that to a minimum. Really I want my user to perform fairly self-contained actions within a defined area and then transition to a new area. Am I being naive, in hoping to sustain that?
I feel like I must be missing something obvious, but right now it feels like the Event Aggregator solves the problem of inter-View communication (which I'm not sure I want), but ends up replicating the Router with regard to View management. The problem I have with that is that I'll have two Event systems acting in parallel.
What I'm really looking for is a sensible, reasonably lightweight pattern for handling the instantiation of Views using the Event Aggregator. I know I could look into Marionette, but I'd prefer to understand this on my own terms first, before diving into another Framework.

Oh backbone, confusing as ever. Everyone still has differing opinions on how a good application should work.
So here's my opinion.
For your first problem, have you considered just using an anchor tag in one of your templates?
Login
For your second problem, I'd take a page from other frameworks. Before our company switched away from backbone/marionette we tried to adopt the flux (redux) architecture on top of backbone. It has worked out pretty well for some applications that stayed on backbone.
Adopting that architecture just meant defining some best practices. I think the following rules could work for you:
The event aggregator will be the only thing that can fire route changes directly.
At minimum 2 levels of views (or objects) are needed for any page.
The top most views is called a "smart" or "highly coupled" view (or object). It will allow you to hook into the event aggregator and then pass data or callbacks downward. They can represent layouts or can be mostly devoid of style and just transform event aggregator callbacks to something the generic views can work with.
The 2nd level and below should be designed in a decoupled way. We can call them "generic" views, and they can accept handlers as arguments. This is how they communicates with the outside world.
This means, views have APIs and smart views need to adhere to those APIs.
Quick Example:
function init() {
// this level is highly coupled, and knows about the events
// that will occur
var aggregator = new Backbone.Events();
aggregator.on('gotoLogin', function() {
router.navigate("login", { trigger: true });
})
function gotoLogin() {
aggregator.trigger('gotoLogin');
}
// the Todo class is generic, and defines an API that expects
// a gotoLogin callback
new Todo({
el: '.js-todo',
gotoLogin: gotoLogin,
});
// the Header class is generic, and it also expects
// some way to navigate to the login screen.
new Header({
el: '.js-header',
gotoLogin: gotoLogin,
});
}
If you are building your application as some sort of single page app. This will cause you to nest views, which isn't the end of the world, but it does become tricky with backbone, but is still doable. In fact, you may be able to automate creation of child views (see marionette). I bring this up because it seems vaguely related to the original question around de-coupling. I think the nested view problem in backbone is particularly problematic.
I believe people over-emphasize reusable code and decoupling. Honestly, there needs to be some amount of coupling. Finding an acceptable level is difficult. Defining it when everyone using backbone has differing thoughts on it, is very difficult. My recommendation is that you and your team should figure out a system that works well for you in backbone land and stick to it otherwise chaos will surely ensue.

Using backbone with multiple views and little models

I use backbone in most of my projects, and I think I know exactly what the M V C means: M for abstract of the data, V for representation and C for handlers.
However during my current project I found that there are a lot of views interactive with each other, while there are little modes(data with the server).
For example, I have there complex view named V1 V2 V3, when user do something in the V1, V2 should respond accordingly, so does the V3 and etc, and at the last step, a requst may be made to request data from the server. And most of the request are used to fetch data rather than modify data.
It does not like the common style: one(or more) view for one model such as the CRUD operation.
Now I have two ideas:
1 Virtual model
Create a backbone model to represent the state of the whole application, bind this model to all the views. Sounds like make the application as a state machine.
While it is not easy to describe the application with different states.
2 Use the event mediator
Use the event mediator to register/un-register different events, then the views can trigger or respond by different events.
While how to define the events to avoid insufficien or excessive, in a word to make the events orthogonal is not easy. Or I have not found any instructions yet.
Is there any other alternative solutions?

I think that it is a quite relevant question actually.
Create a backbone model to represent the state of the whole
application, bind this model to all the views. Sounds like make the
application as a state machine.
This doesn't seem like a very good idea, if the model isn't a consistent representation that corresponds to a specific backend resource.
Ideally, a view is a representation of a single model or collection. When a view would be bound to a model with unrelated properties, this doesn't seem too practical to manage in all circumstances, also due to an unforseeable future.
Use the event mediator to register/un-register different events, then
the views can trigger or respond by different events.
I don't think that it is overall a good idea to make views respond to custom events but this is personal for me. When apps become larger, assigning too much responsibility to complex views can become a mess; therefore I take it as a general rule to limit the task of the view to:
Rendering templates;
Activating plugins (if they're specific to the view);
DOM event binding;
(Model binding);
Methods internal to the view (related to the DOM);
Triggering custom events to notify other listeners when further action is required after interaction with the view;
In any case, in my experience I've found that it is practical to use a custom presenter/controller to instantiate / update views on custom events, and not let the view itself worry about these things at all. It keeps them clean and you always know what you will find there.
The views 1, 2 and 3 as you mention can be re-rendered from the presenters.
The presenter does something like:
"I get some data from a service and give it to some of my views that require
them. If something changes, I'll let them know"
I usually have 1 presenter per related set of views.
I like this approach because:
It keeps logic for related views centralised;
When an event is triggered, the presenter needs to listen only once for all the views that it controls;
Presenters are given the authority to talk to each other, which is to my feeling easier to control than when all views would start talking to each other through each other;
In simple cases, all of this doesn't matter too much probably. But when building a larger application, I found that it can become a mess.
My two cents

I have there complex view named V1 V2 V3, when user do something in the V1, V2 should respond accordingly, so does the V3 and etc
It doesn't seem like you have 3 views, but in fact 1 view with 3 interrelated sections. I would use one super view that renders 3 child views, and listen to view events. For example:
Backbone.View.extend({
initialize: function () {
this.v1 = ...;
this.v2 = ...;
this.v3 = ...;
this.v1.on('user do something', this.v2.respondAccordingly);
this.v1.on('user do something', this.v3.soDoesEtc);
}
})
And in view 1:
$('button').on('click', function () {
self.trigger('user do something');
})

This is a problem that many Backbone developers face.
What I've done in the past is to have a baseModel/baseCollection, and treat them as an abstract class/interface from which other models/collections extend, respectfully. These base objects would contain a listener/trigger methods which I could then use across my application to have changes in one model/collection be able to initiate updates on collections/models (thus triggering view changes) respectively as I chose. Using this method allowed me to compose my application by having the appropriate objects listen/broadcast events appropriately as I wished.
One of my friends created a server-side JS state machine which would initiate super-models (app-level model which in turn could trigger sub-view model/collection updates).
Of course, Marionette provides a framework that makes this a little less manual and allows you to get back to writing app-code.
One of the joys and burdens of Backbone.js is that you have all the flexibility you want. :)

javascript - using function calls in html - bad or good?

Using angular brings lot of weird style of code. For example I always thought that this
<button onclick="myFunction()">Click me</button>
style I should not ever use, except when I would be lazy and want quick and dirty code. And I never used such style in projects and also I even thinked that this is bad.
Now when I see angular
here is the example:
<div enter="loadMoreTweets()">Roll over to load more tweets</div>
which is from there
http://www.thinkster.io/pick/IgQdYAAt9V/angularjs-directives-talking-to-controllers
which is good style by the tutorial. I dont get it. So then it means earlier example with onclick is also perfectly good? Then why nobody uses it at least these days when people use lot of jquery for example?

Let me cite from a book Angular, by Brad Green & Shyam Seshardi
Chapter 2 ... A Few Words on Unobtrusive JavaScript
The idea of unobtrusive JavaScript has been interpreted many ways, but the rationale
for this style of coding is something along the following lines:
Not everyone’s browser supports JavaScript. Let everyone see all of your content and use your app without needing to execute code in the
browser.
Some folks use browsers that work differently. Visually impaired folks who use screen-readers and some mobile phone users can’t use
sites with JavaScript.
Javascript works differently across different platforms. IE is usually the culprit here. You need to put in different event-handling
code depending on the browser.
These event handlers reference functions in the global namespace. It will cause you headaches when you try to integrate other libraries
with functions of the same names.
These event handlers combine structure and behavior. This makes your code more difficult to maintain, extend, and understand.
In most ways, life was better when you wrote JavaScript in this style.
One thing that was not better, however, was code complexity and
readability. Instead of declaring your event handler actions with the
element they act on, you usually had to assign IDs to these elements,
get a reference to the element, and set up event handlers with
callbacks...
...
In Angular, we decided to reexamine the problem.
The world has changed since these concepts were born...
... for most inline event handlers Angular has an equivalent in the form of
ng-eventhandler="expression" where eventhandler would be replaced by
click, mousedown, change, and so on. If you want to get notified when
a user clicks on an element, you simply use the ng-click directive
like this:
<div ng-click="doSomething()">...</div>
Is your brain saying “No, no, no! Bad, bad, bad!”? The good news is
that you can relax.
These directives differ from their event handler predecessors in that
they:
Behave the same in every browser. Angular takes care of the differences for you.
Do not operate on the global namespace. The expressions you specify can
To get more details, read the book: http://www.amazon.com/AngularJS-Brad-Green/dp/1449344852
EXTEND
Following the discussion in comments, I would like to add a more explanation.
As stated here: Wikipedia - AngularJS:
Angular is a framework, which goal is to augment browser-based applications with model–view–controller (MVC) capability, in an effort to make both development and testing easier
The Model–view–controller, a short extract from wikipedia:
A controller can send commands to the model to update the model's state (e.g., editing a document). It can also send commands to its associated view to change the view's presentation of the model (e.g., by scrolling through a document).
A model notifies its associated views and controllers when there has been a change in its state. This notification allows views to update their presentation, and the controllers to change the available set of commands. In some cases an MVC implementation might instead be "passive," so that other components must poll the model for updates rather than being notified.
A view is told by the controller all the information it needs for generating an output representation to the user. It can also provide generic mechanisms to inform the controller of user input.
Summary:
The most important part here, is the fact, that View can publish the Controllers actions to the user. And this is exactly what the Function calls in HTML do represent.

This is a misunderstanding:
Using angular brings lot of weird style of code. For example I always thought that this
<button onclick="myFunction()">Click me</button>
style I should not ever use, except when I would be lazy and want quick and dirty code. And I never used such style in projects and also I even thinked that this is bad.
It is perfectly valid to use that style of code if you can decide what event handler to attach to the button when you render the HTML code. With jQuery we see many dynamically attached event handlers because many times the elements themselves are dynamically inserted or whether to attach an event listener or what to attach is dynamically decided.

Marionette Event Aggregator vs Backbone Router

I'm pretty new to this world so I need some clarifications on it. Maybe I could be wrong on the subject. So, feel free to correct me.
I'm studying how Marionette and Backbone work together. Oh yeah. Marionette gives us extension to Backbone. Really nice stuff.
The thing that is not obvious to me is when to use the routing mechanism provided by Backbone and when to use publisher/subscriber pattern by Marionette.
Is there any rule of thumb?
Here, Where to use event aggregator in backbone marionette?, a similar discussion but there is no advice on how using that or the other.

My take on the route management is explained in the free preview to my book on Marionette (http://samples.leanpub.com/marionette-gentle-introduction-sample.pdf)
Basically, my opinion (others don't necessarily share it) is that Backbone's routing should be used to configure the application state when the user "enters" the application via a URL. In other words, it will parse parameters, and call proper controller actions.
But once that initial state is setup, routing code should no longer be triggered, even as the user navigates through the application.
Here's an example:
The user enters arrives on the "contacts/2/edit". Backbone routing code will extract the 2 argument and call the edit controller action with that id parameter (which fetches that contact, displays the proper views, etc.). In other words, the initial application state is being configured.
The user clicks on the "show all contacts" link leading to the "contacts" URL. Here, I believe this modification should be handled through Marionette events (i.e. indicating the user wants to see all contacts). After all, we know what the user wants to do, and which URL fragment should be displayed. In other words, there is no reason for the routing code to get involved.
Note that this is my opinion, and other developers simply pass trigger: true when the user clicks a link. But as I explain in the book extract linked above, this tends to lead developers to create "stateless applications in javascript" (e.g. passing lots of parameters in the URL, even though they should be stored in the application's state). Ater all there is a reason that by default, Backbone's navigate method has trigger: false.
Derick Bailey (Marionette's creator) also discussed the issue here: http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/08/03/stop-using-backbone-as-if-it-were-a-stateless-web-server/

Event aggregator is more useful for notifying things. (think small bits of feedback)
Message from server (updated record)
Let other models know things have changed
Lock everything down while saving until saved
Single Moment in time things
Router is for things where you want the state to be save-able (think separate page in a MPA)
Model Edit Page
Model View Page
Something that will stay until another event or activity changes it
If you are not sure if something is an event or a page, then think about it and ask that separate question.