State management is one of the reasons I moved away from React and Vue. You need a lot of machinery and plumbing to do something that should be really simple.
MobX is probably the best way I've found to manage reactive state with React, Inferno, etc, but still, it's a huge piece of of software for just this purpose.
I first moved to Mithril because it doesn't need reactivity. You solve the same problem than React/Vue et al in just 10kB. No need for an external router or a state management library. Your state is just vanilla JS. Mithril doesn't need to know when a particular piece of state has changed, it just tries to re-render everything and the vdom takes care of the rest. The performance is comparable to Vue 2 and React [1] but the DX is lightyears ahead. It's a sushi chef knife though, you really gotta know what you're doing[2].
Now I'm using Svelte because it's even better. It does have reactivity but the compiler just figures out the dependency graph so you don't need to ship a huge thing like MobX to do that at runtime. You also write a fraction of the code compared to all the other frameworks I've used which is Svelte's best feature. This compiler approach is a game changer IMO.
[2] What I meant by this is that since your app is essentially vanilla JS you're on your own to architecture the thing. If you don't know what you're doing you will shoot yourself in the foot.
Man... I really disliked my experience with MobX. Idk, just too much proxy "magic" for me and I actually like how "hard" it is to update state in Redux. Changing state isn't something that should be taken lightly! I think a problem people run into (in general) is having too much "non-essential" state I their application; especially in the global state. If state can possibly be derived from other state, then it's not essential
That's almost exactly the path I've gone down, and svelte is something I've been seriously researching for a couple months now.
I have a nagging problem that keeps coming back to me though. The declarative state model is the holy grail for UI design, but if you try to mix in any form of imperative logic, it all falls apart. All of a sudden you need to understand and plug into poorly documented and opaque component lifecycle APIs in order to insert your imperative code and have it work correctly. And that really messes up the nice clean solution, making it look more like a chimera of two state models.
Some of that is fixed by libraries that create components native to your framework of choice, implementing the appropriate lifecycle hooks as necessary. But now you're relying on a library that adapts one library to another library, and now you've got a dependency sync problem on top of it all.
It wouldn't be such a problem if there weren't so many extremely useful libraries that depend on imperative code. Personally, I've run into massive problems trying to use D3, Leaflet, and Bootstrap, as well as a handful of others. I'm sure there are thousands more.
Not trying to take away from your point. When these declarative state models work well, it's a beautiful thing to behold. But there's always some point where the abstraction leaks.
This might be obnoxious, but could you share some insights on what svelte is doing correct in your opinion? I've never worked with it but am curious to what is the secret sauce that made you feel like it was the correct abstraction.
This is called “convention over configuration” and I don’t know where the front end software world went wrong in ignoring it. Ember.js is still a great example of a “batteries included” front end framework that makes all the decisions for you and prevents you from going off the rails. The downside is a high learning curve but once you’re experienced you can make reliable apps quickly
I definitely shot myself in the foot with mithril in terms of performance, and I somewhat assumed that I must've made some sort of architecture mistake somewhere along the way.
I largely came to the same conclusion, including going back to Redux. I have found using Apollo for client side state very cumbersome and even difficult. You really do need to understand their cache well, and I also dislike having to deal with things like __typename, which I feel is an implementation detail that unfortunately gets foisted onto the end developer. Sometimes __typename is a royal pain in the butt.
The article touches upon current Redux as well, such as when it says "If done right, it can definitely be a breeze to work with", which I agree with. And the "if done right" part has gotten a lot easier, as Redux has finally decided it's ok to provide opinionated approaches that guide you towards that happy path. I really do think if Redux hadn't been so concerned about being opinionated way back when, it'd be far better received today. But better late than never.
I think the biggest problem is the default approach of using thunks for handling async state. You get these "opinionated" frameworks that then reinforce terrible design ideas.
If it's simple just put handle async stuff in situ. If it's more complex, use custom middleware. Thunks, sagas, etc are all anti-patterns. The single worst thing the Redux docs did was give the impression that middleware was some kind of advanced functionality only useful for library designers. Most of your app logic should probably live in middleware.
The "redux toolkit" or whatever doesn't help with that, it only reifies questionable practices. Skip it. Write a simple utility for generating actions/types, and then go about your business.
> I really do think if Redux hadn't been so concerned about being opinionated way back when, it'd be far better received today
Can you clarify what you mean here?
From my perspective as a Redux maintainer, most of the concerns I've seen expressed about Redux over the last few years really didn't focus on whether it was "opinionated" or not. It's been a combination of:
- Not understanding the original intent behind Redux's design and the historical context that led to it being designed that way [0]
- People being told they _had_ to use Redux with React, even when it really wasn't a good fit for their use case
- The "incidental complexity" of common Redux usage patterns [1], most of which were due to the way the docs and tutorials showed things (writing `const ADD_TODO = "ADD_TODO"`, separate files for actions/constants/reducers, etc).
- Changes in the ecosystem leading to other tools whose use cases overlapped with why you might have chosen to use Redux previously
All that said, yeah, we've made a concerted effort in the last year or so to be much more opinionated about how you _ought_ to use Redux, based on how we've seen people use it. Those opinions are built into our new official Redux Toolkit package [0], which is now our recommended approach for writing Redux logic, and the Redux Style Guide docs page [1], which lists our guidance on best practices and patterns for using Redux.
I also just published a brand-new "Redux Essentials" core docs tutorial [2], which teaches "how to use Redux, the right way", using our latest recommended tools and practices like Redux Toolkit and the React-Redux hooks API.
We unfortunately can't wave a magic wand and get folks to update the seemingly endless parade of Medium tutorials and Youtube videos that show the older approaches to using Redux, but I'm hopeful that the emphasis on using RTK will make it a lot easier for folks to learn and use Redux going forward.
Thinking about local state in the same way as external service calls just made a part of my brain say “Yeah, that’s the right abstraction”. I completely sympathise with the reasons it wasn’t worth the trouble from their perspective, though. Being able to say “Yes, this improves X dimension but we might have issues with other dimensions” shows a mature engineering org.
Tangentially related, they linked to RecoilJs which I wasn’t familiar with. The presentation on the RecoilJs site finally helped me say “Ok, I get the local state problem”. Worth a watch and reading the previous HN discussion on it [0-1]
I wish they would just revert their site to where it was 2 years ago instead of doing anything new.
The new version just looks like yet another Tinder clone, and doesn't resemble anymore what Okcupid was good at: Good profiles, which allowed to get an initial impression about people beyond "I like their looks".
I'm honestly surprised that OKCupid is still relevant. After Tinder and Bumble arrived it seemed they were all but knocked out. I've heard from my single friends that Hinge made a resurgence, so maybe these platforms never die as long as there are people willing to give them their personal info/data.
I really appreciated the way this post was structured. It worked forwards, not backwards. At the halfway point, I thought, "Oh, using the Apollo cache and the @client directive is a reasonable way to store and access client-side state," which is exactly what the OkCupid team thought at that point, too. Then they stopped, thought ahead a bit farther, and came up with reasons why it might not be the optimal choice.
Many posts are written about end results. "Look at this thing we built that is cool and works well." Thanks for sharing the full story, OkCupid.
As someone who works daily with GraphQL, it's neat to see other people talking about this.
The tools for client-side state management with GraphQL are really powerful, but require a lot more involvement than something like a standard state management store, IE an action that calls your GQL endpoint and stores the data in state.
async function fetchUsersAction(state) {
const users = await gql.getAllUsersQuery()
state.users = users
return state
}
I generally set up a regular client-side GQL library (urql, Apollo) and use this kind of pattern for store state.
This approach has worked well for me in a number of fairly decent-sized apps, and it seems to be a pretty common one.
I'm doing a big Apollo/GraphQL piece for the BBC for a lot of the same reasons OP lists, and have run into pretty much all the same issues with Apollo that OP has.
Its rough because Apollo does so much for you, its wonderful, but there are so many sharp edges and pitfalls - from the buggy devtools to the lack of/incorrect docs, major unanswered github issues & constant API breaking changes even on patch/minor version bumps, its been an uphill struggle all the way. All that said, it still seems like the best tool for the job, Relay still has a huge learning curve & has already had two major branches with no refactor path between (Classic/Modern) & the numerous other implementations all lack things Apollo gives you for free.
If your usecase is simple, using Apollo to query a GQL server with a well defined schema doing little to no client state handling it can be pretty straightforward, but the complexity ramps up crazy quick as soon as you start messing around with caches or persistence or local state.
The Apollo folks seem to have a handle on things but hopefully I/we can start contributing back, if not with feature work than with documentation
I don't understand the problems you guys are running into with Apollo local state. I've been using Apollo rigorously for 2 years now (though not yet upgraded to v3), and my experience is the state is a blessing.
In the past I had to write or figure out my own Redux solutions to store data from queries in the state and now that comes out of the box with Apollo. If I want to manipulate this state locally, I can just do a client.writeQuery in a standard JS function (no resolver bullshit). In the rare event I want purely client-side state, I can use the same method with the @client directive. I've never really needed resolvers as I can contain the logic in my `update` handlers or state manipulation (action) functions that look and behave like standard JS.
Caching is great out of the box. You get all variations you might want (cache-first, cache-only, cache-and-network) and it's very easy to configure. Not sure what problem you ran into. Maybe server-side?
State persistence is a whole different story. I've found it's hard to do well due to Apollo's ROOT_QUERY combining all pieces of the state. It requires almost an all-or-nothing approach or a lot of hacking to get it to work. I've spent a lot of time searching for proper solutions and even built my own, but they've all been insufficient. Considering local storage persistence brings XSS vulnerabilities as well, I've decided to focus my efforts on performance for now which helps both returning and new users.
Personally I love Apollo for its state management and will continue to integrate it in more projects. My biggest gripe at the moment is writing maintainable client-side queries. The code gets quite verbose, especially when you try to do proper (TypeScript) typing without splitting up your code into tiny fragments all over your codebase. And keeping the types in sync with the queries and server-side schema takes a lot of time and effort. I've mostly been thinking about solutions to auto-generate client-side query types, this would increase type-safety as well.
That Relay rewrite was over 3 years ago though, and it’s been pretty stable since (the hooks API is coming “soon” but shouldn’t break compatibility). And there was an upgrade path, there was an intermediate compat version which let you incrementally upgrade.
The learning curve isn’t that really that steep, it’s just made artificially so by the poor docs. It’s unfortunate that the Relay team doesn’t really prioritise getting new users, because it’d motivate them to explain things better. But there’s not actually that much to learn, you can be up and running and productive with it pretty quickly.
Are you sure you like Apollo? I ask because your comment says it's wonderful, but then gives a lot of reasons as to why it's not. I don't like Apollo on the client (no issue with it server side). I feel the sharp edges and pitfalls are numerous and it's a lot of boilerplate to get anything off the ground. To be totally fair to Apollo, I'm also not sure the projects I worked on really needed or benefited from GraphQL on the whole, so...
One thing that drove me crazy about using Apollo for local state management is that you have to manually fetch, update and save the data on every change. For example, if you have a list of items and you need to add one, your mutation would need to query the store for the list, add your new item, and them write the mutation to the store.
This adds extra overhead on every single mutation as opposed to Redux, where your the current state is automatically passed into your reducer, and you don't need to worry about writing anything after you update - the store handles that itself by updating the state to the result of the reducer.
Personally, I enjoy using React Context for some stage, and let data handling/caching be handled by React Query and it works lovely. So much simpler than Redux
We're just in the process of switching to GraphQL for data fetching, pretty shocked people would even consider trying to hack client-side state management into it.
I don't particularly like Apollo, but the reasoning is that if you fetch data with Apollo on the client-side, then that data is already available in their cache. If you were to use Redux, you'd have to copy that same data in your store.. so might as well use their cache instead. However, this is only for fetched data, not all client-side state management.
Personally, I don't like the "write client-side resolvers mimicking the server resolvers" approach. I'd much rather have a database that is synched with the server and listens for new changes. Once you have your "offline-synched-db", you get offline, optimistic-UI & real-time for free.
In backend, most state is nicely stored in a database, in frontend, if you don’t have good foundations for component state state vs app state vs server state, then a lot of things become complicated for a decently sized app.
If you mix everything in one then you have a crazy ball of goo that’s rendering the whole UI tree everytime something small happens. Sure vdom is fast but you’ll still feel it for large apps because generating that vdom may call expensive functions over and over.
Svelte is nice but I haven’t used it for a large project. I do swear by having a good separation of those states. It has served me well for over a decade building UIs in different frameworks.
When component state changes, only that component changes. E.g whether a dropdown is opened.
When appState, changes the whole app tree is vdom diff rendered. Immutability helps here. Props/context are threaded all the way down. E.g the current light/dark theme
ServerState should be subscribed individually by components that need it, and only the components looking at that state render. (E.g List of items from GET call, when you update the item, an update only needs to happen in that one place that keeps its data synced with server)
The problem with Apollo is that if you use it for server queries, you are basically forced to use it for local state management as well. This is because server state and local state is usually intermingled, so its not practical to have a Redux store for local state and then use the Apollo cache for server state.
This means that Apollo is essentially incompatible with Redux unless you are willing to duplicate the data in the Apollo cache into your Redux store. Such duplication is a waste of resources, and also defeats the point of using Apollo to begin with, since you are circumventing most of its feature and just using it as a plain GraphQL client.
I think Apollo is trying to do too much, and a much better architecture is not to couple your GraphQL query infrastructure to your state management infrastructure. This can be done by using a more low level GraphQL client and then choosing one of the many amazing state management libraries out there in combination. This way your GraphQL client does not dictate your state management layer.
I looked into Apollo for local state years ago, after trying to synchronize remote & local state & running into race conditions, I quickly realized it is better to implement GQL fetching inside something like Redux that is lower level & gives more control over determinism & timings.
The holy grail of "fixing race conditions" and avoiding async bugs is RxJS in my opinion, which is why I am working on what I call a "stream management library", its a state manager where your "state" is represented as RxJS streams https://rx-store.github.io/rx-store/
We've been using Apollo's cache as our one and only source of state in the issue tracker we're building [0], however, as of late we've started running into all kinds of problems. Mainly performance related as the Apollo cache flattens the object graph on insertion but then rebuilds the graph on read (whether you need it to fully do so our not).
To remedy this, we're currently moving away from it. Either to Redux or just plain useReducer (TBD).
> This gives us one of two options for our cached data: either make sure every query requests a uniquely identifying field of the data we are requesting (doesn't this defeat the purpose of requesting whatever fields we want?) or writing explicit typePolicies to tell our cache how to normalize our data.
This is the exact thought I had recently when fighting the Apollo cache.
I dunno. I was pretty frustrated by most of the state management solutions out there, so rolled my own [1]. So far been really happy with it. Super simple graph based notifications, does everything I need.
I would definitely encourage all of my competitors to use GraphQL. Nothing like getting a free six-month lead.
That's two months they spend learning GraphQL, two months introducing a mystery-meat binding layer and learning that, and two months debugging it all and pulling their hair out.
And no, using a giant third-party lock-in toolkit like Hasura or Apollo is not a response.
Starting to work with GraphQL is definitely "mysterious" and backend controllers must be implemented completely differently when it comes to caching. But I think performance- and complexity-wise it's definitely ahead of REST.
I don't see any problem using Hasura for prototyping. It offers pagination, aggregation and other things that usually only matured REST APIs offer. So basically it's possible to post-pone the Web Application-Backend, see what queries make sense and later "hard code" that with the preferred framework. At least that's how I'm approaching a side-project right now and I'm really happy that I can focus on the open tasks and keep the mundane work for later.
It's undeniable that there's a learning curve to GraphQL - but at the end of the day, it's just adding another investment that developers may choose to make their lives easier in the long run.
As in industry, we're okay with a frontend JS framework - React (or vue or angular) being part of the baseline set of investments you make when building a website. It's just considered the cost of doing business. (But that wasn't always the case! I for one don't miss using jQuery...)
I imagine GraphQL will get to a similar place - where the investment is more well understood and accepted.
(Of course common sense still applies - if a website is simple enough that it doesn't need a frontend js framework then don't use one - same goes for graphql, don't use it if you really don't need it)
[+] [-] pier25|5 years ago|reply
MobX is probably the best way I've found to manage reactive state with React, Inferno, etc, but still, it's a huge piece of of software for just this purpose.
I first moved to Mithril because it doesn't need reactivity. You solve the same problem than React/Vue et al in just 10kB. No need for an external router or a state management library. Your state is just vanilla JS. Mithril doesn't need to know when a particular piece of state has changed, it just tries to re-render everything and the vdom takes care of the rest. The performance is comparable to Vue 2 and React [1] but the DX is lightyears ahead. It's a sushi chef knife though, you really gotta know what you're doing[2].
Now I'm using Svelte because it's even better. It does have reactivity but the compiler just figures out the dependency graph so you don't need to ship a huge thing like MobX to do that at runtime. You also write a fraction of the code compared to all the other frameworks I've used which is Svelte's best feature. This compiler approach is a game changer IMO.
[1] https://krausest.github.io/js-framework-benchmark/current.ht...
[2] What I meant by this is that since your app is essentially vanilla JS you're on your own to architecture the thing. If you don't know what you're doing you will shoot yourself in the foot.
[+] [-] cjonas|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darksaints|5 years ago|reply
I have a nagging problem that keeps coming back to me though. The declarative state model is the holy grail for UI design, but if you try to mix in any form of imperative logic, it all falls apart. All of a sudden you need to understand and plug into poorly documented and opaque component lifecycle APIs in order to insert your imperative code and have it work correctly. And that really messes up the nice clean solution, making it look more like a chimera of two state models.
Some of that is fixed by libraries that create components native to your framework of choice, implementing the appropriate lifecycle hooks as necessary. But now you're relying on a library that adapts one library to another library, and now you've got a dependency sync problem on top of it all.
It wouldn't be such a problem if there weren't so many extremely useful libraries that depend on imperative code. Personally, I've run into massive problems trying to use D3, Leaflet, and Bootstrap, as well as a handful of others. I'm sure there are thousands more.
Not trying to take away from your point. When these declarative state models work well, it's a beautiful thing to behold. But there's always some point where the abstraction leaks.
https://svelte.dev/tutorial/onmount
https://reactjs.org/docs/state-and-lifecycle.html
https://blog.logrocket.com/introduction-to-vue-lifecycle-hoo...
https://mithril.js.org/lifecycle-methods.html
[+] [-] kevan|5 years ago|reply
Can confirm. My team of mostly fullstack devs that prefer backend ran into lots of issues with too much freedom in Mithril.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] openfuture|5 years ago|reply
Ummm... no, state management is pretty much the only hard problem in programming.
[+] [-] pastrami_panda|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 11235813213455|5 years ago|reply
Completely agreed about Redux and other over-engineered state management
[+] [-] aosaigh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fouc|5 years ago|reply
By the way did you ever look at http://meiosis.js.org for managing state?
[+] [-] city41|5 years ago|reply
The article touches upon current Redux as well, such as when it says "If done right, it can definitely be a breeze to work with", which I agree with. And the "if done right" part has gotten a lot easier, as Redux has finally decided it's ok to provide opinionated approaches that guide you towards that happy path. I really do think if Redux hadn't been so concerned about being opinionated way back when, it'd be far better received today. But better late than never.
[+] [-] weeksie|5 years ago|reply
If it's simple just put handle async stuff in situ. If it's more complex, use custom middleware. Thunks, sagas, etc are all anti-patterns. The single worst thing the Redux docs did was give the impression that middleware was some kind of advanced functionality only useful for library designers. Most of your app logic should probably live in middleware.
The "redux toolkit" or whatever doesn't help with that, it only reifies questionable practices. Skip it. Write a simple utility for generating actions/types, and then go about your business.
[+] [-] bengale|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acemarke|5 years ago|reply
Can you clarify what you mean here?
From my perspective as a Redux maintainer, most of the concerns I've seen expressed about Redux over the last few years really didn't focus on whether it was "opinionated" or not. It's been a combination of:
- Not understanding the original intent behind Redux's design and the historical context that led to it being designed that way [0]
- People being told they _had_ to use Redux with React, even when it really wasn't a good fit for their use case
- The "incidental complexity" of common Redux usage patterns [1], most of which were due to the way the docs and tutorials showed things (writing `const ADD_TODO = "ADD_TODO"`, separate files for actions/constants/reducers, etc).
- Changes in the ecosystem leading to other tools whose use cases overlapped with why you might have chosen to use Redux previously
All that said, yeah, we've made a concerted effort in the last year or so to be much more opinionated about how you _ought_ to use Redux, based on how we've seen people use it. Those opinions are built into our new official Redux Toolkit package [0], which is now our recommended approach for writing Redux logic, and the Redux Style Guide docs page [1], which lists our guidance on best practices and patterns for using Redux.
I also just published a brand-new "Redux Essentials" core docs tutorial [2], which teaches "how to use Redux, the right way", using our latest recommended tools and practices like Redux Toolkit and the React-Redux hooks API.
We unfortunately can't wave a magic wand and get folks to update the seemingly endless parade of Medium tutorials and Youtube videos that show the older approaches to using Redux, but I'm hopeful that the emphasis on using RTK will make it a lot easier for folks to learn and use Redux going forward.
[0] https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2017/05/idiomatic-redux-ta...
[1] https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2019/10/redux-starter-kit-...
[2] https://redux-toolkit.js.org
[3] https://redux.js.org/style-guide/style-guide
[4] https://redux.js.org/tutorials/essentials/part-1-overview-co...
[+] [-] alextheparrot|5 years ago|reply
Tangentially related, they linked to RecoilJs which I wasn’t familiar with. The presentation on the RecoilJs site finally helped me say “Ok, I get the local state problem”. Worth a watch and reading the previous HN discussion on it [0-1]
[0] https://recoiljs.org/
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23181375
[+] [-] Matthias247|5 years ago|reply
The new version just looks like yet another Tinder clone, and doesn't resemble anymore what Okcupid was good at: Good profiles, which allowed to get an initial impression about people beyond "I like their looks".
[+] [-] carabiner|5 years ago|reply
The entire internet is being optimized to either outrage you or sexually arouse you as quickly as possible.
[+] [-] throwaway4747l|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrew_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonhoch|5 years ago|reply
Many posts are written about end results. "Look at this thing we built that is cool and works well." Thanks for sharing the full story, OkCupid.
[+] [-] gavinray|5 years ago|reply
The tools for client-side state management with GraphQL are really powerful, but require a lot more involvement than something like a standard state management store, IE an action that calls your GQL endpoint and stores the data in state.
I generally set up a regular client-side GQL library (urql, Apollo) and use this kind of pattern for store state.This approach has worked well for me in a number of fairly decent-sized apps, and it seems to be a pretty common one.
[+] [-] consolenaut|5 years ago|reply
Its rough because Apollo does so much for you, its wonderful, but there are so many sharp edges and pitfalls - from the buggy devtools to the lack of/incorrect docs, major unanswered github issues & constant API breaking changes even on patch/minor version bumps, its been an uphill struggle all the way. All that said, it still seems like the best tool for the job, Relay still has a huge learning curve & has already had two major branches with no refactor path between (Classic/Modern) & the numerous other implementations all lack things Apollo gives you for free.
If your usecase is simple, using Apollo to query a GQL server with a well defined schema doing little to no client state handling it can be pretty straightforward, but the complexity ramps up crazy quick as soon as you start messing around with caches or persistence or local state.
The Apollo folks seem to have a handle on things but hopefully I/we can start contributing back, if not with feature work than with documentation
[+] [-] undefinedzero|5 years ago|reply
In the past I had to write or figure out my own Redux solutions to store data from queries in the state and now that comes out of the box with Apollo. If I want to manipulate this state locally, I can just do a client.writeQuery in a standard JS function (no resolver bullshit). In the rare event I want purely client-side state, I can use the same method with the @client directive. I've never really needed resolvers as I can contain the logic in my `update` handlers or state manipulation (action) functions that look and behave like standard JS.
Caching is great out of the box. You get all variations you might want (cache-first, cache-only, cache-and-network) and it's very easy to configure. Not sure what problem you ran into. Maybe server-side?
State persistence is a whole different story. I've found it's hard to do well due to Apollo's ROOT_QUERY combining all pieces of the state. It requires almost an all-or-nothing approach or a lot of hacking to get it to work. I've spent a lot of time searching for proper solutions and even built my own, but they've all been insufficient. Considering local storage persistence brings XSS vulnerabilities as well, I've decided to focus my efforts on performance for now which helps both returning and new users.
Personally I love Apollo for its state management and will continue to integrate it in more projects. My biggest gripe at the moment is writing maintainable client-side queries. The code gets quite verbose, especially when you try to do proper (TypeScript) typing without splitting up your code into tiny fragments all over your codebase. And keeping the types in sync with the queries and server-side schema takes a lot of time and effort. I've mostly been thinking about solutions to auto-generate client-side query types, this would increase type-safety as well.
[+] [-] andrewingram|5 years ago|reply
The learning curve isn’t that really that steep, it’s just made artificially so by the poor docs. It’s unfortunate that the Relay team doesn’t really prioritise getting new users, because it’d motivate them to explain things better. But there’s not actually that much to learn, you can be up and running and productive with it pretty quickly.
[+] [-] city41|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gregkerzhner|5 years ago|reply
This adds extra overhead on every single mutation as opposed to Redux, where your the current state is automatically passed into your reducer, and you don't need to worry about writing anything after you update - the store handles that itself by updating the state to the result of the reducer.
[+] [-] wdb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VintageLight|5 years ago|reply
I don't mind Redux for local state management, but it's a little overkill if you aren't using it already to handle API state.
Using Apollo on the client side makes me want to pull my hair out though.
[+] [-] mikewhy|5 years ago|reply
Redux still fills that role very well.
[+] [-] d0m|5 years ago|reply
Personally, I don't like the "write client-side resolvers mimicking the server resolvers" approach. I'd much rather have a database that is synched with the server and listens for new changes. Once you have your "offline-synched-db", you get offline, optimistic-UI & real-time for free.
[+] [-] nojvek|5 years ago|reply
If you mix everything in one then you have a crazy ball of goo that’s rendering the whole UI tree everytime something small happens. Sure vdom is fast but you’ll still feel it for large apps because generating that vdom may call expensive functions over and over.
Svelte is nice but I haven’t used it for a large project. I do swear by having a good separation of those states. It has served me well for over a decade building UIs in different frameworks.
When component state changes, only that component changes. E.g whether a dropdown is opened.
When appState, changes the whole app tree is vdom diff rendered. Immutability helps here. Props/context are threaded all the way down. E.g the current light/dark theme
ServerState should be subscribed individually by components that need it, and only the components looking at that state render. (E.g List of items from GET call, when you update the item, an update only needs to happen in that one place that keeps its data synced with server)
[+] [-] gregkerzhner|5 years ago|reply
This means that Apollo is essentially incompatible with Redux unless you are willing to duplicate the data in the Apollo cache into your Redux store. Such duplication is a waste of resources, and also defeats the point of using Apollo to begin with, since you are circumventing most of its feature and just using it as a plain GraphQL client.
I think Apollo is trying to do too much, and a much better architecture is not to couple your GraphQL query infrastructure to your state management infrastructure. This can be done by using a more low level GraphQL client and then choosing one of the many amazing state management libraries out there in combination. This way your GraphQL client does not dictate your state management layer.
[+] [-] joshribakoff|5 years ago|reply
The holy grail of "fixing race conditions" and avoiding async bugs is RxJS in my opinion, which is why I am working on what I call a "stream management library", its a state manager where your "state" is represented as RxJS streams https://rx-store.github.io/rx-store/
[+] [-] kevsim|5 years ago|reply
To remedy this, we're currently moving away from it. Either to Redux or just plain useReducer (TBD).
0: https://kitemaker.co
[+] [-] bengale|5 years ago|reply
This is the exact thought I had recently when fighting the Apollo cache.
[+] [-] k__|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] claytongulick|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://github.com/claytongulick/applicationstate
[+] [-] d0m|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] claydavisss|5 years ago|reply
That's two months they spend learning GraphQL, two months introducing a mystery-meat binding layer and learning that, and two months debugging it all and pulling their hair out.
And no, using a giant third-party lock-in toolkit like Hasura or Apollo is not a response.
[+] [-] blablabla123|5 years ago|reply
I don't see any problem using Hasura for prototyping. It offers pagination, aggregation and other things that usually only matured REST APIs offer. So basically it's possible to post-pone the Web Application-Backend, see what queries make sense and later "hard code" that with the preferred framework. At least that's how I'm approaching a side-project right now and I'm really happy that I can focus on the open tasks and keep the mundane work for later.
[+] [-] vosper|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markl42|5 years ago|reply
As in industry, we're okay with a frontend JS framework - React (or vue or angular) being part of the baseline set of investments you make when building a website. It's just considered the cost of doing business. (But that wasn't always the case! I for one don't miss using jQuery...)
I imagine GraphQL will get to a similar place - where the investment is more well understood and accepted.
(Of course common sense still applies - if a website is simple enough that it doesn't need a frontend js framework then don't use one - same goes for graphql, don't use it if you really don't need it)