re-frame/docs/SubscriptionsCleanup.md

221 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

## Subscriptions Cleanup
There's a problem and we need to fix it.
### The Problem
The simple example, used in the earlier code walk through, is not idomatic re-frame. It has a flaw.
It does not obey the re-frame rule: **keep views as dumb as possible**.
A view shouldn't do any computation on input data. Its job is just to compute hiccup.
The subscriptions it uses should deliver the data already in the right
structure, ready for use in hiccup generation.
### Just Look
2016-12-19 10:53:04 +11:00
Here be the horrors:
```clj
(defn clock
[]
[:div.example-clock
{:style {:color @(rf/subscribe [:time-color])}}
(-> @(rf/subscribe [:time])
.toTimeString
(clojure.string/split " ")
first)])
```
2016-12-19 12:54:18 +11:00
That view obtains data from a `[:time]` subscription and then it
massages that data into the form it needs for use in the hiccup. We don't like that.
### The Solution
Instead, we want to use a new `[:time-str]` subscription which will deliver the data all ready to go, so
the view is 100% concerned with hiccup generation only. Like this:
```clj
(defn clock
[]
[:div.example-clock
{:style {:color @(rf/subscribe [:time-color])}}
@(rf/subscribe [:time-str])])
```
Which, in turn, means we must write this `time-str` subscription handler:
```clj
(reg-sub
:time-str
(fn [_ _]
(subscribe [:time]))
(fn [t _]
(-> t
.toTimeString
(clojure.string/split " ")
first)))
```
Much better.
You'll notice this new subscription handler belongs to the "Level 3"
layer of the reactive flow. See the [Infographic](SubscriptionInfographic.md).
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
2016-12-19 12:54:18 +11:00
### Another Technique
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
Above, I suggested this:
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
```clj
(defn clock
[]
[:div.example-clock
{:style {:color @(rf/subscribe [:time-color])}}
@(rf/subscribe [:time-str])])
```
But that may offend your aesthetics. Too much noise with those `@`?
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
2016-12-19 12:54:18 +11:00
To clean this up, we can define a new `listen` function:
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
```clj
(defn listen
[query-v]
@(rf/subscribe query-v))
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
```
2016-12-19 12:54:18 +11:00
And then rewrite:
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
```clj
(defn clock
[]
[:div.example-clock
{:style {:color (listen [:time-color])}}
(listen [:time-str])])
```
2016-12-19 12:54:18 +11:00
So, at the cost of writing your own function, `listen`, the code is now less noisy
AND there's less chance of us forgetting an `@` (which can lead to odd problems).
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
### Say It Again
So, if, in code review, you saw this view function:
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
```clj
(defn show-items
[]
(let [sorted-items (sort @(subscribe [:items]))]
(into [:div] (for [i sorted-items] [item-view i]))))
```
2016-12-19 12:54:18 +11:00
What would you (supportively) object to?
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
That `sort`, right? Computation in the view. Instead, we want the right data
2016-12-19 09:42:16 +11:00
delivered to the view - its job is to simply make `hiccup`.
The solution is to create a subscription that delivers items already sorted.
```clj
(reg-sub
:sorted-items
(fn [_ _] (subscribe [:items]))
(fn [items _]
(sort items))
```
Now, in this case the computation is a bit trivial, but the moment it is
a little tricky, you'll want to test it. So separating it out from the
view will make that easier.
2016-12-19 12:54:18 +11:00
To make it testable, you may structure like this:
```clj
(defn item-sorter
[items _]
(sort items))
(reg-sub
:sorted-items
(fn [_ _] (subscribe [:items]))
2016-12-19 10:53:04 +11:00
item-sorter)
```
2016-12-19 12:54:18 +11:00
Now it is easy to test `item-sorter` independently.
### And There's Another Benefit
re-frame de-duplicates signal graph nodes.
If, for example, two views wanted to `(subscribe [:sorted-items])` only the one node
2016-12-19 10:53:04 +11:00
(in the signal graph) would be created. Only one node would be doing that
potentially expensive sorting operation (when items changed) and values from
it would be flowing through to both views.
That sort of efficiency can't happen if this views themselves are doing the `sort`.
2016-12-19 10:53:04 +11:00
### de-duplication
As I described above, two, or more, concurrent subscriptions for the same query will source
reactive updates from the one executing handler - from the one node in the signal graph.
How do we know if two subscriptions are "the same"? Answer: two subscriptions
are the same if their query vectors test `=` to each other.
So, these two subscriptions are *not* "the same": `[:some-event 42]` `[:some-event "blah"]`. Even
though they involve the same event id, `:some-event`, the query vectors do not test `=`.
This feature shakes out nicely because re-frame has a data oriented design.
2017-01-03 08:20:59 +11:00
### A Final FAQ
The following issues comes up a bit.
You will likely end up with a bunch of level 1 `reg-sub` which look the same (they directly extract a path within `app-db`):
```clj
(reg-sub
:a
(fn [db _]
(:a db)))
```
```clj
(reg-sub
:b
(fn [db _]
(-> db :top :b)))
```
Lot's of them the same. Same pattern over and over.
Now, you are a person who thinks abstractly, and that repetition will feel uncomfortable. It will
call to you like a Siren: "refaaaaactoooor meeeee".
So here's my tip: you will have to actively resist the urge to "refactor" out this common pattern.
The repetition is fine. It is serving a purpose. It is deliberate. Take a deep breath.
The very WORST thing you can do is to flex your magnificent abstraction muscles and create something like this:
```clj
(reg-sub
:extract-any-path
(fn [db path]
(get-in db path))
```
Genius!, you think to yourself. Now I only need one direct `reg-sub` and I supply a path to it.
A read-only cursor of sorts. Look at the code I can delete.
Neat and minimal it might be, but genius it isn't. IMO. You are now asking the code USING the subscription
to provide the path.
The view which subscribes using `(subscribe [:extract-any-path [:a]])` now "knows" about the
structure of `app-db`.
What happens when you restructure `app-db` slightly and put that `:a` path under
another high level branch of `app-db`? You will have to run around all the views,
looking for the paths supplied, knowing which to alter and which to leave alone. Fragile.
No! We want our views to declarative ask for data, but they should have
no idea where it comes from.
***
Previous: [Infographic](SubscriptionInfographic.md)      
2016-12-19 13:01:48 +11:00
Up: [Index](README.md)      
Next: [Flow Mechanics](SubscriptionFlow.md)       
<!-- START doctoc generated TOC please keep comment here to allow auto update -->
<!-- DON'T EDIT THIS SECTION, INSTEAD RE-RUN doctoc TO UPDATE -->
<!-- END doctoc generated TOC please keep comment here to allow auto update -->