DEV Community

loading...

Discussion on: Throw Out Your React State-Management Tools

Collapse
bytebodger profile image
Adam Nathaniel Davis Author • Edited

Continuing that thought, if this were a "real" app, most/all of that state/functionality would be shunted down into <TopTier>. That probably woulda been more effective for the demo, cuz the whole point was just to show, "Hey... See? We're skipping the <MiddleTier> component and porting values/functions directly into <BottomTier>."

Of course, if this were a "real" app, there would be no logToConsole() function. No self-respecting dev would create a wrapper function whose sole purpose is to perform a console.log(). My only purpose in including that (silly) little function was to demonstrate that, "See! We're calling an <App> function directly from <BottomTier> - and we're doing it solely through a Context API reference."

Now, as for the toggleTheContextApiIsCool() function, there is a specific reason why it was placed in the <App> component. I can easily accept the idea that the theContextApiIsCool state variable should possibly "live" in the <TopTier> component. But one of the (lesser) points of my post is that, IMHO, if we have stateVariableX that "lives" in <ComponentX>, then, whenever possible, the functions that update that state variable should also "live" in <ComponentX>.

So to put this another way, in this example, I don't particularly care where the state variable of theContextApiIsCool resides. But wherever you choose to place it, the subsequent function(s) that call setState() on that value should also reside in the same component.

Collapse
isaachagoel profile image
Isaac Hagoel

I agree with where state should live. I was saying a function is not state (unless it is dynamically changing). Again, purely semantic point.

Thread Thread
bytebodger profile image
Adam Nathaniel Davis Author

Yeah. I get that. And I think I answered that in my other answer to your comment. To be frank, the only part of my proposed Context API solution that feels a little "weird" or... "off" is the stuffing of those function references into state. I'm not sure if I had to do it that way. But that seemed to be the way that I "had to" do it to get my demo to compile/work. When I tried it without the state-function references, it broke when I tried to invoke a context-based function that resolved to a function that invoked setState().

(Does that make sense?? It's fairly clear in my mind at the moment - but it's one of those concepts that's kinda confusing to try to spell out in text.)

That being said, once I got it working, I didn't necessarily dislike it. On some level, it's almost kinda cool. Cuz, aside from trying to find a better approach to (what is, IMHO) the bloated mess of Redux, I kinda liked the idea that we can (or... have to) explicitly define the functions that are available via the Context API.

I dunno... I could probably be convinced that it's somehow "sub-optimal". Or that it's somehow an "anti-pattern". But, for the time being, it kinda seems like a good thing.

Thread Thread
isaachagoel profile image
Isaac Hagoel

Thanks for all of the replies. We were just replying to one another too quickly so I missed your previous one :)
Maybe I will play with it a bit too (will try to make time). As I probably expressed before, one of my main issues with React (some other frameworks have that too) is its insistence that everything is 'ui related state' and rendering logic. I find this to be thoroughly lacking.