3 ms·

The "container/presentational" component pattern is completely optional. If you want to write components that both fetch and display data, that's entirely up t

The "container/presentational" component pattern is completely optional. If you want to write components that both fetch and display data, that's entirely up to you. Dan Abramov, who wrote the most widely referenced post discussing the topic ([0]), recently said that he somewhat regrets writing it because many people have assumed it's a strict rule that must be followed ([1]). That said, it _is_ a very useful pattern, and can help with conceptual management of components. I have links to a number of additional articles discussing this pattern as part of my React/Redux links list ([2]). [0] https://medium.com/@dan_abramov/smart-and-dumb-components-7ca2f9a7c7d0 https://medium.com/@dan_abramov/smart-and-dumb-components-7c... [1] https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/802569801906475008 https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/802569801906475008 [2] https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links/blob/master/react-component-patterns.md#component-categories https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links/blob/master...

IgorPartola 10y ago
Thanks for the perspective. I guess I ran into this very thing. React itself is actually a pretty simple library. The problem is that it's not the whole story, so you need other bits and pieces to put together a functional SPA. Ender redux, react-router, etc. And because React tries to explicitly not be so opinionated about what you should use, the way you learn about this stuff is not from the official tutorial, but from various blog posts. There are also resources like this: https://github.com/kriasoft/react-starter-kit https://github.com/kriasoft/react-starter-kit. On the surface it's great. But for my taste it's organized very poorly. You have all your reusable (NB: reusable != reused) components in one place, and all your pages in another. Each component consists of exactly 3 files that are 3 directory levels down. Pages (views? containers?) are in a separate directory structure where each page consists of 3 files that are 3 directory levels down. I guess if your SPA consists of hundreds of pages/views/containers with most components reused many times this makes sense. For my applications (low dozens of pages/views/containers) this seems like a huge overkill. And don't get me started on the redux theory of all global state all the time, which actually seems to not be ideal for things like "I just want a more complex <select>", and you have a very scattered learning curve. By contrast, Vue has a pretty sane slightly opinionated learning curve. Sure, there are a few things you need to figure out (XHR/Websockets + VueX + promises don't have a decent recipe in the docs), but overall it's much more coherent.
- acemarke 10y ago
  Please don't mistake the opinions of various boilerplate projects for authoritative info on how to use React (or Redux). The React team makes it a point to encourage people _not_ to use boilerplates as a learning tool, as they are almost always ridiculously over-engineered and over-configured, and therefore a source of confusion for someone who is trying to learn things. You should use whatever file structure works best for you. "Folder-by-file-type" is common, as is "Folder-by-feature". My links list has a category discussing various project structures ([0]), but that's completely up to you. Redux's global state has tradeoffs. There's a lot of value in keeping your data outside the component tree (passing data between components that aren't directly related, making hot reloading easier, etc), as well as benefits to having a lot of logic be centralized (consistent handling of API responses, logging of dispatched actions). The tradeoff is that some aspects do become more complicated. However, it's also important to note that YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP EVERY LAST BIT OF DATA IN REDUX!!!!! People have over-interpreted the phrase "single source of truth", and game-of-telephoned that to mean "You _must_ keep _all_ data in Redux". No. NOT true. Per the relevant Redux FAQ entry ([1]): > Using local component state is fine. As a developer, it is your job to determine what kinds of state make up your application, and where each piece of state should live. Find a balance that works for you, and go with it. So, if it makes sense to keep a bunch of data for a <select> in the component that's rendering it, do so. Finally, that "bits and pieces of info" aspect is exactly why I've put together my links list: to try to provide a single place that points a reasonably vetted selection of good info on React/Redux-related topics. [0] https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links/blob/master/project-structure.md https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links/blob/master... [1] http://redux.js.org/docs/faq/OrganizingState.html#organizing-state-only-redux-state http://redux.js.org/docs/faq/OrganizingState.html#organizing...
  - SamBam 10y ago
    > The React team makes it a point to encourage people _not_ to use boilerplates as a learning tool What I would love to see is one of those over-engineered React+whatever boilerplate project that shows you, in a step-by-step form, showing the evolution from a simple project to the final boilerplate they have, and why it exists like that. I have created a fairly-large project in Redux, but as I created it I know that it wasn't the "optimal" way of architecting it. So, before starting another project, I tried starting from the "react-redux-starter-kit" project, and it was immediately over my head. I have to instantly grok how they're using the router, layouts, stores (I thought Redux didn't use stores...), modules... the source even has explicit references to the way WebPack is going to lazily load stuff, so I don't even know if I could use some other build system without breaking the source. I'd love to see the same project laid out as a series of refactorings: 1. Here we have a really simple Redux project, the way a beginner might code it 2. They realize they need routes. Let's refactor the code to include the router 3. The realize it would be better putting the related-components in their own folders. Here's that refactorization. ... X. Look, your project now looks like the starter project!

IgorPartola 10y ago

Thanks for the perspective. I guess I ran into this very thing. React itself is actually a pretty simple library. The problem is that it's not the whole story, so you need other bits and pieces to put together a functional SPA. Ender redux, react-router, etc. And because React tries to explicitly not be so opinionated about what you should use, the way you learn about this stuff is not from the official tutorial, but from various blog posts. There are also resources like this: https://github.com/kriasoft/react-starter-kit https://github.com/kriasoft/react-starter-kit. On the surface it's great. But for my taste it's organized very poorly. You have all your reusable (NB: reusable != reused) components in one place, and all your pages in another. Each component consists of exactly 3 files that are 3 directory levels down. Pages (views? containers?) are in a separate directory structure where each page consists of 3 files that are 3 directory levels down. I guess if your SPA consists of hundreds of pages/views/containers with most components reused many times this makes sense. For my applications (low dozens of pages/views/containers) this seems like a huge overkill. And don't get me started on the redux theory of all global state all the time, which actually seems to not be ideal for things like "I just want a more complex <select>", and you have a very scattered learning curve. By contrast, Vue has a pretty sane slightly opinionated learning curve. Sure, there are a few things you need to figure out (XHR/Websockets + VueX + promises don't have a decent recipe in the docs), but overall it's much more coherent.

acemarke 10y ago
Please don't mistake the opinions of various boilerplate projects for authoritative info on how to use React (or Redux). The React team makes it a point to encourage people _not_ to use boilerplates as a learning tool, as they are almost always ridiculously over-engineered and over-configured, and therefore a source of confusion for someone who is trying to learn things. You should use whatever file structure works best for you. "Folder-by-file-type" is common, as is "Folder-by-feature". My links list has a category discussing various project structures ([0]), but that's completely up to you. Redux's global state has tradeoffs. There's a lot of value in keeping your data outside the component tree (passing data between components that aren't directly related, making hot reloading easier, etc), as well as benefits to having a lot of logic be centralized (consistent handling of API responses, logging of dispatched actions). The tradeoff is that some aspects do become more complicated. However, it's also important to note that YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP EVERY LAST BIT OF DATA IN REDUX!!!!! People have over-interpreted the phrase "single source of truth", and game-of-telephoned that to mean "You _must_ keep _all_ data in Redux". No. NOT true. Per the relevant Redux FAQ entry ([1]): > Using local component state is fine. As a developer, it is your job to determine what kinds of state make up your application, and where each piece of state should live. Find a balance that works for you, and go with it. So, if it makes sense to keep a bunch of data for a <select> in the component that's rendering it, do so. Finally, that "bits and pieces of info" aspect is exactly why I've put together my links list: to try to provide a single place that points a reasonably vetted selection of good info on React/Redux-related topics. [0] https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links/blob/master/project-structure.md https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links/blob/master... [1] http://redux.js.org/docs/faq/OrganizingState.html#organizing-state-only-redux-state http://redux.js.org/docs/faq/OrganizingState.html#organizing...
- SamBam 10y ago
  > The React team makes it a point to encourage people _not_ to use boilerplates as a learning tool What I would love to see is one of those over-engineered React+whatever boilerplate project that shows you, in a step-by-step form, showing the evolution from a simple project to the final boilerplate they have, and why it exists like that. I have created a fairly-large project in Redux, but as I created it I know that it wasn't the "optimal" way of architecting it. So, before starting another project, I tried starting from the "react-redux-starter-kit" project, and it was immediately over my head. I have to instantly grok how they're using the router, layouts, stores (I thought Redux didn't use stores...), modules... the source even has explicit references to the way WebPack is going to lazily load stuff, so I don't even know if I could use some other build system without breaking the source. I'd love to see the same project laid out as a series of refactorings: 1. Here we have a really simple Redux project, the way a beginner might code it 2. They realize they need routes. Let's refactor the code to include the router 3. The realize it would be better putting the related-components in their own folders. Here's that refactorization. ... X. Look, your project now looks like the starter project!