Extended event emitter functions across stores are clashing in Flux - reactjs

I have multiple Flux stores. Now clearly, all of them are extending the same Event emitter singleton. This has led to events across stores clashing with each other (even the most common, emitChange). There seems to be no difference between doing Store1.getID() and Store2.getID(), because stores seem to be one large object extended from every other store. What am I doing wrong?
I have been having this issue for a while now, and its driving me nuts. I am sure this has a simple answer that I am missing. It's one of the reasons I am waiting for relay and GraphQL.
EDIT: What all my stores look like in code.
var Events = require('events'), extend = require('deep_extend'),
EventEmitter = Events.EventEmitter,
CHANGE_EVENT = 'change';
var SomeStore = extend(EventEmitter.prototype, {
someGetter: function(){
return _someVar;
},
dispatchToken: AppDispatcher.register(function(action) {
switch(action.type) {
case 'SOME_ACTION':
_someVar = 'someValue'
break;
default:
return true;
}
SomeStore.emitChange();
return true;
})
});
return SomeStore;

stores seem to be one large object extended from every other store.
There must be some problem with how you extend from EventEmitter otherwise your code should be working fine.
Now that there are a few ways to do the same thing, here is how facebook implemented it in their official examples:
var assign = require('object-assign');
var EventEmitter = require('events').EventEmitter;
var TodoStore = assign({}, EventEmitter.prototype, {
...
UPDATE
Now looking at your code
extend(EventEmitter.prototype, {
is actually writing on the prototype itself, hence the errors you got. Instead you should be extending an empty object:
extend({}, EventEmitter.prototype, {

Related

How to properly save self reference with ES6 classes?

Honestly, I'm not sure of what is the cause for the behavior: systemjs, babel or my own fault. I'm using class for custom control controller and saving class reference in self variable. Apparently that gets overriden by any subsequent controller instances.
I created a simple repository to demonstrate:
clone, install, run live-server or your preferred server. You will see 2 buttons, each is a custom control. Clicking on a button only affects one control.
https://github.com/alexkolt/selfIsThis
How can I get this working with ES6 class?
I should have posted the code, sorry.
The reason you'd want to save reference to self is for example in callbacks calling this might result in a different reference.
I was trying to do this:
var self;
class Test {
constructor(dependency) {
self = this;
self.dependency = dependency;
}
method() {
self.dependency().then(value => self.property = value);
}
}
Like it was mentioned before the self becomes shared when declared outside of the module. I didn't realize that would happen as files would be wrapped in a closure. Joe Clay answer is correct, but to do what I was trying to do self needs to be declared in every method that needs it.
class Test {
constructor(dependency) {
this.dependency = dependency;
}
method() {
var self = this;
this.dependency().then(value => self.property = value);
}
}
You're not really using ES6 classes right. You don't need to save a reference to this - just access it directly in class methods. The way you have it at the minute, all your instances of CustomControlController are sharing a single self variable.
class CustomControlController {
constructor() {
this.value = 0;
}
click() {
var newValue = this.value * 2;
this.value = newValue;
}
}
export default CustomControlController;

Modeling relational data from REST api via angularjs

I'm building an app, that is backed with node-mysql combo, and angularjs on the frontend part. The backend REST service is ready, but I'm struggling with modeling my relational data. There are some questions regarding this like : $resource relations in Angular.js or $resource relations in Angular.js [updated] . Are those approaches still the best approaches, or were there any significant changes in $resource ? Or maybe Restangular is the way to go?
Here is my technique:
I declare a factory called dataService, which is a wrapper around Restangular, extended with some other features.
First let me gave some code and then explain:
.factory('identityMap',
var identityMap = {};
return {
insert: function(className, object) {
if (object) {
var mappedObject;
if (identityMap[className]) {
mappedObject = identityMap[className][object.id];
if (mappedObject) {
extend(mappedObject, object);
} else {
identityMap[className][object.id] = object;
mappedObject = object;
}
} else {
identityMap[className] = {};
identityMap[className][object.id] = object;
mappedObject = object;
}
return mappedObject;
}
},
remove: function(className, object) {
if (identityMap[className] && identityMap[className][id]) delete identityMap[className][id];
},
get: function(className, id) {
return identityMap[className] && identityMap[className][id] ? identityMap[className][id] : null;
},
flush: function(){
identityMap = {};
}
};
}
.factory('modelService', ['Restangular', 'identityMap', '$rootScope', '$log', function(Restangular, identityMap, $rootScope, $log) {
var ENUM1 = {STATE:0, OTHER_STATE:1, OTHER_STATE2: 2},
ENUM2 = {OK:0, ERROR:1, UNKNOWN:2};
function extendModel(obj, modelExtension, modelName){
angular.extend(obj, modelExtension);
obj.initExtension();
obj = identityMap.insert(modelName, obj);
}
function broadcastRestEvent(resourceName, operation, data){
$rootScope.$broadcast(resourceName + $filter('capitalize')(operation), data);
}
var resource1Extension = {
_extensionFunction1: function() {
// ... do something internally ...
if (this.something){
// this.newValue ....
;
}
else {
// ....;
}
},
publicExtensionFunction: function(param1) {
// return something
},
initExtension: function() {
this._extensionFunction2();
extendModel(this.resource2, resource2Extension, 'resource2');
}
};
var resorce2Extension = {
_extensionFunction1: function() {
// do something internally
},
publicExtensionFunction = function(param1) {
// return something
},
initExtension: function(){
this._extensionFunction1;
}
};
var modelExtensions = {
'resource1': resource1Extension,
'resource2': resorce2Extension
};
var rest = Restangular.withConfig(function(RestangularConfigurer) {
RestangularConfigurer.setBaseUrl('/api');
RestangularConfigurer.setOnElemRestangularized(function(obj, isCollection, what, Restangular){
if (!isCollection) {
if (modelExtensions.hasOwnProperty(what)) {
extendModel(obj, modelExtensions[what], what);
}
else {
identityMap.insert(what, obj);
}
if (obj.metadata && obj.metadata.operation) {
broadcastRestEvent(what, obj.metadata.operation, obj);
}
}
return obj;
});
RestangularConfigurer.addResponseInterceptor(function(data, operation, what, url, response, deferred) {
var newData;
if (operation === 'getList') {
newData = data.objects;
newData.metadata = {
numResults: data.num_results,
page: data.page,
totalPages: data.total_pages,
operation: operation
};
data = newData;
}
else if (operation === 'remove') {
var splittedUrl = url.split('/');
var id = splittedUrl.pop();
var resource = splittedUrl.pop();
identityMap.remove(resource, id);
broadcastRestEvent(resource, operation, id);
}
else {
data.metadata = {operation: operation};
}
return data;
});
});
return {
rest: rest,
enums: {
ENUM1: ENUM1,
ENUM2: ENUM2
},
flush: identityMap.flush,
get: identityMap.get
}
}]);
1) Let me explain identityMap (it's the code from this blog post with some extended features):
Let's consider a REST model which looks like this (each resource represents a database table):
resource 1:
id = Integer
field1 = String
field2 = String
resource2s = [] (List of resources2 which points to this resource with their foreign key)
resource 2:
id = Integer
field1 = String
field2 = String
...
resource1_idfk = Foreign Key to resource 1
Resource API is so smart that it returns resource1 relationships with resources2 with GET /api/resource1/1 to save the overhead that you would get with GET to resource2 with some query parameters to resource1_idfk...
The problem is that if your app is doing the GET to resource1 and then somewhere later GET to resource2 and edits the resource2, the object representing the resource2 which is nested in resource1 would not know about the change (because it is not the same Javascript object reference)
The identity map solves this issue, so you hold only one reference to each resource's instance
So, for example, when you are doing an update in your controller the values automatically updates in the other object where this resource is nested
The drawback is that you have to do memory management yourself and flush the identity map content when you no longer need it. I personally use Angular Router UI, and define this in a controller which is the root of other nested states:
$scope.$on("$destroy", function() {
modelService.flush();
});
The other approach I use within the Angular Router UI is that I give the id of the resource which i want to edit/delete within that controller as the parameter of nested state and within the nested state i use:
$scope.resource1instance = modelService.get('resource1', $stateParams.id);
You can than use
resource1.put(...).then(
function(){
// you don't need to edit resource1 in list of resources1
$state.go('^');
}
function(error){
handleError(error);
});
2) When I need to use some new functionality over resources I use `Restangular's setOnElemRestangularized. I think the code above is self explanatory and very similar to the one mentioned in blog post I have mentioned above. My approach is slightly different from the one in that post, that I don't use the mixin initialization before, but after I mix it to the object, so one could reference the new functions in initializer. The other thing I don't use, for example, he creates single factory for every resource, for example Proposal for extended logic and the other factory ProposalSvc for manipulating the instances. For me that's a lot of code you don't have to write and personally I think that Javascript is not suited very well for this object oriented approach, so I return just the whole Restangular object and do operations with it.
3) Another thing I have there is the broadcast of events when something in my model changes with Restangular, this is something I needed when I used ng-table. For example, when the model changed and rows in my table needed to be updated to reference the changes, so in the controller which manages the table I use $scope.on('eventName') and then change appropriate row. These events are also great when you have a multiuser live application and you use websockets for server notifications (code not included here in modelService). For example somebody deletes something in a database, so the server sends a notification to everyone who is alive through websocket about the change, you then broadcast the same event as used in Restangular and the controller does the same edits on its data.
This blog post should help you make your choice http://sauceio.com/index.php/2014/07/angularjs-data-models-http-vs-resource-vs-restangular/
I agree that there are a lot of good practices using http headers in Restangular, but you can pick them in the source and use them directly.
What you have to wonder is, will you be able to wrap your nested resources within a $resource and make instance calls while modifying the parent object. And that's not a given.
Your question seems to be asking whether you should be using ngResource, Restangular or some other framework or drop down to the low-level and use $http directly.
$resource is still widely used because it's included in the official docs and in all the popular tutorials and articles but Restangular is fairly popular.
The website ngModules shows a listing of REST API modules for AngularJS.
If you have a simple REST API, go with $resource for now and then switch to Restangular if you're doing lots of custom coding and filtering. It is a much nicer framework and more extensible.

How do you tell when a view is loaded in extjs?

Im working on an extjs application. We're have a page that is for looking at a particular instance of an object and viewing and editing it's fields.
We're using refs to get hold of bits of view in the controller.
This was working fine, but I've been sharding the controller into smaller pieces to make it more managable and realised that we are relying on a race condition in our code.
The logic is as follows:
Initialise the controller
parse the url to extract the id of the object
put in a call to load the model with the given view.
in the load callback call the controller load method...
The controller load method creates some stores which fire off other requests for bits of information using this id. It then uses some of the refs to get hold of the view and then reconfigures them to use the stores when they load.
If you try and call the controller load method immediately (not in the callback) then it will fail - the ref methods return undefined.
Presumably this is because the view doesnt exist... However we aren't checking for that - we're just relying on the view being loaded by the time the server responds which seems like a recipe for disaster.
So how can we avoid this and be sure that a view is loaded before trying to use it.
I haven't tried rewriting the logic here yet but it looks like the afterrender event probably does what I want.
It seems like waiting for both the return of the store load and afterrender events should produce the correct result.
A nice little abstraction here might be something like this:
yourNamespace.createWaitRunner = function (completionCallback) {
var callback = completionCallback;
var completionRecord = [];
var elements = 0;
function maybeFinish() {
var done = completionRecord.every(function (element) {
return element === true
});
if (done)
completionCallback();
}
return {
getNotifier: function (func) {
func = func || function (){};
var index = elements++;
completionRecord[index] = false;
return function () {
func(arguments);
completionRecord[index] = true;
maybeFinish();
}
}
}
};
You'd use it like this:
//during init
//pass in the function to call when others are done
this.waiter = yourNamespace.createWaitRunner(controller.load);
//in controller
this.control({
'SomeView': {
afterrender: this.waiter.getNotifier
}
});
//when loading record(s)
Ext.ModelManager.getModel('SomeModel').load(id, {
success: this.waiter.getNotifier(function (record, request) {
//do some extra stuff if needs be
me.setRecord(record);
})
});
I haven't actually tried this out yet so it might not be 100% but I think the idea is sound

Extending Backbone Collections to add logic, with custom methods, is a bad practice?

Usually I find my self needing to write an object with a specific functionality that it is a set of models.
Finally I extend a collection and add more functions that works with its model.
I think is better show you an example:
My app has a set of permissions, related with the user and/or the version of the platform.
var Permissions = Backbone.Collection.extend({
model: Permission,
hasAccess: function (moduleCode) {
....
},
allowAccess: function (moduleCode) {
....
},
...
With that methods I change the format of a property of a permission (the model). (My permissions are a concatenation of code with an string that identify the type of permission.)
A workmate tells me that it is wrong. In .NET he creates a class and he adds a private list and makes the changes to it. He does not inherit the list and changes it.
He would make a model and inside it he would add a collection property
this.set("permissionsCollection", new Backbone.Collection.extend({model: Permission}))
[Comment: I don't understand why he creates properties of everything, I think in his case it is not needed.] -> But this is another question
I think in a different way. I know the Collection has internally that list. I have a great potencial in Backbone.Collections, why do I have to use a model that it is not necessary? If I don't need that encapsulation... I think that it is not necessary, he is overprogramming in my opinnion.
Am I wrong? Did I not know how to use BackboneJS Collections?
Thank you in advance.
At the beginning I had something called helper with similar methods:
findAttr: function (model, name) {
var attrs = model.get('app_attrs');
if (attrs !== undefined) {
return this.findByAttrName(attrs, name);
}
},
findByAttrName: function (array, name) {
return _.find(array, function(a) {
if (a.attrName === name) {
return a;
}
});
}
The view code was more awkward:
render: function () {
var attr = helper.findAttr(this.model, 'user');
...
return this;
}
The only logical solution was to move these methods into the model (this.model in the above case). After refactoring I've got:
render: function () {
var attr = this.model.findAttr('user');
...
return this;
}
which is of course more readable than the previous solution.

How can I pull any class by its cid in Backbone?

In using Backbone.js, I've noticed that both views and models are given cids. I understand that if these classes are part of a collection, I can pull any of them by collection.getByCid. Is it at all possible to pull any class, outside of a collection, given its cid, using Backbone?
For example, if I have MyObject.Views.Tree = Backbone.View.extend({ });, I can create a new Tree view from var tree = new MyObject.Views.Tree();. Calling tree.cid returns a specific cid--something like view231. Is there any way to reference my tree view given only its cid? A global Backbone.getByCid method, perhaps?
ExtJS spoiled me and I felt the need to recreate something similar for Backbone. Maybe this will help you out too? I haven't tested it too much, but it's a very simple change. Just be careful of creating lots of things and not removing them, or you'll have a bunch of registered objects eating up memory.
Backbone.View.Registry = {
items: {},
register: function (id, object) {
this.items[id] = object;
},
lookup: function (id) {
return this.items[id] || null;
},
remove: function (id) {
delete this.items[id];
}
}
Backbone.RegisteredView = Backbone.View.extend({
initialize: function () {
Backbone.View.prototype.initialize.apply(this);
this.cid = this.options.id || this.cid; //just in case you want to assign a unique ID and lookup from that.
Backbone.View.Registry.register(this.cid, this);
},
remove: function () {
Backbone.View.prototype.remove.apply(this);
Backbone.View.Registry.remove(this.cid);
return this;
}
});
test = Backbone.RegisteredView.extend({
intialize: function () {
return $("<div></div>"); //Just return something for this example
}
});
div1 = new test({id: 'header_pane'});
div2 = new test();
console.log(Backbone.View.Registry.items); //Will have the header_pane and a cid based obj in it
ref = Backbone.View.Registry.lookup('header_pane');
console.log(ref); //Will be the header_pane object
div1.remove();
console.log(Backbone.View.Registry.items); //Will only have the cid based object in it
No.
I think you have a slight misunderstanding of the backbone programming model, as well as JavaScript in general. Backbone doesn't keep track of what you create; it only helps you create objects with specific prototypes (Models, Collections, etc.). It doesn't care at all what you do with them. The CID is just a convenience method you can use for indexing and cross-referencing, but you have to write the indices and cross-references yourself.
So if you create an object and don't keep a reference to it somewhere (in a collection, in your router, in another object), it becomes inaccessible and the JavaScript VM will eventually garbage collect it.

Resources