CODEWITHSUNDEEP
reactjsredux
wrschneider
wrschneider

Reputation: 18780

Redux actions/reducers vs. directly setting state

I'm new to Redux. I'm having trouble understanding the value of actions and reducers vs. components directly modifying the store.

In Redux, your React components don't change the store directly. Instead they dispatch an action -- sort of like publishing a message. Then a reducer handles the action -- sort of like a message subscriber -- and changes the state (more precisely, creates a new state) in response.

I feel like the pub/sub-like interaction adds layers of indirection that make it harder to understand what a component is actually doing -- why not just allow components to pass new state to the Redux store directly? Would it be a bad thing to inject something like this.props.setReduxState into a React component?

I'm starting to understand the value of why the state itself needs to be immutable (related question -- Isn't Redux just glorified global state?), related to checking for updates to see which component props need to be updated in response to state changes. My question is the extra action/reducer layers vs. manipulating the store directly.

Upvotes: 6

Views: 2111

Answers (2)

JDev518
JDev518

Reputation: 778

I had some very similar questions when I decided on going down the Redux rabbit hole. In my case I was developing relatively small apps and components using just the React internal state, which still works really well. It was only when the app and the number of components grew much larger that setState became somewhat unwieldy.

I don't think this is emphasized enough - you don't always have to use Redux if you're working on a relatively small app or a few components that are easy enough to keep track of without a robust immutable store solution. There is a lot of necessary boilerplate just to get started, which can be overly time consuming in some instances.

That being said, React + Redux is a great design paradigm to follow once you are used to it and have your own boilerplate you can call upon. Redux essentially favors props over state, which forces immutable design as you (generally) can't mutate props. This is what makes the Redux DevTools "time machine" possible, along with all of the middleware that you can throw at your store as previously mentioned by others.

Middleware is a big part of it, especially with the advent of more precise solutions for sync and async tasks alike like redux-saga (https://redux-saga.js.org/). IMO "thunks" (https://github.com/gaearon/redux-thunk) are easier to grok than sagas when you're just getting started, unless you're already an expert with generators, but sagas are much more predictable and therefore testable in the long run.

So instead of having a separate internal state for each component, you can have a set of actions / reducers that you use instead, knowing that you can't mistakenly mutate the state. I've found the combination of ImmutableJS (https://facebook.github.io/immutable-js/) and Reselect (https://github.com/reactjs/reselect), which gives you composable selectors - to be great for this. No need for Object.assigns or tons of spread operators, it creates a new object for you.

I wouldn't be in a hurry to convert existing non-Redux projects into Redux, the workflow is different enough to cause significant confusion, but you'd be hard pressed to find boilerplates for new projects that don't already have Redux in their workflow. Such as "React Boilerplate" (https://github.com/react-boilerplate/react-boilerplate), I know this kind of blew my mind at first, but definitely worth getting a feel for. It really tests your functional programming chops.

Upvotes: 4

Alexandr Lazarev
Alexandr Lazarev

Reputation: 12882

In the development process, you often need to know who and how has changed the state. Mutating state by emitting actions allows you to keep answers to those questions.

Actions are payloads of information that tell the store how it should be modified. This information is represented in form of plain javascript objects which allows this information to be logged, serialized and stored. Since all the history is "remembered", you can later replay all the chain of actions for debugging or testing purposes. Together with a tool like Redux DevTools it makes development process really easy and amazing. Since all the store modifications are logged to a monitor, so you can see how and when was the state modified on every step. Even more, you can go back or forward through the actions chain.

Another benefit of having all mutations centralized in one place is the fact that it's easier to take control over the state. That guarantees, that all mutations happen one by one in a strict order and no callbacks can make the application behavior unstable. It also allows to keep in one place functionality that is common for some actions, or in other words to apply middlewares.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions