MVC vs Flux vs Redux
MVC
MVC is a three-layer development architecture and it divides applications into three components:
Model: Maintains the data and behavior of an application
View: Displays the model in the UI
Controller: Serves as an interface between view & model components

Whenever the controller receives the request from the user, it uses the appropriate Model & View and generates the response sending it back to the user.
MVC-type implementation enforces bidirectional data flows. In MVC, there is no single direction in an application that data flows in. Here, different parts of the system possess the authority to change state as well as state is decentralized throughout the app. For instance, consider a large application where you have a collection of models including the user, authentication, account, etc., and they are bundled with their own controllers and views. Here, it is difficult to track the exact location of a state since it is distributed across the application.
MVC doesn’t have the concept of the Store. The Store is more like a model in MVC, but it handles the state of several objects instead of just denoting a single database record. In MVC, the controller takes the responsibility of handling both the data and state of the application. It is responsible for the initial processing of the request, but business decisions should be done within the model. The bidirectional data flow between view and models makes it difficult to debug with MVC applications.
Flux
After learning a few highlights regarding the instability and complexity of the MVC architecture, the Facebook development team made some important changes in the system and released Flux as an alternative to MVC architecture. The Flux architecture is based on the following components:
Store/ Stores: Serves as a container for the app state & logic
Action: Enables data passing to the dispatcher
View: Same as the view in MVC architecture, but in the context of React components
Dispatcher – Coordinates actions & updates to stores

In the Flux architecture, when a user clicks on something, the view creates actions. Action can create new data and send it to the dispatcher. The dispatcher then dispatches the action result to the appropriate store. The store updates the state based on the result and sends an update to the view.
Flux implements unidirectional data flow architecture. The significant benefit of a unidirectional approach is that since the data flows through your application in a single direction you can have better control over it.
Flux uses ‘Stores’ to cache any application associated with data or state. The primary difference of Flux vs Redux is that Flux includes multiple Stores per app, but Redux includes a single Store per app.
In Flux, the logic of changes in the data based upon the actions is mentioned in its appropriate Store. The Store in the Flux app also possesses the flexibility to decide what parts of your data to expose publicly.
The Flux architecture is particularly helpful for actions that include side effects like making the code clearer, updating other views and debug by new developers. Flux includes singleton dispatcher and all actions are passing through that dispatcher. This design defends hard-to-debug cascading updates.
Redux
However, Dan Abramov felt that this architecture could be simpler. Consequently, Dan Abramov & Andrew Clark developed Redux in 2015. Redux is a library, which implements the idea of Flux but in quite a different way. Redux architecture introduces new components like:
Reducer: Logic that decides how your data changes exist in pure functions
Centralized store: Holds a state object that denotes the state of the entire app
Action: Enables data passing to the dispatcher
View: Same as the view in MVC architecture, but in the context of React components

In Redux architecture, application event is denoted as an Action, which is dispatched to the reducer, the pure function. Then reducer updates the centralized store with new data based on the kind of action it receives. Store creates a new state and sends an update to view. At that time, the view was recreated to reflect the update.
Redux implements unidirectional data flow architecture. The significant benefit of a unidirectional approach is that since the data flows through your application in a single direction you can have better control over it.
Redux includes a single Store per app. Rather than placing state information in multiple Stores across the application, Redux keeps everything in one region of the app. All the changes in Redux are made through a pure function called Reducers. In Redux the logic remains in the reducer function, which receives the previous state & one action, then returns the new state.
Redux doesn’t have a dispatcher. In Redux, it is a lot easier to manage data and debug because the state of your entire app is maintained within a single Store. In addition, the state of all components depends on one object tree. It is possible to log all the actions that have been performed to get to a certain point. This empowers you to look at the application as a whole and debug easily. On top of this, it offers a great Live Code-Editing option with a time-traveling debugging feature. This feature enables you to rewind and replay your debugging action.
MVC vs Flux vs Redux
MVC
Flux
Redux
Architectural design pattern for developing UI
Application architecture designed to build client-side web apps.
Open-source JavaScript library used for creating the UI
Follows the bidirectional flow
Follows the unidirectional flow
Follows the unidirectional flow
No concept of store
Includes multiple stores
Includes only one store
Controller handles entire logic
Store handles all logic
Reducer handles all logic
Debugging is difficult due to bidirectional flow
Ensures simple debugging with the dispatcher
Single store makes debugging lot easier
Last updated
Was this helpful?