Alternative ways to define react Components

0. intro.md

The 0.13.0 improvements to React Components are often framed as "es6 classes" but being able to use the new class syntax isn't really the big change. The main thing of note in 0.13 is that React Components are no longer special objects that need to be created using a specific method (createClass()). One of the benefits of this change is that you can use the es6 class syntax, but also tons of other patterns work as well!

Below are a few examples creating React components that all work as expected using a bunch of JS object creation patterns (https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/master/this%20&%20object%20prototypes/ch4.md#mixins). All of the examples are of stateful components, and so need to delegate to React.Component for setState(), but if you have stateless components each patterns tends to get even simpler. The one major caveat with react components is that you need to assign props and context to the component instance otherwise the component will be static. The reason is that when reconciling updates to props, new instances aren't created props is jsut set to the next props.

Why might you use these patterns? Some are just nicely terse, or maybe you just like the library you are already using for object creation, but generally these patterns offer a lot more in terms of flexibility and functionality. For instance, since most examples are created in a closure you get private variables for free!

1. PlainOldObjects.jsx

function PlainOldObjectComponent(props, context){
  var instance = Object.create(React.Component.prototype)

  instance.props = props
  instance.context = context
  instance.state = { message: 'Object literals ftw' }
  instance.render = function() {
    return <li>
     <button onClick={ e => this.setState({ message: 'stateful!' })}>
        {this.state.message}
      </button>
    </li>
  }

  return instance
}

2. MixinComponent.jsx

function MixinComponent(props, context) {
  return { 
    ...React.Component.prototype,
    props, 
    context,
    state: { 
      message: 'Instances through Extension' 
    },
    render() {
      return <li>
        <button onClick={ e => this.setState({ message: 'stateful!' })}>
          {this.state.message}
        </button>
      </li>
    }
  }
}

3. ParasiticComponent.jsx

function ParasiticComponent(props, context){
  var instance = new React.Component(props, context)

  instance.state = { message: 'Let me just add a method to this one..' }

  instance.render = function() {
    return <li>
      <button href='#' onClick={()=> this.setState({ message: 'stateful!' })}>
        {this.state.message}
      </button>
    </li>
  }

  return instance
}

4.StampitComponent.jsx

// Stampit is an excellent library by Eric Elliott for object creation. 
// https://github.com/ericelliott/stampit

var ReactStamp = stampit.convertConstructor(React.Component) 
// ^^^ convenience method for:
// stampit().methods(React.Component.prototype).enclose(React.Component)

var StampitComponent = stampit()
    .enclose(function () {
      this.state = { message: 'I can even use stampit!' }
    })
    .methods({
      render() {
        return <li>
          <button href='#' onClick={()=> this.setState({ message: 'stateful!' })}>
            {this.state.message}
          </button>
        </li>
      }
    });

StampitComponent = stampit.compose(ReactStamp, StampitComponent);

My name has two t's at the end. "Elliott", not "Elliot", though I may be distantly related to people who spell it with one t at the end. ;)

There are differences between these implementations worth noting.

First, if you miss .createComponent() mixins, you may want to go with Stampit because it allows easy composition of components.

If you don't want to use mixins or inheritance at all, my second favorite implementation is the MixinComponent example, simply because it's very easy to read and understand.

ooops sorry about that :)

👍

For the MixinComponent, how does this line work?

I understand ES6 rest parameters and the spread operator, but not understanding how it sets the prototype of the new object here...

Nevermind! It's an ES7 proposal already implemented in JSX: https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/jsx-spread.html

Hi, just wanted to mention this too https://github.com/christianalfoni/objectory. As an alternative, here is a jsbin of it: http://jsbin.com/lunotutegu/1/edit?js,output

@ericelliott What about propTypes in PlainOldObjects example? If you define instance property propTypes, it will thrown React warning.

Warning: propTypes was defined as an instance property on Component. Use a static property to define propTypes instead.

how would you go about converting this use of class? I see it in so many places but not grasping how replace class with your implementation say mixinComponents

class Root extends React.Component {
  constructor() {
    super();
    this.handleIncrement = function () { console.log('clicked'); }
  }
  render() { 
    return (
      <div>
        <h1>Hello</h1>
        <button onClick={this.handleIncrement}>click me</button>
      </div>
    );
  }
}

module.exports = Root;

@Cmdv @ericelliott I suppose you can do it like this

export default function Root(initialProps) {

  function handleIncrement() {
    console.log('clicked');
  }

  return {
    __proto__: React.Component.prototype,
    props: initialProps,
    render() { 
      return (
        <div>
          <h1>Hello</h1>
          <button onClick={handleIncrement}>click me</button>
        </div>
      );
  }
}

You need to inherit from React.Component.prototype.

Question is, what is the best approach for inheritance in object literal.

@svagi I just add propTypes to the function, e.g.:

const helloFactory = function ({ React }) {
  const {
    string,
    func
  } = React.PropTypes;

  return function Hello (props) {

    // React wants propTypes
    // to be static.
    Hello.propTypes = {
      word: string,
      mode: string,

      actions: React.PropTypes.shape({
        setWord: func.isRequired,
        setMode: func.isRequired
      })
    };

    return {

      props, // set props


      componentDidUpdate () {
        this.refs.wordInput.getDOMNode().focus();
      },

      render () {
        const {
          word,
          mode
        } = this.props;

        const {
          setMode,
          setWord
        } = this.props.actions;

        const styles = {
          displayMode: {
            display: (mode === 'display') ? 'inline' : 'none'
          },

          editMode: {
            display: (mode === 'edit') ? 'inline' : 'none'
          }
        };

        const onKeyUp = function (e) {
          if (e.key !== 'Enter') return;

          setWord(e.target.value);
          setMode('display');
        };

        return (
          <p>Hello,&nbsp;
            <span
              style = { styles.displayMode }
              onClick = { () => setMode('edit') }
              >{ word }!</span>
            <input
              ref = "wordInput"
              style = { styles.editMode }
              placeholder = { word }
              onKeyUp = { onKeyUp } />
          </p>
        );
      }
    };

  };

};

export default helloFactory;

@svagi

You need to inherit from React.Component.prototype

AFAIK, this is only needed for .setState() and .forceUpdate(), both of which should be avoided if possible.

So far I have had no trouble avoiding the component prototype, but as other examples here have shown, it's trivial to use it.

@Cmdv - I didn't lint or test this, so beware of typos:

const createRoot ({ React }) { // I usually do this so I can steal PropTypes from it.
  return function Root () { // This component doesn't use props. No need to set them.
    return {
      increment () {
        console.log('clicked');
      },
      render() { 
        return (
          <div>
            <h1>Hello</h1>
            <button onClick={ this.increment }>click me</button>
          </div>
        );
      }
    };
  };
};

module.exports = createRoot;

For more details on class-free components, check out "Baby's First Reaction: A 'Hello, World' Example for React".

@Cmdv @svagi

You may be insterested in react-stampit. It's a specialized stampit factory for React, kind of similar to React.creatClass.

I've noticed a strange behavior when using these patterns, for example with parasitic component (see a render method):

import React from 'react';

function createComponent (component) {
    return function (props, context) {
        let instance = new React.Component(props, context);

        instance.state = component.state;
        instance.render = component.render;

        return instance;
    };
}

let App = createComponent({
    state: {
        count: 0
    },

    render() {
        let { state, setState } = this;
        return <div onClick={() => {
            // setState({count: ++state.count});
            // this will throw exception: 
            // "Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property '_reactInternalInstance' of undefined at ReactInstanceMap.js:34" 

            this.setState({count: ++state.count}); // this line works fine
        }}>Counter: {state.count}!</div>;
    }
});

React.render(
    <App />,
    document.getElementById('app')
);

As you see onClick calling setState reference throws an exception in React, though using this.setState works fine..

Ideally what I'm looking for is to patch render with arguments: render({ props, state }, setState) inside my createComponent function in order to avoid annoying this in methods.

You need react-stampit

@ericelliott why cant i do this:
PS: im new to JS/React

`import React from 'react';

function AwesomeComponent(props){
AwesomeComponent = Object.assign(Object.create(React.Component.prototype))
AwesomeComponent.props = props
AwesomeComponent.state = {likesCount : 0};
this.onLike = this.onLike.bind(this); // LINE 7

onLike ()
let newLikesCount = this.state.likesCount + 1;
this.setState({likesCount: newLikesCount});

AwesomeComponent.render = function() {
return (

Likes : {this.state.likesCount}

Like Me

);
}

}

export default AwesomeComponent;`

this error probably starts at line 7.

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'onLike' of undefined
at AwesomeComponent (AwesomeComponent.jsx:7)
at ReactCompositeComponent.js:306
at measureLifeCyclePerf (ReactCompositeComponent.js:75)
at ReactCompositeComponentWrapper._constructComponentWithoutOwner (ReactCompositeComponent.js:305)
at ReactCompositeComponentWrapper._constructComponent (ReactCompositeComponent.js:280)
at ReactCompositeComponentWrapper.mountComponent (ReactCompositeComponent.js:188)
at Object.mountComponent (ReactReconciler.js:46)
at ReactDOMComponent.mountChildren (ReactMultiChild.js:238)
at ReactDOMComponent._createInitialChildren (ReactDOMComponent.js:691)
at ReactDOMComponent.mountComponent (ReactDOMComponent.js:516)

good job!

Alternative ways to define react Components

great idea.