You'd lose out on compiler checks and IDE code hinting if you had to call
require() directly in AS.
Wrapping the generated JS for a class in an IIFE, like I talked about in an
earlier thread, could keep the requires confined to a single class.
(function()
{
var fs = require("fs");
//the fs variable is accessible here
})();
//but fs is not accessible here
- Josh
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I read up a bit on Node's require system. It seems that because import
> statements in AS are generally at the package level, it wouldn't be a good
> equivalent for Node's require. I think Node's require system is an
> explicit class/package loader like Java's and allows you to defer the
> loading of code until just before it is needed.
>
> Do we have to find a way to replace the need to make require calls in your
> AS code?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 12/2/15, 11:00 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Node.js has its own require system. It's called CommonJS.
> >
> >I was thinking that it could also be based on imported classes. It can be
> >a
> >little tricky, though. A module is pretty flexible with what it exports.
> >Most simply, a module could export a single class. In this case, the
> >translation is pretty simple:
> >
> >//as
> >import SomeClass;
> >
> >//js
> >var SomeClass = require("SomeClass");
> >
> >However, a module could export multiple classes or even functions too,
> >more
> >like an ActionScript package. It might work something like this:
> >
> >//as
> >import fs.readFileSync; //function
> >import fs.ReadStream; //class
> >
> >//js
> >var readFileSync = require("fs").readFileSync;
> >var ReadStream = require("fs").ReadStream;
> >
> >That's for the core modules. You can also require() modules using a
> >relative path. If we were to allow the ability to emit classes as CommonJS
> >modules, we might use the following syntax. In a class in the top-level
> >package, it might look like this:
> >
> >//as
> >import com.example.RelativeClass;
> >
> >//js
> >var RelativeClass = require("./com/example/RelativeClass");
> >
> >But for something in com/example, it would look like this:
> >
> >//as
> >import com.example.RelativeClass;
> >
> >//js
> >var RelativeClass = require("./RelativeClass");
> >
> >- Josh
> >
> >On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/2/15, 9:59 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The require() call for a Node.js module should probably be generated in
> >> >the
> >> >PackageHeaderEmitter, where the goog.require() calls are generated.
> >>
> >> OK, but based on what kind of source code lines? The goog.requires are
> >> generated from import statements, although we might change that to being
> >> generated by explicit instantiation of a class someday.
> >>
> >> I think you are saying you want to replace the goog.require subsystem
> >>with
> >> some other require subsystem in order to get node.js to work. Is
> >>node.js
> >> using RequireJS or their own require system? The work item may be to
> >> finally getting around to supporting alternative require subsystems.
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >>
>
>
