Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    Your handler is going to look like that (assuming the function V = S(M) is computed on the client):
    $('#login').click(function() {
            var view  = document.getElementById("view") ;
            var session = $.post( "https://www.nomvc.com/actions/v1/logmein", { username: $( "#username" ).val(), password:$( "#password" ).val() } ) ;
                session
                    .done(function( model ) {
                        view.innerHTML = state.render(model) ;})
                    .fail( function(data) {
                        view.innerHTML = state.render({error: "server error"}) ; })
        }) ;

    The State element is generating both the state representation with the knowledge of the actions. So there is no conceptual difficulty in aligning the two.

    id="login"

    can be generated not handcoded

    Bor González Usach
    @bgusach
    @jdubray your example is fine, but I really don't think that is elegant in a general case. Let's say we have a model with some items, and for each item you want to create a button: with the IDs approach you iterate through the model, generate the HTML string, then you attach it to your DOM top root node via innerHTML and then once rendered, you iterate again through the model so that you know some IDs, fetch DOM elements by ID, and then append handlers. I really would not do that. It looks way easier just to generate the DOM nodes with createElementcalls, bind the events, and return the DOM object instead of a string. Anyway, as you have commented, this is not an architecture issue...
    adonirammedeiros
    @adonirammedeiros
    @gunar if my low level components know about high level components they become attached to the context and I lose component reusability. I think about components that know a little bit about each other, just to allow the composition. I looking for something like mithril (I know mithril is a framework and SAM is a pattern), hmvc or pac. I like SAM idea. I try to imagine how I can reuse components in different contexts with little to no "friction". Putting a lower level Model inside a higher level Model, can lead me to put a lower level Action inside a higher level Action and so on. Based on @jdubray example (if I understand correctly) I think the Action can be used like "public interface" of a SAM component.
    Gunar Gessner
    @gunar
    @bgusach hyperscript is very interesting, yeah. Actually, React uses event propagation ("bubbling") so it only needs to attach events to the root node. I've coded a small example
    Bor González Usach
    @bgusach
    @gunar, oh that is quite neat... I never took profit of event propagation. Thanks ;)
    Gunar Gessner
    @gunar
    @adonirammedeiros I'd have to think about that.
    @bgusach cool right? I never knew it myself. I've asked on twitter :P
    brusand
    @brusand
    For components maybe typescript and modules could help for componentisation .
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    @brusand let me take an example I worked on recently. If you to to http://www.michelduran.com
    you'll see that parts of the site are built from the same component (bio and films, then for each films, and so on)
    How was that build following the V = f(M) model?

    So first how we put mount all the components inside f():

                    +   theme.sliders(home.sliders) 
                    +   theme.actors(home.bio)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.actors(home.films)
                    +   theme.clearFix()  
                    +   theme.trailer(home.trailer)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.trailerInfo(home.trailerInfo)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.trailer(home.trailerReel)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.trailerInfo(home.trailerInfoReel)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                      +   theme.trailer(home.trailerCalBalloons)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.trailerInfo(home.trailerInfoCalBalloons)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                     +   theme.trailer(home.trailerTheatre)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.trailerInfo(home.trailerInfoTheatre)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.trailer(home.trailerOmbre)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.trailerInfo(home.trailerInfoOmbre)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.trailer(home.trailerOntherun)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.trailerInfo(home.trailerInfoOntherun)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.callToAction(home.callToAction)
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.gallery(home.gallery) 
                    +   theme.clearFix() 
                    +   theme.contact(home.contact)
                    +   theme.clearFix()

    each component of course being a pure function

    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    then focusing on the actor component:
    theme.actors = function(a) {
        a = a || {} ;
        a.id = a.id || 'actors' ;
        a.title = a.title || 'TITLE' ;
        a.title2 = a.title2 || 'TITLE2' ;
        a.title3 = a.title3 || 'TITLE3' ;
        a.title1 = a.title1 || 'TITLE1' ;
        a.p1 = a.p1 || 'SUMMARY1' ;
        a.p2 = a.p2 || ' ' ;
        a.p3 = a.p3 || ' ' ;
        a.background = a.background || 'html/img/background/5.jpg' ;
        a.actors = a.actors || [{}] ;
        if (a.actors.length>3) {
            a.background = 'html/img/background/5b.jpg' ;
        }
        var actors = '' ;
        if (a.actors.length>0) {
            actors = a.actors.map(function(actor){
                actor = actor || {} ;
                actor.name = actor.name || 'NAME' ;
                actor.surname = actor.surname || 'SURNAME' ;
                actor.img1 = actor.img1 || 'html/img/actor/3.jpg' ;
                actor.img2 = actor.img2 || 'html/img/actor/hover/3.jpg' ;
                var img2 = '' ;
                if (actor.img2 !== undefined) {
                    img2 = '<img class="before" src="'+actor.img2+'" alt="actor">\n' ;
                }
    ... 
    return ('<!-- ACTORS -->\n\
                <section id="'+a.id+'">\n\
                    <div class="center">\n\
                        <!-- title -->\n\
                        <h2 class="title">'+theme.localize(a.title)+'</h2>\n\
                        <!-- actors -->\n\
    brusand
    @brusand
    Thé more i see your code thé more i am conviced .
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    Now last part is the model:
    home.bio = {} ;
    home.bio.id = 'bio' ;
    home.bio.title = 'Biography' ;
    home.bio.title1 = 'Michel Duran is a Franco-Canadian actor, director and producer' ;
    you see the id? each component will have a different id, just like any button, link, ...
    Happy to share more privately
    Again, I don't code for a living, so I am ok if people laugh at my code
    but I have been coding for the last 35 years... starting with my first commercial product at age 16 on an Apple ][
    now the main menu has the same references:
    home.menuItems = [{link: "#films", label: "FILMS"}
                    ,{link: "#theatre", label: "THEATRE"}
                    ,{link: '#gallery', label: "GALLERY"}
                    ,{link: '#bio', label: "BIOGRAPHY"}
                    ,{link: "#ontherun", label: "ON THE GO"}
                    ,{link: "#contact", label: "CONTACT"}
    To be fair, this I learned from Facebook. JSX is nice but personally I find it a bit of overhead. Of course with this kind of code you need to make sure you escape your inputs, but that's a very small price to pay for the flexibility of the code.
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    As I said before, I been building Model-Driven Software as far back as 1993 with my students at ESIL in Luminy, so I know a thing or two about code generation.
    In terms of reuse, code generation tends to be a bit better than libraries because we can generate exactly what we need from a base. In a library you only get the base and you have to make sur the right paths are enabled to support different use cases. Code generators beat libraries any day, but you can't deploy them everywhere. HTML is DSL, that's why it works so well here.
    Stardrive ENGG
    @HighOnDrive

    @brusand Just wanted to chime in and say that the right reactive loop pattern and then modularization are most important. Everyone hypes components yet they are only there to make up the real estate of the UI with widgets. These widgets can be simple DIVs or stateless functions done with any DSL of your liking, however using them as a place to put all logic functionality is not smart.

    What I think works best is to first have a good idea about what you want (not just blindly follow the hype) and then extract all logic, UI partials and control state out into separate modules. Then use components (and even Cycle.js drivers) ONLY as adapters (just essential intermediares between the external world or the vDOM, etc).

    What that lets you do is pin your modularized functions to the components and drivers in the most decoupled way possible. That way the technology backing the components can be swapped out and all your modules (the meat of your app) are not in a hostage situation (at the mercy of the next great late framework).

    This strategy IMHO is also important if we are going to supersede frameworks. So in a SAM solution I would have modules for each stage of SAM, then wire them together in the adapter shell components in the most transparent way possible.

    Actually, even the not-terminal wiring functions that wire up the terminal functions should be in modules. Components should remain as empty as possible.

    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    +1M

    yes, exactly:

    use components (and even Cycle.js drivers) ONLY as adapters (just essential intermediares between the external world or the vDOM, etc).

    Components should remain as empty as possible.

    It's also you are more free to move that logic where it makes the most sense. React is client heavy, but it does not have to be that way at all. I favor a lot more balance with the server, though I can appreciate why Facebook is trying to use as many CPU cycles on the client. That kind of architecture does not work for everyone.
    If you have tried to write some isomorphic code with React, that is a complete nightmare, when with SAM it is a complete piece of cake (at least the SAM implementation I build which is not Framework based)
    Stardrive ENGG
    @HighOnDrive
    @jdubray Strategy is important if we are to survive the framewars! Have been away but following the exciting developments with SAM. I think getting SAM into the Flux-challenge is a great way forward :+1:
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    agreed
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    @HighOnDrive I would like to quote your previous comment on the view in the SAM tutorial. Would it be ok. Could we connect on linkedin?
    brusand
    @brusand
    @HighOnDrive yes totally agréé with you, actualy with type script ans angular 1 ans qui router we czn organise code like login.module.ts , login.route.ts, login.view.tpl, login.contrôler.ts. .... with sam, we could have login.modèle.ts, login.state.ts, login.action.ts, all bases on. Dépendance injection. I ll post a link on a simple projection
    Project
    Stardrive ENGG
    @HighOnDrive
    @jdubray Sure, use the quote, cheers!
    Stardrive ENGG
    @HighOnDrive
    If possible give me a preview, thanks.
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray

    @HighOnDrive I was thinking something along the lines of:

    A good Front-End Architecture should allow you to pin your modularized functions to the UI components in the most decoupled way possible. That way the technology backing the components can be swapped out and all your business logic are not in a hostage situation (at the mercy of the next great late framework).

    would that be representative of what you were saying?

    Stardrive ENGG
    @HighOnDrive
    @jdubray Just in from my day, like what you have distilled from the point I was making :+1:
    Maybe change "your business logic are not" to "your business logic is not"
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    sure, thank you. Do you want to be quoted as HighOnDrive or with your real name?
    Stardrive ENGG
    @HighOnDrive
    Use my real name, "High On Drive" is the title of a song I wrote for my prog rock band Stardrive Engineering :smile:
    All the bands songs have the "Rocket Launcher" theme :rocket:
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    Ah ah... you can't dislike SAM then. What it your real name?
    Stardrive ENGG
    @HighOnDrive
    Thomas J. Buhr, did you get the linkedin connection from me?
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    Yes, I did thank you!!
    Bor González Usach
    @bgusach
    @HighOnDrive programming rock band? :D you take this business seriously!!
    Bor González Usach
    @bgusach
    Got a question, how can actions be pure functions if they can call third party APIs which may not be pure? That is not quite the definition of pure functions...
    Bor González Usach
    @bgusach
    And, moreover... they just produce side effects... that is the opposite of function purity
    Jean-Jacques Dubray
    @jdubray
    they are pure fonctions with respect to the model
    It is only with respect to the model