One of the most convenient things about AngularJS was the two-way binding. Would it be advisable to replicate that with a much smaller library like PubSubJS and not use AngularJS? Or, would that create many more events that PubSubJS is intended to handle?
For example, imagine a form app where you type a first name into an input and that publishes the firstName event. There is a subscriber for the name that add that to the page title and an <h2/> at the top of the page. Then you select an option in the "Level of Education" select and it publishes "Masters Degree". Then a subscriber displays other inputs based on the value.
So that is a fairly simple example of course but could PubSubJS be used like that to build a more complex single-page app with might have been $scope.firstName in AngularJS now just being the firstName event with the value as a param? The benefits being that is a much small library and you have a much more fault-tolerant decoupling of the code but that would also mean that a lot of events are being fired. Another benefit of it would be that you could go back and later write something like a page interaction analytics module that tracks events without ever having to touch the original code.
I don't know about PubSub (I'm not familiar) but the pattern used by angularjs is basically the same thing as MVVM (Model-View View-Model) or any other two-way binding mechanisms. So I think yes it could be duplicated.
EDIT: Sorry, you were asking if was advisable. I'd say no, other emerging functional approaches are better suited.
Related
I would like to know how you are Design your Qooxdoo Code.
I don't get the right Architecture which I am satisfied with.
It is hard to encapsulate the View with logic like services.
I hope someone can give me a hint to a Pattern or something to find a good solution.
One of Qooxdoo's greatest features is a strong OO class system, so really the pattern that you use is up to you - MVC, MVVC, etc are all possible because Qooxdoo's OO system provides you the tools to implement your preferred pattern(s).
One pattern that I find very useful, especially in creating larger apps, is to define custom widgets for editing models; for example, if you have models (aka "Business Objects" etc) for Customer, Invoice, InvoiceLine, and Address having a widget for CustomerEditor, InvoiceEditor, InvoiceLineEditor, etc is really useful firstly because it encapsulates the code, but also because it supports binding.
Binding is a very powerful feature of Qooxdoo - to see why, let's assume for a moment that each one of your Editor widgets has a property called value which is the thing being edited.
In simple binding, your editor can bind properties of the model to the widgets which display and edit those properties, eg CustomerEditor bind value.firstName and value.lastName to a couple of qx.ui.form.TextField and automatically changes to the customer's firstName or lastName will be updated in the two TextField's. Binding can work the other way around too, so that changes to the TextField are copied back into the model.
There is a controller class called qx.data.controller.Form that can simplify making this happen, and optionally incorporate validation of user values and user feedback too.
If you have separate Editor widgets, you can also bind to them - for example, Customer could bind value.address to an instance of AddressEditor, and InvoiceEditor could bind the currently selected InvoiceLine to InvoiceLineEditor etc
two-way binding feature in angular is so popular, and according to angular community it is good when compared with one-way binding.
And there are lots of simple examples to explain how it works.
But my question is where does we use that feature in real applications.
- One example is using with input boxes, other than that is there any good uses of it?
Two way binding as a default wasn't wise because it creates perf issues (~2000 watchers and your app can go bad fast). It led to the introduction of {{::}} binding syntax (bind once syntax) in Angular 1. Overall I can't see where I agree that default two way binding is said to be a good thing by any knowledgeable Angular dev.
I can tell you for a fact, having written an application that displayed many lists of different kinds of objects simultaneously, that default two way binding was a mistake. It created far too many persistent watchers. The community overall seems to strongly agree.
So what you suggest here is correct; there are uses for two way binding. But those needs should be seen as few and far between. And even then, you could probably get around the need for it at all with a little thinking.
For me, two way binding is primarily useful for input fields. But the mechanism is most definitely downplayed now, it should be used sparingly.
Well, when you bind a label with a $scope variable, though the binding is two-way (by definition) it is only relevant in the direction JS -> HTML.
A two-way binding is only fully exploited in cases where the value can also be changed by the user, meaning any type of INPUT component (textbox, dropdown, checkbox, etc.).
One trivial (though one-directional) example is when you have a page that can be displayed in many languages. You would deploy $scope variable all over, and assign to them strings in the current language.
When the user switches language, the simple assignment of the new strings to the corresponding variable will yield the screen to be automatically update to the new language.
Long story short, let's say one app has multiple pages with:
a form
a list
pagination
each page may require (now or in the future) custom actions to be implemented
My question is, witch is the preferred Backbone way of handling this and why (please argument) ?
Define, a pagination view, a pagination collection, a search model, search view, etc, and initialize each one as a child view in all the necessary pages. This means we will have to append child view elements into the 'master' element, and handle all the communication between these in all necessary pages.
Define a pagination view (with it's own pagination collection and search model) and extending it across all the necessary pages. This does mean that we will have to make use of template partials (for forms, pagination, etc) and bypasses the need of handling communication between child views while also removes the need of appending/removing child view elements.
Please add your way of handling these cases if not found above, remember to argument.
My personal opinion would be 2. And that is because it removes a lot of hustle with communication between child views and it makes everything much more easier to read just by extending classes, instead of having to 'manually' init child views. It also gives one the option to rewrite behavior per page when needed.
I think #2 is a poor choice.
It's a very good idea to keep templates as simple as possible. They are basically just the markup that's generated for some input object. In order to get that object to the template, in MV* frameworks you have Views, that can either pass a model to the template or send some formatted data to the template (I prefer this where possible).
Partials just create markup. You'll still have to handle events, updates to the DOM and rendering inside the view. If you only use one view it will have to handle a lot of things, something associated with poor maintainability and a more bug prone codebase.
You'll either have a lot of code in the views, or you'll end up with a lot of mixins or doing a lot of inheritance - and I have no idea which is worse.
Big things are a lot harder to test and to reason about. Avoid doing big things.
I think that another big problem with the template partials approach is the fact that you cannot rely on type information (something like interfaces), on the object that ends up in the template. It's probably easy to make it work when you have a partial or two that you just created, but, in time this information will get lost, leading to a bad development experience.
You'll need to make sure views unrelated to your changes are kept updated with the partial changes you just made for a feature.
Keep in mind that software is never done. Things always change.
Instead of thinking about relationships between models you'll have another complex challenge that you need to handle: the coupling of views through partials.
The alternative is a lot better. Composing specialized views is a good approach because each has it's own internal, smaller state and just it notifies listeners when some action takes place. Nobody cares about what's going on there until something happens and then you just get concrete data.
Going with #1 helps you deal with complexity in your application while allowing you to reuse them in other contexts.
Pretty cryptic question I admit.
I'm looking for references / best practice in updating views based on a GUI event.
Basically I'm seeing 2 different ways to do this:
every view-change is a reaction to a model-change
Gui event
viewhandler (custom or 2-way binding lib) that
updates Model based on view
the View has a listenTo defined on the MOdel that was updated, which gets invoked
do whatever DOM-changes we want
Do DOM-changes directly in the viewhandler
Gui event
viewhandler (custom or 2-way binding lib) that
updates Model based on view
do whatever DOM-changes we want
the View has a listenTo defined on the MOdel that was updated, which gets invoked
The fist approach seems the most clean to me: it can use validation rules on the model, before changing the DOM and the flow just feels better. However, I can't find any good references to back this up. What is generally considered best practice here?
I wouldn't know what is Overall Internet Agreement on that topic, but working on a fairly large Backbone application with complex views, the first approach is what has proven the most maintainable.
One way to see it is that as you know, Backbone's Views and Backbone's Routers are kinda sharing the workload of what would be an actual Controller in a standard MVC (say, Rails). What that means is that in a view, you'll typically have the logic to translate GUI events (click on X) to Model Change (do Y) and the logic to translate Model Changes (new state after Y) into DOM changes. That doesn't mean the logic needs to be in the same place, those are two separate things. Your model may be shared among multiple views and you need your View to react regardless of where the change is originating. You could also be waiting for the server to answer whatever, and so, the DOM update would be in a callback anyway.
A pattern I have been using a lot lately is to have a _renderUpdating() to update the DOM to let the user know that his action has been taking into account (add a spinner near to whatever triggered the change), but I let events do the actual re-rendering once the server has returned the new model.
There is nothing that prevents you from going with the 2nd approach in simple cases, but as your application grow, you'll be very happy to have more than just a single render() that erases everything (including subviews) and you'll be looking at having a clean break between view -> model (which is the role of a controller) and model -> view to allow for more flexibility.
I have an old VB6 application. I want to recreate it in VB.Net using WPF. But I am a bit confused about the "Model View Controller"-pattern. I have two books about design patterns (GoF and J.Bishop) afair this pattern is indeed not mentioned inside one of the two books. I have also searched the internet I found some java-examples. But I have still no clue how I should use MVC-Pattern (should I?) in my new WPF-application.
Let's say for example my model (in fact it is more complex) is only a wheel rim (circle) with the properties Manufacturer, Diameter and Depth. The user should be able to modify the properties using textboxes and ComboBoxes.
Could somebody create a small example that explaines the MVC-Pattern with WPF?
Of course I like reusable classes to have a feasible concept throughout the whole application.
thanks in advance
Oops
Here's a "brief" description of what the MVC pattern is and how I would apply it to a WPF application.
(I might have a few details slightly off since I've mainy hacked in Silverlight but the concept is similar enough.)
Basically, the idea is to separate concerns and define interfaces between the different parts of an application, with the goal of keeping the code structured and maintainable.
The Model in your example would be pretty much exactly as you described the wheel rim - a WheelRim class with the various properties defined in suitable data types. I would put the model i an separate assembly to keep it apart from the other code, but you can settle for just keeping the model classes in a "Models" folder. The model would also have a "twin" in a database, the model classes being pretty much one-to-one-mapped to tables.
(You might wanna have a look at Linq2SQL or Entity Framework, if the database is defined you can pretty much get the model for free along with suitable database access code.)
The View would be the actual WPF xaml files - Defining the Grid or Canvas or what have you. On the WheelRimView there would be labels and textboxes for displaying or accessing the different properties, perhaps along with product images and the like. The code behind for the view would have all the relevant event handlers (start, button_click and so on) for getting the data from the fields and passing them to the controllers.
The Controller would be any "handler code" that you would use to manipulate the data. We're talking the basic CRUD operations here, along with validation and the like. Also, the controller layer would be responsible for compiling the data in a format that can go seamlessly into the View. The WheelRimController hence would have methods like "GetWheelRimList", "GetWheelRim", "AddWheelRim", "ModifyWheelRim" and "DeleteWheelRim". The methods take the values as in parameters and manipulate the model objects accordingliy. the
I would recommend keeping the code-behind of the xaml files free from any "controller"-ish code like validation, aggregation and the like - the code behind should basically only take the values from the textboxes, listboxes and such and send them on "as is" to the controller methods for processing. Also, you should keep any data formatting code to a minimum when getting data for presentation (i.e., no filtering or translating in the view).
A typical use case of "User opens a wheel rim and edits the diameter" would play out thus in code:
User clicks "Edit" on a list page. The WheelRimView page loads.
The WheelRimView.Load() method (or corresponding) calls WheelRimController.GetWheelRim(wheelRimId).
WheelRimController.GetWheelRim(wheelRimId) gets the corresonding data from a database table and populates the properties of a WheelRim object, which is returned to the WheelRimView.
The WheelRimView inserts the property values into the labels and textboxes.
The user changes the diameter value and clicks the "Save button.
The WheelRimView.Save() method calls the WheelRimController.ModifyWheelRimDiameter(wheelRimId, diameter) method.
The WheelRimController.ModifyWheelRimDiameter(wheelRimId, diameter) method parses the diameter (if it is a string) and loads the model object. It applies the modified value to the model object and saves it into the database.
The WheelRimController.ModifyWheelRimDiameter(wheelRimId, diameter) returns a status code to the WheelRimView (for instance a predefined numeric stating any validation errors) to report the success of the save.
The WheelRimView displays a result message (hopfully "saved") to the user.
I hope that clears a few bits up.
Bevcause of the rich binding support available, WPF (and Silverlight) are well suited to MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel). MVVM is an extension of MVC that uses a view model to bind the current state of a view, instead of manipulating the view directly.
There are a bunch of MVVM frameworks available, as well as Microsoft's own Prism framework (which is arguably more useful if you have a larger, modular application).
WPF is probably more well suited to MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel). I'd recommend reading this MSDN article on MVVM and, perhaps, following their advice. There's also a nice collection of links I found on the Bryant Likes blog.