Sorry if this is a dumb question but I'm new to JavaScript/Node.js. This code below eludes me and I've done a fair bit of research... My questions below are more specifically related to instantiation.
I don't understand this:
var myApp = require('express');
var myCode = myApp();
How I see that it should be for instantiation:
var myApp = new Express();
var myCode = myApp.insideExpress();
How anonymous function expressions are:
var myApp = function();
var myCode = myApp();
If the word "require" acts as a sort of anonymous function expression, then how are things instantiated in the background? This is very important for making proper patterns, no?
My questions are:
What's happening in the background for the first example, is JavaScript/Node.js instantiating/constructing or not at all?
Are people who do this just creating bad patterns? Why should I use this pattern?
If no instantiation, then why not?
Thanks in advance
const myVar = require("someModule") loads a module from the file system, runs the module initialization code and assigns the module exports to your variable. The module loading sub-system maintains a cache so if it was previously loaded, it is not loaded or run again, the module's exports are just retrieved from the cache and assigned to your variable.
So, when you do this:
var myApp = require('express'); // load express module, assigns exports to myApp
var myCode = myApp(); // calls myApp() function and assigns result to myCode
The first line loads the express module and assigns the exports from that module to your myApp variable. In this particular case (it varies from module to module), the exports from the Express module is a function. So, after that first line of code, myApp contains a function which happens to be a factory function for creating new Express app objects.
The second line of code calls that factory function which returns a new Express app object.
A module can export anything it wants. In the case above, it exported a function, but it's also common to export an object that has a whole bunch of properties which you can then access. You can also export a constructor in which case the caller would then use new with the constructor to create a new object from it.
In the Express module, it did not export a constructor (which is why you don't use new with it). Instead, it decided to export a factory function that, when called, creates and returns a new object. This is just a design decision that can go either way depending upon the needs of the module and the whims of the code writer.
I can't really tell what you're asking here with this code:
var myApp = new Express(); // the express module does not export a constructor
var myCode = myApp.insideExpress();
This would work only if Express was a constructor function. The express module itself does not choose to export a constructor function so this is not how you use the express module. It could have been designed this way, but it was not. They simply made a different design decision when designing it.
For this other case you show:
var myApp = function();
var myCode = myApp();
That first line of code doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you meant for it to have a body to the function:
var myApp = function() { some code here };
var myCode = myApp();
In that case, myApp is being assigned a function expression (which is just one of several ways to declare a function). It's similar, though not exactly the same as:
function myApp() { some code here }
If the word "require" acts as a sort of anonymous function expression, then how are things instantiated in the background? This is very important for making proper patterns, no?
require('someModule) loads a module and returns the exports from the module which can be any Javascript data type. It doesn't act as an anonymous function in any way. require() is an actual function and you are just calling it and getting back its return value. Remember that in Javascript, you can return any data type from a function, include return another function (which is what the express module does).
What's happening in the background for the first example, is JavaScript/Node.js instantiating/constructing or not at all?
No instantiating or constructing. It's just loading a module, running its initialization code and return its exports. Some objects are created by the module loading system that are used for its own housekeeping, but the module itself is just initializing itself and then deciding what it wants to export.
Are people who do this just creating bad patterns? Why should I use this pattern?
Modules are highly useful in node.js development and it is considered good design to use proper module design. There are many, many advantages to good module design such as easier code maintenance, easier code testing, easier code reuse, easier code sharing, no need to create globals in order to share code, etc...
If no instantiation, then why not?
A module decides what it wants to export. It can, in its initialization code, create an instance of an object and export it. It can export a factory function that creates an instance of an object when called. It can export a constructor directly that lets the caller use new with it to create an instance of an object. It can export a utility function that just carries out some function and doesn't create any objects. It can export just data. It can export a plain object with multiple properties on it that have all sorts of possible uses. The possibilities are endless and it entirely depends upon what the purpose is of the module and what it wishes to share with the other module that loaded it.
It's just loading a library or a module into your script. It is not instantiating a new object. It's just making the loaded module's functions etc available to your current script. Here is a good writeup that I found,
http://fredkschott.com/post/2014/06/require-and-the-module-system/
I hope that helps answer your question.
Related
I'm asking a question:
Imagine I have a javascript module (using revealing module pattern) and I want to use it inside some prototype methods of an object. What will be the best way on your opinion to do it?
I have currently two ideas in mind:
- Pass the global module to the constructor of the object and keep it in an object property (this.myModule...)
- Use the module from the prototype method directly as global variable
Let me explain you the situation with a small example:
I have file1.js containing the module :
var myModule = (function(){
function doSomething(){...}
return {doSomething: doSomething};
})()
To use this module, which of the two options is the best for you? Or maybe you have a better option to propose?
I can't use requirejs nor any libraries to ease the modularity and dependency management of my application. Also, I can't change the existing architecture.
// Option 1
function myObject(myModule){
...
this._myModule = myModule;
}
myObject.prototype.doAnotherThing = function(){
...
this._myModule.doSomething();
}
var test = new myObject(myModule);
// Option 2
function myObject(){
...
}
myObject.prototype.doAnotherThing = function(){
...
myModule.doSomething();
}
var test = new myObject();
I'm really interested by having your point of view.
Thanks a lot in advance,
Remi
I used Node JS for web application development. I have a confusion in require() module. I am requiring a JS file located in file_handler directory.
What is the difference between both of the following?
// in server.js
var chat = require("./file_handler/chat.js"); // Does not work
OR
var chat = require("./file_handler/chat.js")(); // It works
Why is the extra parenthesis in the last of the statement?
In the first line the exported function is assigned to chat variable so then you can call it like next like chat();
In the second one the return of exported function is returned to chat variable.
It is actually based on what you export in your module. If you export the object you need, you can just directly do require('module'). If you export a function which returns the object you need, you have to execute that exported function require('module')() to get the desired object.
Read the documentation https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html
What 's the difference with the modularisation of a javascript code (with browserify by example) and the dependency injection?
Are they synonymes? Are the two going together? Or Am I missing some point?
Modularisation refers to breaking code into individual, independent "packages".
Dependency injection refers to not hardcoding references to other modules.
As a practical example, you can write modules which are not using dependency injection:
import { Foo } from 'foo';
export function Bar() {
return Foo.baz();
}
Here you have two modules, but this module imports a specific other hardcoded module.
The same module written using dependency injection:
export function Bar(foo) {
return foo.baz();
}
Then somebody else can use this as:
import { Foo } from 'foo';
import { Bar } from 'bar';
Bar(Foo());
You inject the Foo dependency at call time, instead of hardcoding the dependency.
You can refer this article:
Modules are code fragments that implement certain functionality and
are written by using specific techniques. There is no out-of-the box
modularization scheme in the JavaScript language. The upcoming
ECMAScript 6 specification tends to resolve this by introducing the
module concept in the JavaScript language itself. This is the future.
and Dependency injection in JavaScript
The goal
Let's say that we have two modules. The first one is a service which
makes Ajax requests and the second one is a router.
var service = function() {
return { name: 'Service' };
}
var router = function() {
return { name: 'Router' };
}
We have another function which needs these modules.
var doSomething = function(other) {
var s = service();
var r = router();
};
And to make the things a little bit more interesting the function
needs to accept one more parameter. Sure, we could use the above code,
but that's not really flexible. What if we want to use ServiceXML or
ServiceJSON. Or what if we want to mockup some of the modules for
testing purposes. We can't just edit the body of the function. The
first thing which we all come up with is to pass the dependencies as
parameters to the function. I.e.:
var doSomething = function(service, router, other) {
var s = service();
var r = router();
};
By doing this we are passing the exact implementation of the module
which we want. However this brings a new problem. Imagine if we have
doSomething all over our code. What will happen if we need a third
dependency. We can't edit all the function's calls. So, we need an
instrument which will do that for us. That's what dependency injectors
are trying to solve. Let's write down few goals which we want to
achieve:
we should be able to register dependencies
the injector should accept a function and should return a function which somehow gets the needed resources
we should not write a lot, we need short and nice syntax
the injector should keep the scope of the passed function
the passed function should be able to accept custom arguments, not only the described dependencies
A nice list isn't it. Let's dive in.
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.
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.