Develop Reference

Requiring Singleton Instances in Node

I spied in some code the following:
var Log = require('log');
// This creates a singleton instance
module.exports = new Log('info');
My first reaction was "no way that is a singleton", but I remember an article that outlined how Node.js does require() statements said something about caching require statements and using them in subsequent calls.
So basically my question, is exporting a new Object() actually creating a singleton behind the scenes?
I know there are other ways of creating singletons in JavaScript, but this seems like a pretty handy way of doing it inside Node (if it actually works).

Yes, that's the closest thing to a Singleton in Node.js. require() caches each module upon the first invocation, so every subsequent require() returns always the same instance.
However you must be aware that this is not always enforced. The cache could be modified/removed, also the module is cached using its fullpath, in short it means that if you define a singleton in a package and your package is installed as nested dependency, you may have several instances of your "singleton" within the context of the same application.
Quick example:
Application
node_modules
PackageA
node_modules
YourPackageWithSingleton
PackageB
node_modules
YourPackageWithSingleton
Usually you don't have to worry about this, but if you really need to share one object across the entire application, the only solution is using globals (discouraged) or Dependency Injection.

Its not really a singleton due to you could create as much instances of Log as you want. But you can use it like this. Otherwise you just can create an plain object by var mySingleton = {} and attach attributes and methods to it.
Then you can assign mySingleton to module.exports and require() it in other modules.
foo.js:
var mySingleton = {
someMethod = function () {}
};
module.exports = mySingleton;
bar.js:
var singletonClass = require('./foo.js');
singletonClass.someMethod();

Why not test it out for yourself?
$ cat test.js
module.exports = Math.random();
$ node
> var a = require("./test");
undefined
> var a = require("./test");
undefined
> a === b
true
Yes, it seems that node.js does indeed cache exported values. Hence if you require the same module again it will return the cached value instead of creating a new value.
It should be noted however that the programmer could just require("log") and create a new instance manually. So in that sense it is not a singleton.

Javascript 'normal' objects vs module pattern

Currently I'm developing a large scale Javascript app(single page) and I've searched around the web to find some best practices. Most projects use the module pattern so the objects doesn't pollute the global namespace. At this moment I use normal objects:
function LoginModel(){
this.model = new MyModel();
this.getModel = function(){
return this.model;
};
}
This is readable and easy to maintain(my opinion). Is it better to use the module pattern just because of the namespacing or does it has other advantages I'm not aware of(counter memory leaks, ... )? Furthermore, I've already splitted up the files to have a nice MVC pattern and destroy every object when needed(counter memory leaks). So the main question is: do I need, in my case, to use the module pattern or not?
Module pattern:
var LoginModel = (function(){
var model = MyModel;
function getModel(){
return model;
};
return {
getModel: getModel
};
});

The module pattern is better for overall code organization. It lets you have data, logic and functions that are private to that scope.
In your second example getModel() is the only way to get the model from the outside. The variable declared int he module are hidden unless explicitly exposed. This can be a very handy thing.
And there's not really any drawback, other than being a little more complex. You just get more options for organization and encapsulation.
I'd use a plain object until my model gets complex enough to need more structure and some private scoping. And when you hit that point, it's trivial to redefine it as a revealing module without breaking any of the code that uses it.

If you're only going to be using one instance per page, I don't see the need to involve the new keyword. So personally I would create a revealing module like you did in your last example, and expose an object with the "public" properties.
Though I don't see your point with the getModel() function, since MyModel is obviously accessable outside of the scope.
I would have rewritten it slightly:
var LoginModel = (function(model, window, undefined){
function init(){ } // or whatever
function doSomethingWithModel(){
console.log(model);
}
return { init: init };
})(MyModel, window);
If you're uncertain of which modules that will get a model, you can use loose augumentation and change
})(MyModel, window);
to
})(MyModel || {}, window);
If you need several instances of a module, it would look something like this:
var LoginModel = (function(model, window, undefined){
function loginModel(name){ // constructor
this.name = name; // something instance specific
}
loginModel.prototype.getName = function(){
return this.name;
};
return loginModel;
})(MyModel, window);
var lm1 = new LoginModel('foo');
var lm2 = new LoginModel('bar');
console.log(lm1.getName(), lm2.getName()); // 'foo', 'bar'

There's several concepts conflated in your question
With what you call the "normal object", the function becomes a constructor function and requires the new keyword.
The second example uses the Revealing Module Pattern inside of an IIFE. This is the most popular variant of the Module Pattern, but unfortunately deeply flawed. For an explanation of the differences see my answer here, and for its flaws, see here.
Now, your question poses a false dichotomy -- normal objects or module pattern? You don't have to make a choice -- a normal object can use the module pattern simply by putting whatever it wants to keep private inside its closure scope. For example,
function LoginModel(){
var _notifyListeners = function(){
// Do your stuff here
};
this.model = new MyModel();
this.getModel = function(){
_notifyListeners();
return this.model;
};
}
This is an example of a "normal object" using the module pattern. What you have to avoid doing is what the Revealing Module Pattern does -- putting everything into closure scope. You should only put the things you want to keep private inside the closure scope.

How to use `require` and dependency injection, service location in JS (browser-side)?

So I've been playing with JS and browserify to allow to split my JS into smaller file chunks. It works great, however, I'm still lost on how to properly use the require function.
For me, it acts as a the Service Locator, because it looks for the proper "file" to load, and return an object. (For example in PHP, require somewhat load the file in the memory but doesn't construct).
Example:
var Foo = function() {
console.log("I'm the Foo object");
};
module.exports = Foo;
Then, to use it I'll do:
var Foo = require('foo');
and
var foo = new Foo();
Note, that the exported function is NOT constructed.
I could have done:
var foo = require('foo')();
None of those methods seems right to me (I may are wrong).
1) Is it common to do it like this? Or should exported the executed function?
Anyway, this introduction is to understand how I should play with the require function.
For example if I've a Foo object, which is depends of Bar, I've two way to do:
Service Location:
var Foo = function() {
var Bar = require('bar')();
Bar.doSomethingAwesome();
};
module.exports = Foo;
or I can do:
Dependency Injection
var Foo = function(bar) {
bar.doSomethingAwesome();
};
module.exports = Foo;
// And at a latter time
var foo = require('foo')(require('bar')); /// eurk
I obviously know that that's two different things and serve different purposes.
2) But I'm wondering what is the common/right way to do in JS, is there any commonly admitted rules?

Browserify allows you to program with modules, there's not much more to it. It's not really a DI container or service locator per se, although you can probably make it work like one.
So doing this is perfectly fine:
var Foo = require('foo');
var foo = new Foo();
In that case, it makes sense to simply place all require calls at the top of your file, similar like you would do with using in C# or import in Java. I personally wouldn't scatter require calls since don't help much with readability.
You can also export an instance which doesn't have to be newed up anymore, as long as that is appropriate for what you want to do (in that case module.exports = Foo() would lead to a singleton).
Also see this related question:
Dependency Injection with RequireJS

The rewire library provides module injection for Node.js.
A couple of solutions have been discussed and presented in this Github issue to support browserify.
Usage example from the project README:
var myModule = rewire("../lib/myModule.js");
myModule.__set__("fs", fsMock); // set private variable

Use Browserify so you can require npm packages from your browser just like node. Then you can use Weather.js or require it, then inject it in any way you like.

Aliasing a function object in JavaScript

Disclaimer: I am using ExtJS 3, but I don't think it's very relevant to the question, outside of the common use of it's namespacing function.
I have a singleton that's declared in a really long namespace like this:
Ext.ns("REALLY.REALLY.LONG.NAMESPACE");
var Singleton = (function() {
var foo = {
bar: "baz"
};
var privateFunction = function(param){
// ...
return foo;
};
var single = Ext.extend(Object, {
constructor: function(config) {
Ext.apply(this, config);
},
otherFunction: privateFunction,
publicFunction: function (someObject){
// do stuff with someObject
}
});
return single;
})();
// Make it a singleton
REALLY.REALLY.LONG.NAMESPACE.Singleton = new Singleton();
I use it in other modules via calls like REALLY.REALLY.LONG.NAMESPACE.Singleton.otherFunction(); and REALLY.REALLY.LONG.NAMESPACE.Singleton.publicFunction(myObject); . I'm wondering if I can swap out those calls by setting up the client module with an alias to the singleton, i.e. var singleton = REALLY.REALLY.LONG.NAMESPACE.Singleton; , so that I can call singleton.otherFunction();. I'm wondering if this is an anti-pattern , or if there are any pitfalls (memory?) I might run into through this usage.
Thanks StackOverflow!

I'm wondering if I can swap out those calls by setting up the client module with an alias to the singleton
Yes, you can.
I'm wondering if this is an anti-pattern , or if there are any pitfalls (memory?) I might run into through this usage.
No, there aren't any that I can think of and it is faster than calling the fully-qualified version.
Local Alias Pattern
Example:
function somefunc(){
var singleton = REALLY.REALLY.LONG.NAMESPACE.Singleton;
singleton.publicFunction();
};
Or:
(function somfunc(singleton){
}(REALLY.REALLY.LONG.NAMESPACE.Singleton));
Test Results:
http://jsfiddle.net/jMg9A/

There is no issue with creating a reference to the original "object". In many cases we create a namespace to organize our code, but of course, this can lead to really long namespaces that we really don't wish to reference later, thus creating a local reference to that namespace is an excellent idea so that you can change it in one place instead of various places.
I don't really see an ant-pattern here, instead I see an opportunity to make it simpler for yourself and probably a little more manageable from a developer standpoint.

What is meant by “leaking” into global scope?

A while ago, I offered-up a JavaScript design pattern (the Module Pattern - see below) that I got from a John Resig example as part of a solution to someone’s question and I received the following comment:
“…that pattern is a bit over
engineered and not that good. Still
leaking into global-scope. and your
not opening yourself to async loaders.
But it is better then just ad-hoc
coding !”
So…
If “leaking” into global scope means “your object gets appended to the browsers window (object)”…then everything already gets appended (globally):
This “leaks” into global scope:
window.jQuery
…just call: window.jQuery and it resolves as a function();
This “leaks” into global scope:
function HelloWorld() { alert(‘Howdy’); }
…just call: window.HelloWorld() and you will get ‘Howdy’.
This “leaks” into global scope:
var myVariable = 10;
…just call: window.myVariable and you will get 10
If the commenter is correct, then all the above “leak” into global-scope. So, personally, I don’t see a way NOT to “leak” into global-scope as even your form controls exists there (as well).
As such, here are my questions…
What is meant by “leaking” into
global-scope?
Why is that bad?
How do you avoid it?
When wanting to create persistent
custom-objects, why is the Module
Pattern (below) bad?
Design patterns let you encapsulate
complex logic, is encapsulation
suddenly bad simply because we’re
writing in JavaScript?
Or...is this commenter simply wrong?
Here is the Module Pattern I Mentioned Above:
<script type="text/javascript">
var myNamespace = (function($) {
var publicInstances = {};
// ***********************
// myObject
publicInstances.myObject = myObject;
function myObject() {
/// <summary>A pointer to this</summary>
var self = this;
this.someProperty = new String();
this.initialize = function() {
/// your code here
}
this.someMethod = function() {
/// your code here
}
self.initialize();
}
return publicInstances;
})(jQuery);
jQuery(document).ready(function() {
// Use would look like
var myInstance = new myNamespace.myObject();
});
</script>
UPDATED:
I’m satisfied with the answers below and want to thank everyone for taking the time to comment.
TO RECAP THE ANSWERS BELOW:
"Leaking" into global-scope occurs when something used in local-scope is unintentionally made available to the global-scope (e.g. the window object). This is bad because it opens the page to potential naming collisions which could result in variables resolving to unexpected values or types.
Intentionally making a variable global is not considered a "leak". However, properly namespacing the object is required to reduce potential for said naming collisions.
You cannot avoid globally-scoped variables, but you can reduce the above risks by using asynchronous-loaders and defining-modules made available in plug-ins like RequireJS or Curl.

"Leaking" into global scope is when something used in a local scope is unintentionally made available to the global scope. That means assigning to a variable not already defined in the current scope:
function myFunction() {
a=1;
}
myFunction();
alert(a);
//-> 1
It's bad because there could be naming collisions resulting in variables with different values/types than expected. It can also lead to a bug in older Internet Explorers when you forget to use the var keyword for a variable used in a for statement.
I wouldn't class intentionally making a variable global as "leaking", because it's more like you're "pouring" it into the global scope. However, this is still often considered bad practice by some (although I think that's a little melodramatic) because there are still potential naming collisions with current properties of the window object, or variables set by other scripts and libraries.

[[Short story]]
Don't make global variables ever and use an async module loader like requirejs or curl
[[Long story]]
That comment was poorly structured.
There is nothing wrong with the module system. I was complaining about using global variables at all. (I still think the full generic module pattern is bloated).
Whether you should avoid all global variables is a different question and I think a matter of style. You can either use an async loader to pass modules around or using window to pass modules around.
What is meant by “leaking” into global-scope?
What I meant was your creating global variables. Minimising the use of global variables is a pattern. In functional style programming it's possible to have zero global variables but this is a different pattern from using global modules.
Why is that bad?
Having any state globally can cause that state to be corrupted.
How do you avoid it?
You can't. You can minimize the amount of global variables though. To avoid having global state completely you can use asynchronous loaders. These define a few global variables for you that you can then use.
When wanting to create persistent custom-objects, why is the Module Pattern (below) bad?
There is nothing wrong with the module pattern. The problem is storing your module globally. The issue is having global namespaces.
Design patterns let you encapsulate complex logic, is encapsulation suddenly bad simply because we’re writing in JavaScript?
Now that I've cleared up the intent of the comment this question isn't really relevant
Or...is this commenter simply wrong?
The comment was poorly phrased at best. I objected to global namespaces rather than modules, but did not state this properly.
The alternative is using asynchronous loaders and defining modules. These can be narrowed down to two global variables. define and require.
require = function(moduleName, callback)
This will get a module and then return it to you.
define = function(obj)
this defines a module.
The concept here is that you multi file code as follows:
// main.js
require([
"foo.js",
"bar.js",
...,
], function(foo, bar, ...) {
// do stuff
});
//foo.js
(function() {
var namespace = modulePatternCode;
...
define(namespace):
})();
//bar.js
(function() {
var namespace = modulePatternCode;
...
define(namespace):
})();

Your module only "leaks" it's namespace holder so it's pretty acceptable.

Loader example using RequireJS:
Define a utilities module in utils.js:
define(function () {
return {
each: function (iterable, callback) {
// ...
},
map: function (iterable, mapper) {
// ...
}
};
});
Use the above module in another module, say math.js:
define([ "utils" ], function (utils) {
return {
sum: function (numbers) {
var sum = 0;
utils.each(numbers, function (n) {
sum += n;
});
return sum;
},
average: function (numbers) {
return this.sum(numbers) / numbers.length;
}
};
});
And you can use math.js in another file, say main.js:
console.log("About to add 1-3");
require([ "math" ], function (math) {
console.log(math.sum([ 1, 2, 3 ]));
});
You can still have namespaces, and still keep them warm and cozy inside modules:
namespace.js:
define([ "foo", "bar", "moo" ] function (foo, bar, moo) {
return {
foo: foo,
bar: bar,
moo: moo
};
});
Then the rest of the modules can use this namespace during definition:
define([ "namespace" ], function (namespace) {
namespace.foo(42);
});
Or at runtime, in some other module:
define(function () {
return {
initialize: function () {
require([ "namespace" ], function (namespace) {
namespace.foo(42);
});
}
};
});
In the usages above, nothing but define and require are global. Of course, these are just illustrative examples, as there are many different flavors of defining/using modules in RequireJS.