init
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
|
||||
# Example: Architecture Decision with Sequential Thinking
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem**: Choose state management for growing React app.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sequential Thinking Approach
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Thought 1/4: Initial assessment
|
||||
|
||||
React app growing complex. useState scattered across components.
|
||||
Need centralized state management.
|
||||
Options: Redux, MobX, Zustand, Context API, Jotai.
|
||||
|
||||
Next: Define requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Thought 2/5: Requirements (adjusted up)
|
||||
|
||||
App needs:
|
||||
- Real-time updates (WebSocket)
|
||||
- Offline support
|
||||
- Complex nested state
|
||||
- Multiple devs (maintainability)
|
||||
- TypeScript (type safety)
|
||||
|
||||
These eliminate simpler solutions.
|
||||
Next: Evaluate remaining options
|
||||
|
||||
Thought 3/5 [REVISION of Thought 1]: Scope refinement
|
||||
|
||||
Original assumption: Need global state management.
|
||||
Realization: Not all state needs centralization.
|
||||
|
||||
Better breakdown:
|
||||
- Server state (API data): React Query
|
||||
- UI state (modals, forms): Local useState
|
||||
- Auth state: Context API
|
||||
- App-wide settings: Simple global store
|
||||
|
||||
This reduces problem scope significantly.
|
||||
Changes evaluation criteria.
|
||||
Next: Re-evaluate with refined scope
|
||||
|
||||
Thought 4/6: Re-evaluation (adjusted)
|
||||
|
||||
Only need lightweight store for app-wide settings.
|
||||
Zustand fits:
|
||||
- Minimal boilerplate
|
||||
- Excellent TypeScript support
|
||||
- No provider wrapper
|
||||
- ~1KB size
|
||||
|
||||
React Query handles server state (caching, refetch, offline).
|
||||
Most state stays local.
|
||||
|
||||
Next: Verify this handles all requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Thought 5/6 [HYPOTHESIS]: Hybrid approach
|
||||
|
||||
Hypothesis: Zustand + React Query + local state solves needs.
|
||||
|
||||
- Zustand: Theme, user prefs, global UI flags
|
||||
- React Query: All server data, caching, sync
|
||||
- useState: Component-local UI
|
||||
|
||||
Benefits: Simple, performant, maintainable.
|
||||
Uncertainty: Real-time updates?
|
||||
|
||||
Thought 6/6 [FINAL]: Verified solution
|
||||
|
||||
React Query supports WebSocket via custom hooks.
|
||||
Zustand handles global UI simply.
|
||||
Local state for component-specific needs.
|
||||
|
||||
Architecture decision:
|
||||
- Zustand for global UI state
|
||||
- React Query for all server interactions
|
||||
- Local useState for component state
|
||||
|
||||
Confidence: High
|
||||
Assumptions: Team comfortable with React Query patterns
|
||||
Benefits: Simpler than Redux, more powerful than Context
|
||||
Trade-offs: Learning curve for React Query (but worthwhile)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Insights
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Scope revision crucial**: Original "need global state" reframed to specific state categories
|
||||
2. **Separation of concerns**: Different state types need different solutions
|
||||
3. **Hypothesis verification**: Confirmed WebSocket support before finalizing
|
||||
4. **Simpler is better**: Avoided over-engineering with heavy Redux solution
|
||||
|
||||
## Impact of Revision
|
||||
|
||||
Without Thought 3 revision, might have chosen Redux for all state—significant over-engineering. Revision led to more appropriate, simpler solution.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user