Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Flux
Similar to Flux (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Flux
- 2. Prologue
- 3. “Sometimes you gotta go back to actually move forward.” -Matthew McConaughey
- 4. A long time ago in a PARC far, far away….
- 6. History
- 11. Fast Forward
- 12. Rails
- 13. Cocoa
- 14. Client-side MV* JavaScript Frameworks
- 15. The Good Parts
- 16. Familiarity
- 17. They Makes (Some) Things Simple
- 19. The Not So Good Parts
- 23. Much Fowler So Insight wow Very Martin how enterprise
- 25. Complex Models
- 30. Compatibility
- 31. Templating
- 33. What the Flux? Unidirectional Data Flow Conceptual Integrity “a system must have a powerful metaphor that is uniformly applied throughout a system“ – Alan Kay Move Fast With Stable Infrastructure Reliability
- 34. The Pieces
- 35. Views React Components Maintain UI State Respond to changes in Stores Render data, respond to interaction Controller-Views
- 36. Stores Maintain Application State Each Store manages a particular domain within the app Similar to Models, but manage many objects Emit change events
- 37. Actions Can be anything that changes the state of your data User generated events Server events Real time updates Error Handling
- 38. Dispatcher Key to unidirectional data flow Central Hub/Callback Registry Manages dependencies between Stores waitFor(ids) Keeps State in Stores, closer to the logic that updates that State
- 39. The Pattern
- 40. Dispatcher Profile Controller- View Profile Store Notification Store Chat Store Prefs Pic Notification Controller- View Chat Controller- View Server New Message Action Pic Changed Action
- 42. Code
- 44. Resources Bill Fisher Flux GitHub Chat Tutorial Flux Overview (with Video)
- 45. Presentation Resources Model View Controller: History, Theory and Usage MVC: Xerox PARC 1978-79 Model View Controller History
- 46. Questions?
- 47. How do we convince people that in programming simplicity and clarity —in short: what mathematicians call "elegance"— are not a dispensable luxury, but a crucial matter that decides between success and failure? Edsger Dijkstra
Editor's Notes
- The point of this talk is ultimately to explain the Flux architectural pattern But, in my research, I dig quite a bit of digging and felt it necessary to provide some history, or software archaeology if you will, on MVC. It should provide a solid base before diving into the Flux pattern. I’m a SE at f[23] Graduate of FSU and UNF with degrees in Music and Computing I love fishing, guitar, and potent potables.
- MVC was initially created by TREEG-VUH RHEINS-COW Trygve Reenskaug in 1970s, at Xerox PARC, while he was working with Alan Kay on the Dynabook The Dynabook (or KiddiComp) was first envision by Kay in 1968 as an educational computer for kids. Tablet/slate Originally Model-View-Controller-Editor Editor was a temporary component that the View created to interface with keyboard and input devices Originally Smalltalk-76, but first real appearance was Smalltalk-80 The first significant paper published on MVC was "A Cookbook for Using the Model-View-Controller User Interface Paradigm in Smalltalk -80", by Glenn Krasner and Stephen Pope, published in the August/September 1988 issue of the JournalOfObjectOrientedProgramming (JOOP).
- MVC was initially created by Trygve Reenskaug TREEG-VUH RHEINS-COW in 1970s, obviously at Xerox PARC, while he was working with Alan Kay on the Dynabook The Dynabook (or KiddiComp) was first envisioned by Kay in 1968 as an educational computer for kids. Tablet/slate Originally Model-View-Controller-Editor Editor was a temporary component that the View created to interface with keyboard and input devices A few previous versions, but first real appearance was Smalltalk-80 The first significant paper published on MVC was "A Cookbook for Using the Model-View-Controller User Interface Paradigm in Smalltalk -80", by Glenn Krasner and Stephen Pope, published in the August/September 1988 issue of the JournalOfObjectOrientedProgramming (JOOP).
- Current interpretations and implementations of MVC differ from the original intent Back in the 70’s, GUIs weren’t as common, and a concept known as Separated Presentation began to be used to differentiate between domain objects and Presentation objects Smalltalk-80’s implementation of MVC took it a step further and had an objective of separating out the application logic from the UI The idea was pushing for reuse of the domain models to further reuse in other UIs in the application. In Smalltalk-80’s implementation: A model represented domain specific data and was ignorant of the user-interface. When a model changed, it would inform its observers. A View represented the current state of a Model. The Observer pattern was used for letting the View know whenever the Model was updated or modified. Presentation was taken care of by the View, but there wasn’t just a single View and Controller, a View-Controller pair was required for each section or element being displayed on the screen. The Controller’s role in this pair was handling user interaction (key presses and actions), making decisions for the View.
- So here are two different versions of Smalltalk In both, and in practically all MVC implementations, the model does not depend on the view or the controller Observer pattern was used to update views when models changed For SECOND slide Smalltalk-80 MVC did not make a view/controller separation Notice that the user interactions start in the View or the Controller-View pair
- So, this is an evolution away from the MVCE pattern and the two previous Smalltalk implementations, where the controller is separated as well as accepting and responding to user interactions Messages can be passed from the Controller or the View into the Model to update it’s application state Changes are then signaled back to either the Controller or the View The View can update itself based on some changes in the model, or by way of a Controller message
- It's a lot different from the original Smalltalk MVC pattern since Rails operates in a very different environment than a typical Smalltalk application Again, the model does not depend on the view or the controller There isn't a direct dependency between the view and the model. The controller collects all the needed data from the model and passes it to the view Given that Rails operates in a client-server environment the view does not update automatically when the model changes Most of today's MVC web-frameworks use a pattern very similar to the one Rails uses
- Cocoa's MVC puts a lot importance on the controller and this makes it a lot different than the original Smalltalk MVC. A Cocoa controller acts as a mediator between the view and the model [this is commonly known from the Mediator pattern]: The reason to use the mediator pattern is probably because the data flow is cleaner than the traditional MVC found in Smalltalk
- Familiar Concepts and Patterns: Easy to learn (most of the time) Many developers are familiar with some implementation of MVC on the server. ASP.NET MVC, RoR, Spring Allows for fast prototyping, garnering client feedback, A/B Testing, etc. Uniformity for developers across the team And most of the time, when things break, you’ll know where to look
- Typically obfuscates some of the less attractive and unreliable parts of JavaScript. This is good and bad. Rapid development cycles Testable Better debugging (sometimes) Modularity/Reusability and Maintainability Helpers for security, templating, routing, data-binding etc. Shorter learning curve (sometimes)
- Real time/native feel Asynchrony Flashy Controls and Components
- So, who do we turn to?
- Complex Models: KVO and 2-way DB can trigger cascading updates, which in turn triggers re-rendering, repainting, and reflowing of related DOM elements. Deeper object graphs can quickly turn a few observables or bindings into thousands It’s difficult to debug or trace these types of data-bindings Explicitly and declaratively registering for changes makes things much simpler than binding a property of your model to your view, then trying to wrap some logic around it.
- Data-Binding Solutions: Data binding solutions are constraining. It should be an opt in. Non-trivial abstractions (leaky) They should at least be minimally leaky and provide the developer an escape hatch
- Remember that in practically all implementations we’ve seen, there’s never a direct dependency between the Model and the View
- Framework Constraints: If the Framework doesn’t support it, you’re on your own Whenever you encounter things that the creators of the framework didn’t anticipate, sad face.
- Choosing one framework may cause problems in using third party libraries or other solutions. Sad face.
- Initially, I referenced this in my React talk, but there’s a different side to it from an MVC/FLUX Point of View Templating Engines are crippled by default. You are at the mercy of the templating engine and whatever its API offers you If we look back at traditional MVC, it’s the Views job to handle Presentation Logic. Pushing this logic into a templating engine isn’t separating a concern, it’s separating a technology, but for what? Looser coupling? Higher cohesion is favorable here. If you accept that, you gain the full power of JavaScript to determine your Presentation Logic versus the constrained Set of functionality provided by your templating engine.
- Unidirectional Data Flow All of your data flows in one direction, similar to function-reactive programming There are no two-way data bindings Conceptual Integrity Simplicity and digestible concepts are key to Flux Simplicity allows for better diagnosing of bugs, quicker ramp up time for new developers, and rapid refactoring of large portions of functionality Move Fast Zuckerberg quote Predictability, reliability Again, being predictable not only makes it easier to debug, but it makes the entire application and application lifecycle easier to think about, allowing the developer to focus on the domain and issues at hand. Reliability Lack of leaky abstractions, data binding solutions, and implicit code leads to more reliable code. Declarative, explicit, pure functions lead to more readable , comprehendible, and reliable code.
- Maintain UI state Controller-Views sit at the top of a hierarchy and listen for changes that child components may be interested in. Typically, they’ll pass the entire state of the specific domain along to its children, keeping them all in sync.
- Maintain app state allows different parts of the app to remain highly decoupled. When dependencies do occur, they’re managed hierarchically and synchronously through the dispatcher Stores manage app state for a specific domain within the application Typically manage many objects
- Actions are really discrete, semantic, helper functions that ease passing data to the dispatcher
- Callback/Registry Stores register themselves and provide a callback for the Dispatcher to send payloads to This is the single entry point into each store for all mutations to take place All of your getters can be publicly exposed in your stores so that your React Components can interrogate current state. Dependencies waitFor accepts Store tokens so that you can explicitly tell the dispatcher which stores you want to update first You can create cycles