|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC emacs-lisp :exports results :results silent
|
|
|
|
(require 'ox-latex)
|
|
|
|
(add-to-list 'org-latex-packages-alist '("" "minted"))
|
|
|
|
(setq org-latex-listings 'minted)
|
|
|
|
(setq org-latex-pdf-process
|
|
|
|
'("xelatex -shell-escape -interaction nonstopmode -output-directory %o %f"))
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# #+latex_class: article
|
|
|
|
# #+latex_class_options: [a4paper,8pt]
|
|
|
|
# #+latex_header: \usepackage[a4paper,top=2.5cm,bottom=2.5cm,left=1.5cm,right=1.5cm]{geometry}
|
|
|
|
# #+latex_header:\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+TITLE: High-Performance React
|
|
|
|
#+AUTHOR: Thomas Hintz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+startup: indent
|
|
|
|
#+tags: noexport sample frontmatter mainmatter backmatter
|
|
|
|
#+options: toc:nil tags:nil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Preface
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/preface.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* Introduction
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/introduction.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
It was the late 90's and I was just a kid visiting my Aunt and Uncle
|
|
|
|
and their family in Denver. The days were packed with endless playing
|
|
|
|
and goofing around. I didn't get to see my cousins much and we were
|
|
|
|
having a good time. But it was the late 90's and the Internet was
|
|
|
|
booming. And my cousin was in on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A "startup", that's what he called it. I didn't understand any of what
|
|
|
|
he was saying about it. Grown-up stuff. Then he showed us the webpage
|
|
|
|
for the startup and I thought that was impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"How did you make that"? I asked him. I think he was a little confused
|
|
|
|
at first about what I was even talking about but he quickly brought me
|
|
|
|
over to the computer and showed me a screen full of text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You just type HTML, that's how you make the webpage." I thought this
|
|
|
|
was the coolest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What do you type that into? What program is it? Can I do that?" He
|
|
|
|
told me it was easy: just use Notepad. I wasn't going to let him go
|
|
|
|
without some hook I could grab into this alien world. He told me it's
|
|
|
|
really easy to learn: do an AOL search for "HTML tutorial".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So began my journey with web development. I AOL searched my way
|
|
|
|
through as many blinking text tutorials as I could find. It wasn't
|
|
|
|
long until I was building AJAX. We had IE 5.5 and 6 and Mozilla
|
|
|
|
Pheonix. And GMail came out. That changed things, now web apps were
|
|
|
|
"legitimate."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of the technologies and libraries came and went over the years
|
|
|
|
but one thing remained constant in large web apps: poor
|
|
|
|
performance. From the very early days I was timing things with my stop
|
|
|
|
watch. Sometimes things were slow and I had to understand why and how
|
|
|
|
to fix them. Over the years I learned all about the browser's DOM and
|
|
|
|
its APIs and how they work. I learned how jQuery worked and
|
|
|
|
backbone.js and all the rest. I made apps that didn't lag or have
|
|
|
|
jank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was able to do this because I understood the performance
|
|
|
|
implications of the tools and libraries I was using and I learned how
|
|
|
|
to measure performance. I had discovered the recipe for
|
|
|
|
high-performance code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that is what this book is: a recipe for producing high-performance
|
|
|
|
React applications. First, we learn how React works. Then we learn how
|
|
|
|
to measure performance. And last we learn how to address the
|
|
|
|
bottlenecks we find. Parts of any technical book will go stale as
|
|
|
|
technology changes and that is no less true for this book. But what I
|
|
|
|
hope you learn is not just the technical details but more importantly
|
|
|
|
the method for writing high-performance code. The API might change but
|
|
|
|
the method will remain the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO note that the book references React-DOM but the algorithms should
|
|
|
|
generally apply to all React implementations.
|
|
|
|
* Fundamentals: Building our own React
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/fundamentals--building-our-own-react.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
Baking bread. When I first began to learn how to bake bread the recipe
|
|
|
|
told me what to do. It listed some ingredients and told me how to
|
|
|
|
combine them and prescribed times of rest. It gave me an oven
|
|
|
|
temperature and a period of wait. It gave me mediocre bread of wildly
|
|
|
|
varying quality. I tried different recipes but the result was always
|
|
|
|
the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding: that's what I was missing. The bread I make is now
|
|
|
|
consistently good. The recipes I use are simpler and only give ratios
|
|
|
|
and general recommendations for rests and waits. So why does the bread
|
|
|
|
turn out better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before baking is finished bread is a living organism. The way it grows
|
|
|
|
and develops and flavors depend on what you feed it and how you feed
|
|
|
|
it and massage it, care for it. If you have it grow and ferment at a
|
|
|
|
higher temperature and more yeast it overdevelops producing too much
|
|
|
|
alcohol. If you give it too much time, acidity will take over the
|
|
|
|
flavor. The recipes I used initially were missing a critical
|
|
|
|
ingredient: the rising temperature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But unlike a lot of ingredients: temperature is hard to control for
|
|
|
|
the home cook. So the recipe can't just tell you exactly what
|
|
|
|
temperature to grow the bread at. My initial recipes just silently
|
|
|
|
made assumptions for the temperature, which rarely turn out to be
|
|
|
|
true. This means that the only way to consistently make good bread is
|
|
|
|
to have an understanding of how bread develops so that you can adjust
|
|
|
|
the other ingredients to complement the temperature. Now the bread can
|
|
|
|
tell me what to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While React isn't technically a living organism that can tell us what
|
|
|
|
to do, it is, in its whole, a complex, abstract entity. We could learn
|
|
|
|
basic recipes for how to write high-performance React code but they
|
|
|
|
wouldn't apply in all cases, and as React and things under it change
|
|
|
|
our recipes would fall out-of-date. So like the bread, to produce
|
|
|
|
consistently good results we need to understand how React does what it
|
|
|
|
does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Components of React
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conceptually React is very simple. It starts by walking a tree of
|
|
|
|
components and building up a tree of their output. Then it compares
|
|
|
|
that tree to the tree currently in the browser's DOM to find any
|
|
|
|
differences between them. When it finds differences it updates the
|
|
|
|
browser's DOM to match its internal tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But what does that actually look like? If your app is janky does that
|
|
|
|
explanation point you towards what is wrong? No. It might make you
|
|
|
|
wonder if maybe it is too expensive to re-render the tree or if maybe
|
|
|
|
the diffing React does is slow but you won't really know. When I was
|
|
|
|
initially testing out different bread recipes I had guesses at why it
|
|
|
|
wasn't working but I didn't really figure it out until I had a deeper
|
|
|
|
understanding of how making bread worked. It's time we build up our
|
|
|
|
understanding of how React works so that we can start to answer our
|
|
|
|
questions with solid answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
React is centered around the ~render~ method. The ~render~ method is
|
|
|
|
what walks our trees, diffs them with the browser's DOM tree, and
|
|
|
|
updates the DOM as needed. But before we can look at the ~render~
|
|
|
|
method we have to understand its input. The input comes from
|
|
|
|
~createElement~. While ~createElement~ itself is unlikely to be a
|
|
|
|
bottleneck it's good to understand how it works so that we can have a
|
|
|
|
complete picture of the entire process. The more black-boxes we have
|
|
|
|
in our mental model the harder it will be for us to diagnose
|
|
|
|
performance problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Markup in JavaScript: ~JSX~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
~createElement~, however, takes as input something that is probably
|
|
|
|
not familiar to us since we usually work in JSX, which is the last
|
|
|
|
element of the chain in this puzzle and the first step in solving
|
|
|
|
it. While not strictly a part of React, it is almost universally used
|
|
|
|
with it. And if we understand it then ~createElement~ will be less of
|
|
|
|
a mystery since we will be able to connect all the dots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JSX is not valid HTML or JavaScript but its own language compiled by a
|
|
|
|
compiler, like Babel. The output of that compilation is valid
|
|
|
|
JavaScript that represents the original markup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before JSX or similar compilers, the normal way of injecting HTML into
|
|
|
|
the DOM was via directly utilizing the browser's DOM APIs or by
|
|
|
|
setting ~innerHTML~. This was very cumbersome. The code's structure
|
|
|
|
did not match the structure of the HTML that it output which made it
|
|
|
|
hard to quickly understand what the output of a piece of code would
|
|
|
|
be. So naturally programmers have been endlessly searching for better
|
|
|
|
ways to mix HTML with JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And this brings us to JSX. It is nothing new; nothing
|
|
|
|
complicated. Forms of it have been made and used long before React
|
|
|
|
adopted it. Now let's see if we can discover JSX for ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To start with, we need to create a data-structure -- let's call it
|
|
|
|
JavaScript Markup (JSM) -- that both represents a DOM tree and can
|
|
|
|
also be used to insert one into the browser's DOM. And to do that we
|
|
|
|
need to understand what a tree of DOM nodes is constructed of. What
|
|
|
|
parts do you see here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC html
|
|
|
|
<div class="header">
|
|
|
|
<h1>Hello</h1>
|
|
|
|
<input type="submit" disabled />
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see three parts: the name of the tag, the tag's properties, and its
|
|
|
|
children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-----------+-----------------------------|
|
|
|
|
| Name: | 'div', 'h1', 'input' |
|
|
|
|
| Props: | 'class', 'type', 'disabled' |
|
|
|
|
| Children: | <h1>, <input>, Hello |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now how could we recreate that in JavaScript?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In JavaScript, we store lists of things in arrays, and key/value
|
|
|
|
properties in objects. Luckily for us, JavaScript even gives us literal
|
|
|
|
syntax for both so we can easily make a compact DOM tree with our own
|
|
|
|
notation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is what I'm thinking:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+CAPTION: JSM - JavaScript Markup
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
['div', { 'className': 'header' },
|
|
|
|
[['h1', {}, ['Hello']],
|
|
|
|
['input', { 'type': 'submit', 'disabled': 'disabled' }, []]
|
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you can see in, we have a clear mapping from our notation, JSM, to
|
|
|
|
the original HTML. Our tree is made up of three element arrays. The
|
|
|
|
first item in the array is the tag, the second is an object containing
|
|
|
|
the tag's properties, and the third is an array of its children; which
|
|
|
|
are all made up of the same three element arrays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The truth is though, if you stare at it long enough, although the
|
|
|
|
mapping is clear, how much fun would it be to read and write that on a
|
|
|
|
consistent basis? I can assure you, it is rather not fun. But it has
|
|
|
|
the advantage of being easy to insert into the DOM. All you need to do
|
|
|
|
is write a simple recursive function that ingests our data structure
|
|
|
|
and updates the DOM accordingly. We will get back to this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So now we have a way to represent a tree of nodes and we
|
|
|
|
(theoretically) have a way to get those nodes into the DOM. But if we
|
|
|
|
are being honest with ourselves, while functional, it isn't a pretty
|
|
|
|
notation nor easy to work with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And this is where our object of study enters the scene. JSX is just a
|
|
|
|
notation that a compiler takes as input and outputs in its place a
|
|
|
|
tree of nodes nearly identical to the notation we came up with! And if
|
|
|
|
you look back to our notation you can see that you can easily embed
|
|
|
|
arbitrary JavaScript expressions wherever you want in a node. As you
|
|
|
|
may have realized, that's exactly what the JSX compiler does when it
|
|
|
|
sees curly braces!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are three main differences between our data structure and the
|
|
|
|
real one that the JSX compiler outputs: it uses objects instead of
|
|
|
|
arrays, it inserts calls to React.createElement on children, and
|
|
|
|
spreads the children instead of containing them in an array. Here is
|
|
|
|
what real JSX compiler output looks like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# #+NAME: foo
|
|
|
|
# #+CAPTION: foo bar
|
|
|
|
# #+attr_leanpub: :line-numbers true
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
React.createElement(
|
|
|
|
'div',
|
|
|
|
{ className: 'header' },
|
|
|
|
React.createElement('h1', {}, 'Hello'),
|
|
|
|
React.createElement(
|
|
|
|
'input',
|
|
|
|
{ type: 'submit', 'disabled': 'disabled' })
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you can see, it is very similar to our markup data-structure and
|
|
|
|
for the purposes of this book we will use our own simplified
|
|
|
|
data-structure as it's a bit easier to work with. A JSX compiler also
|
|
|
|
does some validation and escapes input to prevent cross-site scripting
|
|
|
|
attacks. In practice though they would behave the same in the ways
|
|
|
|
that matter to us now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So now that we've worked through JSX we're ready to tackle
|
|
|
|
~createElement~, the next item on our way to building our own React.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Getting Ready to Render with ~createElement~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
React's ~render~ expects to consume a tree of element objects in a
|
|
|
|
specific, uniform format. ~createElement~ is the method by which we
|
|
|
|
achieve that objective. ~createElement~ will take as input our
|
|
|
|
JSX-like notation and output a tree of objects compatible with
|
|
|
|
~render~.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
React expects nodes defined as JavaScript objects that look like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
type: NODE_TYPE,
|
|
|
|
props: {
|
|
|
|
propA: VALUE,
|
|
|
|
propB: VALUE,
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
children: STRING | ARRAY
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is: an object with two properties: ~type~ and ~props~. The
|
|
|
|
~props~ property contains all the properties of the node. The node's
|
|
|
|
~children~ are also considered part of its properties. The full
|
|
|
|
version of React's ~createElement~ includes more properties but they
|
|
|
|
are unlikely to be relevant to your application's performance or our
|
|
|
|
version of React here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
function createElement(node) {
|
|
|
|
// an array: not text, number, or other primitive
|
|
|
|
if (typeof node === 'object') {
|
|
|
|
const [ tag, props, children ] = node;
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
type: tag,
|
|
|
|
props: {
|
|
|
|
...props,
|
|
|
|
children: children.map(createElement)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// primitives like text or number
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
type: 'TEXT',
|
|
|
|
props: {
|
|
|
|
nodeValue: node,
|
|
|
|
children: []
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our ~createElement~ has two main parts: complex elements and primitive
|
|
|
|
elements. The first part tests whether ~node~ is a complex node
|
|
|
|
(specified by an array) and then generates an ~element~ object based
|
|
|
|
on the input node. It recursively calls ~createElement~ to generate an
|
|
|
|
array of children elements. If the node is not complex then we
|
|
|
|
generate an element of type 'TEXT' which we use for all primitives
|
|
|
|
like strings and numbers. We call the output of ~createElement~ a tree
|
|
|
|
of ~elements~ (surprise).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's it. Now we have everything we need to actually begin the
|
|
|
|
process of rendering our tree to the DOM!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Render
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are now only two major puzzles remaining in our quest for our
|
|
|
|
own React. The next piece is: ~render~. How do we go from our tree of
|
|
|
|
nodes to actually displaying something on screen? The next puzzle we
|
|
|
|
will be solving is the render method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The signature for our ~render~ method should be familiar to you:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
function render(element, container)
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the same signature as that of React itself. We begin by just
|
|
|
|
focusing on the initial render. In pseudocode it looks like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
function render(element, container) {
|
|
|
|
const domElement = createDOMElement(element);
|
|
|
|
setProps(element, domElement);
|
|
|
|
renderChildren(element, domElement);
|
|
|
|
container.appendChild(domElement);
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our DOM element is created first. Then we set the properties, render
|
|
|
|
children elements, and finally append the whole tree to the
|
|
|
|
container.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that we have an idea of what to build we will work on expanding
|
|
|
|
the pseudocode until we have our own fully functional ~render~ method
|
|
|
|
using the same general algorithm React uses. In our first pass we will
|
|
|
|
focus on the initial render and ignore reconciliation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO note what reconciliation is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
function render(element, container) {
|
|
|
|
const { type, props } = element;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// create the DOM element
|
|
|
|
const domElement = type === 'TEXT' ?
|
|
|
|
document.createTextNode(props.nodeValue) :
|
|
|
|
document.createElement(type);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// set its properties
|
|
|
|
Object.keys(props)
|
|
|
|
.filter((key) => key !== 'children')
|
|
|
|
.forEach((key) => domElement[key] = props[key]);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// render its children
|
|
|
|
props.children.forEach((child) => render(child, domElement));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// add our tree to the DOM!
|
|
|
|
container.appendChild(domElement);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ~render~ method starts by creating the DOM element. Then we need
|
|
|
|
to set its properties. To do this we first need to filter out the
|
|
|
|
~children~ property and then we simply loop over the keys, setting
|
|
|
|
each property directly. Following that, we render each of the children
|
|
|
|
by looping over the children and recursively calling ~render~ on each
|
|
|
|
child with the ~container~ set to the current DOM element (which is
|
|
|
|
each child's parent).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now we can go all the way from our JSX-like notation to a rendered
|
|
|
|
tree in the browser's DOM! But so far we can only add things to our
|
|
|
|
tree. To be able to remove and modify the tree we need one more part:
|
|
|
|
reconciliation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Reconciliation
|
|
|
|
A tale of two trees. These are the two trees that people most often
|
|
|
|
talk about when talking about React's "secret sauce": the virtual DOM
|
|
|
|
and the browser's DOM tree. This idea is what originally set React
|
|
|
|
apart. React's reconciliation is what allows you to program
|
|
|
|
declaratively. Reconciliation is what makes it so we no longer have to
|
|
|
|
manually update and modify the DOM whenever our own internal state
|
|
|
|
changes. In a lot of ways, it is what makes React, React.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conceptually, the way this works is that React generates a new element
|
|
|
|
tree for every render and compares the newly generated tree to the
|
|
|
|
tree generated on the previous render. Where it finds differences in
|
|
|
|
the tree it knows to mutate the DOM state. This is the "tree diffing"
|
|
|
|
algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately those researching tree diffing in Computer Science have
|
|
|
|
not yet produced a generic algorithm with sufficient performance for
|
|
|
|
use in something like React as the current best still [[https://grfia.dlsi.ua.es/ml/algorithms/references/editsurvey_bille.pdf][runs in
|
|
|
|
O(n^3)]].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since an O(n^3) algorithm isn't going to cut it in the real-world, the
|
|
|
|
creators of React instead use a set of heuristics to determine what
|
|
|
|
parts of the tree have changed. Understanding how the React tree
|
|
|
|
diffing algorithm works in general and the heuristics currently in use
|
|
|
|
can help immensely in detecting and fixing React performance
|
|
|
|
bottlenecks. And beyond that it can help one's understanding of some
|
|
|
|
of React's quirks and usage. Even though this algorithm is internal to
|
|
|
|
React and can be changed anytime its details have leaked out in some
|
|
|
|
ways and are overall unlikely to change in major ways without larger
|
|
|
|
changes to React itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the [[https://reactjs.org/docs/reconciliation.html][React documentation]] their diffing algorithm is O(n)
|
|
|
|
and based on two major components:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Elements of differing types will yield different trees
|
|
|
|
- You can hint at tree changes with the ~key~ prop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this section we will focus on the first part: differing types. In a
|
|
|
|
later chapter we will discuss and implement the ~key~ prop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The approach we will take here is to integrate the heuristics that
|
|
|
|
React uses into our render method. This is similar to how React itself
|
|
|
|
does it and we will discuss React's actual implementation later when we
|
|
|
|
talk about Fibers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before we get into the code changes that implement the heuristics it
|
|
|
|
is important to remember that React /only/ looks at an element's type,
|
|
|
|
existence, and key. It does not do any other diffing. It does not diff
|
|
|
|
props. It does not diff sub-trees of modified parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is an overview of the algorithm we will be implementing:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
if (!element && prevElement)
|
|
|
|
// delete dom element
|
|
|
|
else if (element && !prevElement)
|
|
|
|
// add new dom element, render children
|
|
|
|
else if (element.type === prevElement.type)
|
|
|
|
// update dom element, render children
|
|
|
|
else if (element.type !== prevElement.type)
|
|
|
|
// replace dom element, render children
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice that in every case, except deletion, we still call ~render~ on
|
|
|
|
the element's children. While its possible that the children will be
|
|
|
|
able to reuse their associated DOM elements, their ~render~ methods
|
|
|
|
will still be invoked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, to get started with our render method we must make some
|
|
|
|
modifications to our previous render method. First, we need to be
|
|
|
|
able to store and retrieve the previous render tree. Then we need to
|
|
|
|
add code to compare parts of the tree to decide if we need to
|
|
|
|
re-render something or if we can re-use DOM elements from the previous
|
|
|
|
render tree. And last we need to return a tree of elements that can be
|
|
|
|
used in the next render as a comparison and to reference the DOM
|
|
|
|
elements that we create. These new elements will have the same
|
|
|
|
structure as our current elements but we will add two new properties:
|
|
|
|
~domElement~ and ~parent~. ~domElement~ is the DOM element associated
|
|
|
|
with our synthetic element and ~parent~ is a reference to the parent
|
|
|
|
DOM element.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here we begin by adding a global object that will store our last render
|
|
|
|
tree, keyed by the ~container~.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
const renderTrees = {};
|
|
|
|
function render(element, container) {
|
|
|
|
const tree =
|
|
|
|
render_internal(element, container, renderTrees[container]);
|
|
|
|
// render complete, store the updated tree
|
|
|
|
renderTrees[container] = tree;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you can see, the change we made is to move the core of our
|
|
|
|
algorithm into a new function called ~render_internal~ and pass in the
|
|
|
|
result of our last render to ~render_internal~.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that we have stored our last render tree we can go ahead and
|
|
|
|
update our render method with the heuristics for reusing the DOM
|
|
|
|
elements. We name it ~render_internal~ because it is what controls the
|
|
|
|
rendering but takes an additional argument now: the
|
|
|
|
~prevElement~. ~prevElement~ is a reference to the corresponding
|
|
|
|
~element~ from the previous render and contains a reference to its
|
|
|
|
associated DOM element and parent DOM element. If it's the first
|
|
|
|
render or if we are rendering a new node or branch to the tree than
|
|
|
|
~prevElement~ will be ~undefined~. If, however, ~element~ is
|
|
|
|
~undefined~ and ~prevElement~ is defined then we know we need to
|
|
|
|
delete a node that previously existed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
function render_internal(element, container, prevElement) {
|
|
|
|
let domElement, children;
|
|
|
|
if (!element && prevElement) {
|
|
|
|
removeDOMElement(prevElement);
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
} else if (element && !prevElement) {
|
|
|
|
domElement = createDOMElement(element);
|
|
|
|
} else if (element.type === prevElement.type) {
|
|
|
|
domElement = prevElement.domElement;
|
|
|
|
} else { // types don't match
|
|
|
|
removeDOMElement(prevElement);
|
|
|
|
domElement = createDOMElement(element);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
setDOMProps(element, domElement, prevElement);
|
|
|
|
children = renderChildren(element, domElement, prevElement);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!prevElement || domElement !== prevElement.domElement) {
|
|
|
|
container.appendChild(domElement);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
domElement: domElement,
|
|
|
|
parent: container,
|
|
|
|
type: element.type,
|
|
|
|
props: {
|
|
|
|
...element.props,
|
|
|
|
children: children
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only time we shouldn't set DOM properties on our element and
|
|
|
|
render its children is when we are deleting an existing DOM
|
|
|
|
element. We use this observation to group the calls for ~setDOMProps~
|
|
|
|
and ~renderChildren~. Choosing when to append a new DOM element to the
|
|
|
|
container is also part of the heuristics. If we can reuse an existing
|
|
|
|
DOM element then we do but if the element type has changed or if there
|
|
|
|
was no corresponding existing DOM element then and only then do we
|
|
|
|
append a new DOM element. This ensures the actual DOM tree isn't being
|
|
|
|
replaced every time we render, only the elements that change are
|
|
|
|
replaced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In React, when a new DOM element is appended to the DOM tree, React
|
|
|
|
would invoke ~componentDidMount~ or ~useEffect~.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next up we'll go through all the auxiliary methods that complete the
|
|
|
|
implementation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Removing a DOM element is straightforward; we just ~removeChild~ on
|
|
|
|
the parent element. Before removing the element, React would invoke
|
|
|
|
~componentWillUnmount~ and ~useEffect~.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
function removeDOMElement(prevElement) {
|
|
|
|
prevElement.parent.removeChild(prevElement.domElement);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In creating a new DOM element we just need to branch if we are
|
|
|
|
creating a text element since the browser API differs slightly. We
|
|
|
|
also populate the text element's value as the API requires the first
|
|
|
|
argument to be specified even though later on when we set props we
|
|
|
|
will set it again. This is where React would invoke
|
|
|
|
~componentWillMount~.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
function createDOMElement(element) {
|
|
|
|
return element.type === 'TEXT' ?
|
|
|
|
document.createTextNode(element.props.nodeValue) :
|
|
|
|
document.createElement(element.type);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To set the props on an element, we first clear all the existing props
|
|
|
|
and then loop through the current props, setting them accordingly. Of
|
|
|
|
course we filter out the ~children~ prop since we use that elsewhere
|
|
|
|
and it isn't intended to be set directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
function setDOMProps(element, domElement, prevElement) {
|
|
|
|
if (prevElement) {
|
|
|
|
Object.keys(prevElement.props)
|
|
|
|
.filter((key) => key !== 'children')
|
|
|
|
.forEach((key) => {
|
|
|
|
domElement[key] = '';
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Object.keys(element.props)
|
|
|
|
.filter((key) => key !== 'children')
|
|
|
|
.forEach((key) => {
|
|
|
|
domElement[key] = element.props[key];
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+begin_note
|
|
|
|
React is more intelligent about only updating or removing props that
|
|
|
|
need to be updated or removed.
|
|
|
|
#+end_note
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+begin_warning
|
|
|
|
This algorithm for setting props does not correctly handle events
|
|
|
|
which must be treated specially. For this exercise that detail is not
|
|
|
|
important though.
|
|
|
|
#+end_warning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For rendering children we use two loops. The first loop removes any
|
|
|
|
elements that are no longer being used. This would happen when the
|
|
|
|
number of children is decreased. The second loop starts at the first
|
|
|
|
child and then iterates through all of the children of the parent
|
|
|
|
element, calling ~render_internal~ on each child. When
|
|
|
|
~render_internal~ is called the corresponding previous element in that
|
|
|
|
position is passed to ~render_internal~, or ~undefined~ if there is no
|
|
|
|
corresponding element, like when the list of children has grown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
function renderChildren(element, domElement, prevElement = { props: { children: [] }}) {
|
|
|
|
const elementLen = element.props.children.length;
|
|
|
|
const prevElementLen = prevElement.props.children.length;
|
|
|
|
// remove now unused elements
|
|
|
|
for (let i = elementLen; i < prevElementLen - elementLen; i++) {
|
|
|
|
removeDOMElement(element.props.children[i]);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// render existing and new elements
|
|
|
|
return element.props.children.map((child, i) => {
|
|
|
|
const prevChild = i < prevElementLen ? prevElement.props.children[i] : undefined;
|
|
|
|
return render_internal(child, domElement, prevChild);
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's very important to understand the algorithm used here because this
|
|
|
|
is essentially what happens in React when incorrect keys are used,
|
|
|
|
like a list index. And this is why keys are so critical to high
|
|
|
|
performance (and correct) React code. For example, in our algorithm
|
|
|
|
here, if you removed an item from the front of the list you may cause
|
|
|
|
every element in the list to be created anew in the DOM if the types
|
|
|
|
no longer match up. Later on, in the chapter on keys, we will update
|
|
|
|
this algorithm to incorporate keys. It's actually only a minor
|
|
|
|
difference in determining which ~child~ gets paired with which
|
|
|
|
~prevChild~. Otherwise this is effectively the same algorithm React
|
|
|
|
uses when rendering lists of children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few things to note here. First it is important to pay
|
|
|
|
attention to when React will be removing a DOM element from the tree
|
|
|
|
and adding a new one as this is when the related lifecycle events or
|
|
|
|
hooks are invoked. And invoking those lifecycle methods or hooks, and
|
|
|
|
the whole process of tearing down and building up a component is
|
|
|
|
expensive. So again, you can see how a bad key would lead to another
|
|
|
|
performance bottleneck since React will be doing this on all or many
|
|
|
|
of the elements in a list frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Fibers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The actual React implementation used to look very similar to what
|
|
|
|
we've gone through so far but with React 16 this has changed
|
|
|
|
dramatically with the introduction of Fibers. Fibers are a name that
|
|
|
|
React gives to discrete units of work. And the React reconciliation
|
|
|
|
algorithm was changed to be based on small units of work instead of
|
|
|
|
one large, potentially long-running call to ~render~. This means that
|
|
|
|
React is now able to process just part of the render phase, pause to
|
|
|
|
let the browser take care of other things, and resume again. This is
|
|
|
|
the underlying change the enables the experimental Concurrent Mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But even with such a large change, the underlying algorithms for
|
|
|
|
deciding how and when to render components is the same. And when not
|
|
|
|
running in Concurrent Mode the effect is still the same as React does
|
|
|
|
the render phase in one block still. So using a simplified
|
|
|
|
interpretation that doesn't include all the complexities of breaking
|
|
|
|
up the process in to chunks enables us to see more clearly how the
|
|
|
|
process as a whole works. At this point bottlenecks are much more
|
|
|
|
likely to occur from the underlying algorithms and not from the Fiber
|
|
|
|
specific details. In the chapter on Concurrent Mode we will go in to
|
|
|
|
this more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Putting it all together
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Throughout the rest of the book we will be building on and using our
|
|
|
|
React implementation so it would be helpful to see it all put together
|
|
|
|
and working. At this point the only thing left to do is to create some
|
|
|
|
components and use them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
const SayNow = ({ dateTime }) => {
|
|
|
|
return ['h1', {}, [`It is: ${dateTime}`]];
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const App = () => {
|
|
|
|
return ['div', { 'className': 'header' },
|
|
|
|
[SayNow({ dateTime: new Date() }),
|
|
|
|
['input', { 'type': 'submit', 'disabled': 'disabled' }, []]
|
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
];
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
render(createElement(App()), document.getElementById('root'));
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are just creating two components, based on the same JSX-like
|
|
|
|
notation we were using earlier. We create one ~prop~: ~dateTime~. It
|
|
|
|
gets passed to the ~SayNow~ component which just prints out the
|
|
|
|
DateTime passed in to it. To simplify our implementation we are just
|
|
|
|
passing props as object literals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The next step is to just call render multiple times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
setInterval(() =>
|
|
|
|
render(createElement(App()), document.getElementById('root')),
|
|
|
|
1000);
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you do that you will see the DateTime display being updated every
|
|
|
|
second. And if you watch in your dev tools or if you profile the run
|
|
|
|
you will see that the only part of the DOM that gets updated or
|
|
|
|
replaced is the part that changes (aside from the DOM props). We now
|
|
|
|
have a working version of our own React.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+begin_note
|
|
|
|
This implementation is designed for teaching purposes and has some
|
|
|
|
known issues and bugs, like always updating the DOM props, along with
|
|
|
|
other things. Fundamentally, it functions the same as React but if you
|
|
|
|
wanted to use it in a more production setting it would take a lot more
|
|
|
|
development.
|
|
|
|
#+end_note
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course our version of React elides over many details that React
|
|
|
|
must contend with, like starting a re-render from where state changes
|
|
|
|
and event handlers. For understanding how to build high-performance
|
|
|
|
React applications, however, the most important piece to understand is
|
|
|
|
how and when React renders components, which is what we have learned
|
|
|
|
in creating our own mini version of React.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At this point you should have an understanding of how React works. In
|
|
|
|
the rest of the book we are going to be refining this model and
|
|
|
|
looking at practical applications of it so that we are prepared to
|
|
|
|
build high performance React applications and diagnose any
|
|
|
|
bottlenecks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO maybe a graphic summarizing the heuristics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO maybe show full example with our React
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Rendering Model
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/rendering-model.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that we have a firm understanding of the underpinnings of React we
|
|
|
|
can begin to look at potential bottlenecks and their solutions. We'll
|
|
|
|
start with a little quiz about how React chooses when to render a
|
|
|
|
component.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO insert img-tree of components
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In figure 1, if state changes in component A but nothing changes in B
|
|
|
|
will React ask B to re-render?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Absolutely. Always, unless ~shouldComponentUpdate~ returns false,
|
|
|
|
which is not even an option with functional components and is
|
|
|
|
discouraged for class based components. So if we have a large tree of
|
|
|
|
components and we change state high in the tree React will be
|
|
|
|
constantly re-rendering large parts of the tree. (This is common
|
|
|
|
because app state often has to live up high in the tree because props
|
|
|
|
can only be passed down.) This is clearly very in efficient so why
|
|
|
|
does React do it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you remember back to when we implemented the render algorithm
|
|
|
|
you'll recall that React does nothing to see if a component actually
|
|
|
|
needs to re-render, it only cares tests whether DOM elements need to
|
|
|
|
be replaced or removed. Instead React always renders all
|
|
|
|
children. React is effectively off-loading the descision to re-render
|
|
|
|
to the components themselves because a general solution has poor
|
|
|
|
performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally React had ~shouldComponentUpdate~ to solve this issue but
|
|
|
|
the developers of React found that implementing it correctly was
|
|
|
|
difficult and error prone. Programmers would add new props to a
|
|
|
|
component but forget to update ~shouldComponentUpdate~ with the new
|
|
|
|
props causing the component to not update when it should which led to
|
|
|
|
strange and hard to diagnose bugs. So if we shouldn't use
|
|
|
|
~shouldComponentUpdate~ what tools are we left with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And it's a great question because unneeded renders can be a massive
|
|
|
|
bottleneck. Especially on large lists of components. In fact, there is
|
|
|
|
no other way to control renders; React will always render.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But there is still hope. While we can't control if our component will
|
|
|
|
render what if instead of just always -rerunning all of our render
|
|
|
|
code on each render we instead kept a copy of the result of the render
|
|
|
|
and next time React asks us to re-render we just return the result we
|
|
|
|
saved? Now that, with two modifications, is exactly what we will do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO Note: this stops full tree from re-rendering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously we can't just render once and then forever return that
|
|
|
|
result because our state and props might change. So we also need to
|
|
|
|
track the state and props and only return our cached result if they
|
|
|
|
haven't changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you may have already noticed this is a common solution in Computer
|
|
|
|
Science for such problems: memoization. What we want is to memoize our
|
|
|
|
components.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO Note: explain memoization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is indeed such a common bottleneck and solution that React
|
|
|
|
provides an API to facilitate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We will learn about this API by first looking at the signatures of the
|
|
|
|
React API itself, then we will extend our React implementation from
|
|
|
|
chapter one to support the same API. Then we will discuss its usage
|
|
|
|
and analyze when and how to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** ~React.memo~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first API React provides that we will look at is
|
|
|
|
~React.memo~. ~React.memo~ is a higher-order component
|
|
|
|
(HOC) that wraps your functional component. It handles memoizing your
|
|
|
|
component based on its props (not state).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the signature for ~React.memo~:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
|
|
|
|
function (Component, areEqual?) { ... }
|
|
|
|
#+END_SRC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It takes two arguments, one required and one optional. The required
|
|
|
|
argument is the component you want to memoize. The second and optional
|
|
|
|
argument is a function that allows you to tell React when your
|
|
|
|
component will produce the same output.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the second argument is not specified then React performs a
|
|
|
|
/shallow/ comparison between props it has received in the past and the
|
|
|
|
current props. If the current props match props that have been passed
|
|
|
|
to your component before React will use the output stored from that
|
|
|
|
previous render instead of rendering your component again. If you want
|
|
|
|
more control over the prop comparison, like if you wanted to deeply
|
|
|
|
compare some props, you would pass in your own ~areEqual?~. However,
|
|
|
|
it's generally recommended to program in a more pure style instead of
|
|
|
|
using ~areEqual?~ because it can suffer from the same problem that
|
|
|
|
~shouldComponentUpdate~ did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** ~React.PureComponent~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO useCallback
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Diagnosing Bottlenecks
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/diagnosing-bottlenecks.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* Reducing Renders
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/reducing-renders.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* Improving DOM Merge Performance
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/improving-dom-merge-performance.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* Reducing Number of Components
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/reducing-number-of-components.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
higher-order components
|
|
|
|
* Windowing
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/windowing.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* Performance Tools
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/performance-tools.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
trace from scheduler/tracing/profiler component
|
|
|
|
* JS Performance Tools
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/js-performance-tools.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* Code Splitting
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/code-splitting.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
React.lazy, suspense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
use on routes
|
|
|
|
* Server Side Rendering
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/server-side-rendering.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* Concurrent Rendering
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/concurrent-rendering.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* UX
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/ux.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* JS Service Workers
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/js-service-workers.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* Keys
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/keys.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
* Reconciliation
|
|
|
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
|
|
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: manuscript/reconciliation.markua
|
|
|
|
:END:
|
|
|
|
- diffing algorithm based on heuristics. generic algorithm is O(n^3)
|
|
|
|
- "Fiber" algorithm notes
|
|
|
|
- lists reordering without key means full list output/update
|
|
|
|
- type changes cause full re-render
|
|
|
|
- keys should be stable, predictable, unique
|
|
|
|
|