I've been working with nodejs lately and still getting to grips with the module system, so apologies if this is an obvious question. I want code roughly like the below:
a.js (the main file run with node)
var ClassB = require("./b");
var ClassA = function() {
this.thing = new ClassB();
this.property = 5;
}
var a = new ClassA();
module.exports = a;
b.js
var a = require("./a");
var ClassB = function() {
}
ClassB.prototype.doSomethingLater() {
util.log(a.property);
}
module.exports = ClassB;
My problem seems to be that I can't access the instance of ClassA from within an instance of ClassB.
Is there any correct / better way to structure modules to achieve what I want?
Is there a better way to share variables across modules?
Try to set properties on module.exports, instead of replacing it completely. E.g., module.exports.instance = new ClassA() in a.js, module.exports.ClassB = ClassB in b.js. When you make circular module dependencies, the requiring module will get a reference to an incomplete module.exports from the required module, which you can add other properties latter on, but when you set the entire module.exports, you actually create a new object which the requiring module has no way to access.
While node.js does allow circular require dependencies, as you've found it can be pretty messy and you're probably better off restructuring your code to not need it. Maybe create a third class that uses the other two to accomplish what you need.
[EDIT] it's not 2015 and most libraries (i.e. express) have made updates with better patterns so circular dependencies are no longer necessary. I recommend simply not using them.
I know I'm digging up an old answer here...
The issue here is that module.exports is defined after you require ClassB.
(which JohnnyHK's link shows)
Circular dependencies work great in Node, they're just defined synchronously.
When used properly, they actually solve a lot of common node issues (like accessing express.js app from other files)
Just make sure your necessary exports are defined before you require a file with a circular dependency.
This will break:
var ClassA = function(){};
var ClassB = require('classB'); //will require ClassA, which has no exports yet
module.exports = ClassA;
This will work:
var ClassA = module.exports = function(){};
var ClassB = require('classB');
I use this pattern all the time for accessing the express.js app in other files:
var express = require('express');
var app = module.exports = express();
// load in other dependencies, which can now require this file and use app
Sometimes it is really artificial to introduce a third class (as JohnnyHK advises), so in addition to Ianzz:
If you do want to replace the module.exports, for example if you're creating a class (like the b.js file in the above example), this is possible as well, just make sure that in the file that is starting the circular require, the 'module.exports = ...' statement happens before the require statement.
a.js (the main file run with node)
var ClassB = require("./b");
var ClassA = function() {
this.thing = new ClassB();
this.property = 5;
}
var a = new ClassA();
module.exports = a;
b.js
var ClassB = function() {
}
ClassB.prototype.doSomethingLater() {
util.log(a.property);
}
module.exports = ClassB;
var a = require("./a"); // <------ this is the only necessary change
The solution is to 'forward declare' your exports object before requiring any other controller. So if you structure all your modules like this and you won't run into any issues like that:
// Module exports forward declaration:
module.exports = {
};
// Controllers:
var other_module = require('./other_module');
// Functions:
var foo = function () {
};
// Module exports injects:
module.exports.foo = foo;
What about lazy requiring only when you need to? So your b.js looks as follows
var ClassB = function() {
}
ClassB.prototype.doSomethingLater() {
var a = require("./a"); //a.js has finished by now
util.log(a.property);
}
module.exports = ClassB;
Of course it is good practice to put all require statements on top of the file. But there are occasions, where I forgive myself for picking something out of an otherwise unrelated module. Call it a hack, but sometimes this is better than introducing a further dependency, or adding an extra module or adding new structures (EventEmitter, etc)
You can solve this easily: just export your data before you require anything else in modules where you use module.exports:
classA.js
class ClassA {
constructor(){
ClassB.someMethod();
ClassB.anotherMethod();
};
static someMethod () {
console.log( 'Class A Doing someMethod' );
};
static anotherMethod () {
console.log( 'Class A Doing anotherMethod' );
};
};
module.exports = ClassA;
var ClassB = require( "./classB.js" );
let classX = new ClassA();
classB.js
class ClassB {
constructor(){
ClassA.someMethod();
ClassA.anotherMethod();
};
static someMethod () {
console.log( 'Class B Doing someMethod' );
};
static anotherMethod () {
console.log( 'Class A Doing anotherMethod' );
};
};
module.exports = ClassB;
var ClassA = require( "./classA.js" );
let classX = new ClassB();
A solution which require minimal change is extending module.exports instead of overriding it.
a.js - app entry point and module which use method do from b.js*
_ = require('underscore'); //underscore provides extend() for shallow extend
b = require('./b'); //module `a` uses module `b`
_.extend(module.exports, {
do: function () {
console.log('doing a');
}
});
b.do();//call `b.do()` which in turn will circularly call `a.do()`
b.js - module which use method do from a.js
_ = require('underscore');
a = require('./a');
_.extend(module.exports, {
do: function(){
console.log('doing b');
a.do();//Call `b.do()` from `a.do()` when `a` just initalized
}
})
It will work and produce:
doing b
doing a
While this code will not work:
a.js
b = require('./b');
module.exports = {
do: function () {
console.log('doing a');
}
};
b.do();
b.js
a = require('./a');
module.exports = {
do: function () {
console.log('doing b');
}
};
a.do();
Output:
node a.js
b.js:7
a.do();
^
TypeError: a.do is not a function
The important thing is not to re-assign the module.exports object that you have been given, because that object may have already been given to other modules in the cycle! Just assign properties inside module.exports and other modules will see them appear.
So a simple solution is:
module.exports.firstMember = ___;
module.exports.secondMember = ___;
The only real downside is the need to repeat module.exports. many times.
Similar to lanzz and setec's answers, I have been using the following pattern, which feels more declarative:
module.exports = Object.assign(module.exports, {
firstMember: ___,
secondMember: ___,
});
The Object.assign() copies the members into the exports object that has already been given to other modules.
The = assignment is logically redundant, since it is just setting module.exports to itself, but I am using it because it helps my IDE (WebStorm) to recognise that firstMember is a property of this module, so "Go To -> Declaration" (Cmd-B) and other tooling will work from other files.
This pattern is not very pretty, so I only use it when a cyclic dependency issue needs to be resolved.
It is fairly well suited to the reveal pattern, because you can easily add and remove exports from the object, especially when using ES6's property shorthand.
Object.assign(module.exports, {
firstMember,
//secondMember,
});
the extremely simple solution is often:
usually you'd have the require at the top of the file ...
var script = require('./script')
function stuff() {
script.farfunction()
}
instead, just require it "in the function"
function stuff() {
var _script = require('./script')
_script.farfunction()
}
An other method I've seen people do is exporting at the first line and saving it as a local variable like this:
let self = module.exports = {};
const a = require('./a');
// Exporting the necessary functions
self.func = function() { ... }
I tend to use this method, do you know about any downsides of it?
TL;DR
Just use exports.someMember = someMember instead of module.exports = { // new object }.
Extended Answer
After reading lanzz's response I could finally figure it out what is happening here, so I'll give my two cents on the subject, extending his answer.
Let's see this example:
a.js
console.log("a starting");
console.log("a requires b");
const b = require("./b");
console.log("a gets b =", b);
function functionA() {
console.log("function a");
}
console.log("a done");
exports.functionA = functionA;
b.js
console.log("b starting");
console.log("b requires a");
const a = require("./a");
console.log("b gets a =", a);
function functionB() {
console.log("On b, a =", a)
}
console.log("b done");
exports.functionB = functionB;
main.js
const a = require("./a");
const b = require("./b");
b.functionB()
Output
a starting
a requires b
b starting
b requires a
b gets a = {}
b done
a gets b = { functionB: [Function: functionB] }
a done
On b, a = { functionA: [Function: functionA] }
Here we can see that at first b receives an empty object as a, and then once a is fully loaded, that reference is updated through exports.functionA = functionA. If you instead replace the entire module with another object, through module.exports, then b will lose the reference from a, since it will point out to the same empty object from the beginning, instead of pointing to the new one.
So if you export a like this: module.exports = { functionA: functionA }, then the output will be:
a starting
a requires b
b starting
b requires a
b gets a = {}
b done
a gets b = { functionB: [Function: functionB] }
a done
On b, a = {} // same empty object
Actually I ended up requiring my dependency with
var a = null;
process.nextTick(()=>a=require("./a")); //Circular reference!
not pretty, but it works. It is more understandable and honest than changing b.js (for example only augmenting modules.export), which otherwise is perfect as is.
Here is a quick workaround that I've found use full.
On file 'a.js'
let B;
class A{
constructor(){
process.nextTick(()=>{
B = require('./b')
})
}
}
module.exports = new A();
On the file 'b.js' write the following
let A;
class B{
constructor(){
process.nextTick(()=>{
A = require('./a')
})
}
}
module.exports = new B();
This way on the next iteration of the event loop classes will be defined correctly and those require statements will work as expected.
One way to avoid it is to don't require one file in other just pass it as an argument to a function what ever you need in an another file.
By this way circular dependency will never arise.
If you just can't eliminate circular dependencies (e.g useraccount <---> userlogin), there's one more option...
Its as simple as using setTimeout()
//useraccount.js
let UserLogin = {};
setTimeout(()=>UserLogin=require('./userlogin.js'), 10);
class UserAccount{
getLogin(){
return new UserLogin(this.email);
}
}
//userlogin.js
let UserAccount ={};
setTimeout(()=>UserAccount=require('./useraccount.js'), 15);
class UserLogin{
getUser(){
return new User(this.token);
}
}
so, I have this problem - and when I have a problem with JavaScript or node inevitably it is my coding that is the problem ;)
So at the risk of ridicule, this is the problem:
I have a module that has an optional parameter for config
Using the standard pattern, this is what I have:
module.exports = function(opts){
return {
// module instance
};
}
and in the calling code there is this
var foo = require('bar')({option: value})
if there are no options to pass, the code looks like this
var foo = require('bar')({})
which kinda looks ugly
so, I wanted to do this
var foo = require('bar')
which doesn't work, as the exports is a function call
so, to the meat of the issue
a) is there any way of achieving this lofty goal ?
b) is there a better pattern of passing parameters to a module ?
many thanks - and I hope that once the laughter has passed you will be able to send some help my way :)
Instead of removing the function call completely, you could make the options argument options to remove the need for an empty object:
module.exports = function(opts) {
opts = opts || {};
return {
// module instance
};
}
It doesn't completely remove the need for () but is better than ({}).
tldr: stick with require('foo')('bar');
There's no way to pass additional parameters to require. Here's the source code, notice how it only takes a single argument:
Module.prototype.require = function(path) {
assert(util.isString(path), 'path must be a string');
assert(path, 'missing path');
return Module._load(path, this);
};
If you really really really want to avoid ()(), you could try something like this:
b.js
'use strict';
module.exports = {
x: 'default',
configure: function (x) {
this.x = x;
},
doStuff: function () {
return 'x is ' + this.x;
}
};
a.js
'use strict';
var b = require('./b');
// Default config:
console.log(b.doStuff()); // 'x is default'
// Reconfigure:
b.configure(42);
console.log(b.doStuff()); // 'x is 42'
But I think it's uglier... stick with the original idea.
Writing the simplest module we could, we write into hello.js:
var hello = function(){
console.log('hello');
};
exports = hello; \\ Doesn't work on Amazon EC2 Ubuntu Instance nor Windows Powershell
I run Node and require the module
var hello = require('./hello');
hello;
and an empty array {} gets returned when I'm supposed to get [Function].
I tried replacing exports with module.exports, but this doesn't work on my Windows Powershell. It does work on my Amazon EC2 Ubuntu Instance, so why doesn't exports work? Has the API changed? And what could possibly be happening with Powershell that neither of these work?
I know Windows isn't the most desirable development environment, but I can't get my head around such a simple mishap.
EDIT
exporting with ES6 is a little nicer
export const hello = function(){
console.log('hello');
};
importing will look like
import {hello} from './file';
Original answer
You'll want to use module.exports
var hello = function(){
console.log('hello');
};
module.exports = hello;
If just exporting one thing, I'll usually do it all in one line
var hello = module.exports = function() {
console.log('hello');
};
Extras
If you use a named function, in the event an error occurs in your code, your stack trace will look a lot nicer. Here's the way I would write it
// use a named function ↓
var hello = module.exports = function hello() {
console.log("hello");
};
Now instead of showing anonymous for the function name in the stack trace, it will show you hello. This makes finding bugs so much easier.
I use this pattern everywhere so that I can debug code easily. Here's another example
// event listeners ↓
mystream.on("end", function onEnd() {
console.log("mystream ended");
};
// callbacks ↓
Pokemon.where({name: "Metapod"}, function pokemonWhere(err, result) {
// do stuff
});
If you want to export multiple things, you can use exports directly, but you must provide a key
// lib/foobar.js
exports.foo = function foo() {
console.log("hello foo!");
};
exports.bar = function bar() {
console.log("hello bar!");
};
Now when you use that file
var foobar = require("./lib/foobar");
foobar.foo(); // hello foo!
foobar.bar(); // hello bar!
As a final bonus, I'll show you how you can rewrite that foobar.js by exporting a single object but still getting the same behavior
// lib/foobar.js
module.exports = {
foo: function foo() {
console.log("hello foo!");
},
bar: function bar() {
console.log("hello bar!");
}
};
// works the same as before!
This allows you to write modules in whichever way is best suited for that particular module. Yay!
The reason exports is not working is because of the reference conflict. The top variable in each file is module which has a property module.exports. When the module is loaded new variable is created in the background. Something like this happens:
var exports = module.exports;
Obviously exports is a reference to module.exports, but doing
exports = function(){};
forces exports variable to point at function object - it does not change module.exports. It's like doing:
var TEST = { foo: 1 };
var foo = TEST.foo;
foo = "bar";
console.log(TEST.foo);
// 1
Common practice is to do:
module.exports = exports = function() { ... };
I have no idea why it doesn't work under Windows Powershell. To be honest I'm not even sure what that is. :) Can't you just use native command prompt?
Consider I want to expose a method called Print
Binding method as prototype:
File Saved as Printer.js
var printerObj = function(isPrinted) {
this.printed = isPrinted;
}
printerObj.prototype.printNow = function(printData) {
console.log('= Print Started =');
};
module.exports = printerObj;
Then access printNow() by putting code require('Printer.js').printNow() in any external .js node program file.
Export method itself using module.exports:
File Saved as Printer2.js
var printed = false;
function printNow() {
console.log('= Print Started =');
}
module.exports.printNow = printNow;
Then access printNow() by putting code require('Printer2.js').printNow() in any external .js node program file.
Can anyone tell what is the difference and best way of doing it with respect to Node.js?
Definitely the first way. It is called the substack pattern and you can read about it on Twitter and on Mikeal Rogers' blog. Some code examples can be found at the jade github repo in the parser:
var Parser = exports = module.exports = function Parser(str, filename, options){
this.input = str;
this.lexer = new Lexer(str, options);
...
};
Parser.prototype = {
context: function(parser){
if (parser) {
this.contexts.push(parser);
} else {
return this.contexts.pop();
}
},
advance: function(){
return this.lexer.advance();
}
};
In the first example you are creating a class, ideally you should use it with "new" in your caller program:
var PrinterObj = require('Printer.js').PrinterObj;
var printer = new PrinterObj();
printer.PrintNow();
This is a good read on the subject: http://www.2ality.com/2012/01/js-inheritance-by-example.html
In the second example you are returning a function.
The difference is that you can have multiple instances of the first example (provided you use new as indicated) but only one instance of the second approach.
If I have a node module (I wrote) and I want to pass it a value, I could do this:
var someValue process.env.SomeKey || '';
var someModule = require('./someModule');
someModule.setOption({ 'SomeKey' : someValue });
but it feels like I am reinventing the wheel.
Is there a better way to do this or is it totally subjective?
In general, you simply export a function from the module:
module.exports = function(opts){
return {
// module instance
};
}
then in the requiring page:
var mod = require('module')({ someOpt: 'val' });
But in reality, do it however you want. There's no set-in-stone standard.
I generally build modules that have similar components, sometimes just one class, or even just a selections of methods.
(function () {
var myClass = function (opts) {
this.opts = opts;
};
myClass.prototype.blah = function () {
console.log('blah');
};
exports.myClass = myClass;
})();
Then in your file that is using that module.
var mymodule = require('./mymodule');
var myInstance = new mymodule.myClass({opt1: 'blah'});
myInstance.blah();
Of course you don't need to just pass around an object of options :)
Yes, it is totally subjective.
Doing it the way you demonstrated is fine. You can also just export a function or a class by assigning it to module.exports.