[HN Gopher] Next.js Layouts RFC: Nested routes and layouts, desi... ___________________________________________________________________ Next.js Layouts RFC: Nested routes and layouts, designed for Server Components Author : todsacerdoti Score : 68 points Date : 2022-05-23 21:37 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (nextjs.org) (TXT) w3m dump (nextjs.org) | ElijahLynn wrote: | Next.js Layouts RFC Discussion is Here > | https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/37136 | ushakov wrote: | looks similar to what Nuxt 3 has | | https://v3.nuxtjs.org | freedomben wrote: | I'm excited to see the wheels turning, but it feels a bit like | the best feature of Next.js IMHO (SSG) is going to get more | difficult, or possibly become unusable. A deprecation feels | incoming. It could be confirmation bias as I've been a little | worried about that for awhile since people using SSG aren't as | likely to buy cloud services, so there's some incentive | misalignment there, but ever since the Image component was only | supported with SSR it's felt like SSG was going to either become | less usable or disappear. Am I the only person who loves that | feature? It really revolutionized how I approach web dev and | enlarged my imagination of what was possible, so there's | definitely some emotional attachment for me :-) | | Am I correct about SSG's future? | dimgl wrote: | Naw, I don't agree. SSG is a killer feature. The fact that | Next.js is able to do both SSG and SSR means that it's | positioned to be a wholesale replacement for most React tech | stacks. You can still have a "CSR-like" app with SSG, while | having all of the Next.js conventions (such routing, layouts, | etc.). Additionally, it's actually pretty useful for sites that | need to be heavily SEO-optimized. Next.js is an impressive | framework. | gedy wrote: | Looks like a nice improvement, looking forward to trying this | out. | | Nested layouts was the one stumbling block we had with next and | felt very odd that we had to invent our own TabPane component to | handle this pretty common use case. | rglover wrote: | Don't take drugs. | | https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick | austinkhale wrote: | We're irrationally excited about this internally and we're super | happy with how the Vercel team has continued to push Next.js | forward. Thank you! | | We're using a version of the persistent layout pattern Adam | Wathan [blogged | about](https://adamwathan.me/2019/10/17/persistent-layout- | patterns-...) but having first-class support for this paradigm | will be awesome. | nullcipher wrote: | "irrationally excited" - what does this phrase mean? that there | is no basis for your excitement? sounds so cheesy | leerob wrote: | Thank you! We've added documentation[1] on the current layouts | solutions, which is similar to Adam's post. It's a good | workaround, but I'm very excited for improving the developer | experience here. | | [1]: https://nextjs.org/docs/basic-features/layouts | michaelsbradley wrote: | Will there ever be a fix or blessed workaround re: #32216? | | https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/32216 | | previously: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/2581 | reilly3000 wrote: | Could a smart person please compare and contrast this RFC and the | ideas of remix.run? | pier25 wrote: | According to Ryan Florence (Remix's creator) they are "ripping | features straight from Remix". | | https://twitter.com/ryanflorence/status/1528859776930545665 | madjam002 wrote: | So we need to give credit now to every little bit of | inspiration we get when coming up with new features and | ideas? | | Not really sure what the problem is here. | dimgl wrote: | It's almost an exact copy aside from the conventions and names. | It very much _is_ Remix. This is pretty wild. It also brings | one of my gripes from Remix: parallel fetching. In practice it | makes sense, but at times there needs to be a way to fetch data | on a parent route first so that child routes don't fetch again. | I'm sure Vercel will find a way to solve this. | leerob wrote: | Lee from Vercel, happy to answer questions about the RFC or | future plans for Next.js. This RFC has been years in the making - | and I'm pretty happy with where we've landed. | codefined wrote: | Not seeing it in the article, but how are you handling `index` | routing in the `app` folder? If you are putting it in the top | directory (e.g. `/app/index.js`), is it not able to get a | custom `layout.js` file (as that position is used for the | global variant)? | | If it's in an `index` folder (e.g. `/app/index/page.js`), how | would one create a route for `example.com/index`? | saeedjabbar wrote: | Excited to try this out in my next project :) | leerob wrote: | Open to any feedback you have - we've already started work on | the implementation, and will adjust as necessary based on the | RFC discussion. | realce wrote: | Am I correct thinking this will help create a simpler | integration with - just hypothetically - Prisma calls that are | dependent on app auth states in a single page? Replacing auth | providers and moving them into Layouts? | | Daily user, very excited! | rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote: | >happy to answer questions about the RFC | | Would love to hear about the parts of the RFC where you guys | took some inspiration from Remix! | leerob wrote: | https://twitter.com/sebmarkbage/status/1528858510754459648 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-23 23:00 UTC)