RFC: Fragment-level caching

[kitten]

Instead of shipping a complex, normalising cache by default (it might still be implemented as a third-party exchange, I suppose) we can ship a simple fragment-level cache.

This caching strategy would live alongside the current query-level cache. It can also use the same store/cache entity and just use separate keys.

Strategy

• Detect queries containing fragments
• Inspect each response for each of the given fragments
• Cache given fragments by "Fragment + Typename + ID" (default key extractor)
• Don't invalidate these keys like cached queries are, instead keep them up-to-date with each incoming response

Hence a most-recent version of a cached fragment will always be available.

Usage

Once this cache is in place we're able to integrate primitive APIs to access these cached fragments. On a high-level API, we can introduce a FragmentCache component, used like so:

<FragmentCache fragment={fragmentStr} query={{ __typename: 'Item', id: 'test' }}>
  {({ data, stale }) => ()}
</FragmentCache>

An example can be found here: https://gist.github.com/kitten/3a9136fa731678838013292a32f7daaa

Optimistic updates can also at this point be introduced. A mutation could specify optimisticFragments, which provide a list of optimistic responses from the mutation which only update the fragment-level cache.

Why?

• We'd avoid a complex cache by default and instead have two highly predictable caches
• We still provide the ability to solve the "90%" case, accessing the cache explicitly when a query is still loading or other custom use-cases
• The cache component can be adapted to also work for the query component, thus giving us some breathing-room for changing the default cache/network-control behaviour (cache-first instead of -only?)

How?

We can maybe implement this as a separate package first, since it's relatively contained, so that it's possible to try this concept out without changing urql's public API at all.

It could be published as urql-exchange-fragment-cache or sth

cc @kenwheeler

[kitten]

@mxstbr While you're involved in the list-issue, this is of course tangential, but would you think this and the smart list would be sufficient solutions for Spectrum, just as an example, as a whole?

[mxstbr]

Yeah probably! I'm not 100% aware of the tradeoffs between this and the current cache, but we use fragments all over the place, so it should be fine?

[kitten]

@mxstbr it's a concept to run alongside the current query-level cache that stores entire query results by a hash key. So we'd have a separate fragment-level cache with a separate component to just access the cached fragments.

[blorenz]

Is this necessary for optimistic updates? Couldn't we provide an optimistic update resolver function to the mutation that would immediately resolve prior to the resolved response from the server?

[kitten]

@blorenz I'd consider that sth that's quite simple to do with a component's local state, so probably not quite useful on its own, considering how specific urql's cache is to individual queries

[blorenz]

@kitten Thank you for the guidance. Do you have any best practice for utilizing urql to drive data from local state? I image this should be handled with componentDidUpdate() and an assortment of logic on the urql-injected props. I only ask this because when I was initially using Apollo, I tried to direct the data through Redux which in turn led to a mess. I then became aware that I did not to manage the data via Redux itself and I had a much better experience with Apollo.

[JoviDeCroock]

If no one is taking this up, I'd like to give it a try would be for next week though if anyone is taking it up feel free to say so

[kitten]

@JoviDeCroock awesome! @jevakallio has basically come up with the same / very similar idea independently which is why I reopened this, but he's thought it through a lot more. So it's safer to wait since he'll post an extended and new RFC here which we can discuss first 🙌

[jevakallio]

@kitten @JoviDeCroock I've written up my fragment proposal here at #317

Any discussion regarding the proposal itself should live that RFC.

Any discussion regarding fragment-level caching more broadly should remain in this issue.

[allpwrfulroot]

To fully inform the discussion, can I request a little more documentation about how the cacheExchange currently works? I went through the code but couldn't quite grok how the default is really designed to operate

[kitten]

Closing in favour of #317