Clearwater and the Virtual DOM
I've been experimenting with a lot of things in Clearwater since I first introduced it at B'more on Rails. The reason I showed it to people was because I was hoping to get people talking about front-end development in Ruby with Opal (I've also given a presentation about Opal at B'more on Rails). One of the things that Clearwater does on every link click, at the moment, is rerender the entire app. It does it with a single call, so it's not rendering chunks of HTML here and there, so it's not the worst performance in the world, but I did notice it was clobbering input fields, and micromanaging event handlers (for individually rendered views and attribute-bound blocks) has been a nightmare.
Experiment #1: Components with templates
Components are an interesting way of thinking about web development. Having all of your functionality
One of my experiments has been with adding components to Clearwater. These are Ember-style components rather than React-style, so they still have templates. They're basically a controller and a view in one, and unlike controllers and views, which are instantiated once, the components were designed to be disposable, so you could do something like this in your Slim templates:
ul#todos
- todos.each do |todo|
= TodoComponent.new(todo: todo)
But these components have a weird caveat: anything that has events associated with it (basically, anything interactive) needs to let the renderer know about them, so everything from the top of the render tree all the way down has to pass along a reference to the renderer. You had to do this by passing the view's renderer into the component:
= TodoComponent.new(todo: todo, renderer: renderer)
I've got a few ideas on how to make it better, but for the moment it's just a bit awkward (especially if you're using a bunch of different components in a single view) and it doesn't fix the problem of clobbering the DOM on every link click.
Also, having a lot of small components, each with their own template, means that there's a cost to adding them to your project. Not only do you have to create two files (implementation and template) for each of those components, but each template has to be required into your app, so there's a significant amount of headspace involved.
Experiment #2: Compiling Slim to React
Virtual DOM implementations have become a pretty hot topic lately. First, React shook everything up with their virtual DOM implementation and the idea of just rerendering the entire app any time there's a change. Now, Ember's doing something similar with their new Glimmer engine. I decided to try to use React as the view layer for Clearwater by compiling Slim to React components instead of HTML.
The slim
gem depends on a template-compilation gem called temple
, which allows you to set up a pipeline where each step in the pipeline takes care of a specific portion of the compilation. What I did was take a Slim::Engine
, remove the parts of that pipeline that generate HTML and instead use my own filters to generate React code.
This kinda worked. There were a few challenges and I never quite overcame them. I also realized that React provides a lot more than I need. All I wanted was the virtual DOM. I eventually abandoned this experiment.
Experiment #3: Virtual DOM, no templates
My latest experiment has been using a virtual DOM library, wrapping it with Opal. Initial experiments have been great and I'm currently working on including it into Clearwater.
I realized that this approach would be difficult because I would have the same trouble with converting Slim to virtual-DOM nodes as I did with React, so I decided I'd try it without Slim at all, and just include a DSL for elements:
class TodoList
include Clearwater::Component
def initialize(todos)
@todos = todos
end
def render
div({id: 'todo-list'}, [
h1(nil, 'Todos'),
ul({class_name: 'todo-list'},
@todos.map { |t| Todo.new(t) }
),
])
end
end
It seems to work really well in my own projects so far, so I've opened a PR on the repo's new home (notice the shiny-new clearwater-rb
organization) to encourage conversation about it.
I haven't merged it in yet because it changes how Clearwater renders in a way I haven't found to be backwards-compatible. I'm sure it could be done, but it would require a bunch of work I didn't feel like doing at the time. I wanted to get some feedback from others before I merge it in. Also, I'm not quite done with it.
The virtual-DOM library has a few extra features that I'd like to support, as well, like selective rendering (similar to React's shouldUpdateComponent()
function). Clearwater's virtual-DOM support will get there, and once it does, I expect it to be amazing. :-)