true | JavaScript port of the Unix utility | Runtime Evironment library

I thought that in your situation, it is required to retrieve 6/17 from 06/17/2021. For this, how about the following modification?

In this case, please modify doPost as follows.

The n2 - n1 in the case of a negative number as a result when converted to bool will yield true. So n1 turns out to be less than n2. That's why it is a bad practice to use ints in such Boolean context.

Yes, as stated in the documentation:

...comparison function object which returns ​true if the first argument is less than the second

But the implementation of the comparison here leads to failure. Try this and see for yourself:

I had used document.getElementById('1').contentWindow.jQuery('#left').jstree(true); to get instance from iframe with id='1'. In order to listen to right iframe(with id='2') if any menu has been clicked, I used document.getElementById('2').contentWindow.jQuery('#right').on("changed.jstree",function(e,data){}). I get the instance of left iframe within this function. By using this instance, I has deselect previous selection, select current selection, and open children of selected menu.

index-12.html

I'm going to rewrite your code because it seems to be missing something.

In this code, I'm using a single event handler. Then using a counter and switch statement to determine the current click count.

You have included fetching function in the component as it is, so it fires every time component being rendered. You better to include fetching data in useEffect hook just like this:

You need to make sure you include jQuery with bootstrap. You can add everything by adding this to your html:

Okay, this should do it.

The difference in behaviour can be accounted for by this behaviour, described in (for instance) the following note in ECMAScript 2022 Language Specification sect 14.3.2.1:

NOTE: If a VariableDeclaration is nested within a with statement and the BindingIdentifier in the VariableDeclaration is the same as a property name of the binding object of the with statement's object Environment Record, then step 5 will assign value to the property instead of assigning to the VariableEnvironment binding of the Identifier.

In the first case:

Since, I am not 100% sure the context in which you are trying to apply the MVC pattern, a good generic explanation of MVC can be found in GoF's 1995 book, Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object Oriented Software.

In the book, they state the following.

The Model is the application object, the View is its screen presentation, and the Controller defines the way the user interface reacts to user input.

A more robust explanation can be found from Martin Fowler where he also makes the case for a variation of Model View Controller that uses a Presentation Model.

If you are referring to Spring MVC then there is some magic that blurs the lines a bit. But in general, you have a controller that represents some screen or an encapsulated piece of functionality that the user (web requests) interact with. The controller serves up responses that are derived from the domain, usually via a Spring Service (i.e. @Service). The domain (Model) doesn't know anything about the View and the View may or may not know anything about the domain.

Given that, the View should be derived from the Model. But that's not always the case since sometimes how we present things to a screen is not the best logical way to model things in our domain - not to mention, the domain should be presentation agnostic. This leads into Fowler's argument for a Presentation Model, which is a model that belongs to the Presentation.

I call this a Presentation Model because it's a model that is really designed for and thus part of the presentation layer.

Microsoft took that idea and ran with it in a variant of MVC called MVVM (Model View ViewModel).

You can read more about that in Microsoft's documentation on ASP.Net Core.

So, back to your original question of "Should you pass the model directly to the view?" If you are using MVC then the controller is what provides the interaction. But if you're really asking, "Can you bind your view directly to the model?" If your model has all the stuff you need organized how your view needs it, then sure. And if it's simple enough, maybe that's the way to go. Otherwise, you could go with something like a Presentation Model or MVVM.