MeteorFlux Flow

@luisherranz it seems you really like to re-invent the wheel :wink: every step you take is basically what the space framework boils down to at the end of the day. You would even get a more convenient class system in Javascript for free with dead-simply dependency injection that is not tied to Meteor.autorun (which makes it even easier to test).

1 Like

The approach is still different. I’m only using a simple flux dispatcher. The rest is pure Meteor, but organised “the flux way”. No classes for stores, mediators, commands, constants…

Actually, what I’ve been thinking the last week is that I need to accept the way Meteor works, and if Meteor is based on the use of globals, I can’t go against that, because then you can run into problems and overcomplicate things.

My reactive dependency injection package does four things:

  • Solves circular dependencies.
  • Gets rid of loading order problems.
  • Gets rid of globals.
  • Add dependency injection.

But Meteor is designed to be used with globals and to solve loading problems using packages and Meteor.startup().

In most cases, globals, loading order and circular dependencies can be solved by using namespaces, like:

MyApp = {};
MyApp.SomeStore = {......};

With my Dependency package you can use dependency injection in your test initialisations like this:

  // Internal Dependencies
  var countersStore = new CountersStore();
  var catalogRouter = new CatalogRouter();
  Dependency.add('CatalogRouter', catalogRouter);
  Dependency.add('CountersStore', countersStore );

  // Store we want to test
  var catalogStore = new CatalogStore();

But if you use globals instead, you can do:

  // Internal Dependencies
  CountersStore = new CountersStore();
  CatalogRouter = new CatalogRouter();

  // Store we want to test
  CatalogStore = new CatalogStore();

which is simpler and it just works.

So I don’t think my Dependency package is worth anymore and I will try to get rid of it in my code to keep things as simple as possible (and as meteorish as possible).

I’ve been thinking about the “Everything is a package” pattern as well.
I watched the video of the Telescope refactoring. It’s very interesting:

Sacha namespaced everthing under the a Telescope global and everything is now in packages.

I have used the “Everything is a package” pattern in the past, for an application where third party people were able to add functionalities.

The problem I found with this pattern is that packages have to talk with each other, and strong dependencies appear. In consequence, packages are weaker and less reusable. And a new question arises: “How should packages communicate with each other?”.

Flux is a great way to communicate different parts of a modern app, so I see great potential combining “Everything is a package” and Flux. I suggest:

  • Namespace your app, like Telescope does.
  • Put as much logic in packages as you can.
  • Make packages as agnostic as you can: avoid dependencies between packages.
  • Use stores mostly to interconnect those agnostic packages between each other and the UI.
  • Avoid using stores for complex logic: abstract it and create reusable packages.

There are a lot of packages out there which depend on Iron Router for example. That’s not good. What if I want to use Flow Router, or not to use a router at all?
The only exception is where your package is extending the functionality of other package, like accounts-ui extending accounts-base.

If you want your app to be extensible by third party people you still need to add stuff like hooks (filters) and modules like Telescope does (I yet have to figure out how can a flux dispatcher and hooks for extensibility work together).

Everything above is only my opinion. Feel free to comment or criticise : )


Hey @luisherranz,
I am already using the “everything is a package” pattern and it works great. Also the Space.Injector solves all of your mentioned problems without being Meteor-aware (which is also something a lot of people forget, its just Javascript, not Meteor)! And I am not really sure why runtime dependencies should be reactive, this makes the code even more complicated and coupled.

Here is your example how I would write and test it with space:base:

// Simple sugar for javascript inheritance (not required)
CatalogStore = Space.Object.extend({
  // just a prototype property, no magic
  Dependencies: {
   countersStore: 'CountersStore',
   catalogRouter: 'CatalogRouter'

  // Store we want to test
  var catalogStore = new CatalogStore({
    countersStore: new CountersStore(),
    catalogRouter: new CatalogRouter()

in your real app you want the injector to wire things up:

var injector = new Space.Injector();
var countersStore = new CountersStore();
var catalogRouter = new CatalogRouter();'CountersStore').to(countersStore);'CatalogRouter').to(catalogRouter);

var catalogStore = new CatalogStore();
injector.injectInto(catalogStore); // provide runtime dependencies

this was the bare-metals approach, only using the injector and doing everything else by hand.
Of course space comes with convenience like namespace lookups:

var injector = new Space.Injector();'CountersStore').asSingleton();'CatalogRouter').asSingleton();'CatalogStore').asSingleton(); // deps are auto-injected

One thing you don’t consider is this: there is no way to decouple everything. If any parts of your app talk with each other (in any way) then they are coupled (in some way). Maybe not to implementation details (the Meteor way) but even with your dispatcher and/or dependency injection the various parts are coupled at runtime -> its the messaging contract that couples them.

Think about it: you can build the most generic, decoupled package possible, but still something, somewhere has to send to or retrieve messages from it. These messages are coupling, even when they are abstracted behind string constants and extremely loosely contracts like with flux dispatcher. In my opinion that’s even worse, because now you have coupled things together but have no explicit contract defined how messages have to look like.

Coupling means this: “Do I have to change anything else if I change this part of the code?”. So if you change how your package receives parameters (or which) then you have to update all callers too, even if they never have a direct reference to the receiver.

The other aspects like namespacing, globals etc. are not really relevant and a matter of taste. There are people that like the “java namespacing pattern” and others who hate it. You can build your structure any way you want and even the Meteor way (simple globals) has its place.

With dependency injection you can remove the static coupling (which is great for testing) but you can never remove runtime coupling, because that’s what your app is made of. (Actually you can, there is a pattern called “anti-corruption layer” which means that you use mediators between parts of your app that translate the api messages of both parties, but that’s another story).

In my experience it works like this: You start mostly with very app-specific code, small encapsulated classes that do one thing well and some “controller”-like parts that wire them up. Eventually there appear some bigger-scope concerns where you think “hmm … this could become its own package” – but still it doesn’t have to be “generic” or “agnostic”. The code inside the package can be extremely self-coupled and straight-forward. Then eventually you come across functionality that is really re-usable, like e.g. a package that wraps the Stripe api which you could use in more than one application.

The “generic” package, shared between multiple apps sounds great BUT it comes with a big price tag: maintenance of the API contract. In my opinion you have to carefully consider where it pays off and which parts of the code should not become too generic.

To sum it up: the only benefit you get from using a messaging dispatcher / event bus / any kind of middleware layer, is that you can hook into the message flow. That’s it, there is nothing more. Forget about these patterns in other languages (where they are used to decouple), we are in Javascript land where its even possible to switch your pants while you are shitting them. Think: I could replace Meteor with something else, before calling a method that uses it – this would be a (hacky) way of dependency injection.

But what I really like about messaging patterns is the possibility to make the contract between packages explicit. Because that’s one downside of dynamic languages: you can’t rely on the compiler to tell you if you called something “the right way” which is a pain while refactoring.

Here is a simple self-checking message that you can send to my stripe package:

class Stripe.ChargeCustomer extends Space.Struct

   customerId: String
   total: Number
   description: String
   ipAddress: String

this uses Meteor check internally when you instantiate the struct with a param object. Of course I use these messages also in my unit-tests etc. so that if you change the api, everything breaks and tells you that where you have to update your code to complete the refactoring.

Ok this is getting really long and confusing :smile: I hope its still understandable.


It’s perfectly understandable, and very interesting :smile:

I agree with most of things you say, actually.

It was reactive to solve circular dependencies. I agree with you that is complicated and you should avoid them in the first place.

That’s very similar to what I was doing with the Dependency package, sure.
I don’t think it’s needed anyway so I will try to get rid of it.

When I was talking about mixing “Everything is a package” and Flux together, I wasn’t talking about including dependencies to the flux dispatcher in every package. You shouldn’t do that. Packages should have an API and that’s it. No dependencies, no communications.

The dispatcher is a concern of the Views and Stores only. Those are the things which are coupled and talk to each other so your packages can be decoupled and not know about the existence of other parts of the app.

If you want to put your stores/views inside the Meteor package system, it’s ok. But I wasn’t considering them as packages/libraries.

Sure, some packages are going to be things nobody else needs. That’s not bad, but I have run into problems having to refactor whole packages just because I was just coding fast and I wasn’t “forcing myself” to make them as agnostic as I could. Then you change some part of your app and everything breaks.

I think if you force yourself to think that way, the quality of your code improves greatly. Even if your package is not useful elsewhere.

Totally agree.

Totally agree and I think that is very very useful.

For me Flux is that, a very simple dispatcher which forces you to create very simple, one-way, chains of events (dispatcher->store->app-state->view).

1 Like

I’ve been taking a look at the Flux implementation which Optimizely is using in production: Nuclear-js

They have done some very interesting stuff:

  • They use modules to encapsulate domains. They contain stores and expose actions and getters.
  • They store all the app state in a single Immutable map.
  • They do automatic data observation / rendering, very similar to Meteor’s reactivity.
  • Thanks to their reactivity, they don’t need the waitFor functionality.

This is great because it confirms that you don’t need waitFor in Meteor. I like the modules concept as well.

In the end, this made me think about different flux implementations. I’ve been thinking about space-ui as well. Our conversation looks like “who is wrong and who is right” and it shouldn’t. There are dozens of flux implementations out there and none of them is wrong or right. Space-ui is one of them and if you feel comfortable with it, go ahead. I’m sure @CodeAdventure put a lot of effort in it.

I really like the fact that Facebook only shared a bare dispatcher and let everyone else to roll out their implementations. Actually, Flux is an architecture and not a framework. The only important things are the Flux Principles.

With this thread I wanted to find out if Flux and Meteor can work together. Now I am sure they can, and I think it is actually an excellent idea.

It’s so simple to use Flux and Meteor and there are so many good implementations of Flux that I think is up to people deciding which implementation to choose. They can use my port of the Facebook’s Dispatcher and do the rest of the stuff his way, or maybe use something like space-ui where you have to learn its API and follow it.

I think it’s time for me to close this thread and write a for the package.
I hope it’s useful for people interested in using Flux with Meteor but only want the basics.


@luisherranz sorry if it came across as space:ui vs. your flux implementation, that’s definitely not what I intended because I also replace space:ui with other packages if they work in a better way (e.g blaze-components is quite useful sometimes compared to my mediator pattern).

I wanted to get across that the “flux dispatcher” is just another event bus, a very common pattern which probably existed for 30+ years in software dev. The restriction that you can only dispatch one message per loop might be nice for Facebook but I never needed it, nor did it help me in any way. If you use Meteor’s reactivity + single source of truth patterns than there is not much need for client-side messaging anyway because everything is data-driven.

One of the example by Facebook was the unread messages counter for the in-page messenger. They had some bugs with weird states etc. but honestly you will never have those problems with a “normal” Meteor application because reactivity syncs all parts automatically for you. There is only one source of truth: the database.

The only really exciting thing about React / Flux is the possibility to do server-side rendering and the idea of “re-render everything” which greatly simplifies your thinking about UI. That’s what most people get excited about but only the second part can be applied to Meteor easily.

I actually move more and more away from using flux stores and messaging in the front-end because its just not needed (in most cases).

Anyway, thanks for putting all this research effort here, its definitely a great resource for people thinking about these architectures and also was a great mirror for myself (that’s why I couldn’t shut up :-D)

No it wans’t, no problem : )

In my opinion, Flux is more than just a message bus. It’s a set of useful, keep-it-simple, principles. Maybe not for all cases but, what is?

I agree, Meteor’s reactivity is incredible and there is no need to stop using it.
Look here:

No problem, your comments and expertise are welcomed of course.
I know you went thru all this but I wanted to do it as well.

By the way, in this interview, Matt DeBergalis said two interesting things:

  • Old web is page-based but we can do better. Meteor is here to help us create apps, not webs.
    IMHO, IronRouter centric apps are page-based again, that’s the reason I wanted to check something new.
  • So far, Meteor has been architecture agnostic but in the future that is going to change.

He actually said way more than two interesting things of course : )

Now I am about to start a big project where I have to design an extensible Meteor app, similar to what Sacha is doing with the Telescope refactoring. I will see how Flux can fit in a project like that (if at all) but I think I have an idea.

I hope I can get some time out soon to do a proper readme for the meteorflux:dispatcher package but I had a lot of work lately. I’ll do soon!

1 Like

I have updated the README file of the package. I am sorry it took so long but I’ve been very busy.

I hope it is clear enough to reflect what I have learned here, but if you feel like something is missing let me know and I will update it.

I am already studying other things, because the app I need to build now is more complex. I am testing Flux but with global state objects and global getters (like NuclearJS or Facebook and Baobab do) mixing it with an extensible pattern (like WordPress or Telescope) and a template system (like Ghost) all organised with modules using the everything-is-a-package pattern.

Anyway, this MeteorFlux Dispatcher will remain as simple as it is, so anybody wanting to build something with Meteor and Flux can try it out.

I may come back if I consider I have learned or worked with something which may benefit this thread. It looks like a lot of people was paying attention : )

And of course if you are playing with Meteor and Flux and have any doubt feel free to reply here and we will work it out together.



yes, your package supported methods that easy to change params and query params. And flow-router really suite for FLUX .

My stacks:

  • meteorhacks:flow-router
  • izzilab:iz-flux (just ported from facebook Dispatcher)
  • reactjs:react
  • izzilab:react-layout (my package to define layouts and render content for reactjs)

@luisherranz Thanks for this post, it’s been great going through the thought process behind your implementation of Flux into Meteor. For the most parts I agree with you and I think the Flux architecture fits great into Meteor. I have a couple of thoughts regarding the dispatcher and the Stores.

The thought about the dispatcher is minimal, but since Dispatcher.dispatch() always takes in an actionType I think it would be more “meteor like” if it was called in the same way that Meteor.methods get called; eg. Dispatcher.dispach("SOMETHING_HAPPENED", "some data") or Dispatcher.dispach("SOMETHING_HAPPENED", {firstName: “First”, lastName: “Last” }) . This would move slightly away from Facebook’s implementation, but it makes the dispatcher look more like Meteor code.

Regarding the Stores, I don’t think they should be separated into Stores and App State. I think the stores should maintain the app state, both the variables (reactiveVar/Dict or Sessions) and the Collections. I see the stores publishing helpers directly to Blaze, essentially taking over most of what Template helpers normally do. The views/templates would directly query the Stores for the state via Store helpers. This would keep us from having helpers like:

  myHelper: function() {
    return MyStore.getMyValue()

Instead we would call {{ MyStore.getMyValue }} directly from the template, making the code more clean and reusable.

For this I think it would be best to have a Store prototype that takes care of registering its helpers to Template and registering with the Dispatcher. I’ve created a package for doing that and the api is relatively simple:

PostStore = new Store('PostStore', function(){
  // String ('PostStore') is the name of the Store,
  // this is what the Blaze global helper will be called.
  // Function that initiates variables and whatever
  // else you might want to do. Basically this is .onCreated()
  // (and it might as .onCreated() to act more like meteor)
  var self = this;
  self._visiblePosts = new reactiveVar(5);


  getPosts: function() {
    return Posts.find();
  getVisibleNumber: function() {
    return this._visiblePosts.get();

  userLoadsMorePosts: function() {
    var self = this;
    var number = self._visiblePosts.get

The Store package takes care of registering with the Dispatcher so the dispatcher gets called like normal, and it also registers the helpers with Blaze so the template can be

<template name="posts">
  {{#each PostStore.getPosts}}

I’ve created a fork of your excellent CartFlux example that uses this Store package, it’s on GitHub and live here (should look identical).

Like I said, I think the Stores should handle the app state, and the helpers that refer to the app state should be contained within the Stores (or as Collection helpers, eg. calculating cart total price). I do see some role for Template helpers, but having it mostly limited to a visual representation of the app state (like which class to show, helpers for #if blocks etc.)

I also think that the Stores should take care of their own subscription (since they’re handling the app state), but I haven’t figured out how that should be done, any thoughts on that?

I haven’t posted the Stores package yet, since there’s a couple of things I want to figure out before I do (subscriptions, yes/no/how? better way for actions call other actions in same store …). I will post it soon and I’ll update when I do.

I am new to Meteor but I know have heard of Flux Architecture and I am pretty sure I might need one. Have read your submissions and I get the concepts. I just wanna know if there is a link to your MeteorFlux like the way Facebook has for their Flux.

You might want to checkout Redux. It’s the latest and best of the flux frameworks. Facebook has even changed their implementation to include some of it’s features.

Redux is also view agnostic so it will work with Blaze (or even no view layer!). Normally Redux uses regular arrays and objects for state but Blaze needs a reactive data source to update the views. Luckily this works rather well.

Here’s an example I made using Redux and the leaderboard app: GitHub - AdamBrodzinski/meteor-redux-example: Redux for Blaze

It includes a Blaze helper to access state. Note, with this setup we’re only using the state for local temp state stored in memory. You still can (and should) use actions to decouple to UI for database ops.


 // global reactive store is setup on app startup
  store = createStoreWithMiddleware(appReducer);

  // store has initial empty values:
  // {
  //   selectedPlayerId: '',
  //   selectedPlayerName: '',
  //   foo: 1,
  //   bar: 2,
  // }

  // view calls action and returns into store dispatcher
    'click': function () {
      store.dispatch( Actions.selectPlayer(this._id) );

  // action 'creator' is a normal function that 
  // just creates an action object and returns it
  Actions.selectPlayer = function selectPlayer(playerId) {
  let player = Players.findOne(playerId);
  let playerName = || "N/A";

  return {
    type: 'SELECT_PLAYER',
    playerId: playerId,
    playerName: playerName

// app reducer catches action in switch statement and can mutate the
// data based on action payload metadata. reactState is a reactive-dict
// so we just set the final value and return the dict when done.
// if the app was large we could have several reducers that combine the
// state into the final root object. Redux can only have 1 store
appReducer = function appReducer(state, action) {
  state = state || reacState;
  // see action_creators.jsx for action payloads

  switch (action.type) {
    case 'SELECT_PLAYER':
      // we're setting the reactive dict here
      state.set('selectedPlayerId', action.playerId);
      state.set('selectedPlayerName', action.playerName);
      // then returning the entire dict when done
      return state;
      // collections are in Minimono but you could also keep
      // them here if its easier to have all data in one place
      // see React repo for example of that
      return state;
      return state;

// templates can consume this global state with the `store` helper
// but can only mutate it by calling an action
<template name="leaderboard">
  {{#if store 'selectedPlayerName'}}
    <div class="details">
      <div class="name">{{store 'selectedPlayerName'}}</div>

1 Like

@gunnarsturla I really like your solution. It’s been a great inspiration.

I am working right now in an AppState package to create and manage helpers and app state in a Flux application. It will work quite similar to your solution but it will be a singleton instead of embedded in each store. That way your views aren’t coupled to specific stores.

In the end, you will have a global AppState and your stores will use it to expose data to the views with a very simple API. You can then retrieve the AppState from the views or other parts of Meter.

It will be quite smart, so you can add complex objects or functions returning cursors for example. And you can even mix them, and it will still work in a logical way.

I’m working on it right now. I will finish it next week I think.

You can install it using:
meteor add meteorflux:dispatcher

You can read all the info in github:

I’m checking Redux. It’s pretty cool actually.

I think we are all heading to the same conclusions here : )

These are the three principles of Redux:

  • Single source of truth:
    I agree, absolutely. That’s the reason I’m developing the AppState package, which is the same concept: an object tree. The main difference is that it uses Meteor reactivity and exposes itself to helpers by default.

  • State is read-only:
    Absolutely again. This means views should NOT be allowed to modify the app state. This is Flux.

  • Mutations are written as pure functions:
    Agree as well. This means you manage the mutations of the state in a special place called reducers. Not exactly but quite similar to managing them in stores. I don’t really care where those mutation functions are.


thanks for the great and inspiring work.
what is the State of your “AppState package”?? (pun intended :smile:)
I was/am just looking for something like this to solve the tangle of cross component communications in my app.

I really like the ideas and communication paradigms proposed by Redux / Flux / CQRS / EventSourcing, but I find that all of them are creating a lot of boilerplate code that don’t fit too much with meteor’s reactivity.

Moreover I have some doubts about where to put the reducers in complex multicomponent scenarios. …maybe you can help.
I’ve created a meteorpad example of a possible multi-component structure that exemplifies many possible interactions, aiming at creating a component structure where each component is truly independent and unaware of the others, besides of its children.

Basically I have:

  • [VPL] - VideoPlayer List > a List of Subcomponents
  • [VP1] - VideoPlayer 1 > a component that contains others
    • [VS1] - VideoSurface1 > a “leaf” or basic component
    • [PB1] - PlayButton1 > a “leaf” or basic component
  • [VP2] - VideoPlayer 2
    • [VS2] - VideoSurface2
    • [PB2] - PlayButton2
  • [PB3] - PlayButton > that is “hanging” just to indicate that it is outside of the list, but it could be anywhere else in the page

Imagine a Scenario where VP1 is playing and VP2 is stopped…then the user clicks PB2 to Play the video.
the problem with the current MeteorFlux (or other Flux derived structures), as far as I can tell, is that if any PlayButton is clicked it will dispatch the event to the store {“PlayButton_Clicked”} and the following things might happen:

  1. All the reducers that are listening to that event will respond, which might be either in the same Playbutton, or in all VideoPlayers
  2. there is no way to tell which component is actually the one supposed to answer to that action,
  • unless the action itself passes some kind of data about itself (ie: “hey this action comes from PB2”)
  • and unless the components who are listening are aware of who their children are and if they have to reply or not (if PB2 was pressed, only VP2 should answer, but the same reducer will be in VP1 so it will also answer…unless it knows that it shouldn’t because PB2 is not one of its children)
  1. Moreover, since we have an even higher level, the List (VPL) of components, there might be someone interested in that action too.
    for example, when VPL receives a request for play, it might want to pause the VP1 that is currently playing before letting VP2 actually play. So there is another “competing” reducer that is listening on top.

the basic problem is: who is the “mediator” / “observer”, who has the authority to own the reducers (in an ideal scenario where we have not developed the components ourselves but importing them from some repository?)
If we put it into VPL we won’t be able to use the VP by itself, which is not ideal.

to solve this I have thought of a ComponentTree package for which every component / template

  • automatically gets assigned an unique ID
  • knows which is its parent
  • knows which are its direct and derived children

through this system, each component can automatically subscribe only to the events of its children, direct or derived.
this allows VP1 and VP2 to have completely isolated reducers that answer only the children events. which is good.

I still have some confusion about which way the mediators should act upon their own children (ie VPL telling VP1 to stop and VP1 to play). I can see 3 methods that have each their pros and cons:

1. (imperative) A > tells B.stop()
components expose a public API that parents use to control them imperatively
= components talk to each other directly

2. (declarative state) A > tells AppState.B.isPlaying = false
mediator components like VP or VPL modify the AppState and, since it is reactive, the subcomponents will react to its new state
= components talk to each other via the reactive AppState (which is like the Session object)

3. (declarative action) A > stores event {“VideoPlayer_Stopped”, who: [VP1, VP2]}
mediator components emit another action event using an API that it knows children use and will react.
= components talk to each other only through the EventStore collection

what do you think?
how would you solve this with the current Flux / redux structure?
Should each app have a global EventStore and State Reactive dict (which is actually the Session object :slight_smile: )?
Is state always derived from the EventStore (this is somewhat confusing to me)?


I don’t know if I understood correctly your problem, but you shouldn’t manage the action in any component. In Flux you should manage it in a Store and in Redux, in a reducer (which is like a store, but with more restrictions).

So, in your case, when the user clicks on the PB2 play button, an action like this should be dispatched:

  actionType: 'PLAY_BUTTON_PUSHED', 
  id: '2'

In Meteor, the id should be ideally the _id of the Minimongo object representing that video.

Then, in a Store (which is not one of the components) you should change the state of your app:

// declare some state variables...
var isVideoPlaying = new ReactiveVar(false);

// create store with getter methods...
VideoStore = {
  getIsVideoPlaying: function(){
    return isVideoPlaying.get();

// register to change state when action is dispatched.
VideoStore.tokenId = Dispatcher.register( function(payload) {
  switch(payload.actionType) {

And then, in the component which is controlling the play and stop functions:

  var self = this;
  self.c = Tracker.autorun(function(){
    var isVideoPlaying = VideoStore.getIsVideoPlaying();
    if (isVideoPlaying === self._id) {
    } else {

  var self = this;

It’s important to distinguish between Blaze and React when structuring your components and managing state changes.

React works in a way that it doesn’t matter if you re-render a lot of components. The virtual DOM takes care of it and makes the small amount of changes.

But in Blaze, if you invalidate a lot of reactive variables, a lot of components will be re-rendered, sometimes without reason.

So in React, it makes sense to have only a few components getting state. This works well with most React apps, where the data is got from a call to the server and has one entry point.

But again, in Blaze and Meteor, things work differently. Data is in our own client database it can be accessed in a more “horizontal” way. You should, actually, if you don’t want to cause a lot of unnecessary re-renders.

So, I don’t think structuring a Meteor/Blaze app with a React architecture is a good idea, unless you use Meter AND React.

If you are working with Blaze, you should get the “reactive state” in the nearest point possible (like my example above) to avoid re-renders. This has some drawbacks, because components becomes less reusable. But to make components reusable in Blaze, you can still use the controller pattern.

If you want to structure your components in a React way, there are two interesting options:

  • @timbrandin’s sideburns, which is Blaze like templates but compiled to React.
  • @arunoda solution: Blaze Plus which includes state/props in Blaze and minimises the renders automatically.

It looks like most of the people using Flux is going in that direction. I think it makes sense.

But no, Session was not designed for that purpose and it’s not a good fit. If you store complex objects in it, it will invalidate everything and cause a lot of re-renders.

I already have a very powerful API. You can set and get pretty much anything, and it is smart enough to mix everything together and invalidate only what has changed, even with objects, arrays, MiniMongo cursors, or functions returning objects, arrays and MiniMongo cursors.

You can do stuff like this:

// save plain state, which will become reactive automatically
AppState.set('isVideoPlaying', false);

// save some state from the database
AppState.set('videoList', function() {
  return Videos.find({});

// mix new nested state with already defined states
AppState.set('videoList.isReady', false);
Meteor.subscribe('videos', function(err){
  if (!err) {
    AppState.set('videoList.isReady', true);

// save complex objects
AppState.set('videoAuthor', {
  name: 'Peter'
  image: {
    url: '',
    width: 300,
    height: 200

// mix it with other objects
AppState.set('videoAuthor', {
  publishedVideos: 12
// or
AppState.set('videoAuthor.publishedVideos', 12);

// and so on...

If the state is changed, only the minimum amount of invalidations will occur. For example:

AppState.set('videoAuthor', {
  image: {
    url: ''
// or the equivalent...
AppState.set('videoAuthor.image.url', '');

won’t invalidate things like or videoAuthor.image.width.

These are the getters:

// => [{ id: 1, title: 'Video1' }, { id: 2, title: 'Video 2' }];

AppState.get('videoList.isReady'); // => true or false  

AppState.get('videoAuthor'); // => { name: 'Peter', image: { url... }, publishedVideos: 12 }

AppState.get('videoAuthor.image.width') // => 300

Accessible as well automatically in Blaze:

<template name='VideoPlayerList'>
  {{#if videoList.isReady}}
    {{#each videoList}}
      {{> VideoPlayer}}

<template name='VideoAuthor'>
  Author name is {{}} and has published {{videoAuthor.publishedVideos}} videos.

<!-- or... -->

<template name='VideoAuthor'>
  {{#with videoAuthor}}
    Author name is {{name}} and has published {{publishedVideos}} videos.

Something like this would give Meteor a simple way to have horizontal access to state, instead of the vertical approach of React.

I still want to build something with it before releasing anything. I am experimenting as well restricting the use of AppState.set only to callbacks of Flux actions, like Redux does with reducers.

Instead of exposing AppState.set, restrict its use like this:

AppState.modify(function(action) {
  switch(action.type) {

But the app I am building right now needs to be extendable via plugins, so I don’t know if too much restrictions would be possible.


Wow AppStore looks very powerful! when do you have planned to release it? I’m looking forward to beta test it :smile:

Please don’t restrict it too much or nobody will be able to use it in non-flux-canonical ways.

If I understand it basically the VideoStore is like a Mediator that:

  • listens to messages that the components send through the Dispatcher
  • indirectly acts upon the components by setting state reactive vars

If we were to distribute the video component we would have to distribute the VideoStore with it.
This Scenario however implies that we would have to customise the code for the VideoStore if we have one videoPlayer or multiple videoPlayers in a VideoPlayer List. I understand now the need for multiple stores in different parts of the App.

is your AppState going to have any relation with / substitute the Stores or not?
As far as I can tell from your code, the Stores both responds to the Dispatcher actions and holds the state with the reactive variables `VideoStore.getIsVideoPlaying(); what you want to do is have the stores act upon a global AppState

Is there a reason for which you would NOT put the VideoStore functionality inside of a component?
if the listening/reducer part of the stores are held inside of the component it can be distributed independently and it will work automatically because all or most of its functionality is incapsulated. This would also avoid the need for global Store Names.
(I’m imagining this because through the ComponentTree package I know that each component can search up the the chain to find the Store, or that, if the Store is actually global, each reducer function inside of the component, automatically knows which actions are generated by its children.

I saw that Dispatcher is actually an object, while I thought that it would have been a client only collection.

I think that if the redux /flux functionality would have to be built for meteor we would have to use the great stuff that Meteor already has. Publications and Subscriptions are already a part of Meteor.
If the Dispatcher or a global AppEventStore where actually a client only collection, we could get the time travel functionality too, because it would be stored in a collection.
We could even store it in a permanent collection on the server so that we could “spy” on how users actually use the app.
That is powerful.
But in order to do that we need 3 pieces of code

  1. a Global AppEventStore > contains all events
  2. a Global AppState > contains all the state
  3. a ComponentTree > so that each component knows which AppStore updates to listen and which to ignore

maybe the AppStore and AppState can be two sides of the same global object: according to EventSourcing standards, the state is reconstructed from the history of small state changes that are stored in the AppStore

what do you think?

There is also other discussions on the Forum on creating a redux package that I think you should chime in to tell them about your AppState :smile:

The way I understand Flux it is that the store manages the app state (collections, variables etc), very similar to what your AppState does. Maybe it doesn’t matter where the views get their ‘truth’ from but I’m interested in why do you differentiate between the app state and the stores? Is the main benefit that you don’t need to tie a store to each component?

I don’t think it’s necessarily the stores that limit the reuse of a component, but more the data that gets sent into it; if you’re going to reuse some view, the data you send into it has to fit into the mold. This could also be done by changing the context of the view into a store helper that exposes the same type of data. Say we wanted to have a list of the top videos, and use the same template to list the top authors. This could be done like this

{{> topList data=VideoStore.topVideos }}

{{> topList data=AuthorStore.topAuthors }}

<template name="topList">
    {{#each data}}
      <li>{{name}} ({{score}}) </li>

I’ve been meaning to check back in and tell you about how my store thingy is doing. I’ve mostly completed it, and will be using it in a project I’m building. I haven’t released it yet because the API hasn’t been fully finalized, but it’s getting there. I have it on github at if anyone wants to check it out. The Store automatically registers its actions with the Dispatcher, and it has helpers that it registers with the Template, but I think it would also work great with the AppState package.

I’ve also made slight modifications to the Dispatcher in order to accept dispatches more like meteor handles Meteor.calls. It’s a relatively small change and the dispatcher still allows dispatches to be made the “old” way (as long as a store is set up to handle that kind of call). The dispatch call above could be made like this

Dispatcher.dispatch('play_button_pushed', 2);

This will call the action play_button_pushed (that multiple stores could have).

I’ll continue with using the example above to show how it would work with my Store.

The VideoStore is defined like this

VideoStore = new Store('VideoStore', Dispatcher);

VideoStore.onCreated(function() {
  this.isVideoPlaying = new ReactiveVar(false);

  getIsVideoPlaying: function(){
    return isVideoPlaying.get();

  play_button_pushed: function(id) {

You can also delay creating/initializing the store until needed by setting autocreate to false in the constructor:

VideoStore = new Store('VideoStore', Dispatcher, false);
// then, when needed:

This calls the onCreated functions and registers the store’s helpers and actions. You can also destroy the store, which unregisters it from both the Dispatcher and Template by calling VideoStore.destroy();. There’s more on how it works in the readme on GitHub.

I’m planning on publishing the package soon but it needs the changed version of the dispatcher, do you (@luisherranz) want me to submit a pull request? If you’d rather keep as it is, I’ll just include it in my package (or submit the fork)

I’m not quite sold on the need for an AppState, but I can see these three packages work well together and ease the use of Flux in Meteor.

Yeah, basically that’s it.

It also has the benefit of being able to store or send that object-tree or implement undo & redo options (interesting for debugging as well).

I have published the AppState package although it is still under development. If you want to check it out docs are here.

Yeah, sure. You could use the #with helper as well, for example. Blaze is great! :smile:

{{#with VideoStore.topVideos}}
  {{> topList }}

{{#with AuthorStore.topAuthors}}
  {{> topList }}

I think it’s great. As I told you, it has been a great inspiration. Let me know when it’s ready and I will mention it in the MeteorFlux documentation.

I have just made that modification myself. Both in the dispatch and the register methods. Check the new Dispatcher documentation.

I have added a template helper to dispatch without JS as well:

{{#each posts}}
  {{#if favorite}}
      Remove from favorites!
    Add to favorites!

It’s a new package called Dispatcher Helper. Check the docs here.

Let me know if the new version suits your needs. If it doesn’t, we will modify it, don’t worry.

Sure! I think all them can be great tools.