The "classic" Foxx approach and the Foxx Builder method differ primarily in their structure and organization of code within an
ArangoDB
Foxx application. Each has its advantages, but the choice between them often depends on personal or project-specific preferences. Here’s a comparison:
*Let's assume we are creating a route handler for POST /users request.
Classic Foxx
- Direct Routing: In classic Foxx, routes are defined explicitly within the service using the createRouter() method. Developers directly work with routers, defining routes and their handlers in a somewhat manual and verbose manner.
- Manual Route Management: Developers need to manually manage their routes, including their paths, methods, and handlers. This can lead to a more granular control but requires more boilerplate code.
- Handlers and Logic: The logic for route handling, including request and response handling, validation, etc., is often intermingled within the same files or closely tied together in the project structure.
- Configuration and Setup: The setup and configuration might be more spread out, with route definitions, middleware, and other configurations being done in a more piecemeal fashion.
const createRouter = require('@arangodb/foxx/router');
const joi = require('joi');
const router = createRouter();
module.context.use(router);
router.post('/users', function (req, res) {
// Handler logic here
})
.body(joi.object().required(), 'User details to create a new user.')
.description('Creates a new user and returns the entry details.');
Foxx Builder
- Automated Routing: Foxx Builder abstracts the routing layer, allowing for an organization based on the filesystem structure. Routes are automatically created based on the placement and naming of files in the routes directory.
- Conventional Organization: It leverages conventions for route definitions, where the HTTP method and the path are inferred from the file system and file names. This can reduce boilerplate and make the application structure easier to understand at a glance.
- Separation of Concerns: There's a clearer separation between the route definitions and business logic. By convention, each route handler is placed in its specific file, encouraging modularization and reusability.
- Context Extensions and Utilities: Offers additional utilities and context extensions, simplifying common tasks such as database interactions, authentication, and response formatting. This can lead to more concise and maintainable code.
// Assuming a post.js file under /routes/users/ for handling user creation
const joi = require('joi');
const { insert } = module.context;
module.exports = {
body: {
model: joi.object({
username: joi.string().required(),
email: joi.string().email().required(),
password: joi.string().required()
}).required()
},
handler: (req, res) => {
const user = req.body;
const result = insert('users', user);
res.send({ success: true, id: result._key });
}
};
Key Differences
- Structure and Convention: Foxx Builder introduces a convention-over-configuration approach, where the application's routes are automatically managed based on their filesystem structure, reducing manual route management.
- Context Extensions: By providing context extensions, Foxx Builder simplifies interactions with the database and other common tasks, potentially reducing the amount of code needed.
- Boilerplate Reduction: With automatic route setup based on file names and locations, Foxx Builder can lead to less boilerplate and a cleaner project structure, especially for larger projects.
Other benefits of Foxx Builder
Foxx Builder can offer several benefits that extend beyond the straightforward improvements in code organization and development efficiency. When considering the broader impact, especially in terms of cost implications, Foxx Builder contributes in various meaningful ways:
Reduced Development Time
- Rapid Prototyping: By adhering to a convention-over-configuration approach, Foxx Builder allows for quicker prototyping and development of API endpoints. This speed in turning ideas into working code can significantly reduce the initial development phase.
- Decreased Onboarding Time: The conventional and structured approach of Foxx Builder makes it easier for new developers to understand the project structure and start contributing more quickly, reducing the onboarding time and costs associated with training new team members.
Enhanced Maintainability
- Clear Project Structure: The enforced structure within Foxx Builder projects makes it easier for developers to navigate and maintain the codebase, leading to lower long-term maintenance costs.
- Modularity: The modular nature of handling routes and functionality allows for easier updates, debugging, and testing of individual components without affecting the entire application, which can reduce the cost of changes and feature additions.
Links
