如何在Backbone.js中渲染和追加子视图

Question

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 in render ?
• Perform all sub-view rendering logic in render or in onRender ?
• Use setElement or append/appendTo ?

Answer 1

I have generally seen/used a couple of different solutions:

Solution 1

var OuterView = Backbone.View.extend({
    initialize: function() {
        this.inner = new InnerView();
    },

    render: function() {
        this.$el.html(template); // or this.$el.empty() if you have no template
        this.$el.append(this.inner.$el);
        this.inner.render();
    }
});

var InnerView = Backbone.View.extend({
    render: function() {
        this.$el.html(template);
        this.delegateEvents();
    }
});

This is similar to your first example, with a few changes:

1. The order in which you append the sub elements matters
2. The outer view does not contain the html elements to be set on the inner view(s) (meaning you can still specify tagName in the inner view)
3. render() is called AFTER the inner view's element has been placed into the DOM, which is helpful if your inner view's render() method is placing/sizing itself on the page based on other elements' position/size (which is a common use case, in my experience)

Solution 2

var OuterView = Backbone.View.extend({
    initialize: function() {
        this.render();
    },

    render: function() {
        this.$el.html(template); // or this.$el.empty() if you have no template
        this.inner = new InnerView();
        this.$el.append(this.inner.$el);
    }
});

var InnerView = Backbone.View.extend({
    initialize: function() {
        this.render();
    },

    render: function() {
        this.$el.html(template);
    }
});

Solution 2 may look cleaner, but it has caused some strange things in my experience and has affected performance negatively.

I generally use Solution 1, for a couple of reasons:

1. A lot of my views rely on already being in the DOM in their render() method
2. When the outer view is re-rendered, views don't have to be re-initialized, which re-initialization can cause memory leaks and also cause freaky issues with existing bindings

Keep in mind that if you are initializing a new View() every time render() is called, that initialization is going to call delegateEvents() anyway. So that shouldn't necessarily be a "con", as you've expressed.

Answer 2

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 (ie, not a contrived " onRender " event), it would be worth just binding those events to render itself. If you find render 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:

...
render: function() {
    $(this.el).html(this.template());
    this.addAll();
    return this;
},
  addAll: function() {
    this.collection.each(this.addOne);
},
  addOne: function(model) {
    view = new Views.Appointment({model: model});
    view.render();
    $(this.el).append(view.el);
    model.bind('remove', view.remove);
}

This is only a slightly more sophisticated setup than your second example: they specifiy a set of functions, addAll and addOne , 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 (eg, an empty div or ul ) that you can then replaceWith 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.

Answer 3

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 and Layout ), adding proper Controller 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.

Answer 4

I have, what I believe to be, a quite comprehensive solution to this problem. It allows a model within a collection to change, and have only its view re-rendered (rather than the entire collection). It also handles removal of zombie views through the close() methods.

var SubView = Backbone.View.extend({
    // tagName: must be implemented
    // className: must be implemented
    // template: must be implemented

    initialize: function() {
        this.model.on("change", this.render, this);
        this.model.on("close", this.close, this);
    },

    render: function(options) {
        console.log("rendering subview for",this.model.get("name"));
        var defaultOptions = {};
        options = typeof options === "object" ? $.extend(true, defaultOptions, options) : defaultOptions;
        this.$el.html(this.template({model: this.model.toJSON(), options: options})).fadeIn("fast");
        return this;
    },

    close: function() {
        console.log("closing subview for",this.model.get("name"));
        this.model.off("change", this.render, this);
        this.model.off("close", this.close, this);
        this.remove();
    }
});
var ViewCollection = Backbone.View.extend({
    // el: must be implemented
    // subViewClass: must be implemented

    initialize: function() {
        var self = this;
        self.collection.on("add", self.addSubView, self);
        self.collection.on("remove", self.removeSubView, self);
        self.collection.on("reset", self.reset, self);
        self.collection.on("closeAll", self.closeAll, self);
        self.collection.reset = function(models, options) {
            self.closeAll();
            Backbone.Collection.prototype.reset.call(this, models, options);
        };
        self.reset();
    },

    reset: function() {
        this.$el.empty();
        this.render();
    },

    render: function() {
        console.log("rendering viewcollection for",this.collection.models);
        var self = this;
        self.collection.each(function(model) {
            self.addSubView(model);
        });
        return self;
    },

    addSubView: function(model) {
        var sv = new this.subViewClass({model: model});
        this.$el.append(sv.render().el);
    },

    removeSubView: function(model) {
        model.trigger("close");
    },

    closeAll: function() {
        this.collection.each(function(model) {
            model.trigger("close");
        });
    }
});

Usage:

var PartView = SubView.extend({
    tagName: "tr",
    className: "part",
    template: _.template($("#part-row-template").html())
});

var PartListView = ViewCollection.extend({
    el: $("table#parts"),
    subViewClass: PartView
});

Answer 5

Check out this mixin for creating and rendering subviews:

https://github.com/rotundasoftware/backbone.subviews

It is a minimalist solution that addresses a lot of the issues discussed in this thread, including rendering order, not having to re-delegate events, etc. Note that the case of a collection view (where each model in the collection is represented with one subview) is a different topic. Best general solution I am aware of to that case is the CollectionView in Marionette .

Answer 6

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
• When a parent's .remove is called, the .remove of nested children from the lowest order up should be called (all the way from sub-sub-sub views)
• By default the parent view passes it's own model and collection, but options can be added and overridden.

Here's an example:

views: {
    '.js-toolbar-left': CancelBtnView, // shorthand
    '.js-toolbar-right': {
        view: DoneBtnView,
        append: true
    },
    '.js-notification': {
        view: Notification.View,
        options: function() { // Options passed when instantiating
            return {
                message: this.state.get('notificationMessage'),
                state: 'information'
            };
        }
    }
}

Answer 7

Backbone was intentionally built so that there was no "common" practice in regards to this and many other issues. It is meant to be as unopinionated as possible. Theoretically, you don't even have to use templates with Backbone. You could use javascript/jquery in the render function of a view to manually change all of the data in the view. To make it more extreme, you don't even need one specific render function. You could have a function called renderFirstName which updates the first name in the dom and renderLastName which updates the last name in the dom. If you took this approach, it would be way better in terms of performance and you'd never have to manually delegate events again. The code would also make total sense to someone reading it (although it would be longer/messier code).

However, usually there is no downside to using templates and simply destroying and rebuilding the entire view and it's subviews on each and every render call, as it didn't even occur to the questioner to do anything otherwise. So that's what most people do for pretty much every situation they come across. And that's why opinionated frameworks just make this the default behavior.

Answer 8

You could also inject the rendered subviews as variables into the main template as variables.

first render the subviews and convert them to html like this:

var subview1 = $(subview1.render.el).html(); var subview2 = $(subview2.render.el).html();

(that way you could also dynamically string concatenate the views like subview1 + subview2 when used in loops) and then pass it to the master template which looks like this: ... some header stuff ... <%= sub1 %> <%= sub2 %> ... some footer stuff ...

and inject it finally like this:

this.$el.html(_.template(MasterTemplate, { sub1: subview1, sub2: subview2 } ));

Regarding the Events within the subviews: They will be most likely have to be connected in the parent (masterView) with this approach not within the subviews.

Answer 9

I like to use the following approach which also make sure to remove the child views properly. Here is an example from the book by Addy Osmani.

Backbone.View.prototype.close = function() {
    if (this.onClose) {
        this.onClose();
    }
    this.remove(); };

NewView = Backbone.View.extend({
    initialize: function() {
       this.childViews = [];
    },
    renderChildren: function(item) {
        var itemView = new NewChildView({ model: item });
        $(this.el).prepend(itemView.render());
        this.childViews.push(itemView);
    },
    onClose: function() {
      _(this.childViews).each(function(view) {
        view.close();
      });
    } });

NewChildView = Backbone.View.extend({
    tagName: 'li',
    render: function() {
    } });

Answer 10

There is no need to re-delegate events as it is costly. See below:

    var OuterView = Backbone.View.extend({
    initialize: function() {
        this.inner = new InnerView();
    },

    render: function() {
        // first detach subviews            
        this.inner.$el.detach(); 

        // now can set html without affecting subview element's events
        this.$el.html(template);

        // now render and attach subview OR can even replace placeholder 
        // elements in template with the rendered subview element
        this.$el.append(this.inner.render().el);

    }
});

var InnerView = Backbone.View.extend({
    render: function() {
        this.$el.html(template);            
    }
});