Merge init and factory functions?

[zmrhaljiri]

Idea

What about to use only init() with the logic distinguishing single/multiple calls within? Would be good idea to do the following checks?

• If input length is 0, return undefined
• If input length is 1, return fn(container, ...args)
• If input length is greater than 1, return [...containers].map(container => fn(container, ...args));

(Also in that case return fn(container, ...args) could be stored in a separate function to not repeat itself)

Pros

• No need to think about the method I will use. One function, one file.
• Sometimes factory() is called even if there is only 1 such component at the page. Maybe it would be less expensive to not use map() in that case.

Cons

• I'm sure you'll find some.

[janpanschab]

There are cases where you want to initialize only one instance and pass multiple containers/inputs. I have use it several times.

[zmrhaljiri]

I see. Then I would suggest to pass an additional parameter to the init() function and then add id to the check. This way I will use only one file containing the shared code inbetween current init() and factory() functions. What do you think?

[janpanschab]

I don’t understand. Give me an example, please.

[kettanaito]

@zmrhaljiri I completely agree to have one init method controllable through custom options. This is simple, intuitive, and decreases the chance of using init/factory wrong, as opposed to now.

Please correct me if I get you wrong, I think you are talking about something similar:

export default function init(component, containers, options) {
  const { factory } = options;
  if (factory) {
    return component(containers);
  } else {
    return Array.from(containers).forEach(container => component(container));
  }

  // or
  return options.factory ? component(containers) : Array.from(containers).forEach(container => component(container));
}

[DavidSlavik]

@janpanschab Can I ask you for some feedback?

[janpanschab]

@zmrhaljiri @kettanaito @DavidSlavik @vbulant I don’t see a big difference between these two approaches, but why not. Maybe only renaming the factory function would solve the problem.

In general I don’t like monster functions with too many arguments and huge options. It could be really nice small two functions. But definitely I don’t want to block this. As I said. It is not a big change IMHO.

[DavidSlavik]

From my perspective using of two functions what is similar, but different is more readable than joined functionality with many arguments. Actually init and factory functions are called with many parameters and I don't want to add another one. App.js file is more readeble, because I'm able to read if component can be many time on page or once. I prefer actual solution.

@ronaldruzicka @omladek please give me feedback.

[omladek]

I am fine with the current state as it is (separate init and factory and render).

[ronaldruzicka]

I am also fine with the current solution with init and factory as separate functions.

[DavidSlavik]

Ok, we leave it is now.