It's true they're not part of the frameworks, but they're often tailor made to work harmoniously and there's a big ecosystem of support. Almost everything is possible with WCs but it tends to be much more ad-hoc. I think it's much harder to scale that across a big team.
-
-
Replying to @rob_dodson @passle_ and
And I agree re: over use of shadow dom. That's kind of what started this whole discussion. If you want to program like you're using react, it almost makes sense to put everything in shadow dom, but that's actually _not_ what you want. And that's counterintuitive.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @rob_dodson @passle_ and
Otherwise you end up with a <my-app> that buries everything in shadow dom all the way down. I used to think (and teach) that's how it was supposed to be done but I think that may have been a mistake.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @rob_dodson @passle_ and
The problem is the resultant split component models. React offers one, and that's what so many developers want. We're not going to get that far saying do web components in the client and php or wherever for the light DOM...
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @justinfagnani @rob_dodson and
A few might go that way, CMSes and uniquely places like GitHub, but the vast majority is moving to a model where they don't split development like that.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @justinfagnani @rob_dodson and
Even if they did, there are issues around dynamically updating the light DOM parts. Who owns that content? Native elements don't modify their own light DOM, but someone's gotta do it in that model.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @justinfagnani @passle_ and
I'm not arguing against a single component model. I'm arguing that I dont think WCs quite provide one yet
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rob_dodson @justinfagnani and
This is where you lost me — can you elaborate?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @passle_ @justinfagnani and
Yep. Similar to our side thread. I think folks want something that looks exactly like React but until we figure out how to do SSR where things get distributed in the right way and rehydrated correctly then I don't think we're quite there yet.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rob_dodson @passle_ and
In other words, I think folks want to build a my-app style experience (as they do with React) but doing that today in web components is fiddly. For one, you can't cram it all into shadow dom. So how do you lay out what goes inside my-app's light dom? Server templating?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Is this really just a distribution question? I.e., if a component wants to manage some light DOM below it, why can't it? Seems we provided all the tools.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @rob_dodson and
There's an "ick" factor with a component tightly coupling the lifecycle of its children, but if that's what folks are doing anyhow,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @passle_ and
I think it is possible. Is there a good example of SSR'ing LitElement where the top level element is a light dom rendering my-app thing?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.