Using TagHelpers vs ViewComponents in ASP.NET MVC6 - asp.net-core

I'm trying to understand the use case differences between TagHelpers and ViewComponents in asp.net 5 because the end result functionality seems very similar. We have TagHelpers that can create new HTML tags that get parsed by the Razor engine and then ViewComponents that get explicitly invoked. Both return some HTML content, both are backed by their respective base classes, both have async versions of methods they can implement to get their work done.
So when would one be used over another? Or am I missing some information?

There's definitely some conceptual overlap between TagHelpers and ViewComponents. TagHelpers are your utility to work with HTML where ViewComponents are your way to stick to C#, do isolated work and then spit out HTML. I'll go into each in detail:
ViewComponents
Your conceptually equivalent mini-controller; you will see that many of the methods/properties that ViewComponents expose are very familiar to those that exist on a Controller. Now as for invoking ViewComponents, that's more equivalent to utilizing HTML helpers (one thing TagHelpers make better). To sum up ViewComponents: Their primary purpose is to feel like a controller, stay in C# land (there may be no need to add utility to HTML), do smaller/isolated work and then spit out stringified HTML.
TagHelpers
A utility that enables you to work along side existing HTML or create new HTML elements that modify what happens on a page. Unlike ViewComponents TagHelpers can target any existing HTML and modify its behavior; example: you could add a conditional attribute to all HTML elements that would conditionally render the element server side. TagHelpers also allow you to intermingle common HTML terms, ex:
<myTagHelper class="btn">Some Content</myTagHElper>
As you can see we're adding a class attribute to our TagHelper just as if it were HTML. To do this in ViewComponents, you'd need to pass in a dictionary of attributes or something equivalent (unnatural). Lastly multiple TagHelpers can run over a single HTML element; each having their own stage at modifying output (allows entry for modular TagHelper toolkits). To sum TagHelpers up: They can do anything that ViewComponents can do and more BUT do not feel familiar to things like Controllers that ASP.NET developers are used to; also some projects may not want to intermingle server side HTML.
Extra:
I recently did a video showcasing the benefits of TagHelpers. Basically a walk through of what they're good at and how to use them. You can watch it here.

When deciding which one to use I always consider how complex the HTML of the component will be.
If it's something simple like a tree view or a pager
<ul class="jstree">
<li>Node 1</li>
<li>...</li>
</ul>
That is candidate for tag helper, because it's simple. Large HTML in a C# code would be hard to maintain.
On the other hand if it's complex HTML with many divs, images and configuration like a full blown menu where it can be vertical or horizontal that's your view component. Benefit of view component is that you can use multiple views so for menu so you can separate horizontal.cshtml & vertical.cshtml while reusing same backend code.

Turns out that in .Net Core 1.1, you can call a ViewComponent using the tagHelper syntax.
Regarding Taylor's comment "Their primary purpose is to feel like a controller", it is true, but since you cannot directly call this "micro-controller" directly, the "controller-like" behavior is limited in that you can only create a part of a page, you cannot call it again (say via an ajax call, an Edit Action, etc).

One primary difference between TagHelpers and ViewComponents relates to how much work needs to be done by the object. TagHelpers are fairly basic, requiring only a single class that overrides the Process method to produce the output of the TagHelper. The downside is that if you do any complex work to create inner HTML in the TagHelper, it has to all be done in code. In a ViewComponent, you have a mini-controller capable of doing a lot more work, plus it returns a view, where you have actual Razor syntax code that can be mapped to a model.
Another post mentioned that ViewComponents are more "HTML Helper"-y in how you call them. ASP.NET 1.1 addressed that issue, so that you can call it with
<vc:view-component-name param1="value1" param2="value2></vc:view-component-name>
For most purposes, a TagHelper has a definite advantage, because it's easier. But if you need a more robust solution, ViewComponent is the way to go.

And yet something that kind of defeats the purpose of View Components (IMHO) is that from the View Component class there seems to be no way to access the Inner Html of the VC if you use the tag helper syntax:
<vc:MyComponent id="1" att="something">
Some HTML markup you would not want to put in an attribute
</vc:MyComponent>
There are however good applications of a VC such as the Bootstrap Navigation Bar View Component I saw in a TechieJourney blog post.

Related

Can PartialViews replace with TagHelpers in ASP.NET Core?

I am new to ASP.NET Core. I just discovered TagHelpers and as I may get the idea, theoretically we should be able to replace partial views with tag helpers.
Beyond that, TagHelper can accept input but PartialView don't.
do I think right? or it's a misunderstanding? can anyone explain the difference clearly?
Thanks in advance!
This is for asp.net core 2.1+
If I understand your question correctly, you can replace all your HtmlHelper partial views with your own TagHelpers, but you were already able to do this with HtmlHelpers so its not something new.
However, there is a difference between HtmlHelpers, TagHelpers and Partial Views.
Partial Views
A partial view is a Razor markup file (.cshtml) that renders HTML output within another markup file's rendered output. Eg _partial.cshtml.
HtmlHelper
HtmlHelpers were introduced with the MVC framework to be able to render html serverside. Easily distinguished by the # character in razor views.
#await Html.PartialAsync("_partial.cshtml", Model.Contact)
Beyond that, TagHelper can accept input but PartialView don't.
The second parameter in PartialAsync allows for input.
TagHelper
With asp.net-core, TagHelpers are another way to be able to render server side html by using tags and attributes in the razor views. Aside from html friendly views, it provides less abstraction from html. In the code below I'm using the Partial TagHelper, where the name attribute defines the path or name of the view, and the for attribute assigns the model expression that will evaluated (#Model). This means you don't need to use for="#Model.Contact" and simply just for="Contact".
<partial name="_partial" for="Contact" />
You could also use the model attribute, which just passes the model to the partial view on instantiation.
<partial name="_partial" model='new Contact { Id = 1, Name = "Nick" }' />
As seen from above, both TagHelpers and HtmlHelpers can render partial views.
Furthermore if you look at asp.net-core github for the HtmlHelper
https://github.com/aspnet/Mvc/blob/b18526cdc8d8c868e8d7f9c6c8484064215e1002/src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ViewFeatures/HtmlHelper.cs#L554
and compare it to the TagHelper
https://github.com/aspnet/Mvc/blob/b18526cdc8d8c868e8d7f9c6c8484064215e1002/src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.TagHelpers/PartialTagHelper.cs#L216
Both are actually calling and IView.RenderAsync() and passing in a ViewContext which includes the partial view. So they virtually do the same thing in code behind, except for the way it manipulates the html.
Side notes:
Much like HtmlHelpers, you can also create your own TagHelpers which can replace whole partial views.
TagHelpers are not to replace HtmlHelpers, but provide alternative approach. However, in my opinion TagHelpers are better. They render better in visual studio editor (razor pages used have a lot of formatting problems due to the #HtmlHelpers), is way more readable, and comply with html.
In the partial TagHelper, you can use either model or for to provide data to the partial, but never both.
Omitting .cshtml from the name will just force the framework to search for the view in Pages, Views, and Shared folders. Its totally optional.
Hope this helps

Nested ViewComponent, is it possible?

Trying to implement the layout of the picture below, I would like to ask about best practices regarding the architecture of the page layout. Is it better to have independent ViewComponents in every section of the page or partial views? Is it possible to have nested ViewComponents?
The idea is to reuse the sections in other positions in different pages. The concept is very similar to Web parts we used to have but now I try to implement something like this with Asp. Net Core.
Yes, it is possible to have nested View Components.
What is important to keep in mind:
You should keep your views structure under Components folder plain
You should keep your ViewComponent classes under ViewComponent folder plain
You should control infinite loops yourself when you nest component1 into component2 and at the same time component2 into component1
NOTE: most likely you will need your components to include edit/save/update functionalities. As far as I understand, View Components are supposed to be views only as they have only InvokeAsync and not something like UpdateAsync. So if you'd like to implement any kind of saving logic, you will need to take care of doing this yourself (e.g. via AJAX calls). It is possible (I have verified), but it requires to get familiar with Microsoft.jQuery.Unobtrusive.Ajax and handle responses on the client side in JavaScript (sometimes including things like replacing in JS the DOM element inner HTML with what you get from the server response). You will also need to decide where to put controller actions for view component update endpoints (could be a special Controller class for View Components).

Aurelia popover checkbox checked.bind not reflecting on the view model

We have implemented checkbox in popover. There we are using checked.bind , but in the view model its not reflecting its value on change of the checkboxes.
Sample Gist Run Provided below:
Gist Run
Thanks in Advance
Programmatically injected HTML needs to be compiled manually
The integration with bootstrap I provided to you earlier cannot do this. The bootstrap plugin assigns the innerHTML property of the popover and it does this outside of aurelia's rendering pipeline. The HTML is therefore not compiled by aurelia, which is why bindings (and other aurelia behaviors) will not work.
The templating framework takes care of this for you automatically as long as you are following conventions (such as custom elements). In any other case you'll need to manually work with the ViewCompiler.
In case you're interested, you can see an example with programmatically generated HTML in this gist. Also see this question if you want to know more about it. I do not recommend it in this scenario however.
Use aurelia-dialog
A tooltip (or popover) is just that: a tip on how to use the tool. It should not need more than some plain markup, text and styling (of course this is subjective to some degree, and some people may disagree)
For collecting user input in-between pages or screens, I'd argue a modal dialog is a better fit because of its property to "pop out" more and to de-emphasize the rest of the screen until the user either proceeds or cancels.
More importantly, by using aurelia-dialog your bindings and behaviors will simply work because, well, it's an aurelia plugin :-)

How can I embed a twitter timeline in a Durandal view?

The code to embed the widget is nice and simple, but it includes javascript in tags.
Durandal appears to strip out such script tags.
How do I use the embed code in a Durandal view?
https://dev.twitter.com/web/embedded-timelines
<a class="twitter-timeline" href="https://twitter.com/XXX" data-widget-id="XXX">Tweets by #XXX</a>
<script>!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+"://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");</script>
You would need to write a custom Knockout binding, or create a Durandal widget where the view is your tag, and the viewModel handles the JavaScript in your tag.
Some notes: In your widget's view model, you would avoid d.getElementsByTagName(s) in favor of simply referencing the view reference passed in to either the attached or compositionComplete handler that Durandal provides. In fact, you could pretty much eschew all direct DOM manipulation in favor of Durandal's imported view references and Knockout's/Durandal's templating/composition.
UPDATE
Take a look at this from the documentation you reference: "If you’re already including our ‘widgets.js’ JavaScript in your page to show embedded Tweets or Twitter buttons, you don’t need to include this script again; it updates automatically to support new features."
This could lead you down the path of simply referencing widgets.js in a script tag in your index.html or index.chtml file.
You cannot use script tags in Durandal views, but you can use them in your index page.
SECOND UPDATE
Once widget.js has been referenced in a script tag in the index.html or index.chtml (or perhaps even by using AMD), it becomes a matter of choosing the proper Durandal point at which to load the Twitter widget. This could be either in the attached handler or in the compositionComplete handler, as indicated above.
As the OP pointed out in his comments, a functional place to do this is compositionComplete, in the following manner:
var compositionComplete = function () {
twttr.widgets.load();
}
as documented here.
This assumes that twttr is either on the window or injected into the viewModel.
POSSIBLE MEMORY LEAK
It is equally important to note that unloading of widgets must take place in the Durandal's detached handler. Use Twitter's API to unload, and then be sure to nullify the windows reference.

What is the point of getEl() in extjs4

I have a listener that is called when a tab is activated.
, listeners: {
activate: function(tab){
var first = tab.down('input'), // will be null
firstEl = tab.getEl().down('input'); // will contain first input element
I'm not having a lot of luck understanding the relationship between tab and tab.getEl(). If this was jquery, $(tab) would give me a jquery element which would largely expand on my set of options. extjs seems to be almost backwards in this regards, or at least more complicated.
I'm trying to understand when and why I need getEl() so that it is less of a development crapshoot about what will and won't work. In other places I do things like:
showFieldHelpOnBlur = function(ctrl) {
ctrl.up('form').down('#helptext').update("");
}
without the getEl(). In this case form is an element tag just like input (above), but I don't need the getEl() before I use it. In general the two sets of functionality that share the same names but don't work the same are frustrating, and the docs don't seem to give any clue as to why there are multiple methods with the same names that do different things, or do similar things in a different way.
Found some similar issues with focus(), but those might make more sense if I just understood why are there are 2 seemingly parallel sets of methods for what are essentially DOM elements wrapped in additional functionality.
I think at the core of your confusion is how you approach the development using ExtJS vs JQuery.
JQuery is all about DOM manipulation and low level API. ExtJS approach is very different, it wants you to think of your page structure as a hierarchy of ExtJS components that are responsible for rendering appropriate HTML. So ExtJS is essentially saying: "Don't worry about html, we'll take care of it - you focus on the larger components, layouts, events, etc. "
You will say "Whoa Nelly! What do you mean don't worry about html? I want control!" And ExtJS will respond OK - we have a wrapper object called Element (http://docs.sencha.com/extjs/4.1.3/#!/api/Ext.dom.Element) you can use it to do DOM manipulation just like you are used to with JQuery .. but be cautious. Because if you manage your own HTML we can't be responsible for what happens to your layouts and components that are not managed by the framework.
My advice is this - when in Rome do like Romans do :)
If you are going to be using ExtJS to build apps - embrace the way ExtJS is designed to work. Learn the different layout mechanics and numerous component types available to you out of the box. Use the MVC development pattern to beautifully organize your code. Use the examples to your advantage. Study the architecture and component guides - these are very useful. Understanding ComponentQuery class is a must (all those up/down methods and query).
At the end, when you have gained comfort using ExtJS components and their style of development you will be very efficient at building your UI compositions and can build much more complex applications than before.
Good Luck!
Pro Tip: Do yourself a favor and get Illuminations for Developers plugin for Firebug - it will open your eyes to see things using component structure rather than HTML elements.