We Keep Coding

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. :)

MVVM with Knockout.js

I'm trying to implement a MVVM based Single Page Application and currently am using the framework Knockout.js to handle the viewmodel/view portion of MVVM. I'm confused though, as every example I've looked at for implementing Knockout involves saving an entire viewmodel to the database. Aren't these examples missing a "model" step, where the viewmodel syncs with the data-layer model and the model does validation / Server synchronization.
I would like to have multiple different templates/views on the single page each with a different viewmodel. Another thing that I find is missing with knockout.js is synchronizing a single model (not viewmodel) across different views. I don't think it makes sense to have one giant viewmodel that every view shares, so I was thinking that each view would have its own viewmodel but each viewmodel would sync with the fields of just a few application-wide models that are needed for each view.
The page I'm working on fetches a giant model (30+ fields, multiple layers of parent/child relationships) and I think it makes sense to just have all of my viewmodels sync with this model. I have investigated Knockback.js (which combines knockout.js and backbone.js) however I ended up re-writing the majority of the functions such as fetch, set, save, because the page is getting data from an API (and I can't just sync an entire model back and forth with the server) so I decided against it.
visual example of my application:
(model layer)
M | M
(viewmodel/view layer) VM-V | VM-V | VM-V | VM-V
another example
An example model would be User = {firstName: "first", lastName: "last", ... }
one viewmodel only needs first name, another viewmodel only needs last name
ViewModelA={firstName: app.User.firstName()}ViewModelB={firstName: app.User.lastName()}
Is the only way to do this to define a pub/sub system for Model and Viewmodel changes? Is this even good/maintainable architecture? Am I missing a basic concept here? All advice welcome.

If I read this correctly, there's a lot of questions in here all focused on how to build a MVVM / SPA with Knockout. There are a few things to tackle, as you pointed out. One is how to communicate between viewmodel/view pairs.
Master ViewModel
One way to do that is to have a master viewmodel as the answer from #Tyrsius. Your shell could have a viewmodel that binds more available data. The master viewmodel could orchestrate the child view models, too. If you go this route then you have to be careful to bind the outer shell to the master viewmodel and the inner ones to specific HTML elements in the DOM. The master viewmodel could facilitate the communication between them if need be.
Decoupled View/ViewModel Pairs
Another option is to use viewmodel/view pairs and no master viewmodel. Each view is loaded into a region of the DOM and bound on its own. They act as separate units and are decoupled from one another. You could use pub/sub to then talk between the, but if all you need is a way for the data to be synched through observables, Knockout provides many options. The one I like is to have each viewmodel surface model objects. So a view has a viewmodel which surfaces data (from a model) that is specific for the view. So many viewmodels may surface the same model in different ways. So when a view updates a viewmodel property (that is in a model) it then ripples to any other loaded viewmodel that also uses the same model.
DataContext
Going a bit further, you could create a datacontext module that manages the data in the models. You ask the datacontext for a model (ex: list of customers) and the datacontext checks if it has them cahced already and if not, it goes and gets them from an ajax call. Either way that is abstracted from the view model and models. The datacontext gets the data and returns a model(s) to the viewmodel. This way you are very decoupled, yet you can share the data (your models) via the datacontext.
I could go on and on ... but please tell me if this is answering your question. If not, happy to answer any other specifics.
** Disclaimer: I'm building a Pluralsight course on SPA's (using Knockout and this strategy) :-)

This is a popular field of interest right now, so I expect you will get some better answers, but here goes.
The Model
Yes, you should absolutely have a server-side representation of the data, which is your model. What this is depends on your server, and your database. For MVC3, this is your entity model. For Django or Ruby, your will have defined db models as part of your db setup. This part is up to your specific technology. But agian, yes you should have a model, and the server should absolutely perform data-validation.
The Application (ViewModel)
It is recommended that your views each have their own viewmodel. Your page could then also have a viewmodel, an App Viewmodel if you will, that keeps track of all of them. If you go this route, the app viewmodel should be responsible for switching between the views, and implementing any other application level logic (like hash bashed navigation, another popular single page tool). This hierarchy is very important, but not always simple. It will come down to the specific requirements of your application. You are not limited to one, flat viewmodel. This is not the only possible method.
Ad Hoc Example:
​var ThingViewModel = function(name, data){
this.name = ko.observable(name);
//Additional viewmodel stuffs
};
var AppViewModel = function(initialData){
//Process initial data
this.thing = new ThingViewModel(someName, someData);
};
I am working on a similar project right now, purely for study (not a real world app), that is hosted here on GitHub, if you would like to take a look at some real exmaples. Note, the dev branch is quite a bit ahead of the master branch at the moment. I'm sure it contains some bad patterns (feel free to point them out, I am learning too), but you might be able to learn a few things from it anyway.

I have a similarly complex solution in which I am reworking a WPF application into a web version. The WPF version dealt with complex domain objects which it bound to views by way of presenter models.
In the web version I have implemented simplified and somewhat flattened server-side view models which are translated back and forth from / to domain objects using Automapper. Then those server-side view models are sent back and forth to the client as JSON and mapped into / onto corresponding Knockout view models (instantiable functions which each take responsibility for creating their children with sub-mapping options) using the mapping plugin.
When I need to save / validate my UI, I map all or part of my Knockout view model back to a plain Javascript object, post it as JSON, the MVC framework binds it back to server-side view models, these get Automapped back to domain objects, validated and possibly updated by our domain layer, and then a revised full or partial graph is returned and remapped.
At present I have only one main page where the Knockout action takes place but I anticipate that like you, I will end up with multiple contexts which need to deal with the same model (my domain objects) pulled as differing view models depending on what I'm doing with them.
I have structured the server side view model directories etc in anticipation of this, as well as the structure of my Knockout view models. So far this approach is working nicely. Hope this helps.

During a project i developed a framework (which uses KnockoutJS) which provides decoupled View/ViewModel pairs and allows to instantiate subviews in a view. The whole handling of the view and subview instantiation is provided by the framework. It works like MVVM with XAML in WPF.
Have a look at http://visto.codeplex.com

In what ways does Backbone.js not support composed views?

I'm referring to this article here
http://codebrief.com/2012/01/the-top-10-javascript-mvc-frameworks-reviewed/
In my current application I have two views. The first is the overall view which renders a table. The second view renders an individual row and is used by the main view. My row view could be separated into a separate file and used in any other component. In what way is this not composable? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the terminology used in the article.

The author of that article is specifically referring to composable view templates, like Handlebars, in combination with the backbone view object.
He is essentially wanting to take a view-first approach to composition, where a template would define which views are composed in to the final view. This composition would also determine which objects are used to run the view.
For example, in EmberJS, you can configure a view template to be associated with a specific controller. Doing this, you can compose views in the template itself and the correct controller will be used. This is not possible with Backbone, even when using Handlebars - at least, not without some heavy customization. Backbone takes a "presenter-first" approach (to use the old Model-View-Presenter language) or a View-object first approach, where the view object itself controls which template is rendered.

Where should I use templating, and where should I generate view objects programmatically?

I am using Backbone.js for an applciation involving a lot of different views, some nesting other views, and these other views could further nest other views.
Also view presentation depends on certain attributes in the model, for instance, some content is only shown if the user has been authenticated, or another type of an if-check
Coming from the world of Adobe Flex, I am used to declaring my views almost completely using markup, even deeply nested, or composite ones. Flex makes component declaration in markup a piece of cake.
I was kinda hoping that I could achieve the same kind of separation between the pure view presentation and the view logic in Backbone, but so far I've been struggling with that.
The reason for this is that in no way can I manage to declare a composite view using templates only. Thus, I have to resort to using BB's render() method to instantiate subviews and append them to the parent. This is OK ... but if the views get really granular, declaring them using JS is an overkill, because I literally end up appending pure HTML strings, which is a complete mess. This means that it is much better to use templating for those ones, and then just render the template instead of doing all the stuff using JS.
Using both approaches simply breaks any consistency in the application, but I push myself to be OK with it, because I've read a lot of (even professionally written) Backbone code, and I 've seen other people struggling with the same thing.
If I cannot avoid this separation of rendering approaches, then at least I will have to put any certain boundaries of which views should be rendered with a template, and which not, or just partially. The question is what will those criteria be.

My methodology is to have all markup contained in templates.
My conception of Backbone Views is that they are actually Controllers. If you consider a Controller in a more traditional web app framework, their job is to receive events, marshal models, fetch and render templates, passing in models, and to return the resulting output.
In Backbone, the Views are the elements responsible for this task. But, instead of http being in input/output medium, the DOM is the input/output medium.
So, I consider Views to be controllers for a specific area of UI on the screen. They listen for events, marshal models, fetch and render templates, and modify the DOM as a result.
The decision of when to go to the trouble of generating a sub-view vs. perhaps rendering a template in a loop, is fairly loose for me.
If it has the possibility of being used in multiple views, I'll make a View out of it.
If it has any events or user interactions which affect itself, but not really anything in the "parent" object I'll make a view out of it.
If it has any real logic, I'll make a view out of it.
If its a related model, or collection, I'll make a view out of it.
But, in any of these cases, the view does not directly generate HTML - I'll always store the markup in a template.

Apply Backbone.js for multi-module Javascript Website

I am writing a module based javascript website, backed by a Mysql DB.
Each module talks with the DB through PHP.
On the UI, for simplicity, the module on the left will display all relevant rows, with edit(write) functionality. The module on the right display the data from the same DB, with write access too.
So each would affect the other in each update.
I'm told backbone would be a good framework. Then, I have read the todos example, and understand how there are item->itemList, view->viewList, etc...
But now, the question is, how do I apply it to this situation?
Which is an item, a view in this situation?

The module on the left and the module on the right are Views, each of which can be made up of other views.
Within the model don't store a reference to the view (as I've seen done in some of the examples):
this.view = view; //view being passed in as an arg
The reverse (a view storing a reference to a model) is okay. Your views should be doing most of the work, listening to and responding to model events. Thus, in the view initialize method you might:
model.bind("interesting-event", function(){
//the view updates/reacts to the model.
});
Also, never add a model to two collections (just one ever). When a model is assigned to a collection, Backbone sets a reference on the model that points to the owning collection.
Incidentally, the a-model-cannot-belong-to-two-collections issue is the reason why you don't want a model referencing its view. A model can have many views on one screen.
Backbone is perfect for your needs. Start with a very basic version of your app and keep fleshing it out. All the while keep reading about Backbone online. I read everything I could find (there's not a whole lot, not really). The key concept is simply event based programming (much like you'd use in VB or lots of other platforms). It's a lot of trial and error, but you'll make sense of it with practice.