Uncompressed jQuery file: http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.0.3.js
jQuery Source code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/core.js
What are they doing to make it seem like the final output is not using Require.js under the hood? Require.js examples tells you to insert the entire library into your code to make it work standalone as a single file.
Almond.js, a smaller version of Require.js also tell you to insert itself into your code to have a standalone javascript file.
When minified, I don't care for extra bloat, it's only a few extra killobytes (for almond.js), but unminified is barely readable. I have to scroll all the way down, past almond.js code to see my application logic.
Question
How can I make my code to be similar to jQuery, in which the final output does not look like a Frankenweenie?
Short answer:
You have to create your own custom build procedure.
Long answer
jQuery's build procedure works only because jQuery defines its modules according to a pattern that allows a convert function to transform the source into a distributed file that does not use define. If anyone wants to replicate what jQuery does, there's no shortcut: 1) the modules have to be designed according to a pattern which will allow stripping out the define calls, and 2) you have to have a custom conversion function. That's what jQuery does. The entire logic that combines the jQuery modules into one file is in build/tasks/build.js.
This file defines a custom configuration that it passes to r.js. The important option are:
out which is set to "dist/jquery.js". This is the single
file produced by the optimization.
wrap.startFile which is set to "src/intro.js". This file
will be prepended to dist/jquery.js.
wrap.endFile which is set to "src/outro.js". This file will
be appended to dist/jquery.js.
onBuildWrite which is set to convert. This is a custom function.
The convert function is called every time r.js wants to output a module into the final output file. The output of that function is what r.js writes to the final file. It does the following:
If a module is from the var/ directory, the module will be
transformed as follows. Let's take the case of
src/var/toString.js:
define([
"./class2type"
], function( class2type ) {
return class2type.toString;
});
It will become:
var toString = class2type.toString;
Otherwise, the define(...) call is replace with the contents of the callback passed to define, the final return statement is stripped and any assignments to exports are stripped.
I've omitted details that do not specifically pertain to your question.
You can use a tool called AMDClean by gfranko https://www.npmjs.org/package/amdclean
It's much simpler than what jQuery is doing and you can set it up quickly.
All you need to do is to create a very abstract module (the one that you want to expose to global scope) and include all your sub modules in it.
Another alternative that I've recently been using is browserify. You can export/import your modules the NodeJS way and use them in any browser. You need to compile them before using it. It also has gulp and grunt plugins for setting up a workflow. For better explanations read the documentations on browserify.org.
I was wondering if anyone had experience using require.js with the Adobe CQ5 platform. I'm writing a Chaplin.js(backbone-based) single page app that will be integrated into the rest of CQ5-based site we're working on. Chaplin requires the use of a module system like AMD/Common.js and I want to make sure my compiled javascript file will usable within CQ5's clientlibs. Is it as simple as adding require.js as a dependency in clientlibs prior to loading in my javascript modules? Someone's insight who has experience in doing this would be greatly appreciated.
I've implemented this as a solution of organize in a better way all the modules such as:
//public/js/modules/myModule.js
define('myModule',[ /* dependencies */] ,function( /* stuff here */ ))
and in the components such:
<% //components/component.jsp %>
<div>
<!-- stuff here -->
</div>
componentJS:
//components/component/clientlibs/js/component.js
require(['modules/myModule']);
and finally I've configured require (config.js) and I've stored the JSs modules in a new different design folder. Located the compiled JS after close </body> to guarantee the JS is always located at the bottom after the HTML.
<!-- page/body.jsp -->
...
<cq:includeClientLib js="specialclientlibs.footer"/>
</body>
solving with this the issue of have "ready" all the content before the JS is executed. I've had some problems to resolve with this async stuff managed for the clienlibs compilation tool, in production the problem was different, however, in development, the order in what CQ compiles the JS has produced me some lacks in terms of order of the JS. The problem really was a little bit more complex than the explanation because the number of JS was really big and the team too, but in simple terms it was the best way I've discovered so far..
The Idea
I think you can compile your Chaplin.js with one of the AMDShims to make it self contained, wraps every dependencies it needs inside a function scope, expose an entry point as global variable (which is a bad practise, but CQ do it all the time...) and then use the compiled.js inside a normal clientlib:
AMD Shims
https://github.com/jrburke/requirejs/wiki/AMD-API-Shims
Example
Here is an example of how we make the one of our libs self-contained:
https://github.com/normanzb/chuanr/blob/master/gruntfile.js
Basically, in source code level the lib "require"s the other modules just as usual. However after compiled, the generated chuanr.js file contains everything its needs, even wrapped a piece of lightweight AMD compatible implementation.
check out compiled file here: https://github.com/normanzb/chuanr/blob/master/Chuanr.js
and the source code: https://github.com/normanzb/chuanr/tree/master/src
Alternative
Alternatively rather than compile every lib you are using to be independent/self-contained, what we do in our project is simply use below amdshim instead of the real require.js. so on cq component level you can call into require() function as usual:
require(['foo/bar'], function(){});
The amd shim will not send the http request to the module immediately, instead it will wait until someone else loads the module.
and then at the bottom of the page, we collect all the dependencies, send the requirements to server side handler (scriptmananger) for dynamic merging (by internally calling into r.js):
var paths = [];
for (var path in amdShim.waiting){
paths.push(path);
}
document.write('/scriptmananger?' + paths.join(','));
The amdShim we are using: https://github.com/normanzb/amdshim/tree/exp/defer
I am working on a JavaScript project where we use requirejs to manage our code. The product we create is to be used on 3rd party web sites, and therefore we cannot assume that an AMD compatible library is present. To solve this, we include almond in our target file and expose our main module on window. The file created by our build looks like this:
(function() {
//Almond lib
//Our code
define('window-exposer', ['main-module'], function(mainModule) {
window.mainModule = mainModule;
});
require('window-exposer');
}());
When building a site that want to use mainModule an error is thrown because when the site specific code tries to access window.mainModule it has not been set yet. There are also cases where the module has indeed been initialized and the code works.
Is there any way to guarantee that the window-exposer is run before other JavascriptCode is?
I solved it by using the solution provided here https://github.com/jrburke/almond#exporting-a-public-api
I am using Kickstrap 1.3.0 and want to add an App in my PHP-View with a method like <?php $this->enableKickstrapApp('myapp'); ?>. This method would put the app name into an apps array and the layout template could generate any code anywhere in the page to active the app.
But I don't know how to load the app. The docs say that I should add a page specific less file. But I don't want to autogenerate such an extra less file (I will do this it there is no better solution). Also an API method loadApp() is mentioned in the API docs. But there seems to be no loadApp in the source code. Also it is not documented how to get the API object (maybe this should be a global method--I couldn't find it). In an maybe outdated doc at GitHub I found the tip to write a pageApps array. But scanning the source code for "pageApps" also had no results.
Is there any way to activate an app dynamically (or in the global ks variable) without an extra less file?
That works:
var ks = {
apps: ['myapp']
}
Must be defined before loading kickstrap.js of course.
I am currently maintaining a large number of JS files and the dependency issue is growing over my head. Right now I have each function in a separate file and I manually maintain a database to work out the dependencies between functions.
This I would like to automate. For instance if I have the function f
Array.prototype.f = function() {};
which is referenced in another function g
MyObject.g = function() {
var a = new Array();
a.f();
};
I want to be able to detect that g is referencing f.
How do I go about this? Where do I start? Do I need to actually write a compiler or can I tweak Spidermonkey for instance? Did anyone else already do this?
Any pointers to get me started is very much appreciated
Thanks
Dok
Whilst you could theoretically write a static analysis tool that detected use of globals defined in other files, such as use of MyObject, you couldn't realistically track usage of prototype extension methods.
JavaScript is a dynamically-typed language so there's no practical way for any tool to know that a, if passed out of the g function, is an Array, and so if f() is called on it there's a dependency. It only gets determined what variables hold what types at run-time, so to find out you'd need an interpreter and you've made yourself a Turing-complete problem.
Not to mention the other dynamic aspects of JavaScript that completely defy static analysis, such as fetching properties by square bracket notation, the dreaded eval, or strings in timeouts or event handler attributes.
I think it's a bit of a non-starter really. You're probably better of tracking dependencies manually, but simplifying it by grouping related functions into modules which will be your basic unit of dependency tracking. OK, you'll pull in a few more functions that you technically need, but hopefully not too much.
It's also a good idea to namespace each module, so it's very clear where each call is going, making it easy to keep the dependencies in control manually (eg. by a // uses: ThisModule, ThatModule comment at the top).
Since extensions of the built-in prototypes are trickier to keep track of, keep them down to a bare minimum. Extending eg. Array to include the ECMAScript Fifth Edition methods (like indexOf) on browsers that don't already have them is a good thing to do as a basic fixup that all scripts will use. Adding completely new arbitrary functionality to existing prototypes is questionable.
Have you tried using a dependency manager like RequireJS or LabJS? I noticed no one's mentioned them in this thread.
From http://requirejs.org/docs/start.html:
Inside of main.js, you can use require() to load any other scripts you
need to run:
require(["helper/util"], function(util) {
//This function is called when scripts/helper/util.js is loaded.
//If util.js calls define(), then this function is not fired until
//util's dependencies have loaded, and the util argument will hold
//the module value for "helper/util".
});
You can nest those dependencies as well, so helper/util can require some other files within itself.
As #bobince already suggested, doing static analysis on a JavaScript program is a close to impossible problem to crack. Google Closure compiler does it to some extent but then it also relies on external help from JSDoc comments.
I had a similar problem of finding the order in which JS files should be concatenated in a previous project, and since there were loads of JS files, manually updating the inclusion order seemed too tedious. Instead, I stuck with certain conventions of what constitutes a dependency for my purposes, and based upon that and using simple regexp :) I was able to generated the correct inclusion order.
The solution used a topological sort algorithm to generate a dependency graph which then listed the files in the order in which they should be included to satisfy all dependencies. Since each file was basically a pseudo-class using MooTools syntax, there were only 3 ways dependencies could be created for my situation.
When a class Extended some other class.
When a class Implemented some other class.
When a class instantiated an object of some other class using the new keyword.
It was a simple, and definitely a broken solution for general purpose usage but it served me well. If you're interested in the solution, you can see the code here - it's in Ruby.
If your dependencies are more complex, then perhaps you could manually list the dependencies in each JS file itself using comments and some homegrown syntax such as:
// requires: Array
// requires: view/TabPanel
// requires: view/TabBar
Then read each JS file, parse out the requires comments, and construct a dependency graph which will give you the inclusion order you need.
It would be nice to have a tool that can automatically detect those dependencies for you and choose how they are loaded. The best solutions today are a bit cruder though. I created a dependency manager for my particular needs that I want to add to the list (Pyramid Dependency Manager). It has some key features which solve some unique use cases.
Handles other files (including inserting html for views...yes, you can separate your views during development)
Combines the files for you in javascript when you are ready for release (no need to install external tools)
Has a generic include for all html pages. You only have to update one file when a dependency gets added, removed, renamed, etc
Some sample code to show how it works during development.
File: dependencyLoader.js
//Set up file dependencies
Pyramid.newDependency({
name: 'standard',
files: [
'standardResources/jquery.1.6.1.min.js'
]
});
Pyramid.newDependency({
name:'lookAndFeel',
files: [
'styles.css',
'customStyles.css',
'applyStyles.js'
]
});
Pyramid.newDependency({
name:'main',
files: [
'createNamespace.js',
'views/buttonView.view', //contains just html code for a jquery.tmpl template
'models/person.js',
'init.js'
],
dependencies: ['standard','lookAndFeel']
});
Html Files
<head>
<script src="standardResources/pyramid-1.0.1.js"></script>
<script src="dependencyLoader.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
Pyramid.load('main');
</script>
</head>
It does require you to maintain a single file to manage dependencies. I am thinking about creating a program that can automatically generate the loader file for you based on includes in the header but since it handles many different types of dependencies, maintaining them in one file might actually be better.
JSAnalyse uses static code analysis to detect dependencies between javascript files:
http://jsanalyse.codeplex.com/
It also allows you to define the allowed dependencies and to ensure it during the build, for instance. Of course, it cannot detect all dependencies because javascript is dynamic interpretet language which is not type-safe, like already mentioned. But it at least makes you aware of your javascript dependency graph and helps you to keep it under control.
I have written a tool to do something like this: http://github.com/damonsmith/js-class-loader
It's most useful if you have a java webapp and you structure your JS code in the java style. If you do that, it can detect all of your code dependencies and bundle them up, with support for both runtime and parse-time dependencies.