How to use HTML5 Local Storage with Ember.js? - html

I would like to use HTML5 Local Storage with my Ember.js.
I haven't been able to find any examples of doing this without Ember Data.
How should this be done? What do I need to consider?

So let's say we have an object called Storage that in our real-world implementation would represent an adapter-like object for the localStorage to store and retrieve data:
App.Storage = Ember.Object.extend({
init: function() {
this.clearStorage();
var items = ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'];
localStorage.items = JSON.stringify(items);
},
find: function(key) {
// pseudo implementation
if( !Ember.isNone(key) ) {
var items = [];
var storedItems = JSON.parse(localStorage[key]);
storedItems.forEach(function(item){
items.pushObject(item);
});
return items;
}
},
clearStorage: function() {
// pseudo implementation
localStorage.clear();
}
});
Beside the pseudo implementations, you can see there is a dummy array with some data stored at object initialization, we will use this later in our IndexRoute model hook to retrieve it, just to show that this works.
Now to the more nice stuff, you could do the register & inject directly after the application is ready, but what if we wanted it to be already available at application initialization? Well "there an ember-feature for that", called Application.initializer, initializer are simple classes with a 'name' property and a initialize function in where you have access to your application container and do what ever needs to be done, let me explain this in code:
To be notified when the application start loading we can listen to the onLoad event to create our initializer classes that will register and inject the before mentioned Storage object into every controller and every route:
Ember.onLoad('Ember.Application', function(Application) {
// Initializer for registering the Storage Object
Application.initializer({
name: "registerStorage",
initialize: function(container, application) {
application.register('storage:main', application.Storage, {singleton: true});
}
});
// Initializer for injecting the Storage Object
Application.initializer({
name: "injectStorage",
initialize: function(container, application) {
application.inject('controller', 'storage', 'storage:main');
application.inject('route', 'storage', 'storage:main');
}
});
});
Now, since the Storage object was injected into every route and every controller we can finally get access to it in our IndexRoute model hook and make the stores array mentioned above available trough the call self.get('storage').find('items') to our template to be rendered (just added a promise to make it actually conform with the ember-way and with some fictive delay, rather than just returning the array):
App.IndexRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
model: function(){
var self = this;
var promise = new Ember.RSVP.Promise(function(resolve) {
Ember.run.later(function() {
var data = self.get('storage').find('items');
console.log(data);
resolve(data);
}, 1000);
});
return promise;
}
});
In our index template we can now agnostically loop over the dummy array not caring where it is coming from:
<script type="text/x-handlebars" id="index">
<h2>Index</h2>
<ul>
{{#each item in model}}
<li>Item: {{item}}</li>
{{/each}}
</ul>
</script>
And lastly, you can see here all the above explained in a working example: http://jsbin.com/eqAfeP/2/edit
Hope it helps.

The accepted answer is great, but I thought I would add this alternative:
Dan Gebhardt has created a very interesting library called Orbit.js for coordinating different data sources on a client. There are three out of the box data sources: memory, local storage, and json api.
For ember integration, check out ember-orbit.
It is still under heavy development at this time, and it introduces a different paradigm than Ember Data, so proceed with caution!

Related

How controllers and functions communicate between two separate files using .emit and how to tell controller hierarchy in AngularJS?

This is my first post on stack overflow so I am really green and really new with AngularJS and ASP.Net and having a lot of problems with $rootscope.$emit. From what I have read online $rootscopes are parent scopes so all values exposed there are visible to all controllers and templates and scopes are functions inside of controllers. It seems like you can "emit" up through the controller hierarchy a call to another controller by using $rootscope.$emit("Name of $rootscope.$on function name") the $rootscope.$on listens for that call and then does whatever is in its function. The thing I am having trouble with is when I do my
$rootscope.$emit("LoadPrintDetailsModal", {});
it never seems to reach
$rootscope.$on("LoadPrintDetailsModal", function(event,args) {}.
So the question is am I misunderstanding how $emit or how controller hierarchy works or is there a problem in my code?
I have already tried using emit and I hit the debugger in indexController.js file after a call from a button in my Index.cshtml file but then when I make the
$rootScope.$emit("LoadPrintDetailsModal", {});
it does not get picked up by my printableController.js file where
$rootScope.$emit("LoadPrintDetailsModal", function (event, args) {});
// (Index.cshtml) Button in Index.cshtml file that calls "LoadPrintModal" //function in indexController
<button type="button" data-toggle="modal" data-target="#dvPrintModal"
ng-click="LoadPrintModal()">
Print
</button>
// (indexController.js)scope.LoadPrintModal in indexController.js that tries
// to emit "LoadPrintDetails" to $rootscope.%on("LoadPrintDetailsModal",
// function (event, args) in printableçontroller.js
$scope.LoadPrintModal = function () {
debugger;
$rootScope.$emit("LoadPrintDetailsModal", {});
};
// (printableController.js) file where rootScope.on is located and is supposed to pick up the emit
app.controller('PrintableController', function ($scope, $rootScope) {
$rootScope.$on("LoadPrintDetailsModal", function (event, args) {
debugger;
$scope.printModal();
});
$scope.printModal = function () {
console.log("Hello World");
};
)};
The expected result should be a console log of hello world and we should hit the debugger in printableController.js file
Use $rootScope.$broadcast:
$rootScope.$broadcast("LoadPrintDetailsModal", {});
The $broadcast method dispatches events down the scope heirarchy.
The $emit method dispatches events up the heirarchy.
For more information, see
AngularJS Developer Guide - Scope Event Propagation
To capture broadcast events, use $scope.$on:
app.controller('PrintableController', function ($scope, $rootScope) {
̶$̶r̶o̶o̶t̶S̶c̶o̶p̶e̶.̶$̶o̶n̶(̶"̶L̶o̶a̶d̶P̶r̶i̶n̶t̶D̶e̶t̶a̶i̶l̶s̶M̶o̶d̶a̶l̶"̶,̶ ̶f̶u̶n̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶(̶e̶v̶e̶n̶t̶,̶ ̶a̶r̶g̶s̶)̶ ̶{̶
$scope.$on("LoadPrintDetailsModal", function (event, args) {
debugger;
$scope.printModal();
});
$scope.printModal = function () {
console.log("Hello World");
};
)};
From the Docs:
Only use .$broadcast(), .$emit() and .$on() for atomic events
Events that are relevant globally across the entire app (such as a user authenticating or the app closing). If you want events specific to modules, services or widgets you should consider Services, Directive Controllers, or 3rd Party Libs
Injecting services and calling methods directly is also useful for direct communication
Directives are able to directly communicate
For more information, seed
AngularJS Wiki - Best Practices
It's hard to know what is happening without:
seeing the hierarchy of the components. Is the emitting component is down in the hierarchy from the catching component. $emit is sending messages up. $browdcast is sending messages down.
Seeing how you inject $rootscope.
Regarding 2. $rootscope injection gives you the main $scope of the application. Doing $emit from it won't gives us anything as there are no $scopes that are above the $rootScope.
My guess you want to inject $scope which represent the specific scope in the hierarchy for that controller/component. Then $emiting will propagate upward to the catching controller/component properly.

How to create an angular form that uses session storage that can be called throughout the html pages

I want to create a form on an index page that can store data via session storage. I also want to make sure that whatever data(let's say name) ... is remembered and used throughout the site with angular. I have researched pieces of this process but I do not understand how to write it or really even what it's called.
Any help in the right direction would be useful as I am in the infant stages of all of this angular business. Let me know.
The service you want is angular-local-storage.
Just configure it in your app.js file:
localStorageServiceProvider
.setStorageType('sessionStorage');
And then use it in the controller that contains whatever data you want to remember. Here is an example of a controller that loads the session storage data on initialization, and saves it when a user fires $scope.doSearch through the UI. This should give you a good place to start.
(function () {
angular.module("pstat")
.controller("homeCtrl", homeCtrl);
homeCtrl.$inject = ['$log', 'dataService', 'localStorageService', '$http'];
function homeCtrl ($log, dataService, localStorageService, $http) { {
if (localStorageService.get("query")) { //Returns null for missing 'query' cookie
//Or store the results directly if they aren't too large
//Do something with your saved query on page load, probably get data
//Example:
dataService.getData(query)
.success( function (data) {})
.error( function (err) {})
}
$scope.doSearch = function (query) {
vm.token = localStorageService.set("query", query);
//Then actually do your search
}
})
}()

Returning promise from reflux store

I'm working on my first react/reflux app so I may be approaching this problem in completely the wrong way. I'm trying to return a promise from a reflux store's action handler. This is the minimum code that represents how I'm trying to do this. If I display this in the browser, I get an error saying that the promise is never caught, because the result of the onLogin function is not passed back when the action is initiated. What is the best way to do this?
var Reflux = require('reflux');
var React = require('react/addons')
const Action = Reflux.createAction();
const Store = Reflux.createStore({
init: function() {
this.listenTo(Action, this.onAction);
},
onAction: function(username, password) {
var p = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
reject('Bad password');
});
return p;
}
});
var LoginForm = React.createClass({
mixins: [Reflux.connect(Store, 'store')],
login: function() {
Action('nate', 'password1').catch(function(e) {
console.log(e); // This line is never executed
});
},
render: function() {
return (
<a onClick={this.login} href="#">login</a>
)
}
});
React.render(<LoginForm />, document.body);
Several things seem a bit confused here.
Reflux.connect(Store, 'store') is a shorthand for listening to the provided store, and automatically set the "store" property of your component state to whatever is passed in your store's this.trigger() call. However, your store never calls this.trigger so "store" in your component's state will never be updated. Returning a value from your store's action handlers doesn't trigger an update.
Stores should listen to actions to update their internal state, and typically then broadcast this state update by calling this.trigger. No component is going to get your returned promise from the store's onAction unless it explicitly calls Store.onAction (and then it doesn't matter if the actual action was invoked or not).
Async work should typically happen in the action's preEmit hook, not in the store. You should then also declare the action as async in createAction by setting the asyncResult option to true to automatically create "completed" and "failed" child actions. Check out the Reflux documentation here to learn about async events. Async actions automatically return promises, whose resolve and reject are called when the "completed" and "failed" sub-actions are called respectively. This is a bit opinionated, but that is definitely what I perceive is the intended Reflux way.

Accessing indexedDB in ServiceWorker. Race condition

There aren't many examples demonstrating indexedDB in a ServiceWorker yet, but the ones I saw were all structured like this:
const request = indexedDB.open( 'myDB', 1 );
var db;
request.onupgradeneeded = ...
request.onsuccess = function() {
db = this.result; // Average 8ms
};
self.onfetch = function(e)
{
const requestURL = new URL( e.request.url ),
path = requestURL.pathname;
if( path === '/test' )
{
const response = new Promise( function( resolve )
{
console.log( performance.now(), typeof db ); // Average 15ms
db.transaction( 'cache' ).objectStore( 'cache' ).get( 'test' ).onsuccess = function()
{
resolve( new Response( this.result, { headers: { 'content-type':'text/plain' } } ) );
}
});
e.respondWith( response );
}
}
Is this likely to fail when the ServiceWorker starts up, and if so what is a robust way of accessing indexedDB in a ServiceWorker?
Opening the IDB every time the ServiceWorker starts up is unlikely to be optimal, you'll end up opening it even when it isn't used. Instead, open the db when you need it. A singleton is really useful here (see https://github.com/jakearchibald/svgomg/blob/master/src/js/utils/storage.js#L5), so you don't need to open IDB twice if it's used twice in its lifetime.
The "activate" event is a great place to open IDB and let any "onupdateneeded" events run, as the old version of ServiceWorker is out of the way.
You can wrap a transaction in a promise like so:
var tx = db.transaction(scope, mode);
var p = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
tx.onabort = function() { reject(tx.error); };
tx.oncomplete = function() { resolve(); };
});
Now p will resolve/reject when the transaction completes/aborts. So you can do arbitrary logic in the tx transaction, and p.then(...) and/or pass a dependent promise into e.respondWith() or e.waitUntil() etc.
As noted by other commenters, we really do need to promisify IndexedDB. But the composition of its post-task autocommit model and the microtask queues that Promises use make it... nontrivial to do so without basically completely replacing the API. But (as an implementer and one of the spec editors) I'm actively prototyping some ideas.
I don't know of anything special about accessing IndexedDB from the context of a service worker via accessing IndexedDB via a controlled page.
Promises obviously makes your life much easier within a service worker, so I've found using something like, e.g., https://gist.github.com/inexorabletash/c8069c042b734519680c to be useful instead of the raw IndexedDB API. But it's not mandatory as long as you create and manage your own promises to reflect the state of the asynchronous IndexedDB operations.
The main thing to keep in mind when writing a fetch event handler (and this isn't specific to using IndexedDB), is that if you call event.respondWith(), you need to pass in either a Response object or a promise that resolves with a Response object. As long as you're doing that, it shouldn't matter whether your Response is constructed from IndexedDB entries or the Cache API or elsewhere.
Are you running into any actual problems with the code you posted, or was this more of a theoretical question?

AngularJS Initializing a Navbar Service

I've written a directive and associated controller for a navbar, which shares data with several services, like user information. I want to create a service to pull down JSON that will populate the currently hardcoded links of the navbar, and which will be shared outside the component through $route resolve etc so the currently active link and its JSON is available to different views etc.
When and where is the best place to initialize a component service like a navbar using $http that will only need to make a request once, and not have the navbar missing at any point onload? Using provider and dropping it in .config seems heavy handed according to the docs, but it's the only provider available in .config, the shorthand .service and .factory are not.
Using service with .run():
(function() {
'use strict';
/* Navbar Component */
angular.module('component.navbar', [
'component.navbar.controller',
'component.navbar.directive',
'component.navbar.service',
])
.run(function( NavbarService ) {
NavbarService.getJSON(); // handle promise here and set NavbarService.navbarJSON using a setter?
});
})();
(function() {
'use strict';
/* Service */
angular.module('cfbc.component.navbar.service', [])
.factory('NavbarService', ['$http', function( $http ) {
var that = this;
this.navbarJSON = '';
this.getJSON = function() {
$http.get('app/data/cfbc-loan-types.json')
.success( function( data ) {
that.navbarJSON = data; // can't use $scope it seems throughs an error
});
}
}]);
})();
Put the initialization logic in the .run() block instead of the .config() block so that your service can make use of $http to initialize itself at application initialization, especially if this is an application-wide service that will be consumed by multiple controllers/routes.