Is `options.ref != options._ref` intentional?

[Matt Lubner]

In AuraJS version 0.9.2, an Aura component's this.options.ref is non-unique across multiple instances of the same component, whereas this.options._ref is unique across multiple instances (it ends with +#).

Shouldn't both values be the same, or is this difference intentional?

I ask because the aura-todos example has a useful Aura extension aura-backbones.js which uses options.ref when it's expecting something unique like options._ref. This effectively creates a single Backbone View per component type instead of per component instance, which broke my app.

If the aforementioned behavior is intentional, maybe it should be reconsidered? It sure seems like a gotcha!

Btw, thanks for making AuraJS – it's doing a fantastic job at simplifying JS development for me!

[Stephane Bellity]

Hey @mattlubner thanks !
The naming is not very clear, I agree we chould find better names for these attributes

• this.options._ref if a unique identifier for the instance of the component
• this.options.ref is the identifier of the component's "class" and the name of its module defined in requirejs

The aura-todos example uses this.options.ref to "cache" the Backbone.View "class" that will be used by the instances of the component.

[Matt Lubner]

Good to know! In light of this, I'm thinking my approach needs reconsideration.

For the curious, I have multiple instances of a general component (for dropdown menus) which are individualized by being created with different contents / attributes (this is in a non-single-page app, so that stuff is created server-side). As such, each component needs its own unique Backbone View. A shared Backbone View resulted in every dropdown menu appearing whenever any menu item was hovered over.

Looks like the entire menubar should be its own component. Not sure why I hadn't just done that to begin with!