1189 lines
52 KiB
Markdown
1189 lines
52 KiB
Markdown
# re-frame: Derived Values, Flowing
|
||
|
||
#### Build Status
|
||
|
||
Branch | Status
|
||
----------|--------
|
||
`master` | [![Circle CI](https://circleci.com/gh/Day8/re-frame/tree/master.svg?style=svg)](https://circleci.com/gh/Day8/re-frame/tree/master)
|
||
`develop` | [![Circle CI](https://circleci.com/gh/Day8/re-frame/tree/develop.svg?style=svg)](https://circleci.com/gh/Day8/re-frame/tree/develop)
|
||
|
||
|
||
> This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course,
|
||
sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the
|
||
metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old
|
||
axe of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good axe,
|
||
y'know. Pretty good.
|
||
|
||
> -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
|
||
|
||
## Why Should You Care About re-frame?
|
||
|
||
Either:
|
||
|
||
1. You want to develop an [SPA] in ClojureScript, and you are looking for a framework; or
|
||
2. You believe that, by early 2015, ReactJS had won the JavaScript framework wars and
|
||
you are curious about the bigger implications. Is the combination of
|
||
`reactive programming`, `functional programming` and `immutable data` going to
|
||
**completely change everything**? And, if so, what would that look like in a language
|
||
that embraces those paradigms?
|
||
|
||
|
||
## re-frame
|
||
|
||
re-frame is a pattern for writing [SPAs] in ClojureScript, using [Reagent].
|
||
|
||
This repo contains both a **description of this pattern** and a **reference implementation**.
|
||
|
||
To quote McCoy: "It's MVC, Jim, but not as we know it".
|
||
|
||
To build a re-frame app, you:
|
||
- design your app's data structure (data layer)
|
||
- write and register subscription functions (query layer)
|
||
- write Reagent component functions (view layer)
|
||
- write and register event handler functions (control layer and/or state transition layer)
|
||
|
||
Features:
|
||
|
||
1. The functions you write are pure, so the computational pieces of your app can
|
||
be described, understood and tested independently.
|
||
You won't need sophisticated Dependency Injection to test. So much
|
||
incidental complexity evaporates.
|
||
2. These computational parts are composed via reactive data flows - a dynamic,
|
||
unidirectional Signal graph.
|
||
3. The resulting architecture involves "derived data" flowing in a two-stage, reactive loop.
|
||
Without realising it, you will be explicitly modelling time.
|
||
4. It is fast, straight out of the box. You won't have to go through [this sort of pain](http://blog.scalyr.com/2013/10/angularjs-1200ms-to-35ms/).
|
||
5. The surprising thing about re-frame is how simple it is. Beautifully simple! Our reference
|
||
implementation is little more than 200 lines of (ClojureScript) code. Learn it in an afternoon.
|
||
6. But it scales up nicely to more complex apps. Frameworks are just pesky overhead at small
|
||
scale - measure them instead by how they help you tame the complexity of bigger apps.
|
||
7. Re-frame is impressively buzzword compliant: it has FRP-nature,
|
||
unidirectional data flow, pristinely pure functions, conveyor belts, statechart-friendliness (FSM)
|
||
and claims an immaculate hammock conception.
|
||
It also has a charming xkcd reference (soon)
|
||
and a hilarious, insiders-joke T-shirt, ideal for conferences (in design).
|
||
What could possibly go wrong?
|
||
|
||
## Using re-frame
|
||
|
||
|
||
[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/Day8/re-frame.png?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/Day8/re-frame)
|
||
|
||
re-frame is available from clojars. Add the following to your project dependencies:
|
||
[![Clojars Project](http://clojars.org/re-frame/latest-version.svg)](http://clojars.org/re-frame)
|
||
|
||
__Warning__: That was the summary. What follows is a long-ish tutorial/explanation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
## Tutorial Table of Contents
|
||
|
||
|
||
- [What Problem Does It Solve?](#what-problem-does-it-solve)
|
||
- [Guiding Philosophy](#guiding-philosophy)
|
||
- [FRP Clarifications](#frp-clarifications)
|
||
- [Explaining re-frame](#explaining-re-frame)
|
||
- [On Data](#on-data)
|
||
- [The Big Ratom](#the-big-ratom)
|
||
- [The Benefits Of Data-In-The-One-Place](#the-benefits-of-data-in-the-one-place)
|
||
- [Flow](#flow)
|
||
- [How Flow Happens In Reagent](#how-flow-happens-in-reagent)
|
||
- [Components](#components)
|
||
- [Truth Interlude](#truth-interlude)
|
||
- [Components Like Templates?](#components-like-templates)
|
||
- [React etc.](#react-etc)
|
||
- [Subscribe](#subscribe)
|
||
- [Just A Read-Only Cursor?](#just-a-read-only-cursor)
|
||
- [The Signal Graph](#the-signal-graph)
|
||
- [A More Efficient Signal Graph](#a-more-efficient-signal-graph)
|
||
- [The 2nd Flow](#the-2nd-flow)
|
||
- [Event Flow](#event-flow)
|
||
- [What are events?](#what-are-events)
|
||
- [Dispatching Events](#dispatching-events)
|
||
- [Event Handlers](#event-handlers)
|
||
- [Routing](#routing)
|
||
- [Control Via FSM](#control-via-fsm)
|
||
- [As A Reduce](#as-a-reduce)
|
||
- [Derived Data, Everywhere, flowing](#derived-data-everywhere-flowing)
|
||
- [Logging And Debugging](#logging-and-debugging)
|
||
- [Talking To A Server](#talking-to-a-server)
|
||
- [The CPU Hog Problem](#the-cpu-hog-problem)
|
||
- [In Summary](#in-summary)
|
||
- [Where Do I Go Next](#where-do-i-go-next)
|
||
- [Licence](#licence)
|
||
|
||
## What Problem Does It Solve?
|
||
|
||
First, we decided to build our SPA apps with ClojureScript, then we
|
||
choose [Reagent], then we had a problem.
|
||
|
||
For all its considerable brilliance, Reagent (+ ReactJS)
|
||
delivers only the 'V' part of a traditional MVC framework.
|
||
|
||
But apps involve much more than V. Where
|
||
does the control logic go? How is state stored & manipulated? etc.
|
||
|
||
We read up on [Flux], [Pedestal App],
|
||
[Hoplon], [OM], [Elm], etc and re-frame is the architecture that emerged.
|
||
|
||
re-frame does have M, V, and C parts but they aren't objects, they
|
||
are pure functions (or pure data),
|
||
and they are wired together via reactive data flows. It is sufficiently different in nature
|
||
from (traditional, Smalltalk) MVC that calling it MVC would be confusing. I'd
|
||
love an alternative.
|
||
|
||
Perhaps it is a RACES framework - Reactive-Atom Component Event
|
||
Subscription framework (I love the smell of acronym in the morning).
|
||
|
||
Or, if we distill to pure essence, `DDATWD` - Derived Data All The Way Down.
|
||
|
||
*TODO:* get acronym down to 3 chars! Get an image of stacked Turtles for `DDATWD`
|
||
insider's joke, conference T-Shirt.
|
||
|
||
|
||
## Guiding Philosophy
|
||
|
||
__First__, above all we believe in the one true [Dan Holmsand], creator of Reagent, and
|
||
his divine instrument the `ratom`. We genuflect towards Sweden once a day.
|
||
|
||
__Second__, we believe in ClojureScript, immutable data and the process of building
|
||
a system out of pure functions.
|
||
|
||
__Third__, we believe that [FRP] is one honking great idea. You might be tempted to see
|
||
Reagent as simply another of the React wrappers - a sibling to [OM] and
|
||
[quiescent](https://github.com/levand/quiescent).
|
||
But you'll only really "get"
|
||
Reagent when you view it as an FRP-ish library. To put that another way, I think
|
||
that Reagent, at its best, is closer in nature to [Hoplon] or [Elm] than it is OM.
|
||
|
||
__Finally__, we believe in one-way data flow. No two way data binding. We don't
|
||
like read/write `cursors` which
|
||
promote the two way flow of data. As programs get bigger, we've found that their
|
||
use seems to encourage control logic into all the wrong places.
|
||
|
||
## FRP Clarifications
|
||
|
||
We'll get to the meat in a second, I promise, but first one final, useful diversion ...
|
||
|
||
Terminology in the FRP world seems to get people hot under the collar. Those who believe in continuous-time
|
||
semantics might object to me describing re-frame as having FRP-nature. They'd claim that it does something
|
||
different from pure FRP, which is true.
|
||
|
||
But, these days, FRP seems to have become a
|
||
["big tent"](http://soft.vub.ac.be/Publications/2012/vub-soft-tr-12-13.pdf)
|
||
(a broad church?).
|
||
Broad enough perhaps that re-frame can be in the far, top, left paddock of the tent, via a series of
|
||
qualifications: re-frame has "discrete, dynamic, asynchronous, push FRP-ish-nature" without "glitch free" guarantees.
|
||
(Surprisingly, "glitch" has specific meaning in FRP).
|
||
|
||
**If you are new to FRP, or reactive programming generally**, browse these resources before
|
||
going further (certainly read the first two):
|
||
- [Creative Explanation](http://paulstovell.com/blog/reactive-programming)
|
||
- [Reactive Programming Backgrounder](https://gist.github.com/staltz/868e7e9bc2a7b8c1f754)
|
||
- [presentation (video)](http://www.infoq.com/presentations/ClojureScript-Javelin) by Alan Dipert (co-author of Hoplon)
|
||
- [serious pants Elm thesis](https://www.seas.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/files/archived/Czaplicki.pdf)
|
||
|
||
And for the love of all that is good, please watch this terrific
|
||
[StrangeLoop presentation ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU9hR3kiOK0) (40 mins). Watch what happens
|
||
when you re-imagine a database as a stream!! Look at all the problems that are solved.
|
||
Think about that: shared mutable state (the root of all evil),
|
||
re-imagined as a stream!! Blew my socks off.
|
||
|
||
re-frame tries to be `Derived Data everywhere, flowing`. Or perhaps,
|
||
`Derived Data All The Way Down` (an infinite loop of Derived Data).
|
||
More explanation on all these claims soon.
|
||
|
||
## Explaining re-frame
|
||
|
||
To explain re-frame, I'll incrementally develop a diagram, describing each part as it is added.
|
||
|
||
Initially, I'll be using [Reagent] at an intermediate to advanced level. But this is no introductory
|
||
reagent tutorial and you will need to have done one of those before continuing here. Try
|
||
[The Introductory Tutorial](http://reagent-project.github.io/) or
|
||
[this one](https://github.com/jonase/reagent-tutorial) or
|
||
[Building Single Page Apps with Reagent](http://yogthos.net/posts/2014-07-15-Building-Single-Page-Apps-with-Reagent.html).
|
||
|
||
### On Data
|
||
|
||
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Well-formed Data at rest is as close to perfection in programming as it gets. All the crap that had to happen to put it there however...</p>— Fogus (@fogus) <a href="https://twitter.com/fogus/status/454582953067438080">April 11, 2014</a></blockquote>
|
||
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
|
||
|
||
### The Big Ratom
|
||
|
||
Our re-frame diagram starts (very modestly) with Fogus' ***well-formed data at rest*** bit:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
app-db
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
re-frame says that you put your data into one place which we'll call `app-db`. Structure
|
||
the data in that place, of course, and [give it a schema](https://github.com/Prismatic/schema).
|
||
|
||
Now, this advice is not the slightest bit controversial for 'real' databases, right?
|
||
You'd happily put all your well-formed data into PostgreSQL or MySQL.
|
||
|
||
But within a running
|
||
application (in memory), it is different. If you have a background in OO, this data-in-one-place
|
||
business is a really, really hard one to swallow. You've
|
||
spent your life breaking systems into pieces, organised around behaviour and trying
|
||
to hide the data. I still wake up in a sweat some nights thinking about all
|
||
that Clojure data lying around exposed and passive.
|
||
|
||
But, as Fogus reminds us, data at rest is the easy bit. Believe.
|
||
|
||
From here on in this document, we'll assume `app-db` is one of these:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(def app-db (reagent/atom {})) ;; a Reagent atom, containing a map
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Although it is a `Reagent atom` (hereafter `ratom`), I'd encourage you to think of it as an in-memory database.
|
||
It will contain structured data. You will need to query that data. You will perform CRUD
|
||
and other transformations on it. You'll often want to transact on this
|
||
database atomically, etc. So "in-memory database"
|
||
seems a more useful paradigm than plain old map-in-atom.
|
||
|
||
A clarification: `app-db` doesn't actually have to be a reagent/atom containing
|
||
a map. It could, for example, be a [datascript] database. In fact, any database which is reactive
|
||
(can tell you when it changes) would do. (We'd love! to be using [datascript] - so damn cool -
|
||
but we had too much
|
||
data in our apps. If you were to use it, you'd have to tweak the reference implementation a bit,
|
||
[perhaps using this inspiration](https://gist.github.com/allgress/11348685)). The reference implementation already creates and manages an internal `app-db` for you, you don't need to declare one yourself.
|
||
|
||
|
||
### The Benefits Of Data-In-The-One-Place
|
||
|
||
I'm going to quote verbatim from Elm's website:
|
||
|
||
1. There is a single source of truth. Traditional approaches force you to write a decent amount
|
||
of custom and error prone code to synchronize state between many different stateful components.
|
||
(The state of this widget needs to be synced with the application state, which needs to be
|
||
synced with some other widget, etc.) By placing all of your state in one location, you
|
||
eliminate an entire class of bugs in which two components get into inconsistent states. We
|
||
also think you will end up writing much less code. That has been our observation in Elm so far.
|
||
|
||
2. Save and Undo become quite easy. Many applications would benefit from the ability to save
|
||
all application state and send it off to the server so it can be reloaded at some later date.
|
||
This is extremely difficult when your application state is spread all over the place and
|
||
potentially tied to objects that cannot be serialized. With a central store, this becomes
|
||
very simple. Many applications would also benefit from the ability to easily undo user's
|
||
actions. For example, a painting app is better with Undo. Since everything is immutable in Elm,
|
||
this is also very easy. Saving past states is trivial, and you will automatically get pretty
|
||
good sharing guarantees to keep the size of the snapshots down.
|
||
|
||
|
||
To this list, I would briefly add two: the ability to genuinely model control via FSMs
|
||
and the ability to do time travel debugging, even in a production setting. More on both soon.
|
||
|
||
[Hoplon] takes the same approach via what they called `stem cells`, which is a root source of data.
|
||
|
||
## Flow
|
||
|
||
Arguments from authority ...
|
||
|
||
> Everything flows, nothing stands still. (Panta rhei)
|
||
|
||
> No man ever steps in the same river twice for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.
|
||
|
||
[Heraclitus 500 BC](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heraclitus). Who, being Greek, had never seen a frozen river. [alt version](http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5213/5477602206_ecb78559ed.jpg).
|
||
|
||
|
||
> Think of an experience from your childhood. Something you remember clearly, something you can see,
|
||
feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all you really were there at the time,
|
||
weren’t you? How else could you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you weren’t there. Not a
|
||
single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place .... Matter flows
|
||
from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. Whatever you are, therefore, you
|
||
are not the stuff of which you are made. If that does not make the hair stand up on the back of
|
||
your neck, read it again until it does, because it is important.
|
||
|
||
Steve Grand
|
||
|
||
|
||
### How Flow Happens In Reagent
|
||
|
||
To implement FRP, Reagent provides a `ratom` and a `reaction`.
|
||
re-frame uses both of these
|
||
building blocks, so let's now make sure we understand them.
|
||
|
||
`ratoms` behave just like normal ClojureScript atoms. You can `swap!` and `reset!` them, `watch` them, etc.
|
||
|
||
From a ClojureScript perspective, the purpose of an atom is to hold mutable data. From a re-frame
|
||
perspective, we'll tweak that paradigm slightly and **view a `ratom` as having a value that
|
||
changes over time.** Seems like a subtle distinction, I know, but because of it, re-frame sees a
|
||
`ratom` as a Signal. [Pause and read this](http://elm-lang.org:1234/guide/reactivity).
|
||
|
||
The 2nd building block, `reaction`, acts a bit like a function. It's a macro which wraps some
|
||
`computation` (a block of code) and returns a `ratom` holding the result of that `computation`.
|
||
|
||
The magic thing about a `reaction` is that the `computation` it wraps will be automatically
|
||
re-run whenever 'its inputs' change, producing a new output (return) value.
|
||
|
||
Eh, how?
|
||
|
||
Well, the `computation` is just a block of code, and if that code dereferences one or
|
||
more `ratoms`, it will be automatically re-run (recomputing a new return value) whenever any
|
||
of these dereferenced `ratoms` change.
|
||
|
||
To put that yet another way, a `reaction` detects a `computation's` input Signals (aka input `ratoms`)
|
||
and it will `watch` them, and when, later, it detects a change in one of them, it will re-run that
|
||
computation, and it will `reset!` the new result of that computation into the `ratom` originally returned.
|
||
|
||
So, the `ratom` returned by a `reaction` is itself a Signal. Its value will change over time when
|
||
the `computation` is re-run.
|
||
|
||
So, via the interplay between `ratoms` and `reactions`, values 'flow' into computations and out
|
||
again, and then into further computations, etc. "Values" flow (propagate) through the Signal graph.
|
||
|
||
But this Signal graph must be without cycles, because cycles cause mayhem! re-frame achieves
|
||
a unidirectional flow.
|
||
|
||
While the mechanics are different, `reaction` has the intent of `map` in [Elm] and `defc=` in [Hoplon].
|
||
|
||
Right, so that was a lot of words. Some code to clarify:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(ns example1
|
||
(:require-macros [reagent.ratom :refer [reaction]]) ;; reaction is a macro
|
||
(:require [reagent.core :as reagent]))
|
||
|
||
(def app-db (reagent/atom {:a 1})) ;; our root ratom (signal)
|
||
|
||
(def ratom2 (reaction {:b (:a @app-db)})) ;; reaction wraps a computation, returns a signal
|
||
(def ratom3 (reaction (condp = (:b @ratom2) ;; reaction wraps another computation
|
||
0 "World"
|
||
1 "Hello")))
|
||
|
||
;; Notice that both computations above involve de-referencing a ratom:
|
||
;; - app-db in one case
|
||
;; - ratom2 in the other
|
||
;; Notice that both reactions above return a ratom.
|
||
;; Those returned ratoms hold the (time varying) value of the computations.
|
||
|
||
(println @ratom2) ;; ==> {:b 1} ;; a computed result, involving @app-db
|
||
(println @ratom3) ;; ==> "Hello" ;; a computed result, involving @ratom2
|
||
|
||
(reset! app-db {:a 0}) ;; this change to app-db, triggers re-computation
|
||
;; of ratom2
|
||
;; which, in turn, causes a re-computation of ratom3
|
||
|
||
(println @ratom2) ;; ==> {:b 0} ;; ratom2 is result of {:b (:a @app-db)}
|
||
(println @ratom3) ;; ==> "World" ;; ratom3 is automatically updated too.
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
So, in FRP-ish terms, a `reaction` will produce a "stream" of values over time (it is a Signal),
|
||
accessible via the `ratom` it returns.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Okay, that was all important background information for what is to follow. Back to the diagram ...
|
||
|
||
## Components
|
||
|
||
Extending the diagram, we introduce `components`:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
app-db --> components --> Hiccup
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
When using Reagent, your primary job is to write one or more `components`. This is the view layer.
|
||
|
||
Think about `components` as `pure functions` - data in, Hiccup out. `Hiccup` is
|
||
ClojureScript data structures which represent DOM. Here's a trivial component:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(defn greet
|
||
[]
|
||
[:div "Hello ratoms and reactions"])
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
And if we call it:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(greet)
|
||
;; ==> [:div "Hello ratoms and reactions"]
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
You'll notice that our component is a regular Clojure function, nothing special. In this case, it takes
|
||
no parameters and it returns a ClojureScript vector (formatted as Hiccup).
|
||
|
||
Here is a slightly more interesting (parameterised) component (function):
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(defn greet ;; greet has a parameter now
|
||
[name] ;; 'name' is a ratom holding a string
|
||
[:div "Hello " @name]) ;; dereference 'name' to extract the contained value
|
||
|
||
;; create a ratom, containing a string
|
||
(def n (reagent/atom "re-frame"))
|
||
|
||
;; call our `component` function, passing in a ratom
|
||
(greet n)
|
||
;; ==> [:div "Hello " "re-frame"] returns a vector
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
So components are easy - at core they are a render function which turns data into
|
||
Hiccup (which will later become DOM).
|
||
|
||
Now, let's introduce `reaction` into this mix. On the one hand, I'm complicating things
|
||
by doing this, because Reagent allows you to be ignorant of the mechanics I'm about to show
|
||
you. (It invisibly wraps your components in a `reaction` allowing you to be blissfully
|
||
ignorant of how the magic happens.)
|
||
|
||
On the other hand, it is useful to understand exactly how the Reagent Signal graph is wired,
|
||
because in a minute, when we get to `subscriptions`, we'll be directly using `reaction`, so we
|
||
might as well bite the bullet here and now ... and, anyway, it is pretty easy...
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(defn greet ;; a component - data in, Hiccup out.
|
||
[name] ;; name is a ratom
|
||
[:div "Hello " @name]) ;; dereference name here, to extract the value within
|
||
|
||
(def n (reagent/atom "re-frame"))
|
||
|
||
;; The computation '(greet n)' returns Hiccup which is stored into 'hiccup-ratom'
|
||
(def hiccup-ratom (reaction (greet n))) ;; <-- use of reaction !!!
|
||
|
||
;; what is the result of the initial computation ?
|
||
(println @hiccup-ratom)
|
||
;; ==> [:div "Hello " "re-frame"] ;; returns hiccup (a vector of stuff)
|
||
|
||
;; now change 'n'
|
||
;; 'n' is an input Signal for the reaction above.
|
||
;; Warning: 'n' is not an input signal because it is a parameter. Rather, it is
|
||
;; because 'n' is dereferenced within the execution of the reaction's computation.
|
||
;; reaction notices what ratoms are dereferenced in its computation, and watches
|
||
;; them for changes.
|
||
(reset! n "blah") ;; n changes
|
||
|
||
;; The reaction above will notice the change to 'n' ...
|
||
;; ... and will re-run its computation ...
|
||
;; ... which will have a new "return value"...
|
||
;; ... which will be "reset!" into "hiccup-ratom"
|
||
(println @hiccup-ratom)
|
||
;; ==> [:div "Hello " "blah"] ;; yep, there's the new value
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
So, as `n` changes value over time (via a `reset!`), the output of the computation `(greet n)`
|
||
changes, which in turn means that the value in `hiccup-ratom` changes. Both `n` and
|
||
`hiccup-ratom` are FRP Signals. The Signal graph we created causes data to flow from
|
||
`n` into `hiccup-ratom`.
|
||
|
||
Derived Data, flowing.
|
||
|
||
|
||
### Truth Interlude
|
||
|
||
I haven't been entirely straight with you:
|
||
|
||
1. Reagent re-runs `reactions` (re-computations) via requestAnimationFrame. So a
|
||
re-computation happens about 16ms after an input Signals change is detected, or after the
|
||
current thread of processing finishes, whichever is the greater. So if you are in a bREPL
|
||
and you run the lines of code above one after the other too quickly, you might not see the
|
||
re-computation done immediately after `n` gets reset!, because the next animationFrame
|
||
hasn't run (yet). But you could add a `(reagent.core/flush)` after the reset! to force
|
||
re-computation to happen straight away.
|
||
|
||
2. `reaction` doesn't actually return a `ratom`. But it returns something that has
|
||
ratom-nature, so we'll happily continue believing it is a `ratom` and no harm will come to us.
|
||
|
||
On with the rest of my lies and distortions...
|
||
|
||
### Components Like Templates?
|
||
|
||
A `component` such as `greet` is like the templates you'd find in
|
||
Django, Rails, Handlebars or Mustache -- it maps data to HTML -- except for two massive differences:
|
||
|
||
1. you have the full power of ClojureScript available to you (generating a Clojure data structure). The
|
||
downside is that these are not "designer friendly" HTML templates.
|
||
2. these templates are reactive. When their input Signals change, they
|
||
are automatically rerun, producing new DOM. Reagent adroitly shields you from the details, but
|
||
the renderer of any `component` is wrapped by a `reaction`. If any of the the "inputs"
|
||
to that render change, the render is rerun.
|
||
|
||
### React etc.
|
||
|
||
Okay, so we have some unidirectional, dynamic, async, discrete FRP-ish data flow happening here.
|
||
|
||
Question: To which ocean does this river of data flow? Answer: The DOM ocean.
|
||
|
||
The full picture:
|
||
```
|
||
app-db --> components --> Hiccup --> Reagent --> VDOM --> React --> DOM
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Best to imagine this process as a pipeline of 3 functions. Each
|
||
function takes data from the
|
||
previous step, and produces (derived!) data for the next step. In the next
|
||
diagram, the three functions are marked (f1, f2, f3). The unmarked nodes are derived data,
|
||
produced by one step, to be input to the following step. Hiccup,
|
||
VDOM and DOM are all various forms of HTML markup (in our world that's data).
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
app-db --> components --> Hiccup --> Reagent --> VDOM --> React --> DOM
|
||
f1 f2 f3
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
In abstract ClojureScript syntax terms, you could squint and imagine the process as:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(-> app-db
|
||
components ;; produces Hiccup
|
||
Reagent ;; produces VDOM (virtual DOM that React understands)
|
||
React ;; produces HTML (which magically and efficiently appears on the page).
|
||
Browser ;; produces pixels
|
||
Monitor) ;; produces photons?
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
|
||
Via the interplay between `ratom` and `reaction`, changes to `app-db` stream into the pipeline, where it
|
||
undergoes successive transformations, until pixels colour the monitor you to see.
|
||
|
||
Derived Data, flowing. Every step is acting like a pure function and turning data into new data.
|
||
|
||
All well and good, and nice to know, but we don't have to bother ourselves with most of the pipeline.
|
||
We just write the `components`
|
||
part and Reagent/React will look after the rest. So back we go to that part of the picture ...
|
||
|
||
|
||
## Subscribe
|
||
|
||
`components` render the app's state as hiccup.
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
app-db --> components
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
|
||
`components` (view layer) need to query aspects of `app-db` (data layer).
|
||
|
||
But how?
|
||
|
||
Let's pause to consider **our dream solution** for this part of the flow. `components` would:
|
||
* obtain data from `app-db` (their job is to turn this data into hiccup).
|
||
* obtain this data via a (possibly parameterised) query over `app-db`. Think database kind of query.
|
||
* automatically recompute their hiccup output, as the data returned by the query changes, over time
|
||
* use declarative queries. Components should know as little as possible about the structure of `app-db`. SQL? Datalog?
|
||
|
||
re-frame's `subscriptions` are an attempt to live this dream. As you'll see, they fall short on the declarative
|
||
query part, but they comfortably meet the other requirements.
|
||
|
||
As a re-frame app developer, your job will be to write and register one or more
|
||
"subscription handlers" - functions that do a named query.
|
||
|
||
Your subscription functions must return a value that changes over time (a Signal). I.e. they'll
|
||
be returning a reaction or, at least, the `ratom` produced by a `reaction`.
|
||
|
||
Rules:
|
||
- `components` never source data directly from `app-db`, and instead, they use a subscription.
|
||
- subscriptions are only ever used by components (they are never used in, say, event handlers).
|
||
|
||
Here's a component using a subscription:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(defn greet ;; outer, setup function, called once
|
||
[]
|
||
(let [name-ratom (subscribe [:name-query])] ;; <---- subscribing happens here
|
||
(fn [] ;; the inner, render function, potentially called many times.
|
||
[:div "Hello" @name-ratom])))
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
First, note this is a [Form-2](https://github.com/Day8/re-frame/wiki/Creating-Reagent-Components#form-2--a-function-returning-a-function)
|
||
`component` ([there are 3 forms](https://github.com/Day8/re-frame/wiki/Creating-Reagent-Components)).
|
||
|
||
Previously in this document, we've used the simplest, `Form-1` components (no setup was required, just render).
|
||
With `Form-2` components, there's a function returning a function:
|
||
- the returned function is the render function. Behind the scenes, Reagent will wrap this render function
|
||
in a `reaction` to make it produce new Hiccup when its input Signals change. In our example above, that
|
||
means it will rerun every time `name-ratom` changes.
|
||
- the outer function is a setup function, called once for each instance of the component. Notice the use of
|
||
'subscribe' with the parameter `:name-query`. That creates a Signal through which new values are supplied
|
||
over time; each new value causing the returned function (the actual renderer) to be run.
|
||
|
||
>It is important to distinguish between a new instance of the component versus the same instance of a component reacting to a new value. Simplistically, a new component is returned for every unique value the setup function (i.e. the outer function) is called with. This allows subscriptions based on initialisation values to be created, for example:
|
||
``` Clojure
|
||
(defn my-cmp [row-id]
|
||
(let [row-state (subscribe [row-id])]
|
||
(fn [row-id]
|
||
[:div (str "Row: " row-id " is " @row-state)])))
|
||
```
|
||
In this example, `[my-cmp 1][my-cmp 2]` will create two instances of `my-cmp`. Each instance will re-render when its internal `row-state` signal changes.
|
||
|
||
`subscribe` is always called like this:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(subscribe [query-id some optional query parameters])
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
There is only one (global) `subscribe` function and it takes one parameter, assumed to be a vector.
|
||
|
||
The first element in the vector (shown as `query-id` above) identifies/names the query and the other elements are optional
|
||
query parameters. With a traditional database a query might be:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
select * from customers where name="blah"
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
In re-frame, that would be done as follows:
|
||
(subscribe [:customer-query "blah"])
|
||
which would return a `ratom` holding the customer state (a value which might change over time!).
|
||
|
||
So let's now look at how to write and register the subscription handler for `:customer-query`
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(defn customer-query ;; a query over 'app-db' which returns a customer
|
||
[db, [sid cid]] ;; query fns are given 'app-db', plus vector given to subscribe
|
||
(assert (= sid :customer-query)) ;; subscription id was the first element in the vector
|
||
(reaction (get-in @db [:path :to :a :map cid]))) ;; re-runs each time db changes
|
||
|
||
;; register our query handler
|
||
(register-sub
|
||
:customer-query ;; the id (the name of the query()
|
||
customer-query) ;; the function which will perform the query
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Notice how the handler is registered to handle `:customer-query` subscriptions.
|
||
|
||
**Rules and Notes**:
|
||
- you'll be writing one or more handlers, and you will need to register each one.
|
||
- handlers are functions which take two parameters: the db atom, and the vector given to subscribe.
|
||
- `components` tend to be organised into a hierarchy, often with data flowing from parent to child via
|
||
parameters. So not every component needs a subscription. Very often the values passed in from a parent component
|
||
are sufficient.
|
||
- subscriptions can only be used in `Form-2` components and the subscription must be in the outer setup
|
||
function and not in the inner render function. So the following is **wrong** (compare to the correct version above)
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(defn greet ;; a Form-1 component - no inner render function
|
||
[]
|
||
(let [name-ratom (subscribe [:name-query])] ;; Eek! subscription in renderer
|
||
[:div "Hello" @name-ratom]))
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Why is this wrong? Well, this component would be re-rendered every time `app-db` changed, even if the value
|
||
in `name-ratom` (the result of the query) stayed the same. If you were to use a `Form-2` component instead, and put the
|
||
subscription in the outer functions, then there'll be no re-render unless the value queried (i.e. `name-ratom`) changed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
### Just A Read-Only Cursor?
|
||
|
||
Subscriptions are different to read-only cursors.
|
||
|
||
Yes, `subscriptions` abstract away (hide) the data source, like a Cursor, but they also allow
|
||
for computation. To put that another way, they can create
|
||
derived data from `app-db` (a Materialised View of `app-db`).
|
||
|
||
Imagine that our `app-db` contained `:items` - a vector of maps. And imagine that we wanted to
|
||
display these items sorted by one of their attributes. And that we only want to display the top 20 items.
|
||
|
||
This is the sort of "derived data" which a subscription can deliver.
|
||
(And as we'll see, more efficiently than a Cursor).
|
||
|
||
## The Signal Graph
|
||
|
||
Let's sketch out the situation described above ...
|
||
|
||
|
||
`app-db` would be a bit like this (`items` is a vector of maps):
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(def L [{:name "a" :val 23 :flag "y"}
|
||
{:name "b" :val 81 :flag "n"}
|
||
{:name "c" :val 23 :flag "y"}])
|
||
|
||
(def app-db (reagent/atom {:items L
|
||
:sort-by :name})) ;; sorted by the :name attribute
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
The subscription-handler might be written:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(register-sub
|
||
:sorted-items ;; the query id (the name of the query)
|
||
(fn [db [_]] ;; the handler for the subscription
|
||
(reaction
|
||
(let [items (get-in @db [:items]) ;; extract items from db
|
||
sort-attr (get-in @db [:sort-by])] ;; extract sort key from db
|
||
(sort-by sort-attr items))))) ;; return them sorted
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
|
||
Subscription handlers are given two parameters:
|
||
|
||
1. `app-db` - that's a reagent/atom which holds ALL the app's state. This is the "database"
|
||
on which we perform the "query".
|
||
2. the vector originally supplied to `subscribe`. In our case, we ignore it.
|
||
|
||
In the example above, notice that the `reaction` depends on the input Signal: `db`.
|
||
If `db` changes, the query is re-run.
|
||
|
||
In a component, we could use this query via `subscribe`:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(defn items-list ;; Form-2 component - outer, setup function, called once
|
||
[]
|
||
(let [items (subscribe [:sorted-items]) ;; <-- subscribe called with name
|
||
num (reaction (count @items)) ;; Woh! a reaction based on the subscription
|
||
top-20 (reaction (take 20 @items))] ;; Another dependent reaction
|
||
(fn []
|
||
[:div
|
||
(str "there's " @num " of these suckers. Here's top 20") ;; rookie mistake to leave off the @
|
||
(into [:div ] (map item-render @top-20))]))) ;; item-render is another component, not shown
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
There's a bit going on in that `let`, most of it tortuously contrived, just so I can show off chained
|
||
reactions. Okay, okay, all I wanted really was an excuse to use the phrase "chained reactions".
|
||
|
||
The calculation of `num` is done by a `reaction` which has `items` as an input Signal. And,
|
||
as we saw, `items` is itself a reaction over two other signals (one of them the `app-db`).
|
||
|
||
So this is a Signal Graph. Data is flowing through computation into renderer, which produce Hiccup, etc.
|
||
|
||
## A More Efficient Signal Graph
|
||
|
||
But there is a small problem. The approach above might get inefficient, if `:items` gets long.
|
||
|
||
Every time `app-db` changes, the `:sorted-items` query is
|
||
going to be re-run and it's going to re-sort `:items`. But `:items` might not have changed. Some other
|
||
part of `app-db` may have changed.
|
||
|
||
We don't want to perform this computationally expensive re-sort
|
||
each time something unrelated in `app-db` changes.
|
||
|
||
Luckily, we can easily fix that up by tweaking our subscription function so
|
||
that it chains `reactions`:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(register-sub
|
||
:sorted-items ;; the query id
|
||
(fn [db [_]]
|
||
(let [items (reaction (get-in @db [:some :path :to :items]))] ;; reaction #1
|
||
sort-attr (reaction (get-in @db [:sort-by]))] ;; reaction #2
|
||
(reaction (sort-by @sort-attr @items))))) ;; reaction #3
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
The original version had only one `reaction` which would be re-run completely each time `app-db` changed.
|
||
This new version, has chained reactions.
|
||
The 1st and 2nd reactions just extract from `db`. They will run each time `app-db` changes.
|
||
But they are cheap. The 3rd one does the expensive
|
||
computation using the result from the first two.
|
||
|
||
That 3rd, expensive reaction will be re-run when either one of its two input Signals change, right? Not quite.
|
||
`reaction` will only re-run the computation when one of the inputs has **changed in value**.
|
||
|
||
`reaction` compares the old input Signal value with the new Signal value using `identical?`. Because we're
|
||
using immutable data structures
|
||
(thank you ClojureScript), `reaction` can perform near instant checks for change on even
|
||
deeply nested and complex
|
||
input Signals. And `reaction` will then stop unneeded propagation of `identical?` values through the
|
||
Signal graph.
|
||
|
||
In the example above, reaction #3 won't re-run until `:items` or `:sort-by` are different
|
||
(do not test `identical?`
|
||
to their previous value), even though `app-db` itself has changed (presumably somewhere else).
|
||
|
||
Hideously contrived example, but I hope you get the idea. It is all screamingly efficient.
|
||
|
||
Summary:
|
||
- you can chain reactions.
|
||
- a reaction will only be re-run when its input Signals test not identical? to previous value.
|
||
- As a result, unnecessary Signal propagation is eliminated using highly efficient checks,
|
||
even for large, deep nested data structures.
|
||
|
||
|
||
## The 2nd Flow
|
||
|
||
At the top, I said that re-frame had two data flows.
|
||
|
||
The data flow from `app-db` to the DOM is the first half of the story. We now need to consider
|
||
the 2nd part of the story: the flow in the opposite direction.
|
||
|
||
While the first flow has FRP-nature, the 2nd flow does not. Well, not at first glance anyway.
|
||
|
||
When I think about these two flows, I imagine [one of those school diagrams](http://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/water-cycle_521f29b8b6271_w1500.png) showing the water cycle. Rivers taking water down to the oceans, and evaporation/clouds/wind taking water back over the mountains to fall again as rain or snow. Repeat.
|
||
|
||
There is a cycle, but it is handled by two independent flows.
|
||
|
||
*With re-frame, it is not water that is flowing, it is data.*
|
||
|
||
## Event Flow
|
||
|
||
Events are what flow in the opposite direction.
|
||
|
||
In response to user interaction, a DOM will generate
|
||
events like "clicked delete button on item 42" or
|
||
"unticked the checkbox for 'send me spam'".
|
||
|
||
These events have to be "handled". The code doing this handling might
|
||
mutate app state (in `app-db`), or request more data from the server, or POST somewhere and wait for a response, etc.
|
||
|
||
In fact, all these actions ultimately result in changes to the `app-db`.
|
||
|
||
An application has many handlers, and collectively
|
||
they represent the **control layer of the application**.
|
||
|
||
In re-frame, the backwards data flow of events happens via a conveyor belt:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
app-db --> components --> Hiccup --> Reagent --> VDOM --> React --> DOM
|
||
^ |
|
||
| v
|
||
handlers <------------------- events -----------------------------------------
|
||
a "conveyor belt" takes events
|
||
from the DOM to the handlers
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Generally, when the user manipulates the GUI, the state of the application changes. In our case,
|
||
that means the `app-db` will change. After all, it **is** the state. And the DOM presented to
|
||
the user is a function of that state.
|
||
|
||
So that tends to be the cycle:
|
||
|
||
1. the user clicks something which causes an event to be dispatched
|
||
2. a handler manages the event
|
||
3. and causes `app-db` to change (mutation happens here!)
|
||
4. which then causes a re-render
|
||
5. the user sees something different
|
||
6. goto #1
|
||
|
||
That's our water cycle.
|
||
|
||
Because handlers are that part of the system which does `app-db` mutation, you
|
||
could almost imagine them as a "stored procedures" on a
|
||
database. Almost. Stretching it? We do like our in-memory
|
||
database analogies.
|
||
|
||
### What are events?
|
||
|
||
Events are data. You choose the format.
|
||
|
||
In our reference implementation we choose a vector format. For example:
|
||
|
||
[:delete-item 42]
|
||
|
||
The first item in the vector identifies the event and
|
||
the rest of the vector is the optional parameters -- in the example above, the id (42) of the item to delete.
|
||
|
||
Here are some other example events:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
[:yes-button-clicked]
|
||
[:set-spam-wanted false]
|
||
[[:complicated :multi :part :key] "a parameter" "another one" 45.6]
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Rule**: events are pure data. No dirty tricks like putting callback functions on the wire.
|
||
You know who you are.
|
||
|
||
### Dispatching Events
|
||
|
||
Events tend to start in the DOM in response to user actions. They are `dispatched`.
|
||
|
||
For example, a button component might be like this:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(defn yes-button
|
||
[]
|
||
[:div {:class "button-class"
|
||
:on-click #(dispatch [:yes-button-clicked])}
|
||
"Yes"])
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Notice the `on-click` DOM handler:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
#(dispatch [:yes-button-clicked])
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
With re-frame, we try to keep the DOM as passive as possible. We do not
|
||
want our views containing any control logic. That "on-click" is as simple as we can make it.
|
||
|
||
There's a single `dispatch` function in the entire framework, and it takes one parameter:
|
||
the event (vector) to be
|
||
dispatched (which is pure simple, lovely data, flowing).
|
||
|
||
Let's update our diagram to show `dispatch`:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
app-db --> components --> Hiccup --> Reagent --> VDOM --> React --> DOM
|
||
^ |
|
||
| v
|
||
handlers <---------------------------------------- (dispatch [event-id event params])
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Rule**: `components` are as passive and minimal as possible when it comes to handling events.
|
||
They `dispatch` pure data and nothing more.
|
||
|
||
### Event Handlers
|
||
|
||
Collectively, event handlers provide the control logic in a re-frame application.
|
||
|
||
An event handler is a pure function of two parameters:
|
||
|
||
1. current value in `app-db`. Note: that's the map **in** `app-db`, not the atom itself.
|
||
2. an event (represented as a vector)
|
||
|
||
It returns the new value which should be reset! into `app-db`.
|
||
|
||
An example handler:
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(defn handle-delete
|
||
[app-state [_ item-id]] ;; notice how event vector is destructured -- 2nd parameter
|
||
(dissoc-in app-state [:some :path item-id])) ;; return a modified version of 'app-state'
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Handling an event invariably involves mutating the value in `app-db`
|
||
(which is provided as the first parameter).
|
||
An item is added here, or one is deleted there. So, often simple CRUD, but sometimes much more,
|
||
and sometimes with async results.
|
||
|
||
But the `app-db` mutation is ultimately handled by re-frame (it does the `reset!`). That leaves your event
|
||
handlers pure. As a result, they tend to be easy to test and understand. Many are almost trivial.
|
||
|
||
There's more to event handlers than can be covered here in this introductory tutorial. Read up on
|
||
issues like Middleware [in the Wiki](https://github.com/Day8/re-frame/wiki#handler-middleware).
|
||
|
||
### Routing
|
||
|
||
When `dispatch` is passed an event vector, it just puts that event onto a conveyor belt.
|
||
|
||
The consumer on the end of the conveyor is a `router` which will organise for that
|
||
event to be processed by the right handler.
|
||
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
app-db --> components --> Hiccup --> Reagent --> VDOM --> React --> DOM
|
||
^ |
|
||
| v
|
||
handlers <----- router <----------------------- (dispatch [event-id event params])
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
The `router` will:
|
||
|
||
1. inspect the 1st element of the arriving vector
|
||
2. look in its registry for the handler which is registered for this kind of event
|
||
3. call that handler with two parameters: (1) the current value in `app-db` and (2) the event vector
|
||
4. reset! the returned value back into `app-db`.
|
||
|
||
As a re-frame app developer, your job is to write handlers for each kind of event, and
|
||
then to register those handlers with the router.
|
||
|
||
Here's how we would register our event handler:
|
||
|
||
```Clojure
|
||
(register-handler
|
||
:delete-item ;; the event id (name)
|
||
handle-delete) ;; the handler function for that event
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Any arriving event vector which has `:delete-item` as the first element will now be routed to our handler.
|
||
|
||
### Control Via FSM
|
||
|
||
Above, I commented that event handlers collectively represent the "control layer" of the
|
||
application. They contain
|
||
logic which interprets arriving events and they "step" the application "forward"
|
||
via mutations to `app-db`.
|
||
|
||
Our `delete-handler` above is trivial, but as an application grows more features, the logic in many
|
||
handlers will become more complicated, and they will have to query BOTH the current state of the app
|
||
AND the arriving event vector to determine what action to take.
|
||
|
||
If the app is in logical State A, and event X arrives, then the handler will move the app to logical state B
|
||
(by changing values in `app-db`).
|
||
|
||
Sound like anything you learned in those [Theory Of Computation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt6GBVIifZA)
|
||
lectures?
|
||
|
||
That's right - as an app becomes more complex, the handlers are likely to be collectively implementing a
|
||
[Finite State Machine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine):
|
||
- your app is in a certain logical state (defined by the current values in `app-db`)
|
||
- the arriving event vector represents a `trigger`.
|
||
- the event handler implements "a transition", subject to BOTH the current logical state and the arriving trigger.
|
||
- after the handler has run, the transition may have moved the app into a new logical state.
|
||
- Repeat.
|
||
|
||
Not every app has lots of logical `states`, but many do, and if you are implementing one of them, then formally
|
||
recognising it and using a technique like
|
||
[state charts](http://www.amazon.com/Constructing-User-Interface-Statecharts-Horrocks/dp/0201342782) will help
|
||
greatly in getting a clean design and a nice datamodel.
|
||
|
||
The beauty of re-frame from a FSM point of view is that all the data is in one place - unlike OO systems where
|
||
the data is distributed (and synchronized) across many objects. So implementing your control logic as a FSM is
|
||
both possible and natural in re-frame, whereas it is often difficult and contrived to do so in other
|
||
kinds of architecture (in my experience).
|
||
|
||
### As A Reduce
|
||
|
||
So here's another way of thinking about what's happening with this data flow - another useful mental model.
|
||
|
||
First, imagine that all the events ever dispatched by a certain running app were stored in a collection.
|
||
So, if when the app started, the user clicked on button X then the first item in this collection
|
||
would be the event generated
|
||
by that button, and then, if next the user moved a slider, the associated event would be the
|
||
next item in the collection, and so on and so on. We'd end up with a collection of event vectors.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Second, remind yourself that the `combining function` of a `reduce` takes two parameters:
|
||
|
||
1. the current state of the reduction and
|
||
2. the next collection member to fold in.
|
||
|
||
Then notice that event handlers take two parameters too:
|
||
|
||
1. the current state of `app-db`
|
||
2. the next item to fold in.
|
||
|
||
Which is the same as a `combining function` in a `reduce`!!
|
||
|
||
So now we can introduce the new mental model: at any point in time, the value in `app-db` is the result of
|
||
performing a `reduce` over
|
||
the entire `collection` of events dispatched in the app up until that time. The combining function
|
||
for this reduce is the set of handlers.
|
||
|
||
It is almost like `app-db` is the temporary place where this imagined `perpetual reduce` stores
|
||
its on-going reduction.
|
||
|
||
### Derived Data, Everywhere, flowing
|
||
|
||
Have you watched that
|
||
[StrangeLoop presentation ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU9hR3kiOK0) yet?
|
||
I hope so. Database as a stream, right?
|
||
|
||
If you have then, given the explanation above, you might twig to the idea that `app-db` is
|
||
really a derived value (of the `perpetual reduce`).
|
||
|
||
And yet, it acts as the authoritative source of state in the app. And yet, it isn't, it is simply
|
||
a piece of derived state. And
|
||
yet, it is the source.
|
||
|
||
Hmm. This is an infinite loop of sorts. **Derived data is flowing around the
|
||
loop, reactively, through pure functions.** There is a pause in the loop whenever we wait
|
||
for a new event, but the moment we get it, it's another iteration of the "derived data" FRP loop.
|
||
|
||
Derived values, all the way down, forever.
|
||
|
||
Good news. If you've read this far,
|
||
your insiders T-shirt will be arriving soon - it
|
||
will feature turtles
|
||
and [xkcd](http://xkcd.com/1416/). We're still working on the hilarious caption bit. Open a
|
||
repo issue with a suggestion.
|
||
|
||
Back to the more pragmatic world ...
|
||
|
||
### Logging And Debugging
|
||
|
||
How did that exception happen, you wonder, shaking your head? What did the user do immediately prior
|
||
to the exception? What state was the app in that this event was so disastrous?
|
||
|
||
To debug it, you need to know this information:
|
||
1. the state of the app immediately before the exception
|
||
2. What final event then caused your app to fall in a screaming mess.
|
||
|
||
Well, with re-frame you need to record (have available):
|
||
1. A recent checkpoint of the app state in `app-db` (perhaps the initial state)
|
||
2. all the events `dispatch`ed since the last checkpoint, up to the point where the exception occurred.
|
||
|
||
Note: that's all just data. **Pure, lovely loggable data.**
|
||
|
||
If you have that data, then you can reproduce the exception.
|
||
|
||
re-frame allows you to time travel. Install the "checkpoint" state into `app-db`
|
||
and then "play forward" through the collection dispatched events.
|
||
|
||
The only way the app "moves forwards" is via events. "Replaying events" moves you
|
||
step by step towards the exception causing problem.
|
||
|
||
This is utterly, utterly perfect for debugging assuming, of course, you are in a position to capture
|
||
a checkpoint, and the events since then.
|
||
|
||
### Talking To A Server
|
||
|
||
Some events handlers will need to initiate an async server connection (e.g. GET or POST something).
|
||
|
||
The initiating event handlers should organise that the `on-success` or `on-fail` handlers for
|
||
these HTTP requests themselves simply dispatch a new event. They should never attempt to
|
||
modify `app-db` themselves. That is always done in a handler.
|
||
|
||
**Notes**:
|
||
- all events are handled via a call to `dispatch`. GUI events, async HTTP events, everything.
|
||
- `dispatch` will cause a handler function to be called. But the process is async. The call is queued.
|
||
- if you (further) dispatch in a handler, then that will be async too. The associated handler is
|
||
queued for later processing. Why? Partially because handlers are given a snapshot of
|
||
the `app-db` and can't be nested.
|
||
- if you kick off an HTTP request in a handler, then organise for the on-success or on-fail handlers
|
||
to dispatch their outcome. All events are handled via dispatch. on-success should never ever change
|
||
`app-db`.
|
||
|
||
The [wiki](https://github.com/Day8/re-frame/wiki/Talking-To-Servers) has more on the subject.
|
||
|
||
## The CPU Hog Problem
|
||
|
||
Sometimes a handler has a lot of CPU intensive work to do, and getting through it will take a while.
|
||
|
||
When a handler hogs the CPU, nothing else can happen. Browsers only give us one thread of
|
||
execution and that CPU-hogging handler owns it, and it isn't giving it up. The UI will be
|
||
frozen and there will be
|
||
no processing of any other handlers (e.g. on-success of POSTs), etc., etc. Nothing.
|
||
|
||
And a frozen UI is a problem. GUI repaints are not happening. And user interactions are not being processed.
|
||
|
||
How are we to show progress updates like "Hey, X% completed"? Or how can we handle the
|
||
user clicking on that "Cancel" button trying to stop this long running process?
|
||
|
||
We need a means by which long running handlers can hand control
|
||
back for "other" processing every so often, while still continuing on with their
|
||
computation.
|
||
|
||
Luckily, [re-frame has a solution](https://github.com/Day8/re-frame/wiki/Solve-the-CPU-hog-problem).
|
||
|
||
|
||
### In Summary
|
||
|
||
re-frame has two distinct flows, and I claim they are BOTH FRP in nature. The first is clearly FRP.
|
||
The second one is conceptually FRP, but you do have to squint.
|
||
|
||
All the parts are simple. The parts are easy to understand in isolation. The parts are composed so that
|
||
derived data flows in a perpetual reactive loop, through pure functions.
|
||
|
||
|
||
To build an app using re-frame, you'll have to:
|
||
- design your app's data structure.
|
||
- write and register subscription functions (query layer).
|
||
- write component functions (view layer).
|
||
- write and register event handler functions (control layer and/or state transition layer).
|
||
|
||
|
||
### Where Do I Go Next?
|
||
|
||
Your next steps with re-frame should be:
|
||
- look at the examples: https://github.com/Day8/re-frame/tree/master/examples
|
||
- use the lein template: https://github.com/Day8/re-frame-template
|
||
- read more in the Wiki: https://github.com/Day8/re-frame/wiki
|
||
|
||
You might also be interested in James MacAulay's excellent work (not re-frame!):
|
||
https://github.com/jamesmacaulay/zelkova
|
||
|
||
If you want reusable layout and widget components, consider this sister project:
|
||
https://github.com/Day8/re-com
|
||
|
||
Here are some open source re-frame apps you can look at for more inspiration:
|
||
|
||
- https://github.com/madvas/fractalify/
|
||
|
||
### Licence
|
||
|
||
Copyright © 2015 Michael Thompson
|
||
|
||
Distributed under The MIT License (MIT) - See LICENSE.txt
|
||
|
||
[SPAs]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-page_application
|
||
[SPA]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-page_application
|
||
[Reagent]:http://reagent-project.github.io/
|
||
[Dan Holmsand]:https://twitter.com/holmsand
|
||
[Flux]:http://facebook.github.io/flux/docs/overview.html#content
|
||
[Hiccup]:https://github.com/weavejester/hiccup
|
||
[FRP]:https://gist.github.com/staltz/868e7e9bc2a7b8c1f754
|
||
[Elm]:http://elm-lang.org/
|
||
[OM]:https://github.com/swannodette/om
|
||
[Prismatic Schema]:https://github.com/Prismatic/schema
|
||
[datascript]:https://github.com/tonsky/datascript
|
||
[Hoplon]:http://hoplon.io/
|
||
[Pedestal App]:https://github.com/pedestal/pedestal-app
|