reactjs - Should flux stores, or actions (or both) touch external services?

Question

Should the stores maintain their own state and have the ability to call network and data storage services in doing so ...in which case the actions are just dumb message passers,

-OR-

...should the stores be dumb recipients of immutable data from the actions (and the actions be the ones that fetch/send data between external sources? Store in this instance would act as view-models and would be able to aggregate / filter their data prior to setting their own state base on the immutable data they were fed by the action.

It seems to me that it should be one or the other (rather than a mix of both). If so, why is one preferred / recommended over the other?

Answer 1

I've seen the flux pattern implemented both ways, and after having done both myself (initially going with the former approach), I believe that stores should be dumb recipients of data from the actions, and that asynchronous processing of writes should live in the action creators. (Async reads can be handled differently.) In my experience, this has a few benefits, in order of importance:

1. Your stores become completely synchronous. This makes your store logic much easier to follow and very easy to test—just instantiate a store with some given state, send it an action, and check to see if the state changed as expected. Furthermore, one of the core concepts in flux is to prevent cascading dispatches and to prevent multiple dispatches at once; this is very difficult to do when your stores do asynchronous processing.

2. All action dispatches happen from the action creators. If you handle asynchronous operations in your stores and you want to keep your stores' action handlers synchronous (and you should in order to get the flux single-dispatch guarantees), your stores will need to fire additional SUCCESS and FAIL actions in response to asynchronous processing. Putting these dispatches in the action creators instead helps separate the jobs of the action creators and the stores; furthermore, you don't have to go digging through your store logic to figure out where actions are being dispatched from. A typical asynchronous action in this case might look something like this (change the syntax of the dispatch calls based on the flavor of flux you're using):

   someActionCreator: function(userId) {
     // Dispatch an action now so that stores that want
     // to optimistically update their state can do so.
     dispatch("SOME_ACTION", {userId: userId});
   
     // This example uses promises, but you can use Node-style
     // callbacks or whatever you want for error handling.
     SomeDataAccessLayer.doSomething(userId)
     .then(function(newData) {
       // Stores that optimistically updated may not do anything
       // with a "SUCCESS" action, but you might e.g. stop showing
       // a loading indicator, etc.
       dispatch("SOME_ACTION_SUCCESS", {userId: userId, newData: newData});
     }, function(error) {
       // Stores can roll back by watching for the error case.
       dispatch("SOME_ACTION_FAIL", {userId: userId, error: error});
     });
   }
   

   Logic that may otherwise be duplicated across various actions should be extracted into a separate module; in this example, that module would be SomeDataAccessLayer, which handles doing the actual Ajax request.

3. You need less action creators. This is less of a big deal, but nice to have. As mentioned in #2, if your stores have synchronous action dispatch handling (and they should), you'll need to fire extra actions to handle the results of asynchronous operations. Doing the dispatches in the action creators means that a single action creator can dispatch all three action types by handling the result of the asynchronous data access itself.