I got to the point that I'd like to have a factory to manage all my dependencies for the modules in a single place instead of having a lot of statements using require all over the place in my code.
I've looked at some approaches that rely on AMD, but I'd like to know how to do it by using node.js / express combination with the OOB module loader which I think it uses common.js.
I've been thinking of doing something like this:
module.exports = {
lib:[],
load:function(name){
if(this.lib[name]!==undefined && this.lib[name]!==null){
return this.lib[name];
}
switch(name)
{
case 'express':
this.lib[name] = require('express');
break;
case 'morgan':
this.lib[name] = require('morgan');
break;
case 'body-parser':
this.lib[name] = require('body-parser');
break;
}
console.log(this.lib);
return this.lib[name];
}
};
Some people say that's more than a factory its a mediator pattern, so either way I just wanted to illustrate my point.
my basic requirement is to handle all the dependencies from a single place in the system if I need to change a dependency I just change it on this file and automatically updates through the whole system.
so is there a better way to handle this? any Implementation that already have done this approach?
thanks!
Technically this is what require() does internally.
require('foo'); require('foo')
guarantees that it will load and run foo only once. The second call will return a cached copy from its internal array.
You can achieve the same naming indirection (and an API adapter if you'll ever decide to change the implementation without changing callers) by requiring JS files or your node modules that re-export modules you actually use (e.g. require('./my-express-wrapper') instead of require('express')).
if I need to change a dependency I just change it on this file and automatically updates through the whole system.
I'd be concerned that it will cause code to be surprising:
require('factory').load('body-parser'); // loads Formidable!?
I see little benefit in having such layer of indirection:
Even in the best case of drop-in-replacement it saves very little work, because project-global find'n'replace of require('foo') with require('bar') is an easy task in most text editors.
The hard part of replacing module (which is unlikely to be 100% compatible) is getting existing code to correctly work with it. This is not avoided by use of the factory pattern. You'll need to write an adapter either way, and sometimes it may even be better to actually change uses of the module everywhere than to write an emulation layer for an API that probably wasn't good anyway.
Related
I'd like to add an important functionality that I can use at work without using require() every time. So, I thought modifying built-in objects can make this happen but I could not locate the locations of those objects to do the modification.
Are those objects in NodeJS binary? Would that mean I have to fork the whole NodeJS repo to make this happen?
Please, I don't want to use prototype editing etc which are same as require. I need to have native feeling.
First off, I agree with an earlier comment that this sounds like a bit of an XY problem where we could better help you if you describe what problem you're really trying to solve. Portable node.js programs that work anywhere or work with any future versions of node.js don't rely on some sort of custom configured environment in order to run. They use the built-in capabilities of node.js and they require/import in external things they want to add to the environment.
Are those objects in NodeJS binary?
Yes, they are in the executable.
Would that mean I have to fork the whole NodeJS repo to make this happen?
Yes.
Please, I don't want to use prototype editing etc which are same as require. I need to have native feeling.
"Native feeling"? This sounds like you haven't really bought into the node.js module architecture. It is different than many other environments. It's easy to get used to over time. IMO, it would really be better to go with the flow and architecture of the platform rather than make some custom version of node.js just to save one line of typing in your startup code.
And, the whole concept of adding a number of globals you can use anywhere pretty much shows that you haven't fully understood the design, architectural, code reuse and testability advantages of the module design baked into node.js. If you had, you wouldn't be trying to write a lot of code that can't be reused in other ways that you don't anticipate now.
That said, in searching through the node.js source code on Github, I found this source file node.js which is where lots of things are added to the node.js global object such as setTimeout(), clearTimeout(), setImmediate(), clearImmediate() and so on. So, that source file seems to be where node.js is setting up the global object. If you wanted to add your own things there, that's one place where it would be done.
To provide a sample of that code (you can see the link above for the complete code):
if (!config.noBrowserGlobals) {
// Override global console from the one provided by the VM
// to the one implemented by Node.js
// https://console.spec.whatwg.org/#console-namespace
exposeNamespace(global, 'console', createGlobalConsole(global.console));
const { URL, URLSearchParams } = require('internal/url');
// https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#url
exposeInterface(global, 'URL', URL);
// https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urlsearchparams
exposeInterface(global, 'URLSearchParams', URLSearchParams);
const {
TextEncoder, TextDecoder
} = require('internal/encoding');
// https://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/#textencoder
exposeInterface(global, 'TextEncoder', TextEncoder);
// https://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/#textdecoder
exposeInterface(global, 'TextDecoder', TextDecoder);
// https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#windoworworkerglobalscope
const timers = require('timers');
defineOperation(global, 'clearInterval', timers.clearInterval);
defineOperation(global, 'clearTimeout', timers.clearTimeout);
defineOperation(global, 'setInterval', timers.setInterval);
defineOperation(global, 'setTimeout', timers.setTimeout);
defineOperation(global, 'queueMicrotask', queueMicrotask);
// Non-standard extensions:
defineOperation(global, 'clearImmediate', timers.clearImmediate);
defineOperation(global, 'setImmediate', timers.setImmediate);
}
This code is built into the node.js executable so the only way I know of to directly modify it (without hackish patching of the executable itself) would be to modify the file and then rebuild node.js for your platform into a custom build.
On a little more practical note, you can also use the -r module command line argument to tell node.js to run require(module) before starting your main script. So, you could make a different way of starting node.js from a shell file that always passes the -r fullPathToYourModule argument to node.js so it will always run your startup module that adds things to the global object.
Again, you'd be doing this just to save one line of typing in your startup file. It is really worth doing that?
How do you require a file within itself in node.js? E.g. api.js:
var api = require(./api.js);
What is the best practice for doing this?
You can totally do it. Try this, for instance (in a file named a.js):
exports.foo = 'foo';
var a = require('./a');
console.log(a);
exports.bar = 'bar';
console.log(a);
At the point where require executes, it will return the module a as it exists at the point where require runs so the field foo will be defined but not bar.
There's no point to doing this though. You use require to bring into your current scope an object which would otherwise not be available (namely, a module). But you don't need to do this to access the module you are currently in: it is already fully available.
The code above works because Node has rules to handle cyclic dependencies. And here you have a module which is cyclicly dependent on itself. Rather than go into an infinite loop of requires, Node has require return the module as built up to that point: a partial module. And the modules in a cyclic dependency have to be designed to handle the fact that they may get partial modules.
Cyclic dependencies are to be avoided as much as possible. Most of the time this means refactoring the modules to avoid the mutual dependency by moving functionality into one or more new modules.
So, again, the best practice is to not do this in the first place.
I'm starting out a long term project, based on Node.js, and so I'm looking to build upon a solid dependency injection (DI) system.
Although Node.js at its core implies using simple module require()s for wiring components, I find this approach not best suited for a large project (e.g. requiring modules in each file is not that maintainable, testable or dynamic).
Now, I'd done my bits of research before posting this question and I've found out some interesting DI libraries for Node.js (see wire.js and dependable.js).
However, for maximal simplicity and minimal repetition I've come up with my own proposition of implementing DI:
You have a module, di.js, which acts as the container and is initialized by pointing to a JSON file storing a map of dependency names and their respective .js files.
This already provides a dynamic nature to the DI, as you may easily swap test/development dependencies.
The container can return dependencies by using an inject() function, which finds the dependency mapping and calls require() with it.
For simplicity, the module is assigned to a global variable, i.e. global.$di, so that any file in the project may use the container/injector by calling $di.inject().
Here's the gist of the implementation:
File di.js
module.exports = function(path) {
this.deps = require(path);
return {
inject: function(name) {
if (!deps[name])
throw new Error('dependency "' + name + '" isn\'t registered');
return require(deps[name]);
}
};
};
Dependency map JSON file
{
"vehicle": "lib/jetpack",
"fuel": "lib/benzine",
"octane": "lib/octane98"
}
Initialize the $di in the main JavaScript file, according to development/test mode:
var path = 'dep-map-' + process.env.NODE_ENV + '.json;
$di = require('di')(path);
Use it in some file:
var vehicle = $di.inject('vehicle');
vehicle.go();
So far, the only problem I could think of using this approach is the global variable $di.
Supposedly, global variables are a bad practice, but it seems to me like I'm saving a lot of repetition for the cost of a single global variable.
What can be suggested against my proposal?
Overall this approach sounds fine to me.
The way global variables work in Node.js is that when you declare a variable without the var keyword, and it gets added to the global object which is shared between all modules. You can also explicitly use global.varname. Example:
vehicle = "jetpack"
fuel = "benzine"
console.log(vehicle) // "jetpack"
console.log(global.fuel) // "benzine"
Variables declared with var will only be local to the module.
var vehicle = "car"
console.log(vehicle) // "car"
console.log(global.vehicle) // "jetpack"
So in your code if you are doing $di = require('di')(path) (without var), then you should be able to use it in other modules without any issues. Using global.$di might make the code more readable.
Your approach is a clear and simple one which is good. Whether you have a global variable or require your module every time is not important.
Regarding testability it allows you to replace your modules with mocks. For unit testing you should add a function that makes it easy for you to apply different mocks for each test. Something that extends your dependency map temporarily.
For further reading I can recommend a great blog article on dependency injection in Node.js as well as a talk on the future dependency injector of angular.js which is designed by some serious masterminds.
BTW, you might be interested in Fire Up! which is a dependency injection container I implemented.
Say I create a library in ./libname which contains one main file: main.js and multiple optional library files which are occasionally used with the main object: a.js and b.js.
I create index.js file with the following:
exports.MainClass = require('main.js').MainClass; // shortcut
exports.a = require('a');
exports.b = require('b');
And now I can use the library as follows:
var lib = require('./libname');
lib.MainClass;
lib.a.Something; // Here I need the optional utility object
lib.b.SomeOtherThing;
However, that means, I load 'a.js' and 'b.js' always and not when I really need them.
Sure I can manually load the optional modules with require('./libname/a.js'), but then I lose the pretty lib.a dot-notation :)
Is there a way to implement on-demand loading with some kind of index file? Maybe, some package.json magic can play here well?
This may possible if you called the "MainClass" to dynamically load the additional modules on-demand. But I suspect this will also mean an adjustment in the api to access the module.
I am guess your motivation is to "avoid" the extra processing used by "non-required modules".
But remember Node is single threaded so the memory footprint of loading a module is not per-connection, it's per-process. Loading a module is a one-off to get it into memory.
In other words the modules are only ever loaded when you start your server not every-time someone makes a request.
I think you looking at this from client-side programming where it's advantages to load scripts when they are required to save on both processing and or http requests.
On the server the most you will be saving is few extra bites in memory.
Looks like the only way is to use getters. In short, like this:
exports = {
MainClass : require('main.js').MainClass,
get a(){ return require('./a.js'); },
get b(){ return require('./a.js'); }
}
I want to set up include paths (and other paths, like view script paths) based on the module being accessed. Is this safe? If not, how could I safely set up include paths dynamically? I'm doing something like the code below (this is from a controller plugin.)
public function dispatchLoopStartup(Zend_Controller_Request_Abstract $request) {
$modName = $request->getModuleName();
$modulePath = APP_PATH.'/modules/'.$modName.'/classes';
set_include_path(get_include_path().PATH_SEPARATOR.$modulePath);
}
I'm not sure whether it is safe or not, but it doesn't sound like the best practice. What if someone entered a module name like ../admin/? You should sanitize the module name before using it.
It's fine as long as you sanitize your variables before using them, but it won't be very performant. Fiddling with include paths at runtime causes a serious impact performance.
You're trying to load models/helpers per module? You should look at Zend_Application:
Zend_Application provides a bootstrapping facility for applications which provides reusable resources, common- and module-based bootstrap classes and dependency checking. It also takes care of setting up the PHP environment and introduces autoloading by default.
Emphasis by me