I have a nested-View setup which can get somewhat deep in my application. There are a bunch of ways I could think of initializing, rendering and appending the sub-views, but I'm wondering what common practice is.
Here are a couple I've thought of:
initialize : function () {
this.subView1 = new Subview({options});
this.subView2 = new Subview({options});
},
render : function () {
this.$el.html(this.template());
this.subView1.setElement('.some-el').render();
this.subView2.setElement('.some-el').render();
}
Pros: You don't have to worry about maintaining the right DOM order with appending. The views are initialized early on, so there isn't as much to do all at once in the render function.
Cons: You are forced to re-delegateEvents(), which might be costly? The parent view's render function is cluttered with all of the subview rendering that needs to happen? You don't have the ability to set the tagName
of the elements, so the template needs to maintain the correct tagNames.
Another way:
initialize : function () {
},
render : function () {
this.$el.empty();
this.subView1 = new Subview({options});
this.subView2 = new Subview({options});
this.$el.append(this.subView1.render().el, this.subView2.render().el);
}
Pros: You don't have to re-delegate events. You don't need a template that just contains empty placeholders and your tagName's are back to being defined by the view.
Cons: You now have to make sure to append things in the right order. The parent view's render is still cluttered by the subview rendering.
With an onRender
event:
initialize : function () {
this.on('render', this.onRender);
this.subView1 = new Subview({options});
this.subView2 = new Subview({options});
},
render : function () {
this.$el.html(this.template);
//other stuff
return this.trigger('render');
},
onRender : function () {
this.subView1.setElement('.some-el').render();
this.subView2.setElement('.some-el').render();
}
Pros: The subview logic is now separated from the view's render()
method.
With an onRender
event:
initialize : function () {
this.on('render', this.onRender);
},
render : function () {
this.$el.html(this.template);
//other stuff
return this.trigger('render');
},
onRender : function () {
this.subView1 = new Subview();
this.subView2 = new Subview();
this.subView1.setElement('.some-el').render();
this.subView2.setElement('.some-el').render();
}
I've kind of mix and matched a bunch of different practices across all of these examples (so sorry about that) but what are the ones that you would keep or add? and what would you not do?
Summary of practices:
- Instantiate subviews in
initialize
or inrender
? - Perform all sub-view rendering logic in
render
or inonRender
? - Use
setElement
orappend/appendTo
?
Surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but I'd seriously consider using Marionette.
It enforces a bit more structure to Backbone apps, including specific view types (
ListView
,ItemView
,Region
andLayout
), adding properController
s and a lot more.Here is the project on Github and a great guide by Addy Osmani in the book Backbone Fundamentals to get you started.
This is a perennial problem with Backbone and, in my experience, there's not really a satisfying answer to this question. I share your frustration, especially since there is so little guidance despite how common this use case is. That said, I usually go with something akin to your second example.
First of all, I would dismiss out of hand anything that requires you to re-delegate events. Backbone's event-driven view model is one of its most crucial components, and to lose that functionality simply because your application is non-trivial would leave a bad taste in any programmer's mouth. So scratch number one.
Regarding your third example, I think it's just an end-run around the conventional rendering practice and doesn't add much meaning. Perhaps if you're doing actual event triggering (i.e., not a contrived "
onRender
" event), it would be worth just binding those events torender
itself. If you findrender
becoming unwieldy and complex, you have too few subviews.Back to your second example, which is probably the lesser of the three evils. Here is example code lifted from Recipes With Backbone, found on page 42 of my PDF edition:
This is only a slightly more sophisticated setup than your second example: they specifiy a set of functions,
addAll
andaddOne
, that do the dirty work. I think this approach is workable (and I certainly use it); but it still leaves a bizarre aftertaste. (Pardon all these tongue metaphors.)To your point on appending in the right order: if you're strictly appending, sure, that's a limitation. But make sure you consider all possible templating schemes. Perhaps you'd actually like a placeholder element (e.g., an empty
div
orul
) that you can thenreplaceWith
a new (DOM) element that holds the appropriate subviews. Appending isn't the only solution, and you can certainly get around the ordering problem if you care about it that much, but I would imagine you have a design issue if it is tripping you up. Remember, subviews can have subviews, and they should if it's appropriate. That way, you have a rather tree-like structure, which is quite nice: each subview adds all its subviews, in order, before the parent view adds another, and so on.Unfortunately, solution #2 is probably the best you can hope for using out-of-the-box Backbone. If you're interested in checking out third-party libraries, one that I have looked into (but haven't actually had any time to play with yet) is Backbone.LayoutManager, which seems to have a healthier method of adding subviews. However, even they have had recent debates on similar issues to these.
I don't really like any of the above solutions. I prefer for this configuration over each view having to manually do work in the render method.
views
can be a function or object returning an object of view definitions.remove
is called, the.remove
of nested children from the lowest order up should be called (all the way from sub-sub-sub views)Here's an example:
There is no need to re-delegate events as it is costly. See below: