remove actions from props

[threepointone]

Was wondering how you handle clashing action and store names in containers. But it also strikes me that since actions are just functions without a current state, they don't have to be passed down from the top. Instead, as long as the dispatch function is available as a prop, you'll still be able to do full dispatches. to explain, instead of -

@inject({
  actions: CounterActions,
  stores: { counter: counterStore }
})
export default class Counter {
  render() {
    const { increment, decrement, counter } = this.props;
    return (
      <p>
        <button onClick={increment}>+</button>
      </p>
    );
  }

you could do

@inject({
  stores: { counter: counterStore }
})
export default class Counter {
  static propTypes = {
    dispatch: PropTypes.func.isRequired
  };

  render() {
    const { counter, dispatch } = this.props;
    return (
      <p>
        Clicked: {counter} times
        {' '}
        <button onClick={() => dispatch(increment())}>+</button>
        {' '}
        <button onClick={() => dispatch(decrement())}>-</button>
      </p>
    );
  }

alternately

        <button onClick={() => dispatch(increment)}>+</button>

but I'm not clear on the benefits (scheduling?)

This would clear up the name clash problem, and make it more 'primitive', if that make sense.

[threepointone]

also, you could then read state from stores when calling dispatch, preventing the need for read/storeKeys

[threepointone]

thinking more, anyone could implement any action creator system on top of this. promises, observables, etc.

[it's starting to look like cycle, but more accessible]

[gaearon]

cc @acdlite who was also rethinking Redux. Indeed, I want to move this action creator <-> dispatch thing out of the core.

[gaearon]

This is done now in #46, let's discuss there.

[gaearon]

#46 (comment)

[threepointone]

Wow lots going on there. I want to hack on a project tonight with this, will come back with thoughts. Cheers.

[gaearon]

Out in 0.8.0