I need to capture event depend on whether the event target is a special view.
Something like view._rootNodeID === 'event.dispatchMarker'.
But there seems to be no way to get _rootNodeID because the only reference I can get is not the actual ReactNativeBaseComponent but rather something like baking data instance used to construct ReactNativeBaseComponent . And ReactNativeBaseComponent is the one really owns _rootNodeID, if I understand source code correctly.
I can alter react-native source code to achieve what I want but I want to make sure there is no better way.
ReactInstanceMap exists for this.
const ReactInstanceMap = require('ReactInstanceMap');
const inst = ReactInstanceMap.get(view);
view === inst.getPublicInstance();
It seems I always tend to complicate things...Why wouldn't I handle the touch event in that special view directly?
And I must be blind to not notice a property named _reactInternalInstance to refer to the actual element. Although doing so will breaks encapsulation.
Related
One pattern I've seen recommended is to use selectors to where possible to hide the shape of the store. That way if you need to update the shape of the store, you should be able to get away with only updating your selectors, and not other parts of the application.
However the same problem arises with the use of models within the state.
As one of many examples, let's assume I'm building a file system in Redux. I have a list of files which can either be a directory or a file.
My store might have a fileList property which contains an array of file ids as well as a files object which maps fileId to a file object.
Let's say I have a list of files and I want to, depending on whether it's a file or directory, have a different Item component (i.e. DirectoryItem and FileItem).
One way to achieve this is to do something like:
{
files.map(file => {
file.type = 'directory' ?
<DirectoryItem key={file.id} ...file /> :
<FileItem key={file.id} ...file />
)}
}
(or I could create a higher-order FileListItem component, for example, that does the check and renders either the DirectoryItem or FileItem)
However this might not be ideal because now my component needs to know the structure of the file object. I might want to add a different type of object (i.e. a shortcut file or shared file) and might decide that a type property isn't how I want to represent my data anymore. As such, I'd need to go and update all my components, etc.
If I were doing this in Backbone, for example, I would've probably chosen to define an isDirectory() function on my model, however that doesn't seem to be the Redux way of doing things.
One possible solution I can think of is creating a FileUtils helper class which exports an isDirectory method and takes a file object as a parameter.
Another option will be creating an isDirectory selector which takes a file id as a prop, doing something like:
(files, props) => state.files[props.fileId].type == 'directory'
If I were to create the selector, I suppose I would need to create a higher-order component to call the selector from.
Just wondering if either approach is recommended in Redux? Am I missing another approach that could help solve this issue?
The functional way of doing things simply prescribes tearing the method off of the object and calling it a function.
The recommended way to call it is to instead of having a this, simply pass a regular parameter. This is not a requirement. You can just use call or apply. That may seem real strange in js, but this may change soon with a new :: operator.
Now, you can give this function anything you like to help it get its data.
In your example
(files, props) => state.files[props.fileId].type == 'directory'
You pass it state (naming mistake there) and props and then use this info to come up with an answer. But you could instead choose to pass it a directory entry object. No need to go fetch it from state.
Note that this makes it very close to a method.
isDirectory = entry => entry.type === 'dir';
Now, because it's not getting state, it isn't selecting anything from state and is therefore not a selector.
However, it's plenty functional in nature. There really is no need or use to make life more complicated than that. Adding a higher order component or trying to shoehorn our problems into a more Redux-y way of doing things is needlessly complicating matters.
Selectors are recommended for selecting state so state usage is not tied to state shape. It's an abstraction layer, separating your mapStateToProps from your reducers.
Selectors are now considered part of the Redux Way, but that wasn't always true. And so, at your discretion, being informed of why something is done the way it is, you can then choose to not use it.
And, at your discretion, you can choose to substitute the current trend with your own version. It is highly recommended to do this, of course after consideration of alternatives.
Often the best solution is the one you come up with yourself. Being the most informed about your problem domain, you are uniquely qualified to formulate a matching solution.
Those who have developed great ideas that all of us feed off of and get inspiration from will probably move on from their viewpoint when something better comes along.
There isn't (and probably shouldn't be) a sacred paradigm. Everything is eligible for reconsideration. Occam's razor dictates that the simplest answer is most likely the right one.
And Redux is very much about simplicity. So to do things the Redux Way is mostly about doing things the straightforward way.
I'm trying to render a view mode which calls entity_view, both with the same entity. The view mode is different from the view mode called in the entity view function.
I know that a view mode calls entity_view, so it's like calling entity_view inside entity_view (nested), with the same entity, but 2 different view modes. I tried but it doesn't work.
What I want is to know if it's possible, maybe it's something that I'm not doing right. If i'ts impossible I want to know why please :)
Thanks.
If you mean for example render a commerce_product entity, showing other commerce_product entities of the same type, it is possible indeed.
Check the API you use, you will certainly find a function that make a big part of the job.
From my understanding the attributes of a Backbone.js model are supposed to be declared as somewhat private member variables by saying
this.set({ attributeName: attributeValue })
// accessing the value
this.get('attributeName');
But when I am writing functions whitin the actual model it seems much simpler to say like this:
this.attributeName = attributeValue;
// accessing the value
this.attributeName;
Also I would assume that the latter version would be faster to process since it doesn't go through backbone.js's event management.
So I was wondering how you pros do with attributes that are primarily used internally in the model. These are the attributes that one would actually want to be a bit shielded from the outside so having them exposed like in the latter example maybe isn't right still. When I have been looking at examples for the backbone.js view which doesn't have get and set methods it seems fine to do like in the second example. So is there any nice rule of thumb when to use get/set(attribute) or this.attribute when coding within the model? Or maybe an example of a model that makes this clearer?
When to use model.get(property) and model.set(...)
You should use get and set to access the model's data. This means any attributes that are part of the model's serialized representation that is retrieved using fetch and persisted using save.
When to use model.attributes.property
Never.
You should always use get, and especially set, instead of accessing the model.attributes object directly, although I've seen conflicting opinions about this. I believe there is a contract between a model and it's consumers, which guarantees that the consumer can be notified of any changes to the model's data using the change event. If you modify the internal attributes object directly, events are not sent and this contract is broken. Backbone events are very fast, especially if you don't have any listeners attached to them, and it's not a point that benefits from over-optimization on your part.
Although accessing the attributes directly instead of get is quite harmless on it's own, it should be avoided so the attributes object can be considered totally, completely private.
If you absolutely need to prevent some change triggering events, you can use the silent:true option: model.set({key:val}, {silent:true}). This does break the aforementioned contract, and even Backbone's own documentation gives the following caveat:
Note that this is rarely, perhaps even never, a good idea. Passing through a specific flag in the options for your event callback to look at, and choose to ignore, will usually work out better.
When to use model.property
Any properties which are not data, i.e. temporary state variables, calculated properties etc. can be attached directly to the model entity. These properties should be considered temporary and transitive: they can be recreated upon model initialization or during its lifetime, but they should not be persisted, whether public or private. A typical naming convention is to prefix private properties with the _ character as follows:
this._privateProperty = 'foo';
this.publicProperty = 'bar';
Never is an incomplete answer.
Sometimes you want access to the collection of model attributes - whatever those attributes might be. Consider a utility method to perform calcs on attributes, format them for output, etc.
A convenient way to do this is to access model.attributes
Consider one alternative, below:
var attributesNames = ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'];
var attributes = _(attributesNames ).map(function(attr) { return model.get(attr); });
callSomeUtilityMethod(attributes);
Two problems:
We've introduced coupling in the "attributeNames" collection. What if that list changes?
We've lost the association of name/value. We could rewrite the map above, but it becomes more work.
In this scenario, it's much more convenient to do something like this:
callSomeUtilityMethod(model.attributes);
I am looking for a way to access components / field that are either in the same items array as the accessing one or even only in a same parent items array (the last one is just a option).
In ExtJS3 this was easy by simply defining a ref in the owner container but I didn't found anything like that in ExtJS4.
I know that I can use Ext.ComponentQuery() or the shortcuts up() / down() or even Ext.getCmp() but they are all not what I am looking for, cause they just executes a bunch of code while the ref was such an easy Way to do things.
Yes, I am aware of the fact that using a ComponentQuery is much more fail safe than the use of hard coded references. But I just want to know if there are some other ways to do this.
Alternately, for your case of getting the next element in a container, you can use the nextSibling or prevSibling. All components have these methods. It would be a little less walking around the DOM structure. They also allow for a selector argument.
They are described in the docs here.
Here are some tricks I have used:
//lookup by name
formPanel.getForm().findField('state');
//lookup using nextSibling/prevSibling in a fieldset or fieldcontainer
myField.ownerCt.nextSibling('textfield[fieldLabel=Description]')
Here fieldLabel property is used to narrow down field selection but you can use ANY property at all. So if you construct a field with a property ref you can then use it to select your field similar how you would use it in a ComponentQuery .
not sure that that is a good title ...
I can get code behind a button to:
TabBar.activeTab.setTitle("New Tab");
but I need to do something like:
TabBar.activeTab.items = { title: "New Tab"
};
so I can eventually automate several tab properties in a loop:
TabBar.activeTab.items = { [key]: [value]
};
Am I correct in thinking config and items can only be used on construct()? Is there a way of doing the above? tia.
It depends on the implementation of the component and config property in question whether it can simply be set or requires a method call to be applied.
You are correct that in ExtJs many config properties are interpreted at construction time. Some are interpreted at render time. Once an Ext.Component is rendered almost all properties require an explicit method call to be applied correctly.
In general, I recommend to always use a method call to change a property after construction time if available in order to not break the inner workings of the component. If you look at the implementation of Ext.panel.Panel#setTitle you can see that there is a lot of stuff going on under the hood, e.g. event firing, etc.
ExtJs 4 configuration
Ext 4 introduced an explicit 'config' mechanism that might serve your purpose. However, my understanding is that most ExtJs components are not (yet?) using it.
Check out '2. Configuration' in the ExtJs Class System Guide
Create objects from xtype/config literals
If you want to add new components to a container (e.g. tabs to a tab panel) it would be rather easy to accomplish.
Use Ext.ComponentManager#create (see [docs][2]) to create an actual component object/instance from your config literal.
Ext.container.Container#add actually calls this method internally, so you can simply pass config objects to the add method.
If you want to remove or add tabs to a panel, there is now way around calling the proper methods.
applyConfig()
Of course you could always implement your own applyConfig method that supports changing certain component configuration properties at runtime by 'translating' the config into the proper method calls.