jtormey
Adding a handle_info callback to LiveComponents
Lately I’ve been thinking about how to organize components as a LiveView application grows. One of the pain points I’ve found (for myself and beginners) is communicating over PubSub with LiveComponents. The only way to do so is through the parent LiveView, which works well but introduces boilerplate and some indirection, as the LiveView is required to maintain the PubSub subscriptions, and communicate state changes via component assigns or send_update/2.
It would be nice if LiveComponents could implement a handle_info/2 callback, and had a way to manage their own PubSub subscriptions. Well, I was able to implement just that. This is how the “connected” component itself looks:
defmodule CounterComponent do
use AppWeb, :connected_component
def render(assigns) do
~H"""
<div {@connected_attrs}>{@count}</div>
"""
end
def on_mount(socket) do
process_setup = fn ->
Phoenix.PubSub.subscribe(App.PubSub, "inc_channel")
end
{:ok, assign(socket, :count, 0), process_setup}
end
def handle_info(:inc, socket) do
{:noreply, update(socket, :count, &(&1 + 1))}
end
end
I’ve called it “connected” because the component has its own process, which is connected to it via the parent LiveView process. In the on_mount/1 callback, the component returns an anonymous function which is called in a new process and creates any interprocess connections needed by the component (generally, PubSub subscriptions).
In this example, the component receives :inc messages via inc_channel, which when received increments the :count assign on the component. The advantage of this is that the LiveComponent is now fully encapsulated, including its interactions with PubSub.
You can find a complete example and demo video here: GitHub - jtormey/connected_component_demo: Phoenix LiveView project demoing the ConnectedComponent concept · GitHub
The implementation itself is here (not extensively tested, there may be bugs).
Using these components is transparent to the parent LiveView and even allows for deeply nested components to have their own handle_info/2 callbacks. It just requires an on_mount/1 handler to be called in the parent LiveView, which can be applied for all LiveViews globally by calling it in the live_view/1 macro in your web module (you can see how this works in the demo application).
There is a slight performance cost: an additional process for each component that uses this pattern, and each message that is received is copied one more time than would normally be necessary. Though I think these can be justified.
I’m curious if anyone would find this useful in their own applications. Personally I like the convenience and the API, and wonder if something like this might be a worthwhile addition to LiveView itself.
Most Liked
gushonorato
I’m not sure if I agree with that statement because the LiveComponent state will also need to be stored, though not in a lightweight process, but in the parent LiveView. However, I don’t think that’s the main point of the discussion.
I understand that the initial problem you’re trying to solve is the communication between LiveComponents and PubSub. Since the discussion has shifted towards efficiency, I believe it would be beneficial to avoid creating a separate process to accommodate this feature. Instead, a “message broker” within the LiveView itself could handle this task, eliminating the need to spawn additional processes. This approach is more efficient and avoids introducing extra complexity to the LiveComponents.
jtormey
I agree, it would be best if the extra process wasn’t necessary. However I wasn’t able to come up with a solution for automatically brokering messages in a single process, there are too many complications and you end up back where we started with manual message routing.
The extra process removes this complexity entirely, when it receives a message you know exactly the component its meant for, then it’s tagged as such and relayed to it. And this is opt-in, you wouldn’t use this for the majority of your components.
If you have specific ideas on implementing a single-process message broker I would love to hear them!
olivermt
A major difference is that passing props to a nested liveview and updating it on-page (outside of messages) is much more clunky.
That said I am not convinced the upside is bigger than the added downside/complexity.
Popular in Discussions
Other popular topics
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #deployment
- #library
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #channels
- #elixirconf
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #javascript
- #podcasts
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #blog-post
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #ai
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #elixirconf-us
- #distillery
- #processes
- #forms
- #api
- #metaprogramming
- #security
- #hex









