The plugin model in Backbone.js is really nice, but one thing I'm wondering about is whether it's possible to use multiple plugins without modifying any of the plugin source.
For example, say I've written two plugins for the Collections:
MyBetterCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend({
coolNewFeature: function () {
console.log('This feature is great.');
}
});
MyWayBetterCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend({
wayCoolerNewFeature: function () {
console.log('This feature is even better.');
}
});
I can see some potential issues already, if, for example, both plugins override something like the add method. But having to modify third-party plugins would be a bummer:
MyWayBetterCollection = MyBetterCollection.extend({
...
});
Is there a good approach to handling this situation?
There isn't an easy way to do this. Since there is no traditional inheritance in JavaScript, it's difficult to provide this facility.
You'd have to find plug ins designed to work with each other or fork them and make them compatible.
You could also provide your own extend method that would use the interceptor pattern or some type of monkey patching to provide access to overwritten methods from previous prototypes that were overwritten.
The two collection you've defined above are totally separate from each other. They simply inherit the methods from Backbone.Controller, and if you defined methods with the similar name, then you overwrite those.
Think about Backbone as a class inheritance in other programming languages. Basically, you extend Backbone.Collection as you would do with other languages.
As a result, you can call the superclass, like this
var MyCollection = Backbone.Collection({
toJSON: function() {
var toJSON = this.constructor.__super__.toJSON.call(this);
toJSON.extra = 'my extra value';
return toJSON;
});
Even if you extend your own collection, the logic remains.
Related
I'm doing Angular JS tutorials. I've no clue why this notation have been used. Can anyone explain what is happening here?
Code in the controller.js file:
var vm = this;
vm.openSideBar = openSideBar; // Did not understand this line
function openSideBar() {
$mdSidenav('left').open();
};
The code that you post is purely stylistic and takes advantage of hoisting to enable the bindable functions to be displayed at the top of the file, and the details (implementations) for those to be kept separate and specified further down the file.
Benefits
The benefits of this approach are more apparent as the number of bindable functions in the controller increases:
Easier to read (what's important). Since the purpose of the controller is to support the view and supply it with bindings, the what is more important than the how i.e. What the view can bind to is more important than how the controller goes about it's work. You can see immediately on opening the file what the controller can do for the view.
Easier to find (the details). Having the bindable functions at the top of the file acts as like a contents page for the file. Most IDE's will highlight matching variables if you place the cursor over them and that helps find the implementation details further down the file.
Encourages single responsibility. Your controller should be supplying bindings for a view, and only one view. You can see at the top of your file if you start to build up lots of unrelated bindable functions that serve different purposes that you might be trying to do too much in one controller.
Encourages named functions. This is particularly useful for debugging as it means that you will have less anonymous functions in your application, which in turn makes reading call stacks in developer tools easier.
Further Reading
Check out John Papa's Angular 1 Style Guide which has been approved by the Angular team. You can read all about the thought behind this approach under the heading Bindable Members Up Top in the Controllers section (although it can be applied to factories/services/directives also).
openSideBar was add to view model. it was aviable to run this func from view like <someElement ng-click="$ctrl.openSideBar()"></someElement>
The VM model or way of doing is quite old... before ES6 came along.
Nowadays, I would suggest you learn ES6, take a look at Todd Motto's AngularJS style guide https://github.com/toddmotto/angularjs-styleguide.
But here an answer to your question:
// OLD WAY
function MyAppController() {
var vm = this;
vm.colors = ['red', 'blue', 'green'];
vm.getBlue() {
return vm.colors[1];
}
vm.handleClickEvent(e) {
// this keyword is now the dom element, not your controller
// this is why the VM pattern came to life.
this.classList.add(vm.getBlue());
}
}
// NEW WAY
class MyAppController {
$onInit() {
this.colors = ['red', 'blue', 'green'];
}
getBlue() {
return this.colors[1];
}
handleClickEvent(e) {
// Here this keyword is still your controller, NOT the dom
// element (provided you used angular's ng-click directive
const elem = e.target;
elem.classList.add(this.getBlue);
}
}
With ES6, it is rare that you have to same a reference to this since you can use arrow functions. You should also get familiar with bind(), call(), and apply() methods to control which context you want to apply to functions.
I'm trying to minimize server calls by avoiding any requests I can.
Let's say, for the sake of a example, I have a collection of Matchboxes which belong to Users and have Tags assigned, and then also have a collection of Tags and a collection of Users as part of other pages. Getting matchboxes retrieves the user and tag info, so that I can instantiate all required models with one request, accessing the Tags and Users pages retrieves similar collections (only they deal only with their respective models).
My problem: if matchboxes is one page, and tags and users are two other pages, what's a good way to make sure only one model is ever instantiated for any given entity, ie. if I go into users or tags and edit an entry associated with a matchbox the matchbox entry should have the same entry assigned allowing it to listen and react to the updates with out requiring sending requests when going back to the matchbox page in the example.
I've looked over Backbone.relational but it doesn't seem to do what I need, and would rather not wall myself into a framework. So solutions involving patterns are preferable.
Ended up using http://pathable.github.io/supermodel/ which uses the pattern of overwriting the model attribute on collections with a custom function which calls a special Model.create that itself returns an existing (updated with the new values if necessary) instance of said model. The Model.create call has to be used everywhere else in code for unique models.
So essentially every model has a all() method which is a collection of all instances by id. Whenever a model is added it checks it against the collection and returns an existing object if it exists; the data used to instantiate the duplicate is used to update the existing object ensuring data is not stale (which is a nice bonus to the uniqueness I wanted).
The cleanest method seems to be to just wrap the model function into a function that returns it for clearer use; then for every collection that needs to have unique models wrap said model in the function. I came up with this at the moment:
app.single = function (modelPrototype) {
return function (attrs, options) {
return modelPrototype.create(attrs, options);
};
};
(app there is just a scope global, tied to a particular namespace)
So in collections instead of,
model: app.Model
I would then use
model: app.single(app.Model),
Whenever I update a entry in one part of the application the change will trickle down to every other collection/model since if it's the same instance from the user's perspective it's the same instance in code too.
That's about all I could tell from reading the pattern though the code and documentation. Which is sufficient for my own uses.
I suspect this solution would still have some issues if you're caching renders but I haven't found a use for that (prefer to re-render whenever I can to avoid dealing with various artifacts) so it's all good for me.
Unfortunately the codebase seems to be partially abandoned, so while it works with Backbone 1.0.0 (as far as unique models go), I may need to re-create/fork the pattern in future projects.
I think you should think twice about nesting your models and collections in this way, especially if it's primarily for the purpose of easing the bootstrapping of your app. Instead, try to use id's for inter-referencing between models as much as possible. This design problem you have is most likely only the first of many to come if you structure your model/collection tree in a certain way now, only to find it too inflexible later.
That being said, If all you need is for models referencing other models/collections to be able to refer to the same model/collection instance, then simply instantiating them during bootstrap and passing them in to their respective parent models would be sufficient. You could either load some bootstrap data in one request, or preferably inline that data in the HTML:
<script>
var bs_data = {
users : [
...
],
tags : [
...
],
matchboxes : [
...
]
};
</script>
And then instantiate the corresponding models or collections using the bootstap data.
var matchboxes = new Matchboxes();
matchboxes.set(bs_data.matchboxes);
var users = new Users({matchboxes:matchboxes});
users.set(bs_data.users);
The bootstrap data would come from the same backend so your models and collections would already be in sync without having to fetch anything.
As for design patterns; passing dependencies as constructor arguments is actually the dependency injection pattern, albeit more automated solutions to do so exist.
To make sure only one model is ever instantiated, and it is shared among the other elements that use it, being able to listen and update when any of the elements make a change to it, you can use a Singleton pattern. You can read more about it here
If you use Requirejs you can get same effect if you always return the model instantiated. For example:
// the shared model
define([
'jquery',
'underscore',
'backbone'
], function ($, _, Backbone) {
'use strict';
var Model = Backbone.Model.extend({
// ...
});
// return instantiated, so we'll get the same object back whenever we use this model (singleton)
return new Model();
});
// a view using the model
define([
'jquery',
'underscore',
'backbone',
'model'
], function ($, _, Backbone, modelInstance) {
'use strict';
var View = Backbone.View.extend({
initialize: function () {
// listen to what other elements do
this.listenTo(modelInstance, 'eventFromOtherElement', this.doSomething);
// when this element does something, other elements should be listening to that event
modelInstance.trigger('thisViewEvent');
},
doSomething: function () {
// ...
}
});
return View;
});
Are there any inherent problems with using CoffeeScript to code backbone.js apps? Did you run into some problems that you couldn't fix or had to use some particularly clunky workarounds?
No problems, really. At least, none that aren't easily worked around.
The problems with using CS are the same problems you might get using CS anywhere:
Debugging is still done in the generated JS
CS requires a pre-processing step that can be awkward at times
The rest of your team might not know CS
There are some odd things about CS (they introduce "classes" but they are not real classes)
In addition, since Backbone dev with Coffeescript is "class" based, you find yourself wanting to separate your classes into separate files, in separate folders. Because of this, you can get into a situation where the classes are defined out of order. For instance, your collection might get defined before your model, which can't happen. For this, I recommend using something that can manage dependencies (imports). I use coffee-toaster but there are several other options (Rails has dependency management built in to the asset pipeline, for instance)
It is my preferred way to write Backbone code. In my opinion, Backbone.js development is actually better in CoffeeScript than in Javascript. To me, they go together like chocolate and peanut butter. (Not everyone likes chocolate/peanut butter... not everyone likes BB/CS)
Class semantics
Backbone development relies heavily on extending prototypes and this is something that is built-in with CoffeeScript. So, where you would extend a View in JS:
App.Models.MyModel = Backbone.View.extend({
render: function() {
...
}
});
The CS alternative is a native experience:
class App.Models.MyModel extends Backbone.Model
render: ->
...
Overriding Functions
Some things you do often in Backbone, like overriding functions becomes much more simple. In Javascript:
constructor: function ( attributes, options ) {
this.constructor.__super__.constructor.apply( this, arguments );
...
}
Becomes:
constructor: (attributes, options) ->
super
"this" Context Binding
The "fat arrow" in CS is really useful when you need to declare the context of a function is "this"
Javascript sets 'this' differently when functions get called back. There are several ways to solve it, but out of the box, it is awkward:
initialize: function() {
this.model.bind('reset', this.render);
},
render: function () {
this.$el.html("<ul></ul>");
this.model.each(this.renderItem); // <--- Fails on "reset" because 'this' is wrong
return this;
}
CoffeeScript has the => token that will automatically bind 'this' to the function when it gets called by anybody:
initialize: ->
#model.bind 'reset', #render
render: =>
#$el.html '<ul></ul>'
#model.each #renderItem # The fat arrow fixed it for you
#
When all is said and done, Backbone.js code is easier to write and is much easier to read when written in CS. At least, that is my opinion.
Good luck!
Both CoffeeScript and Backbone.js were written by the same author (Jeremy Ashkenas). The backbone-on-rails gem generates CoffeeScript by default. Though certain plugins (such as Backbone-relational, which you mentioned) may require additional setup, Backbone itself plays very nicely with CoffeeScript.
CoffeeScript is just a syntax layer on top of JavaScript. It essentially is JavaScript. Anything you can do in JavaScript you can reproduce in CoffeeScript.
I'm attempting to learn backbone.js and (by extension) underscore.js, and I'm having some difficulty understanding some of the conventions. While writing a simpel search filter, I thought that something like below would work:
var search_string = new RegExp(query, "i");
var results = _.filter(this, function(data){
return search_string.test(data.get("title"));
}));
But, in fact, for this to work I need to change my filter function to the following:
var search_string = new RegExp(query, "i");
var results = _(this.filter(function(data){
return search_string.test(data.get("title"));
}));
Basically, I want to understand why the second example works, while the first doesn't. Based on the documentation (http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/#filter) I thought that the former would have worked. Or maybe this just reflects some old jQuery habits of mine... Can anyone explain this for me?
I'd guess that you're using a browser with a native Array#filter implementation. Try these in your console and see what happens:
[].filter.call({ a: 'b' }, function(x) { console.log(x) });
[].filter.call([1, 2], function(x) { console.log(x) });
The first one won't do anything, the second will produce 1 and 2 as output (http://jsfiddle.net/ambiguous/tkRQ3/). The problem isn't that data is empty, the problem is that the native Array#filter doesn't know what to do when applied to non-Array object.
All of Underscore's methods (including filter) use the native implementations if available:
Delegates to the native filter method, if it exists.
So the Array-ish Underscore methods generally won't work as _.m(collection, ...) unless you're using a browser that doesn't provide native implementations.
A Backbone collection is a wrapper for an array of models, the models array is in c.models so you'd want to:
_.filter(this.models, function(data) { ... });
Backbone collections have several Underscore methods mixed in:
Backbone proxies to Underscore.js to provide 28 iteration functions on Backbone.Collection.
and one of those is filter. These proxies apply the Underscore method to the collection's model array so c.filter(...) is the same as _.filter(c.models, ...).
This mixing-in is probably what's confusing the "should I use the native method" checks that Underscore is doing:
if (nativeFilter && obj.filter === nativeFilter) return obj.filter(iterator, context);
You can use _.filter on a plain old object (_.filter({a:'b'}, ...)) and get sensible results but it fails when you _.filter(backbone_collection, ...) because collections already have Underscore methods.
Here's a simple demo to hopefully clarify things: http://jsfiddle.net/ambiguous/FHd3Y/1/
For the same reason that $('#element') works and $#element doesn't. _ is the global variable for the underscore object just like $ is the global variable for the jQuery object.
_() says look in the _ object. _filter says look for a method named _filter.
I'm just getting started with Backbone. I went through the first two PeepCode screencasts which were great and now I'm digging in on a quick detached (no server side) mock-up of a future app.
Here's what I'm looking to build (roughly). A series of five text boxes - lets call these Widgets. Each Widget input, when selected, will display a pane that shows Tasks associated with the Widget and allow the user to create a new Task or destroy existing Tasks.
At this point, I'm thinking I have the following models:
Widget
Task
The following collections:
Tasks
Widgets
The following views (this is where it gets hairy!)
WidgetListView
- Presents a collection of Widgets
WidgetView
- sub-view of WidgetListView to render a specific Widget
TaskPaneView
- Presented when the user selects a Widget input
TaskCreateView
- Ability to create a new Task associated with selected Widget
TaskListView
- Presents a collection of Tasks for the given widget
TaskView
- Displays Task detail - sub-view of TaskListView
Assuming that's reasonable, the trick becomes how to display a TaskPaneView when a WidgetView is selected. And futhermore, how that TaskPaneView should in turn render TaskCreateViews and TaskListViews.
The real question here is: Does one cascade render events across Views? Is it permissible for a Root view to know of sub-views and render them explicitly? Should this be event-driven?
Apologies if this is an open-ended question, just hoping someone will have seen something similar before and be able to point me in the right direction.
Thanks!
Definitely make it event driven. Also, try not to create views that are closely coupled. Loose coupling will make your code more maintainable as well as flexible.
Check out this post on the event aggregator model and backbone:
http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/07/19/references-routing-and-the-event-aggregator-coordinating-views-in-backbone-js/
The short version is you can do this:
var vent = _.extend({}, Backbone.Events);
and use vent.trigger and vent.bind to control your app.
Pre p.s.: I have made a gist for you with the code that I wrote below:
https://gist.github.com/2863979
I agree with the pub/sub ('Observer pattern') that is suggested by the other answers. I would however also use the power of Require.js along with Backbone.
Addy Osmani has written a few GREAT! resources about Javascript design patterns and about building Backbone applications:
http://addyosmani.com/resources/essentialjsdesignpatterns/book/
http://addyosmani.com/writing-modular-js/
http://addyosmani.github.com/backbone-fundamentals/
The cool thing about using AMD (implemented in Require.js) along with Backbone is that you solve a few problems that you'd normally have.
Normally you will define classes and store these in some sort of namespaced way, e.g.:
MyApp.controllers.Tasks = Backbone.Controller.extend({})
This is fine, as long as you define most things in one file, when you start adding more and more different files to the mix it gets less robust and you have to start paying attention to how you load in different files, controllers\Tasks.js after models\Task.js etc. You could of course compile all the files in proper order, etc, but it is far from perfect.
On top of this, the problem with the non AMD way is that you have to nest Views inside of each other more tightly. Lets say:
MyApp.classes.views.TaskList = Backbone.View.extend({
// do stuff
});
MyApp.views.App = Backbone.View.extend({
el: '#app',
initialize: function(){
_.bindAll(this, 'render');
this.task_list = new MyApp.classes.views.TaskList();
},
render: function(){
this.task_list.render();
}
});
window.app = new MyApp.views.App();
All good and well, but this can become a nightmare.
With AMD you can define a module and give it a few dependencies, if you are interested in how this works read the above links, but the above example would look like this:
// file: views/TaskList.js
define([], function(){
var TaskList = Backbone.View.extend({
//do stuff
});
return new TaskList();
});
// file: views/App.js
define(['views/TaskList'], function(TaskListView){
var App = Backbone.View.extend({
el: '#app',
initialize: function(){
_.bindAll(this, 'render');
},
render: function(){
TaskListView.render();
}
});
return new App();
});
// called in index.html
Require(['views/App'], function(AppView){
window.app = AppView;
});
Notice that in the case of views you'd return instances, I do this for collections too, but for models I'd return classes:
// file: models/Task.js
define([], function(){
var Task = Backbone.Model.extend({
//do stuff
});
return Task;
});
This may seem a bit much at first, and people may think 'wow this is overkill'. But the true power becomes clear when you have to use the same objects in many different modules, for example collections:
// file: models/Task.js
define([], function(){
var Task = Backbone.Model.extend({
//do stuff
});
return Task;
});
// file: collections/Tasks.js
define(['models/Task'], function(TaskModel){
var Tasks = Backbone.Collection.extend({
model: TaskModel
});
return new Tasks();
});
// file: views/TaskList.js
define(['collections/Tasks'], function(Tasks){
var TaskList = Backbone.View.extend({
render: function(){
_.each(Tasks.models, function(task, index){
// do something with each task
});
}
});
return new TaskList();
});
// file: views/statistics.js
define(['collections/Tasks'], function(Tasks){
var TaskStats = Backbone.View.extend({
el: document.createElement('div'),
// Note that you'd have this function in your collection normally (demo)
getStats: function(){
totals = {
all: Tasks.models.length
done: _.filter(Tasks, function(task){ return task.get('done'); });
};
return totals;
},
render: function(){
var stats = this.getStats();
// do something in a view with the stats.
}
});
return new TaskStats();
});
Note that the 'Tasks' object is exactly the same in both views, so the same models, state, etc. This is a lot nicer than having to create instances of the Tasks collection at one point and then reference it through the whole application all the time.
At least for me using Require.js with Backbone has taken away a gigantic piece of the puzzling with where to instantiate what. Using modules for this is very very helpful. I hope this is applicable to your question as well.
p.s. please also note that you'd include Backbone, Underscore and jQuery as modules to your app too, although you don't have to, you can just load them in using the normal script tags.
For something with this kind of complexity, I might recommend using Backbone Aura, which has not yet had a stable release version. Aura essentially allows you to have multiple fully self-contained Backbone apps, called "widgets," running on a single page, which might help disentangle and smooth over some of your model/view logic.
From a classical MVC perspective, your views respond to changes in their associated models.
//initialize for view
initialize : function() {
this.model.on("change", this.render(), this);
}
The idea here is that anytime a view's model is changed, it'll render itself.
Alternatively or additionally, if you change something on a view, you can trigger an event that the controller listens to. If the controller also created the other models, it can modify them in some meaningful way, then if you're listening for changes to the models the views will change as well.
Similar answer to Chris Biscardi's. Here's what I have:
You create a global var Dispatcher (doesn't have to be global as long as it can be accessed from the scope of Backbone app):
Dispatcher = _.extend({}, Backbone.Events);
Dispatcher will help you execute subscribed callbacks with events that are not particularly triggered by changes in models or collections. And cool thing is that Dispatcher can execute any function, inside or outside Backbone app.
You subscribe to events using bind() in a view or any part of the app:
Dispatcher.bind('editor_keypress', this.validate_summary);
Then in another view or part of the app you trigger new event using trigger():
Dispatcher.trigger('redactor_keypress');
The beauty of using a dispatcher is its simplicity and ability to subscribe multiple listeners (e.g. callbacks in different Backbone views) to the same event.