Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bypass synthetic event system for Web Component events #7901

Open
staltz opened this issue Oct 6, 2016 · 63 comments
Open

Bypass synthetic event system for Web Component events #7901

staltz opened this issue Oct 6, 2016 · 63 comments

Comments

@staltz
Copy link

@staltz staltz commented Oct 6, 2016

To use a Web Component in React, you must directly attach an event listener to the React ref for that WC. We could change the implementation so that when React detects a custom element (tag names with dashes, like my-component), it will bypass the synthetic event system (and the whitelist) and just attach the event listener on the element itself.

Why bypass the synthetic event system? Because anyway we already need to bypass it manually when using a Web Component. I'm not so familiar with the React codebase, but this naive approach seems to work. Whoever uses Web Components in React can be responsible for whatever downsides that would cause, maybe in performance, I don't know. They are already having those (supposed) downsides, this issue is just about the convenience of WC usage inside React.

I was about to send a PR for this, but thought of opening an issue. I looked through the issues and didn't see any existing one related to the handling of WC events.

What is the current behavior?

A WC custom event (e.g. flipend) must be handled by attaching the event listener directly to the element in componentDidMount using a ref.

http://jsbin.com/yutocopasu/1/edit?js,output

React v15.1.0

class HelloMessage extends React.Component {
  handleHelloClick() {
    this.refs['foo'].toggle();
  }

  handleFlipend(ev) {
    console.log('Handle flip end');
  }

  componentDidMount() {
    this.refs['foo'].addEventListener('flipend', ev =>
      this.handleFlipend(ev);
    );
  }

  render() {
    return (
      <div>
        <div onClick={ev => this.handleHelloClick()}>
          Hello {this.props.name}, click me!
        </div>
        <brick-flipbox class="demo" ref="foo">
          <div>front</div>
          <div>back</div>
        </brick-flipbox>
      </div>
    );
  }
}

What is the expected behavior?

A WC custom event can be handled with onMyEvent={ev => this.handleMyEvent(ev)} on the ReactElement corresponding to the WC.

class HelloMessage extends React.Component {
  handleHelloClick() {
    this.refs['foo'].toggle();
  }

  handleFlipend(ev) {
    console.log('Handle flip end');
  }

  render() {
    return (
      <div>
        <div onClick={ev => this.handleHelloClick()}>
          Hello {this.props.name}, click me!
        </div>
        <brick-flipbox onFlipend={ev => this.handleFlipend(ev)} class="demo" ref="foo">
          <div>front</div>
          <div>back</div>
        </brick-flipbox>
      </div>
    );
  }
}

PS: this snippet above still has the ref, but for unrelated reasons. Ideally we wouldn't need refs for handling events of WCs.

@treshugart
Copy link

@treshugart treshugart commented Oct 11, 2016

https://github.com/webcomponents/react-integration will create a React component from a web component constructor and give you custom event support.

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Member

@sebmarkbage sebmarkbage commented Oct 20, 2016

As long as we only support attributes. I don't see a problem doing this for the heuristic if (typeof props[propName] === 'function') element.addEventListener(propName, props[propName], false). The only concern would be if we should have some heuristic for normalizing the event name. I'm not really a fan of converting things like onXxx into xxx after doing that in MooTools. The other concern is related to #6436 and how we'd handle capture/bubble/passive/active etc.

I'd like it better if we could just pass through all props to element properties but it seems like that ship has sailed since most web components aren't designed to handle properties properly. A massive loss to the community IMO.

@treshugart
Copy link

@treshugart treshugart commented Oct 20, 2016

I'd like it better if we could just pass through all props to element properties but it seems like that ship has sailed since most web components aren't designed to handle properties properly. A massive loss to the community IMO.

It feels like that statement is clumping all web components into a single bag of poor design, which in many cases they are, but it doesn't mean you can't optimise for the ones that are designed well. A couple paradigms I'm trying to push in the community (and with SkateJS) are:

  • events up, props down
  • use props as your source of truth, sync attributes to props when you can

Monica Dinculescu mentioned the former and Rob Dodson the latter in their Polymer Summit talks, so I think that's something they're trying to espouse. It's unfortunate the primitives don't make this more obvious, but I think that comes with the nature of most browser built-ins these days.

React not setting props, and not supporting custom events, is the reason we've had to maintain that React integration library I posted above (https://github.com/webcomponents/react-integration). It's worth looking at as a source of some patterns that are definitely working for us in production. It's also worth noting that the patterns employed there are also used in Skate's wrapper around Incremental DOM. We set props for everything we can, falling back to attributes as a last resort.

In the integration lib, events have their own special convention, similar to React's. This in particular is something to pay attention to because adding event listeners if prop is a function - without checking the name for something like /^on[A-Z].*/ - will prefer events over properties.You could flip that around and set props if prop in element and leave it up to the web component to addEventListener() when the onClick property is set. This creates a little more work for the component, but means you don't have to do the prefix checking if you're not a fan.

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Member

@sebmarkbage sebmarkbage commented Oct 20, 2016

@treshugart Most people seem to find this counter-intuitive but my preference would be to effectively just call Object.assign(element, props). It sounds like you'd be a fan of that approach as well? Maybe there is still hope to change the Web Components ecosystem to prefer that - and indeed React promoting that style would perhaps help.

@staltz What do you think about that approach?

@treshugart
Copy link

@treshugart treshugart commented Oct 20, 2016

@sebmarkbage I like that approach but I think there are a few things to consider (and you're probably already aware):

  1. Props don't work for all elements. SVGElement will error if you set width as a property, for example because it's readonly.
  2. Attributes don't work for all elements. HTMLInputElement needs value set as a property, for example because the attribute does not 2-way sync once the property is set or a user sets a value.
  3. Some web components may have edge-cases where an attribute-only handler is necessary (aria-*, maybe).
  4. Attributes with dashes (my-property) reflected to camel-cased props (myProperty). What is the behaviour here? Probably fine to not worry about this case because the consumer can just use <x-element myProperty={something} />.
  5. Attributes with the same name as the property. What happens if the property is only a getter (no set() or writable: false)? There's no way for the consumer to prefer the attribute. Maybe this is something that is enforced; that the component author must provide a setter or the consumer has to <x-element ref={e => e.setAttribute('some', 'value')} />.
  6. Would this behaviour be applied to custom elements only and how would this be detected if so?

Something like the following might be a little bit more robust:

Object.keys(props).forEach(name => {
  if (name in element) {
    // You might also need to ensure that it's a custom element because of point 1.
    element[name] = props[name];
  } else {
    doWhatReactNormallyDoesWithAttributes();
  }
});

Brainstorming just in case. Overall, I tend to agree with you that it'd be fine for React to just do Object.assign(). It seems like there are ways for the consumer to get around any potential design problems with the component they'd be using.

Maybe there is still hope to change the Web Components ecosystem to prefer that - and indeed React promoting that style would perhaps help.

I sure hope so. I'm trying to and I know the Polymer team is trying to, as well. I think if React did do this, that it'd be a massive help, too.

@justinfagnani
Copy link

@justinfagnani justinfagnani commented Oct 20, 2016

I'd like it better if we could just pass through all props to element properties but it seems like that ship has sailed since most web components aren't designed to handle properties properly. A massive loss to the community IMO.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, but with Polymer we'd definitely prefer setting properties to setting attributes. Which web components don't handle properties and in what way?

@robdodson
Copy link

@robdodson robdodson commented Oct 20, 2016

@sebmarkbage I think we can definitely encourage folks to write components that support the Object.assign approach you mentioned above. As @treshugart mentioned, I spoke about doing this in my Polymer Summit talk based on our previous twitter discussion. Having easy event support in React would also be great.

@robdodson
Copy link

@robdodson robdodson commented Oct 20, 2016

Talk is here: https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=256yfQG-abU

I also mentioned the need to dispatch events for state changes so libraries like React can revert those changes (similar to the way React handles the native input checkbook element)

@nhunzaker
Copy link
Collaborator

@nhunzaker nhunzaker commented Oct 20, 2016

events up, props down

Yes. I think there would be benefits outside of web components too. I wonder if we'd see libraries rely less on the context API when they could just emit a custom event.

I don't see a problem doing this for the heuristic if (typeof props[propName] === 'function') element.addEventListener(propName, props[propName], false).

@sebmarkbage Unless you know if any current work here, I'd be happen to stencil something out.

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Member

@sebmarkbage sebmarkbage commented Oct 20, 2016

@nhunzaker Well I think that what is being discussed here would be an alternate strategy.

We would not support addEventListener('click', fn). We would instead support element.onclick = fn;

@staltz
Copy link
Author

@staltz staltz commented Oct 20, 2016

Yeah I think I'm ok with the idea of Object.assign(element, props) and element.onflipend = fn. Just to understand why you proposed this, is it just to avoid translating onFoo to foo? Or are there more reasons?

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Member

@sebmarkbage sebmarkbage commented Oct 20, 2016

A problem with properties, attributes, events and children is that you have to know which one to use so you end up with heuristics or explicit namespaces. I don't think explicit namespaces is very ergonomic.

Properties are more powerful than attributes because:

  • Properties can have rich data types. E.g. boolean for checked or complex objects like style. Typed CSSOM will let us have specific data types for individual style properties too.
  • In HTML, properties can always control and represent the current visible state of an element. Whenever they diverge, properties is the source of truth - like in the case of HTMLInputElement's value. The only exception is that you can set progress into an indeterminate state - which is just an oversight. As @treshugart pointed out the exception to this is mostly random things added carelessly outside of the normal process - such as RDF or custom elements built by third parties. SVG does have some properties that can't be set in the normal way, but usually you can do that using style instead which are just nested normal properties. These are edge cases that can be dealt with by a library like React DOM that knows about these.
  • Properties have the benefit that they can be reflected over. You can't detect if an attribute or event is accepted or not because they're all accepted so you can't add runtime warnings for wrong attribute names. You can also use that for workarounds, e.g. fallback to something else if a property is not available.

So if we only had one, I'd prefer it to be properties.

That leaves events. If we use a heuristic, that affects performance negatively since we have to create mappings for it at runtime. It also means that we're claiming a whole namespace. It means that custom elements can't provide an onFoo property if they wanted to. For example, with infinite scrolls there's a pattern like onCreateRow that isn't just a simple a event but a callback that's invoked to create a row for a particular index.

I think that would be unfortunate to claim a whole namespace prefix or type when the precedence of element.onclick = fn is a much simpler model.

Of course, that will still leave us "children" as special but that's kind of a unique property of React that children of components can be any type of value so we'll have to concede that one constrained special case.

@robdodson
Copy link

@robdodson robdodson commented Oct 22, 2016

I took a stab at implementing the model discussed above. @sebmarkbage can you let me know if this matches your thinking?

class XCheckbox extends HTMLElement {
  connectedCallback() {
    this.addEventListener('click', this._onclick);
  }
  disconnectedCallback() {
    this.removeEventListener('click', this._onclick);
  }
  _onclick(e) {
    this.checked = !this.checked;
    this.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent('checkchanged', {
      detail: { checked: this.checked }, bubbles: false
    }));
  }
  set oncheckchanged(fn) {
    this.removeEventListener('checkchanged', this._oncheckchanged);
    this._oncheckchanged = fn;
    this.addEventListener('checkchanged', this._oncheckchanged);
  }
  get oncheckchanged() {
    return this._oncheckchanged;
  }
  set checked(value) {
    this._checked = value;
    value ? this.setAttribute('checked', '') : this.removeAttribute('checked');
  }
  get checked() {
    return this._checked;
  }
}
customElements.define('x-checkbox', XCheckbox);

const props = {
  checked: true,
  oncheckchanged: function(e) {
    console.log('oncheckchanged called with', e);
  }
};
const customCheckbox = document.createElement('x-checkbox');
Object.assign(customCheckbox, props);
document.body.appendChild(customCheckbox);

One concern is that element authors have to opt-in to defining a setter to expose a handler for every event that they dispatch. That may end up bloating the elements, especially if they have a variety of events that they expose. Having React do element.addEventListener(propName, props[propName], false) might make element author's lives a bit easier. Just speaking personally, knowing the trade off between an event name heuristic and having to define setters for everything, I'd choose the heuristic.

@justinfagnani
Copy link

@justinfagnani justinfagnani commented Oct 23, 2016

@sebmarkbage I get why properties are preferable to attributes, that's why Polymer defaults to setting properties. Since most Web Components these days are Polymer elements, and Polymer automatically supports properties, I think most Web Components handle properties correctly. Most of the other WC libraries I've seen handle properties correctly as well. If you know of a large set of components that don't support properties, let me know and I'd be glad to we see if I can help fix that massive loss.

@robdodson I don't think it's really feasible to have element authors write their own event handler properties. Events work fine with just addEventListener() and dispatchEvent() and event handler properties are an extra burden and won't be consistently implemented, and aren't even sufficient for many uses of addEventListener(). I'd guess that if addEventListener() were in DOM 0, the event handler properties wouldn't even exist - they're a vestige of an earlier time.

Polymer and Angular (and I believe SkateJS as well) have syntax conventions for declaring a binding to a property, attribute or adding an event handler with HTML attribute names. I don't know JSX, but it seems like since it's not HTML and not JavaScript, there's a lot of leeway to invent its own syntax to unambiguously differentiate between properties attributes and events.

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Member

@sebmarkbage sebmarkbage commented Oct 23, 2016

React intentionally went back on that and claims that single event handlers is a better model and the use cases for multiple event listeners is better solved elsewhere since it leads to confusion about where events flow and which order they flow.

Additionally, the string based event system is difficult to type. Both statically for type systems like TypeScript and Flow, and for optimizing adding lots of event subscriptions at runtime (instead of string based hash maps).

So I don't think it's fair to say that event handler properties are strictly worse.

More over, there are other types of first-class event handlers like Observables that would be nice to support using properties.

The most important feature for interop is reflection. Without reflection you can't make automatic wrappers such as providing a first-class Observables as properties for each available event.

This is something that the event listener system doesn't provide. There is no canHandleEvent(type). Of course, just like attributes, this doesn't really make sense since the stringly typed event system can broadcast any string to any element through bubbling.

@robdodson
Copy link

@robdodson robdodson commented Oct 26, 2016

@sebmarkbage those are good points. If you have a moment can you take a look at the sample code I posted and let me know if it seems inline with what you're thinking?

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Member

@sebmarkbage sebmarkbage commented Oct 26, 2016

@robdodson Yes, that looks very good to me.

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Member

@sebmarkbage sebmarkbage commented Oct 26, 2016

If the only problem is boilerplate, I think that is solvable. Initially in user space in terms of libraries that make it easy to create best-practice custom elements. Later a standard helper can be batteries included.

@robdodson
Copy link

@robdodson robdodson commented Oct 26, 2016

If the only problem is boilerplate, I think that is solvable. Initially in user space in terms of libraries that make it easy to create best-practice custom elements. Later a standard helper can be batteries included.

Yeah that sounds good to me 👍 @treshugart @staltz what do you guys think?

@treshugart
Copy link

@treshugart treshugart commented Oct 26, 2016

Looks awesome! I'll reiterate that https://github.com/webcomponents/react-integration currently solves this stuff in userland. That might be a good spot to start collaborating on some of the boilerplate.

@pemrouz
Copy link

@pemrouz pemrouz commented Oct 26, 2016

From experience of using vanilla Web Components in a React-like architecture, a few humble suggestions:

  • Don't spray props directly onto the element, do something like Object.assign(element.props, props) instead. This makes it alot easier to debug ($0.props), works better with the immutable paradigm (element.props === props), time travel, avoids clashes, gives the component a chance to interpret the data (especially important if WC extends native element), etc.
  • Don't support attributes. It's much better to have one good consistent way (properties) to deal with data than several partial solutions. At scale, the little benefit gained by trying to make attributes work would be offset by the confusion to many devs. Hopefully this eventually reflects back in WC design.
  • If the component implements some "render" function, invoke it after updating. In my world, essentially this.setState(props) = Object.assign(element.props, props) + .render() (except s/props/state && s/.render()/.draw()) and all components (stateless & stateful) are just function(state){}. This would be great for WCs that implement a declarative render function, rather than having to deal with each change individually.
  • As aforementioned, agree with a standard helper for binding events, or perhaps some JSX syntax addition?
@staltz
Copy link
Author

@staltz staltz commented Oct 27, 2016

@robdodson Yeah that's aligned with what I think as well.

Just speaking personally, knowing the trade off between an event name heuristic and having to define setters for everything, I'd choose the heuristic.

I'd also choose the same.

What's the action points with this issue? I'm willing to do something but unsure what, and confused whether @robdodson or @sebmarkbage have intentions to act on this.

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Member

@sebmarkbage sebmarkbage commented Oct 27, 2016

To clarify my conclusion: If @robdodson shows that the proposed "best-practice" above is a feasible direction for the Web Components ecosystem including event listeners as properties.

Then React will switch to simply transferring props to the element properties, Object.assign(customElement, reactElement.props) in the next major release.

The next actionable item there would be that someone (maybe Polymer?) provides a way to make it easy to build such Web Components and see if it is viable in the more raw-form Web Components community (as opposed to big libraries).

@robdodson
Copy link

@robdodson robdodson commented Oct 27, 2016

@staltz I've been discussing it with some of the platform engineers on Chrome. They raised some issues around how the native on* properties work with builtins and I think it'd be worthwhile to discuss those. I'm working on a follow up that details the points they covered.

@robdodson
Copy link

@robdodson robdodson commented Oct 27, 2016

  • As the checkbox example showed, it's relatively simple (if a bit verbose) for a CE author to wire up event handler properties
  • However, it turns out that it's currently impossible for a CE author to implement event handler attributes that match the behavior of platform built-ins. Those attribute handlers are created by V8 in ways that are not exposed to plain JavaScript.

This raises the concern: does it make sense to promote a pattern for CEs that uses the existing on* semantics but doesn't have the same attribute / property parallelism?

I realize for most frameworks/libraries this is not a problem, because they’ll just use properties. But as a general pattern for CEs it’s troubling because it breaks with how all of the other HTML elements work, and could be surprising to anyone assuming that <x-foo onbar=”...”> would behave like other built-in tags.

There are a couple solutions the team proposed:

  1. Spec an API making it easy for CE authors to mimic the native behavior, so they could generate on* properties and attributes that would work exactly as the builtins.
  2. Pursue a properties-only approach, but don’t use the existing on* semantics. Basically use this as an opportunity to say the on* stuff is pretty weird/broken, and instead of encouraging it, let’s pioneer a different system in userland and feed that back to the spec.

I personally lean toward option 2, but am curious what other folks on this thread think?

Because both of the above options will take some time, that leaves the question of what approach should we move forward with in the near term. I think there are a couple options:

  1. Similar to @staltz’s original proposal, React could add event listeners for DOM events. Instead of defining a heuristic for translating onFoo to foo, a possible solution would be to express the event name in JSX. e.g.
return (
  <paper-slider
    min={props.min}
    max={props.max}
    value={props.value}
    domEvents={
      click: props.onClick
      'value-changed': props.onValueChanged
    }>
  </paper-slider>
  1. OR, element authors continue to use the properties down, events up approach, but we promote @treshugart’s react-integration lib to improve interop with React.

Here I lean toward option 1, not that the react-integration lib isn’t awesome, it is(!), but because option 1 lowers the barrier for people to use CEs + React together. In either case, we would continue to encourage folks to treat properties as their source of truth, and we may want to encourage them to only bubble events if they have a good reason to do so. I know that was one of the critiques of the current event system and might be a place where we can agree on a best practice.

Both of these options avoid baking in the on* pattern while we hash out what would be a better long term alternative. I’ll add that I’m very motivated to work on this. I think a primary goal of the extensible web movement and Web Components in general is to take feedback from library and framework authors and use that to improve the platform.

@pemrouz
Copy link

@pemrouz pemrouz commented Oct 30, 2016

+1 for domEvents example, but would prefer just events.

@justinfagnani
Copy link

@justinfagnani justinfagnani commented Jan 12, 2017

Elements can certainly look at attributes when they boot up, but only for values that are string serializable.

@joeldenning
Copy link
Contributor

@joeldenning joeldenning commented Jan 12, 2017

Ah that's a good point. So if an element isn't upgraded yet, you may still need to set properties on it because setting it as an attribute won't work if it's not a string. So

if (propName in obj) {
  obj[propName] = value;
} else {
  obj.setAttribute(propName, value);
}

is probably not the right thing to do. Should React consider doing a customElements.whenDefined() and then execute the above code once we're sure that the custom element is defined and things are upgraded?

@treshugart
Copy link

@treshugart treshugart commented Jan 12, 2017

@joeldenning customElements.whenDefined() accepts a name argument for the custom element you're checking for, so React would not only have to know the name of it, but also that it is indeed a custom element with a corresponding definition that will definitely be loaded.

Giving the user full control over if a property, attribute or event is applied to the element means that there's less checks and heuristics that React needs to maintain. It also means the API consumer gets expected behaviour and complete DOM integration. I say DOM because this is really a DOM integration problem, not just custom elements. Integration with the DOM means custom elements inherently work.

@caridy
Copy link

@caridy caridy commented Jan 16, 2017

update: after a couple of months of research, and some prototyping, it seems to us that React will have to do nothing new to support web-components interoperability in both ways:

  • instantiating a defined/or-to-be-defined web component (where events will be handled via addEventListener, just like a regular HTML Element)
  • encapsulating a react component within a web component (where the react component is responsible for controlling the guts of the web component)

@sebmarkbage we can chat next week at TC39, and eventually share the examples, and the docs if it is sufficient in your opinion.

Slotting remains an open question though!

@staltz
Copy link
Author

@staltz staltz commented Jan 16, 2017

it seems to us that React will have to do nothing new to support web-components interoperability in both ways

Well, that's not anything new. As most frameworks, nothing needs to be done to support web components. This issue started out as an improvement suggestion on how to avoid addEventListener in the first place.

@staltz
Copy link
Author

@staltz staltz commented Jan 16, 2017

As a reminder, could we reconsider onFoo => foo conversion? Before we went deep into props vs attrs, Sebastian said:

The only concern would be if we should have some heuristic for normalizing the event name. I'm not really a fan of converting things like onXxx into xxx after doing that in MooTools.

Would be better to have more solid arguments for or against that.

@joeldenning
Copy link
Contributor

@joeldenning joeldenning commented Jan 17, 2017

I agree with @staltz -- we've always been able to interoperate with custom elements inside of React. But it would be really nice if (at least for the majority of custom elements) you could do it without using refs + addEventListener + manual setting of dom element properties, inside of componentWillReceiveProps/componentDidMount

@treshugart
Copy link

@treshugart treshugart commented Feb 28, 2017

Wanted to give an update to a proof of concept that helps to solve this problem. I linked to it in #7249 (comment), but here's the gist for convenience.

@jfhector
Copy link

@jfhector jfhector commented Apr 23, 2019

I'm keen to see this feature implemented in React. Thanks a lot for your efforts making React great.

@joeldenning
Copy link
Contributor

@joeldenning joeldenning commented Apr 24, 2019

@jfhector I believe the most up-to-date discussions on improved custom element interop for react are now at reactjs/rfcs#15 -- this thread might no longer be relevant.

@calebdwilliams
Copy link

@calebdwilliams calebdwilliams commented Jun 17, 2019

FWIW, I published jsx-native-events as a JSX pragma that adds the onEvent<EventName> props to handle native events declaratively. This was primarily to interface with web components, but would work with other, non-supported events in React's JSX.

The following will respond to an event named custom-change:

npm i jsx-native-events

/** @jsx nativeEvents */
import React, { useState } from 'react'
import nativeEvents from 'jsx-native-events'

export function SomeComponent () {
  const [ name, setName ] = useState('')

  render () {
    return <div>
      <h1>Hello { name }</h1>
      <x-custom-input onEventCustomChange={ e => setName(e.detail) }></x-custom-event>
    </div>
  }
}

In case any one is still looking for a stop-gap.

@benkocabasoglu
Copy link

@benkocabasoglu benkocabasoglu commented Dec 23, 2019

is there anyway to upvote this so we can have the support out of the box?

@joeldenning
Copy link
Contributor

@joeldenning joeldenning commented Dec 23, 2019

@benkocabasoglu here's a comment from a while ago from Dan Abramov that clarified for me why React has been slow to change/improve React's support for web components. https://dev.to/dan_abramov/comment/6kdc

@calebdwilliams
Copy link

@calebdwilliams calebdwilliams commented Dec 26, 2019

@joeldenning @gaearon

That comment isn’t really a great breakdown of the issues. We need an API to get at native DOM events and and API to pass complex data down to a DOM element prop. As far as I can see there is no reason to delay this work even if we just start by designing the JSX syntax to do those things.

@calebdwilliams
Copy link

@calebdwilliams calebdwilliams commented Jan 9, 2020

OK, since there hasn't been any engagement on this, I want to take a first shot at syntax for implementing DOM events and properties.

For the sake of clarity, I want to define properties which should not be confused with HTML attributes. DOM properties exist on the DOM object (imagine running const button = document.querySelector('button') and checking the button.disabled property). Yes, attributes and properties will often reflect one another, but are necessarily distinct.

Obviously for most cases the traditional React way of interacting with the DOM through props would be preferable, I am choosing to use <button> in the options below to illustrate that this isn't merely dealing with web components, but dealing with the DOM. If React can treat the DOM like a first-class citizen, then web components should naturally follow.

Option 1 — DOM props as objects

This is fairly straightforward: Treat DOM events and properties as objects similar to how one would pass in style props.

<button
  domEvents={{
    click: someCallback,
    mouseenter: e => someOtherCallback(e.x)
  }}
  domProps={{
    disabled: someCondition
  }}
>Click me!</button>

Option 2 — DOM props as individual React props

This would likely require the use of a sigil to minimize the risk of colliding with props in the wild. Here we can borrow the syntax from something like lit-html or Angular (I prefer Lit), or we could use a sigil like _domEvent<EventName> or _domProp<PropName>.

<button
  @click={ someCallback }
  @mouseenter={ console.log }
  .disabled={ someCondition }
>Click me</button>

Option 3 — Prop key exported from React DOM

Since this feature would be strictly DOM-based, there could be a key function exported from React DOM that allows interfacing with the DOM events and properties more efficiently. Like the above, this would be necessary to minimize the risk of collisions with keys in the wild.

import { domEvent, domProp } from 'react-dom';

// ...
<button
  [domEvent('click')]={ someCallback }
  [domProp('disabled')]={ someCondition }
>Click me</button>

Option three feels clumsy and as far as I know React's JSX doesn't currently allow that kind of computed prop key.

Option one feels very React like, but a bit too verbose for my liking. Personally I prefer option two, as it is familiar from users of other view engines and feels React-like enough as not to be a total departure from established norms.

@jcdalton2201
Copy link

@jcdalton2201 jcdalton2201 commented Jan 9, 2020

Option 2 also fits more in line with what other templating engines are doing

@calebdwilliams
Copy link

@calebdwilliams calebdwilliams commented Jan 16, 2020

Is there any interest from the React team in implementing a feature like this (never mind one of the options above)? This issue has been open since 2016 and there hasn't been a lot of engagement here.

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Member

@sebmarkbage sebmarkbage commented Jan 16, 2020

There's active work on various ways of approaching this but turns out there are a lot of considerations. For example, how coordination of touch events needs to work for complex gestures and how this interacts with the bubbling, how this works with SSR selective hydration, how you add concepts like scheduling priority to events, how you separate discrete events from continuous events in a concurrent environment, how do you deal with "global" events like keystrokes etc. We've had a few failed attempts and we want to get it right.

Now we could add the simple model that just by-passes and leaves those questions unsolved. However, we know that if we just added the simple model, we would want to deprecate it in favor of the current in-progress work. This doesn't seem worth the thrash to us for a minor syntactic improvement. The ecosystem will then have to support both manual refs AND the new syntactic feature while we migrate to the newer system. Instead of just the manual refs that is already a capable option.

@calebdwilliams
Copy link

@calebdwilliams calebdwilliams commented Jan 16, 2020

@sebmarkbage Thank you so much for the info, really appreciate the thought and hard work going in to making it the best it can be. While I might be really happy with having to worry about all of those issues, I understand that I'm an outlier in that regard.

Is there a place where these discussions are being documented so we can follow along and maybe contribute?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
17 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.