Start Date Release Date Release Versions PR link Tracking Link Stage Teams
12/11/2017 4/10/2018
  • ember-source: v3.1.0
  • Framework


Introduce a low-level "flag" to remove the automatic wrapper <div> for template-only components (templates in the components folder that do not have a corresponding .js file).

In other words, given there is NO app/components/hello-world.js and there exists app/templates/components/hello-world.hbs which contains the following markup:

Hello world!

When this template-only component is invoked as {{hello-world}} with the flag unset or disabled (i.e. today's semantics), Ember will render:

<div id="ember123" class="ember-view">Hello world!</div>

When the flag is enabled, the same invocation will render:

Hello world!


With today's component system (i.e. Ember.Component), a wrapper element (a div by default, along with an ID like ember123 and the ember-view class) is automatically added for every component.

Customizing this wrapper element (such as changing the tag name – or removing it altogether) requires making changes to the component's JavaScript class, such as:

import Component from "@ember/component";

export Component.extend({
  tagName: "footer",
  classNames: ["legalese"]

While we acknowledge this API is quite cumbersome, it is sufficient to "get things done" for regular components, and Glimmer Components will address the usability aspect once they land.

However, this API does not work for template-only components, as they do not have a component JavaScript class by definition. Therefore, in practice, template-only components always come with a <div> wrapper, along with the default id and class attributes, with no obvious ways to customize it.

This is quite problematic, as it is often desirable to use a template-only component to organize content that requires a certain markup structure. The most common workaround for this problem is to use a partial instead, which comes with a host of issues. I will discuss other workarounds in the section below.

This RFC proposes to add a global flag to remove this wrapper element around template-only components. This will allow the component author to specify the wrapper element in the component template, offering direct control over the tag name and other attributes. It would also allow the component to have more than one top-level element, or none at all.

In other words, this flag changes template-only components in the app to have "Outer HTML" semantics. What you type is what you get.

Notably, Glimmer Components have adopted the "Outer HTML" semantics long ago and the experience has been very positive. This would be one of the first pieces of the Glimmer.js experiment to make its way into Ember. We think this feature is small, self-contained but useful enough to be integrated back into Ember at this point.

If accepted, this RFC will fully subsume the Non-context-shifting partials RFC. We can therefore (at a later time, in a separate RFC) explore deprecating partials in favor of wrapper-free template-only components.

Detailed design

API Surface

We should not expose the flag directly as a public API. Instead, we should abstract the flag with a "privileged addon" whose only purpose is to enable the flag. Applications will enable the flag by installing this addon. This will allow for more flexibility in changing the flag's implementation (the location, naming, value, or even the existence of it) in the future. From the user's perspective, it is the addon that provides this functionality. The flag is simply an internal implementation detail.

We have done this before in other cases (such as the legacy view addon during the 2.0 transition period), and it has generally worked well.

When landing this feature, it will be entirely opt-in for existing apps, but the Ember CLI application blueprint should be updated to include the addon by default. At a later time, we should provide another addon that disables the flag explicitly (installing both addons would be an install-time error). At that time, we will issue a deprecation warning if the flag is not set, with a message that directs the user to install one of the two addons.

Single Global "Flag"

The proposed flag will be truly global in scope. That is, setting this flag will change the semantics of all template-only components in the entire app, even for components that were included by addons.

However, we believe this would not affect any addon components in practice, as the predominant pattern for addons to expose components currently necessitates a JavaScript class. Addon authors would create the component (with or without a JavaScript class) in the /addon folder, but exposing it for consumption in apps requires creating a corresponding JavaScript class in the /app folder to "re-export" the component. Therefore, in practice, it is not actually possible for addons to have a truly template-only component today (something to address in a future RFC).

Leakage Of Ember.Component Semantics

While the primary purpose of this flag is to remove the wrapper element from template-only components, there are a few other observable semantics changes that comes with it as well.

Currently, template-only components are "backed" by an instance of Ember.Component. That is, Ember will create an instance of Ember.Component and set it as the {{this}} context for the template.

With the flag enabled, there will be no component instance for the template and {{this}} will be set to undefined (or null, perhaps). This would improve performance for template-only components significantly.

Since there is no JavaScript file for the component, this is only observable in a few limited ways:

  1. The most noticable artifact is the component's arguments will not be auto-reflected on the component instance (as there is no component instance at all). Therefore, the only way to access the component's arguments is to use the {{@foo}} syntax proposed in RFC #276.

  2. Because of the named arguments auto-reflection, it is actually possible to configure the tagName and classes on the "hidden" component instance on the invocation (e.g. {{foo-bar tagName="footer" class="legalese"}}). This will obviously stop working, but it is also not necessary anymore as the component author can simply include the tag in the template. Alternatively, the component author can choose to leave out the tag and let the caller wrap it in their template.

  3. It is possible (but very rare) to configure global injections on the component type. Since no component is being instantiated here, those properties will not be accessible in the template.

    More broadly, {{}} or the shorthand {{foo}} (where it would have resolved into a this lookup) will always be undefined (or null, perhaps).

Migration Path

Given the subtle semantics differences enumerated above, it is not necessarily safe to simply turn on the flag in bigger applications as it is quite likely that some of the template-only components might be relying on one or more of these features. Further, removing the wrapper element might break the layout.

Therefore, the only safe, mechanical transformation is to generate a JavaScript file for each template-only component (turning them into non- template only components). We should supplement the change by providing a codemod that does this for you.

While this would mean that apps would not be able to immediately take advantage of the feature, it will open the door for new template-only components to be written in the new semantics.

The user can also audit the components we identified and decide to delete the JavaScript and migrate them on a case-by-case basis.

The codemod can also come with a more aggressive (and unsound) mode that simply wraps each template in a <div> (to avoid breaking layout in most cases). This might be acceptable for smaller apps.

For what it's worth, the Ember CLI component blueprint always generate a JavaScript and a template file, so it might not be that common to find existing template-only components in an average app.

Implementation Plan

Finally, for the actual implementation, this would be implemented using the internal Component Manager API that has already been available for a long time (and how Curly Components, outlets etc are implemented internally).

It should be very straightforward implementation – essentially just a Component Manager that requires no capabilities and returns null in getSelf.

How We Teach This

Going forward, the "Outer HTML" semantics will be the default for template-only components, Glimmer Components and other custom component types (when the Component Manager API is available), so over time it should feel quite natural. The experience from the Glimmer experiment has also proven that this is the more natural programming model for components.

In the mean time, we still have to deal with the consequence that existing Ember.Component comes with a wrapper element by default. The mental model for users to understand this is that the Ember.Component class is what is giving you the wrapper element (therefore, template-only components, which is not an Ember.Component does not get one of those).

This should feel quite natual, as the component class is where you configure the wrapper element (and where you would lookup the API documentation). You could imagine that the Ember.Component is doing something like this under-the-hood as a convenience feature (which turned out to be not very convenient after all, but that's a different story):

export const Component = Object.extend({
  tagName: "div",
  classNames: ["ember-view"],

  // This is not real code that exists in the implementation
  render(buffer, template) {
    buffer.append(`<${this.tagName} class="${this.classNames.join(' ')}">`);


In general, we avoid flags that puts Ember into very different "modes" as they causes complication across the whole addon ecosystem. However, as mentioned above, we don't believe this would be the case here.


We could keep the current semantics for template-only components. However, this is usually undesirable, and would only grow to feel more unnatural as Glimmer Components and friends adopt the "Outer HTML" semantics.

Alternatively, we can make this opt-in per template using a pragma or magic comment. However, this would be needed for a lot of templates and become very noisy, and the alternative strategy proposed here (by keeping around the Ember.Component JavaScript file as needed) would be able to accomplish the same goal with less noise.