“Transmission” in a nutshell was meant to make the complexities of front end development more manageable. While Flux (and its variants like ) seems to have done a great job in eliminating the pitfalls of two-way data binding, I cannot help but wonder if it hasn’t actually made things worse: . Flux architecture Redux many developers spend more time trying to figure out glue code (actions, action creators, dispatcher, stores, reducers) rather than writing the code that actually does the work Here I propose an alternative to both Flux and MVC. In a way, you may think of it as a hybrid of the two. Consider an architecture with the following three elements: A completely UI-agnostic “application engine” that encapsulates all business logic and state, wrapped up in an API A thin, logic-less “shell” or interface that exposes an API to control the UI (graphical or otherwise) A “transmission” layer between the engine and the shell that connects the two by mapping , and shell events to engine API calls engine events to shell API calls If you fail to see the difference between MVC and TX, the sample code below might help. Example Here I will implement only the “create todo” part of a . And in order to demonstrate that the engine has to be completely UI-agnostic, the UI in this example will be a command line interface. simple todo app First, let’s look at the . It implements an API as simple functions that complete their jobs and emit events. TodoEngine The TodoShell (or UI) reacts to user interactions by simply emitting events (the shell itself does nothing). Something else is expected to listen to these events, make the decisions and tell the shell what to do next using its API (e.g. navigate to a different screen, show an error, add an item to a list etc.) Note that in this example, the API function names are the same as the engine for simplicity— it doesn’t have to be that way. The transmission can map these two APIs any way you want. Here’s how a transmission layer will connect the engine and the shell. It only contains wiring — no logic, state, or view concerns at all. listens to shell events and calls engine API in response. listens to engine events and calls shell API in response. onShellEvent() onEngineEvent() Here’s how you’d run the application: For the full source code: git clone :hliyan/epc-test.gitcd epc-testnpm installnpm install -g jestnpm test # run unit tests git@github.com npm start # run the command line apptodo> add hello # how to add a new todo item from the app prompt Design goals Prevent any direct references to logic functions in the UI code, so that the UI can be developed and tested independently, just like the logic module (the engine). UI testing will not even require Selenium (because you have an API to drive it). An architecture with minimal semantics — no actions, stores, reducers, middleware etc. Only API functions and events. A relatively short, flat, uniform looking paths through code. We’re choosing event emitting in favor of promises or callbacks for asynchronous operations; use Flux-like switch-case statements. Composability: for systems with complex UIs and business logic, we can setup multiple Shell-TX-Engine chains in parallel. Using with React.js I haven’t an example yet, but a React based shell is fairly trivial: simply fire events on onClick, onKey* events on interface elements (e.g. ), and expose an API that ultimately changes component props (e.g. , ). I hope to create a example soon. shell.events.TODO_TEXT_ENTER_KEY addTodoToList(todo) filterList(‘completed’) TodoMVC Real world applications I’ve already had seven developers use a more rudimentary version of this architecture on three different front end applications. Each one was more successful (easier and faster to code, less error prone and easier to debug) than previous Redux implementations. For my next project, I plan to use Transmission architecture fully. I will of course report back with observations and more learnings. Credits: thanks to (@udnisap) for double-checking my work and suggesting improvements. Pasindu Rumal Perera
