React “lifting state up” philosophie : How to avoid ending up with one big parent component containing all the code?
This is not a very precise question. I think I understand the "react lifting state up" paradigm. As far as I know, this is the only clean way for two sibling components to have access to their respective properties.
But doing so, I end up with one tremendous class containing everything : the data information for the properties of all of its child components, and all the functions in charge of updating this information (in charge of calling setState). I'm unhappy with the fact that I'm not able anymore to dispatch into sub-components, the work that has to do with them.
My question is : how to avoid the concentration of all the code in parent components, using react, while keeping the nice clean state/prop mechanism ? Or am I wrong to complain maybe ?
javascript reactjs design-patterns
asked Nov 15 '18 at 16:21
ArchimondainArchimondain
1577
add a comment |
This is not a very precise question. I think I understand the "react lifting state up" paradigm. As far as I know, this is the only clean way for two sibling components to have access to their respective properties.
But doing so, I end up with one tremendous class containing everything : the data information for the properties of all of its child components, and all the functions in charge of updating this information (in charge of calling setState). I'm unhappy with the fact that I'm not able anymore to dispatch into sub-components, the work that has to do with them.
My question is : how to avoid the concentration of all the code in parent components, using react, while keeping the nice clean state/prop mechanism ? Or am I wrong to complain maybe ?
javascript reactjs design-patterns
asked Nov 15 '18 at 16:21
ArchimondainArchimondain
1577
Think of it as Lifting state 'enough'. Only raise state to the point at which necessary sharing of state can happen. That will sometimes be the top of the app, but not always.
– D Lowther
Nov 15 '18 at 16:27
Lifting up state to the root component is not a good idea. Lift up state when it is necessary. I think with redux library managing state is easier because component can connect to redux store to get data. You can also update store by dispatch an action.
– miuosh
Nov 15 '18 at 16:34
"We recommend lifting the shared state up to their closest common ancestor". The "closest common ancestor" part is important, as lifting the state up higher than that would be very cumbersome, like you said.
– Tholle
Nov 15 '18 at 16:39
add a comment |
This is not a very precise question. I think I understand the "react lifting state up" paradigm. As far as I know, this is the only clean way for two sibling components to have access to their respective properties.
But doing so, I end up with one tremendous class containing everything : the data information for the properties of all of its child components, and all the functions in charge of updating this information (in charge of calling setState). I'm unhappy with the fact that I'm not able anymore to dispatch into sub-components, the work that has to do with them.
My question is : how to avoid the concentration of all the code in parent components, using react, while keeping the nice clean state/prop mechanism ? Or am I wrong to complain maybe ?
javascript reactjs design-patterns
asked Nov 15 '18 at 16:21
ArchimondainArchimondain
1577
This is not a very precise question. I think I understand the "react lifting state up" paradigm. As far as I know, this is the only clean way for two sibling components to have access to their respective properties.
But doing so, I end up with one tremendous class containing everything : the data information for the properties of all of its child components, and all the functions in charge of updating this information (in charge of calling setState). I'm unhappy with the fact that I'm not able anymore to dispatch into sub-components, the work that has to do with them.
My question is : how to avoid the concentration of all the code in parent components, using react, while keeping the nice clean state/prop mechanism ? Or am I wrong to complain maybe ?
javascript reactjs design-patterns
javascript reactjs design-patterns
asked Nov 15 '18 at 16:21
ArchimondainArchimondain
1577
asked Nov 15 '18 at 16:21
ArchimondainArchimondain
1577
asked Nov 15 '18 at 16:21
ArchimondainArchimondain
1577
asked Nov 15 '18 at 16:21
ArchimondainArchimondain
1577
asked Nov 15 '18 at 16:21
ArchimondainArchimondain
1577
1577
Think of it as Lifting state 'enough'. Only raise state to the point at which necessary sharing of state can happen. That will sometimes be the top of the app, but not always.
– D Lowther
Nov 15 '18 at 16:27
Lifting up state to the root component is not a good idea. Lift up state when it is necessary. I think with redux library managing state is easier because component can connect to redux store to get data. You can also update store by dispatch an action.
– miuosh
Nov 15 '18 at 16:34
"We recommend lifting the shared state up to their closest common ancestor". The "closest common ancestor" part is important, as lifting the state up higher than that would be very cumbersome, like you said.
– Tholle
Nov 15 '18 at 16:39
add a comment |
Think of it as Lifting state 'enough'. Only raise state to the point at which necessary sharing of state can happen. That will sometimes be the top of the app, but not always.
– D Lowther
Nov 15 '18 at 16:27
Lifting up state to the root component is not a good idea. Lift up state when it is necessary. I think with redux library managing state is easier because component can connect to redux store to get data. You can also update store by dispatch an action.
– miuosh
Nov 15 '18 at 16:34
"We recommend lifting the shared state up to their closest common ancestor". The "closest common ancestor" part is important, as lifting the state up higher than that would be very cumbersome, like you said.
– Tholle
Nov 15 '18 at 16:39
Think of it as Lifting state 'enough'. Only raise state to the point at which necessary sharing of state can happen. That will sometimes be the top of the app, but not always.
– D Lowther
Nov 15 '18 at 16:27
Think of it as Lifting state 'enough'. Only raise state to the point at which necessary sharing of state can happen. That will sometimes be the top of the app, but not always.
– D Lowther
Nov 15 '18 at 16:27
Lifting up state to the root component is not a good idea. Lift up state when it is necessary. I think with redux library managing state is easier because component can connect to redux store to get data. You can also update store by dispatch an action.
– miuosh
Nov 15 '18 at 16:34
Lifting up state to the root component is not a good idea. Lift up state when it is necessary. I think with redux library managing state is easier because component can connect to redux store to get data. You can also update store by dispatch an action.
– miuosh
Nov 15 '18 at 16:34
"We recommend lifting the shared state up to their closest common ancestor". The "closest common ancestor" part is important, as lifting the state up higher than that would be very cumbersome, like you said.
– Tholle
Nov 15 '18 at 16:39
"We recommend lifting the shared state up to their closest common ancestor". The "closest common ancestor" part is important, as lifting the state up higher than that would be very cumbersome, like you said.
– Tholle
Nov 15 '18 at 16:39
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Many people believe jumping directly into redux would be a good idea, but in fact, it comes with lots of computational overhead and boilerplate code.
As a rule of thumb, you would simply move logic up the tree which is relevant not only for child components but also for siblings.
You should also have a look at the concept of Presentational and Container Components.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 16:43
Fabian HinsenkampFabian Hinsenkamp
1716
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53323736%2freact-lifting-state-up-philosophie-how-to-avoid-ending-up-with-one-big-paren%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Many people believe jumping directly into redux would be a good idea, but in fact, it comes with lots of computational overhead and boilerplate code.
As a rule of thumb, you would simply move logic up the tree which is relevant not only for child components but also for siblings.
You should also have a look at the concept of Presentational and Container Components.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 16:43
Fabian HinsenkampFabian Hinsenkamp
1716
add a comment |
Many people believe jumping directly into redux would be a good idea, but in fact, it comes with lots of computational overhead and boilerplate code.
As a rule of thumb, you would simply move logic up the tree which is relevant not only for child components but also for siblings.
You should also have a look at the concept of Presentational and Container Components.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 16:43
Fabian HinsenkampFabian Hinsenkamp
1716
add a comment |
Many people believe jumping directly into redux would be a good idea, but in fact, it comes with lots of computational overhead and boilerplate code.
As a rule of thumb, you would simply move logic up the tree which is relevant not only for child components but also for siblings.
You should also have a look at the concept of Presentational and Container Components.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 16:43
Fabian HinsenkampFabian Hinsenkamp
1716
Many people believe jumping directly into redux would be a good idea, but in fact, it comes with lots of computational overhead and boilerplate code.
As a rule of thumb, you would simply move logic up the tree which is relevant not only for child components but also for siblings.
You should also have a look at the concept of Presentational and Container Components.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 16:43
Fabian HinsenkampFabian Hinsenkamp
1716
answered Nov 15 '18 at 16:43
Fabian HinsenkampFabian Hinsenkamp
1716
answered Nov 15 '18 at 16:43
Fabian HinsenkampFabian Hinsenkamp
1716
answered Nov 15 '18 at 16:43
Fabian HinsenkampFabian Hinsenkamp
1716
1716
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53323736%2freact-lifting-state-up-philosophie-how-to-avoid-ending-up-with-one-big-paren%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Think of it as Lifting state 'enough'. Only raise state to the point at which necessary sharing of state can happen. That will sometimes be the top of the app, but not always.
– D Lowther
Nov 15 '18 at 16:27
Lifting up state to the root component is not a good idea. Lift up state when it is necessary. I think with redux library managing state is easier because component can connect to redux store to get data. You can also update store by dispatch an action.
– miuosh
Nov 15 '18 at 16:34
"We recommend lifting the shared state up to their closest common ancestor". The "closest common ancestor" part is important, as lifting the state up higher than that would be very cumbersome, like you said.
– Tholle
Nov 15 '18 at 16:39