This tutorial outlines the general architecture you will see in all Elm programs, from TodoMVC to dreamwriter.
We will learn a very simple architecture pattern that serves as an infinitely nestable building block. It is great for modularity, code reuse, and testing. Ultimately, this pattern makes it easy to create complex webapps in a way that stays modular. We will start with the basic pattern in a small example and slowly build on those core principles.
One very interesting aspect of this architecture is that it emerges from Elm naturally. The language design itself leads you towards this architecture whether you have read this document and know the benefits or not. I actually discovered this pattern just using Elm and have been shocked by its simplicity and power.
Note: To follow along with this tutorial with code, install Elm and fork this repo. Each example in the tutorial gives instructions of how to run the code.
The logic of every Elm program will break up into three cleanly separated parts: model, update, and view. You can pretty reliably start with the following skeleton and then iteratively fill in details for your particular case.
-- MODEL
type alias Model = { ... }
-- UPDATE
type Action = Reset | ...
update : Action -> Model -> Model
update action model =
case action of
Reset -> ...
...
-- VIEW
view : Model -> Html
view =
...
This tutorial is all about this pattern and small variations and extensions.
Our first example is a simple counter that can be incremented or decremented.
To see it in action, navigate into directory 1/
, run elm-reactor
, and then
open http://localhost:8000/Counter.elm?debug.
This code starts with a very simple model. We just need to keep track of a single number:
type alias Model = Int
When it comes to updating our model, things are relatively simple again. We
define a set of actions that can be performed, and an update
function to
actually perform those actions:
type Action = Increment | Decrement
update : Action -> Model -> Model
update action model =
case action of
Increment -> model + 1
Decrement -> model - 1
Notice that our Action
union type does not do anything. It simply
describes the actions that are possible. If someone decides our counter should
be doubled when a certain button is pressed, that will be a new case in
Action
. This means our code ends up very clear about how our model can be
transformed. Anyone reading this code will immediately know what is allowed
and what is not. Furthermore, they will know exactly how to add new features
in a consistent way.
Finally, we create a way to view
our Model
. We are using elm-html to
create some HTML to show in a browser. We will create a div that contains: a
decrement button, a div showing the current count, and an increment button.
view : Signal.Address Action -> Model -> Html
view address model =
div []
[ button [ onClick address Decrement ] [ text "-" ]
, div [ countStyle ] [ text (toString model) ]
, button [ onClick address Increment ] [ text "+" ]
]
countStyle : Attribute
countStyle =
...
The tricky thing about our view
function is the Address
. We will dive into
that in the next section! For now, I just want you to notice that this code
is entirely declarative. We take in a Model
and produce some Html
. That
is it. At no point do we mutate the DOM manually, which gives the library
much more freedom to make clever optimizations and actually makes
rendering faster overall. It is crazy. Furthermore, view
is a plain old
function so we can get the full power of Elm’s module system, test
frameworks, and libraries when creating views.
This pattern is the essense of architecting Elm programs. Every example we see
from now on will be a slight variation on this basic pattern: Model
, update
,
view
.
Pretty much all Elm programs will have a small bit of code that drives the whole application. In example 1 the snippet looks like this:
main =
StartApp.start { model = 0, update = update, view = view }
We are use the StartApp
package to
wire together our initial model with the update and view functions. It is a
small wrapper around Elm's signals
so that you do not need to dive into that concept yet.
The key to wiring up your application is the concept of an Address
. Every
event handler in our view
function reports to a particular address. It just
sends chunks of data along. The StartApp
package monitors all the messages
coming in to this address and feeds them into the update
function. The model
gets updated and elm-html takes care of rendering the changes efficiently.
This means values flow through an Elm program in only one direction, something like this:
The blue part is our core Elm program which is exactly the model/update/view pattern we have been discussing so far. When programming in Elm, you can mostly think inside this box and make great progress.
Notice we are not performing actions as they get sent back to our app. We are simply sending some data over. This separation is a key detail, keeping our logic totally separate from our view code.
In example 1 we created a basic counter, but how does that pattern scale when
we want two counters? Can we keep things modular? To see example 2 in action,
navigate into directory 2/
, run elm-reactor
, and then open
http://localhost:8000/CounterPair.elm?debug.
Wouldn't it be great if we could reuse all the code from example 1? The crazy
thing about the Elm Architecture is that we can reuse code with absolutely
no changes. We just create a self-contained Counter
module that
encapsulates all the implementation details:
module Counter (Model, init, Action, update, view) where
type Model = ...
init : Int -> Model
init = ...
type Action = ...
update : Action -> Model -> Model
update = ...
view : Signal.Address Action -> Model -> Html
view = ...
Creating modular code is all about creating strong abstractions. We want
boundaries which appropriately expose functionality and hide implementation.
From outside of the Counter
module, we just see a basic set of values:
Model
, init
, Action
, update
, and view
. We do not care at all how
these things are implemented. In fact, it is impossible to know how these
things are implemented. This means no one can rely on implementation details
that were not made public.
So now that we have our basic Counter
module, we need to use it to create
our CounterPair
. As always, we start with a Model
:
type alias Model =
{ topCounter : Counter.Model
, bottomCounter : Counter.Model
}
init : Int -> Int -> Model
init top bottom =
{ topCounter = Counter.init top
, bottomCounter = Counter.init bottom
}
Our Model
is a record with two fields, one for each of the counters we would
like to show on screen. This fully describes all of the application state. We
also have an init
function to create a new Model
whenever we want.
Next we describe the set of Actions
we would like to support. This time our
features should be: reset all counters, update the top counter, or update the
bottom counter.
type Action
= Reset
| Top Counter.Action
| Bottom Counter.Action
Notice that our union type refers to the Counter.Action
type, but we do
not know the particulars of those actions. When we create our update
function, we are mainly routing these Counter.Actions
to the right place:
update : Action -> Model -> Model
update action model =
case action of
Reset -> init 0 0
Top act ->
{ model |
topCounter <- Counter.update act model.topCounter
}
Bottom act ->
{ model |
bottomCounter <- Counter.update act model.bottomCounter
}
So now the final thing to do is create a view
function that shows both of
our counters on screen along with a reset button.
view : Signal.Address Action -> Model -> Html
view address model =
div []
[ Counter.view (Signal.forwardTo address Top) model.topCounter
, Counter.view (Signal.forwardTo address Bottom) model.bottomCounter
, button [ onClick address Reset ] [ text "RESET" ]
]
Notice that we are able to reuse the Counter.view
function for both of our
counters. For each counter we create a forwarding address. Essentially what we
are doing here is saying, “these counters will tag all outgoing messages
with Top
or Bottom
so we can tell the difference.”
That is the whole thing. The cool thing is that we can keep nesting more and
more. We can take the CounterPair
module, expose the key values and
functions, and create a CounterPairPair
or whatever it is we need.
A pair of counters is cool, but what about a list of counters where we can add and remove counters as we see fit? Can this pattern work for that too?
To see this example in action, navigate into directory 3/
, run elm-reactor
,
and then open
http://localhost:8000/CounterList.elm?debug.
In this example we can reuse the Counter
module exactly as it was in example
2.
module Counter (Model, init, Action, update, view)
That means we can just get started on our CounterList
module. As always, we
begin with our Model
:
type alias Model =
{ counters : List ( ID, Counter.Model )
, nextID : ID
}
type alias ID = Int
Now our model has a list of counters, each annotated with a unique ID. These
IDs allow us to distinguish between them, so if we need to update counter
number 4 we have a nice way to refer to it. (This ID also gives us something
convenient to key
on when we are thinking about optimizing rendering,
but that is not the focus of this tutorial!) Our model also contains a
nextID
which helps us assign unique IDs to each counter as we add new ones.
Now we can define the set of Actions
that can be performed on our model. We
want to be able to add counters, remove counters, and update certain counters.
type Action
= Insert
| Remove
| Modify ID Counter.Action
Our Action
union type is shockingly close to the high-level description.
Now we can define our update
function.
update : Action -> Model -> Model
update action model =
case action of
Insert ->
let newCounter = ( model.nextID, Counter.init 0 )
newCounters = model.counters ++ [ newCounter ]
in
{ model |
counters <- newCounters,
nextID <- model.nextID + 1
}
Remove ->
{ model | counters <- List.drop 1 model.counters }
Modify id counterAction ->
let updateCounter (counterID, counterModel) =
if counterID == id
then (counterID, Counter.update counterAction counterModel)
else (counterID, counterModel)
in
{ model | counters <- List.map updateCounter model.counters }
Here is a high-level description of each case:
-
Insert
— First we create a new counter and put it at the end of our counter list. Then we increment ournextID
so that we have a fresh ID next time around. -
Remove
— Drop the first member of our counter list. -
Modify
— Run through all of our counters. If we find one with a matching ID, we perform the givenAction
on that counter.
All that is left to do now is to define the view
.
view : Signal.Address Action -> Model -> Html
view address model =
let counters = List.map (viewCounter address) model.counters
remove = button [ onClick address Remove ] [ text "Remove" ]
insert = button [ onClick address Insert ] [ text "Add" ]
in
div [] ([remove, insert] ++ counters)
viewCounter : Signal.Address Action -> (ID, Counter.Model) -> Html
viewCounter address (id, model) =
Counter.view (Signal.forwardTo address (Modify id)) model
The fun part here is the viewCounter
function. It uses the same old
Counter.view
function, but in this case we provide a forwarding address that
annotates all messages with the ID of the particular counter that is getting
rendered.
When we create the actual view
function, we map viewCounter
over all of
our counters and create add and remove buttons that report to the address
directly.
This ID trick can be used any time you want a dynamic number of subcomponents. Counters are very simple, but the pattern would work exactly the same if you had a list of user profiles or tweets or newsfeed items or product details.
Okay, keeping things simple and modular on a dynamic list of counters is pretty cool, but instead of a general remove button, what if each counter had its own specific remove button? Surely that will mess things up!
Nah, it works.
To see this example in action, navigate into directory 4/
, run elm-reactor
,
and then open
http://localhost:8000/CounterList.elm?debug.
In this case our goals mean that we need a new way to view a Counter
that
adds a remove button. Interestingly, we can keep the view
function from
before and add a new viewWithRemoveButton
function that provides a slightly
different view of our underlying Model
. This is pretty cool. We do not need
to duplicate any code or do any crazy subtyping or overloading. We just add
a new function to the public API to expose new functionality!
module Counter (Model, init, Action, update, view, viewWithRemoveButton, Context) where
...
type alias Context =
{ actions : Signal.Address Action
, remove : Signal.Address ()
}
viewWithRemoveButton : Context -> Model -> Html
viewWithRemoveButton context model =
div []
[ button [ onClick context.actions Decrement ] [ text "-" ]
, div [ countStyle ] [ text (toString model) ]
, button [ onClick context.actions Increment ] [ text "+" ]
, div [ countStyle ] []
, button [ onClick context.remove () ] [ text "X" ]
]
The viewWithRemoveButton
function adds one extra button. Notice that the
increment/decrement buttons send messages to the actions
address but the
delete button sends messages to the remove
address. The messages we send
along to remove
are essentially saying, “hey, whoever owns me, remove
me!” It is up to whoever owns this particular counter to do the removing.
Now that we have our new viewWithRemoveButton
, we can create a CounterList
module which puts all the individual counters together. The Model
is the same
as in example 3: a list of counters and a unique ID.
type alias Model =
{ counters : List ( ID, Counter.Model )
, nextID : ID
}
type alias ID = Int
Our set of actions is a bit different. Instead of removing any old counter, we
want to remove a specific one, so the Remove
case now holds an ID.
type Action
= Insert
| Remove ID
| Modify ID Counter.Action
The update
function is pretty similar to example 4 as well.
update : Action -> Model -> Model
update action model =
case action of
Insert ->
{ model |
counters <- ( model.nextID, Counter.init 0 ) :: model.counters,
nextID <- model.nextID + 1
}
Remove id ->
{ model |
counters <- List.filter (\(counterID, _) -> counterID /= id) model.counters
}
Modify id counterAction ->
let updateCounter (counterID, counterModel) =
if counterID == id
then (counterID, Counter.update counterAction counterModel)
else (counterID, counterModel)
in
{ model | counters <- List.map updateCounter model.counters }
In the case of Remove
, we take out the counter that has the ID we are
supposed to remove. Otherwise, the cases are quite close to how they were
before.
Finally, we put it all together in the view
:
view : Signal.Address Action -> Model -> Html
view address model =
let insert = button [ onClick address Insert ] [ text "Add" ]
in
div [] (insert :: List.map (viewCounter address) model.counters)
viewCounter : Signal.Address Action -> (ID, Counter.Model) -> Html
viewCounter address (id, model) =
let context =
Counter.Context
(Signal.forwardTo address (Modify id))
(Signal.forwardTo address (always (Remove id)))
in
Counter.viewWithRemoveButton context model
In our viewCounter
function, we construct the Counter.Context
to pass in
all the nesessary forwarding addresses. In both cases we annotate each
Counter.Action
so that we know which counter to modify or remove.
Basic Pattern — Everything is built around a Model
, a way to
update
that model, and a way to view
that model. Everything is a variation
on this basic pattern.
Nesting Modules — Forwarding addresses makes it easy to nest our basic pattern, hiding implementation details entirely. We can nest this pattern arbitrarily deep, and each level only needs to know about what is going on one level lower.
Adding Context — Sometimes to update
or view
our model, extra
information is needed. We can always add some Context
to these functions and
pass in all the additional information we need without complicating our
Model
.
update : Context -> Action -> Model -> Model
view : Context' -> Model -> Html
At every level of nesting we can derive the specific Context
needed for each
submodule.
Testing is Easy — All of the functions we have created are
pure functions. That makes it extremely easy to test your update
function. There is no special initialization or mocking or configuration step,
you just call the function with the arguments you would like to test.
There is one last important way to extend the basic pattern. For example, maybe
you have a component that gets updated, and depending on the result, you need
to change something else in your program. You can extend your update
function
to return extra information.
type Request = RefreshPage | Print
update : Action -> Model -> (Model, Maybe Request)
Depending on the logic of the update
we may be telling someone above us to
refresh the content or print stuff out. The same sort of pattern can be used
if a component can delete itself:
update : Action -> Model -> Maybe Model
If this is not clear, maybe I will write example 5 that shows this pattern in action. In the meantime, you can see examples like this in the fancy version of the TodoMVC app written in Elm.