How to Tame Complex Frontend Data Flow with Store Layering and MobX

Problem Analysis

Legacy front‑end code suffered from high technical debt: excessive template code, tangled data‑flow mesh, global state, and tight UI‑logic coupling made even simple features take 2–3 times longer to implement.

Business Characteristics

Strong domain concepts (project, file, team, user) used across many components.

Complex single‑page applications with deep component nesting.

Product moving from 0‑1 to 1‑n stage, causing rapid UI changes and front‑end resource bottlenecks.

Key Pain Points

Too much template code harming maintainability.

Spiral‑shaped data flow causing strong coupling.

Globalized state.

Raw‑to‑display data conversion.

Low reuse between UI and data logic.

Desired Improvements

Simple and efficient development.

Reject template code.

Reduce code complexity and inter‑module impact.

Increase reuse of UI, logic, and data conversion layers.

1. UI & Data Logic Coupling & Raw Data Conversion

The original architecture mixed Store and view layers, leading to high coupling and low reuse.

Evolution introduces an independent Store layer that encapsulates business data and logic, allowing multiple components to share the same logic while keeping the view layer separate.

Additionally, an API anti‑corruption layer isolates front‑end components from backend changes, handling data transformation in one place.

2. Data‑Flow Mesh

Even after layering, a mesh‑like data flow persisted. For example, muting a project triggers updates across unrelated components via a global Redux store.

Refactoring enforces that stores at the same level cannot call each other; cross‑level calls require promotion to a higher layer, dramatically reducing the number of places a change must be made.

3. Global State Issues

Prop‑drilling and over‑use of global Redux caused many temporary actions that polluted the store.

Switching to MobX allows multiple independent stores, reducing unnecessary global state and improving modularity.

4. Domain‑Driven Design (DDD)

Adopting DDD, stable domain models (e.g., “File”) encapsulate operations like rename, delete, move. Views only assemble UI, while domain logic remains unchanged, enabling rapid UI adjustments without touching core business code.

Technical Selection

Reasonable layering separating UI and logic.

Fine‑grained store granularity with DDD.

Minimal template code.

Future‑proof support for both hooks and classes.

Strong TypeScript integration.

Comparison of Solutions

Unstated‑next required extensive provider wiring and did not scale with complex business logic. Redux introduced massive template code and mesh‑like calls, with high TypeScript migration cost.

MobX offered minimal template code, native DDD support, zero‑cost TypeScript, built‑in DI to break mesh calls, and easy multi‑store design, making it the preferred choice.

Conclusion

There is no universally best technology; the optimal solution matches business needs. By addressing each pain point with a layered store architecture, API anti‑corruption layer, and MobX‑based DDD, the team achieved higher development efficiency, better maintainability, and a foundation for low‑code design.