This is more of question of if it makes sense to use Reactjs in my instance. I have an application that generates html serverside. I can not use any js based templating solutions serverside, it is a java/jsp solution blackbox.
Since the markup is already defined I am weary of using JSX to duplicate all the template logic currently only on the serverside. What is typically the best approach to integrating reactjs in to an application like this.
What will be the real advantage to using reactjs for me in this situation. Most of may app will continue to be rendered serverside go forward.
Obviously React is not designed to be used like this; but you could still do it.
Long story short: If you want to build something more complex in front-end you should do it; if you only want to get advantage of JSX templating instead of jsp, it's just a big overhead.
Advantages:
You will be able to step away from standard jQuery approach of handling javascript in .jsp.
You will get all the benefit of a client-side framework, so you are able to handle more complex scenarios in front-end as you would do with standard javascript.
You could hide some business logic in the java side (servlets) and making it available to React world.
Disadvantages:
Probably it's a pain to prepare the development environment mode (webpack, hot-reload, etc.); e.g. you'll need to recompile the jsp on the fly on every js change.
You can't use client-side routing (so you'll have like one SPA per page).
Probably it's really hard to make server side rendering work (for the React part)
Related
I am learning MEAN Stack. I started from learning Angular(from angular.io) now I am learning node.js and express.js
My question is, if there is angular for front end in MEAN Stack then why there are views and template engines in express.js at back-end? Are they alternative for each other or complements each other? what is the boundary for the role and responsibility of these two?
I am looking forward for someone's help in clarifying of my concept for role these two technologies(express' views and angular) used in mean stack.
In order to answer your question, let me explain what is angular and what are template engines in express?
What is Angular?
Angular is a platform that makes it easy to build applications with the web. Angular combines declarative templates, dependency injection, end to end tooling, and integrated best practices to solve development challenges. Angular empowers developers to build applications that live on the web, mobile, or the desktop.
what is template engine?
A template engine enables you to use static template files in your application. At runtime, the template engine replaces variables in a template file with actual values and transforms the template into an HTML file sent to the client. This approach makes it easier to design an HTML page.
Some popular template engines that work with Express are Pug, Mustache, and EJS. The Express application generator uses Jade as its default, but it also supports several others.
So,
Angular is a framework with a templating component baked in. You use it to create Single page Web Applications which means that DOM modification is happening on the client side and the app exchange with server only data. If your concern is template it is plain HTML.
Whereas, template engines' rendered views are sent to client each time by server whenever request is made each time a new page is rendered on server and sent to the client which is Great for static sites but not for rich site interactions.
If there is angular for front-end in MEAN Stack then why there are views and template engines in express.js at back-end?
This is because not every time generating views from angular is recommended sometimes it is better to use Template Engines to generate views and send the rendered page to a client, generating views at client side has its own pros and cons and generating views at server side has its own.
Generating views using template engines (i.e. at server-side):
pros:
Search engines can crawl the site for better SEO.
The initial page load is faster.
Great for static sites.
cons:
Frequent server requests.
An overall slow page rendering.
Full page reloads.
Non-rich site interactions.
Generating views using angular engines (i.e. at client-side):
pros:
Rich site interactions
Fast website rendering after the initial load.
Great for web applications.
Robust selection of JavaScript libraries.
cons:
Low SEO if not implemented correctly.
The initial load might require more time.
In most cases, requires an external library.
So, after knowing the pros and cons, you yourself can better decide that in particular case which one is better for you. Mean Stack has provided options for developers.
As far as your question regarding the role of these two technologies is concerned, Angular is a lot more view generator only, It has features like routing, it as services two-way data binding etc while the template engines are meant to render HTML so that it can be sent to the client.
I hope you will find this answer useful.
References:
what is the template engine?
what is angular?
pros/cons
Angular is a full-fledged front-end framework that comes with its own way of doing templating, using angular-specific markup in your HTML. If you use Angular as your framework, you're more or less stuck with their way of templating within the Angular portion of your application.
Angular Features
It is a framework written in Javascript language
Manages state of models
Integrates with other UI tools
Manipulates DOM
Allows writing custom HTML codes
It is meant for javascript developers to create dynamic web pages in a quick time
NodeJS
It serves the web
It is runtime built on javascript engine in google chrome
It can be considered as a lightweight server which can serve client requests in a more
simpler way than java does
It performs communication operation with databases, web-sockets,
middleware etc.
Why we use angular for Tempting not Express/Node tempting Engine
Server-side rendering is the most common method for displaying information onto the screen. It works by converting HTML files in the server into usable information for the browser.
Whenever you visit a website, your browser makes a request to the server that contains the contents of the website. The request usually only takes a few milliseconds, but that ultimately depends on a multitude of factors:
Your internet speed
how many users are trying to access the site and
how optimized the website is, to name a few
Once the request is done processing, your browser gets back the fully rendered HTML and displays it on the screen. If you then decide to visit a different page on the website, your browser will once again make another request for the new information. This will occur each and every time you visit a page that your browser does not have a cached version of.
It doesn’t matter if the new page only has a few items that are different than the current page, the browser will ask for the entire new page and will re-render everything from the ground up.
How client-side rendering works
When developers talk about client-side rendering, they’re talking about rendering content in the browser using JavaScript. So instead of getting all of the content from the HTML document itself, you are getting a bare-bones HTML document with a JavaScript file that will render the rest of the site using the browser.
This is a relatively new approach to rendering websites, and it didn't really become popular until JavaScript libraries started incorporating it into their style of development.
See Examples HerePratical Example
Basically template engines in Express are mostly used for displaying 404 and other server error messages. I find them ideal for such use cases. Using template engines for complex front end rendering is bad and not a good practice.
Express JS is a web framework on top of nodejs http module. Whereas Angular JS is a front end framework which doesnot depend on NodeJs server to run. Conceptually both are similar in few features like routing whereas implementation is different
How is it possible to load external templates from the server during runtime with react-templates (or other reacte template system)?
I can't find any doc's about it but noticed that some people mentioned it as answer in SO questions.
Or should I just implement it my self and use the function "dangerouslysetinnerhtml" to inject the html?
What I want to do?:
Store html/css snippets in xml (or json), that is produced/managed by a CMS and load these in a react app. It makes it very easy to change the html, or support different languages without changing the code and making a new deployment.
I have an app running that is doing exactly that, that I have made with Google GWT, and I want to do the same in the react app.
what are the advantages of using 2 MVC architectures(frontend and backend) in same project. AngularJS and Spring MVC.
Without using AngularJs, can I update single div data without loading the entire page? Is AngularJS responsible for updating single <div> data out of multiple <div>s without loading entire page? If so, please explain in detail.
Once you have a single-page application you have to make sure all the different parts of that application are consistent, that's what the MVC/MV-Whatever in the front end is doing for you. That's not an issue in an old-school web application because the relevant state is regenerated with each request, but once the updates are coming in bits and pieces then different pieces of the front end need to be coming from the same model and that model needs to get updated consistently.
Obviously you can implement div updates with raw JavaScript, you don't need frameworks just to do AJAX. The JavaScript frameworks are written in JavaScript, after all. The frameworks and libraries do make things easier by doing things like papering over browser inconsistencies and providing convenient and useful features (like databinding in Angular).
The server-side MVC does become less complex and involved than it was in the old-school web application, you have less POST-Redirect-GET going on, the front end is more in control about what it is asking for. The front-end application is decoupled much more from the server-side because that whole server-side view layer of JSPs or Facelets or whatever is greatly reduced or just missing, instead you have services supplying JSON over HTTP and there is a much more limited, well-defined contract.
You can update a single element of your page without using AngularJS. As an alternative, for example, you can use JQuery.
You should wonder for the best approach for your project. This answer explains very well the differences between this two approaches.
As an aside note, AngularJS is not exactly a MVC architecture. Instead, the community has decided to call it MVW (Model View Whatever). Check this source for more details.
I know what angular.js is and I even had a question about it #Why use AngularJs in frontend if Laravel is already used as backend?.
but recently I started to read about React.js and from its site (its the V in the MVC) which is exactly what am after "handling the view and nothing else".
for me, I think Angular.js as an MVC framework was made to be used with something that is built with JavaScript from start to end like Node.js
and it seems like an overkill when used with something like Larval, where I simply need something to handle the frontend and nothing else + Angular have 2 main drawbacks
with the latest news about a new version that won't have back compatibility with the current version makes me even feared to start learning it just to find that more or less every project out there is using the old version which mostly is true.
angular renders the whole dom if anything got changed which again is an issue for big projects.
so based on the above, plz note that I want to learn/use JS solely to enhance the user experience not to build another Gmail or Facebook and so my question is,
could React.js be used with Laravel to handle the view and do everything Angular was going to give, or I have to use Angular liked or not?
could React.js be used with Laravel to handle the view and do everything Angular was going to give?
No
React is just for views. React components are stateful components with some really clever rendering stuff happening behind the scenes. To build a fully functional front-end app, you'd need to tie in some other code (or write it yourself).
React works well with Facebook's Flux architecture. I would suggest looking into that to learn how to manage the state of your react components.
What's key to understand here is that Flux and React are not parts of a large front-end framework. React is a library and Flux (as provided by Facebook) only provides a Dispatcher. The rest is up to you to implement. There are some pre-existing implementations you can look at if you need some help to get started.
What I like about flux is that it allows me implement things the way that fits my application best. React takes care of the heavy DOM lifting and is very easy to learn. Compared to Angular, I don't have to learn arbitrary conventions and gigantic APIs of a huge framework.
I am currently using the Backbone philosophy which involves dust.js for template style. Recently I came across AngularJS, which extends the HTML syntax with custom elements and attributes.
Cons of Backbone+dust.js environment:
Upgrading components is time consuming.
Module specification and identification is not easy.
If I move my functionality to AngularJS will it be helpful or does it feel the same?
Can anyone explain to me what the major differences among these two libs are, as they seem similar to some extent?
dust.js is purely a templating module. So, it allows the combination of json with a template to deliver html output.
Angular.js is client side framework that allows binding of logic to variables defined in a template (your page).
So, with dust.js you are responsible for deciding when to run the json through the template. Typically you feed in the json on the server (or client) and ask it to render the results.
With angular.js when the model (the json) changes the framework re-renders as appropriate. Triggers for that change could be user actions (such as filling a form in) or it could be due to loading some fresh json from a service.
Typically you would use angular.js if you want a single page JS app (think gmail). dust.js is perhaps more akin to a traditional approach with multi pages with content driven by passing in json.
You could even use the both of them in tandem - server side rendering using dust.js with dynamic client side logic in angular.js.