We Keep Coding

What's the difference between these two module.exports?

So the first one being something like:
myFile.js
var name = "Peter";
module.exports.sayHello = function () {
console.log('Hello ' + name);
}
And the second one
myFile.js
module.exports = function () {
var name = 'Mary';
function sayHello () {
console.log('Hello ' + name);
}
return {
sayHello : sayHello
};
}();
Essentially it's the same thing right? If not, what's the difference and what's the pros and cons of each method?

Why do we need modules?
When you have a code like this:
// module 1
var a = 1;
var x = function (){
return a;
};
// module 2
var a = 2; // duplicated variable declaration
var y = function (){
return a;
};
// main
console.log(x()); // BUG: this should read value from module 1 instead of module 2
console.log(y());
It will lead to error, since the a variable was already taken by the first module. You need to define modules somehow.
Using a prefix
By old-style procedural programming you would add a prefix to separate modules:
// module 1
var m1_a = 1;
var m1_x = function (){
return m1_a;
};
// module 2
var m2_a = 2;
var m2_y = function (){
return m2_a;
};
// main
console.log(m1_x());
console.log(m2_y());
But this makes the code less readable.
Using closures
By javascript you have closures, which make things a little bit easier:
// module 1
var x = (function (){
var a = 1;
var x = function (){
return a;
};
return x;
})();
// module 2
var y = (function (){
var a = 2;
var y = function (){
return a;
};
return y;
})();
// main
console.log(x());
console.log(y());
But still you have different modules in a single file, so that file will be really big and hard to maintain.
Using the node.js module loader
By node.js you can move the code of different modules to separate files, so it will be easy to maintain the code of different modules, since you will be able to find the relevant part of the code much faster:
m1.js
var a = 1;
var x = function (){
return a;
};
module.exports = x;
m2.js
var a = 2;
var y = function (){
return a;
};
module.exports = y;
main.js
var x = require("m1");
var y = require("m2");
console.log(x());
console.log(y());
You can do the same in the browser
The simplest node.js style browser module loader I could come up with so far, is this:
var cache = {};
function require(name){
if (name in cache)
return cache[name];
var uri = "./" + name + ".js";
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.open("GET", uri, false);
xhr.send(null);
var moduleCode = xhr.responseText;
var fn = new Function("module", moduleCode);
var module = {};
fn(module);
cache[name] = module.exports;
return cache[name];
};
Ofc. it is much safer to use browserify, webpack, require.js and other more sophisticated libs, I just wanted to show you, it is not that hard to write a loader.
What did we learn from all of this?
Both node.js modules and closures are for modularization. You should not mix them, since they solve the same problem, and mixing them will lead only to confusion!

For me it's the same thing.
Maybe the first example is more common.
You can use both, according to the rest of your code.

Yes they are basically the same. You just don't need the verbosity of the second example.
In the first example you are adding a named property to the already existing module.exports object injected by node.js, in the second example you are overriding the original object - there is no difference for the consuming end.

Lets go to the basics of module mechanism in NodeJS. For every JS
file the ground reality is which happens on the top of file:
var exports = module.exports = {};
Whenever we try to fetch the import it retrieves module.exports only
If we do both in Js file
exports.key = "key1" and module.exports = {key : "VAL"}
only the module.exports is fetched during the import according to the rule.
Now coming back to your question Adding module.exports.sayHello will
add the reference to the {} which is common with exports variable too.
However if you do
module.exports = function () {} // some function
it breaks the chain and it is only assigned to module.exports and not
exports variable.
This is why if we add any key to exports variable is retrieved via
module.exports during import! Hope it clarifies!
A very good article on this https://www.sitepoint.com/understanding-module-exports-exports-node-js/

calling a function declared x.f = function() from other files -- js

I have a function declared
x.funstuff = function(){
}
When I want to call it within a file I simply declare
x = {};
However when I call it from another file I get issues. Even after I use x = {};
in that seperate file.
How does one call this function from another file?

If you are doing it in the order specified then you are overwriting your x variable with a new object.
x.funstuff = function() {};
means that x = { funstuff: function() {} };
then x = {}; replaces it
If you are trying to call the function do it as:
x.funstuff();

Node.js pass variable to module vs pass variable to every module function

I'm learning node.js and interested in is there any difference between following two cases.
I.E. I have some variable myvar (like db connection or just constant string "test") that needed to be passed in many modules and submodules.
First case.
Create modules, that accept that variable as a param:
submodule.js:
var option
, submodule = {};
submodule.func = function(){
...
var something = option;
...
}
module.exports = function(opts){
option = opts;
return submodule;
}
module1.js:
var option
, submodule
, module1 = {};
module1.func = function(){
...
submodule.func();
...
var something = option;
...
}
module.exports = function(opts){
option = opts;
submodule = require('./submodule')(opts);
return module1;
}
In this case if submodule is used in several modules with same myvar value (i.e. 2 modules) submodule's module.exports function will be called 2 times. In node.js mans it said that "Modules are cached after the first time they are loaded". And I can't understand is this module cached or not.
Another case:
That myvar can be passed as parameter to module functions. So code will look like:
submodule.js:
function func(option){
...
var something = option;
...
};
exports.func = func;
module1.js:
var submodule = require('./submodule');
function func(option){
...
submodule.func(option);
...
var something = option;
...
};
exports.func = func;
So the question is:
Is there any difference between this two cases or they are same?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but if you need to pass values into your modules you should make sure to export functions that accept parameters. When they say that a module is cached, it means that your module is only initialized once. Think of your module as an object:
var a = 1;
var b = 2;
console.log("init!");
module.exports.test = function(){
console.log("this is a function!");
}
Here, a, b, and the first log will run only once. This is when the module is requested and is then cached. When you do a
var example = require("module")
If it was never created it'll initialize a, b, and do the log message. If it was already created it will just give you a reference to what you exported. Each time you call:
example.test()
It will output: this is a function!
But you will NOT get the a, b, and the first log run again.
Think of all statements not exported as private static variables of that object.
Here is another fully working example:
app.js
var s = require("./sample");
var y = require("./sample");
s.test();
y.test();
s.test();
console.log("finished");
sample.js
var a = 1;
var b = 2;
console.log("init!");
function test() {
console.log("here! " + a);
a++;
}
exports.test = test;
This all outputs:
init!
here! 1
here! 2
here! 3
finished
Does this help at all?

javascript object variables and functions

First question
var obj = function(){
var a = 0;
this.b = 0;
}
Is there any difference in behaviour of a and b?
Second question
var x = 'a';
var f1 = function(x){ alert(x) }
var f2 = new Function('alert('+x+')')
Is there any difference in behaviour of f1 and f2

Question 1
var obj = function() {
var a = 0;
this.b = 0;
}
Within the function, you'll be able to access both variables, but in the case of
var x = new obj();
... you'll be able to access x.b, but not x.a.
Question 2
As your question is written at the moment, it is a syntax error. The following will work:
var x = 'a';
var f1 = function(x){ alert(x) }
var f2 = new Function('alert('+x+')')
... but that would be the same thing as writing:
var x = 'a';
var f1 = function(x){ alert(x) }
var f2 = new Function('alert(a)')
The difference here is obvious. f1 disregards the global variable x and alerts whatever is passed to it, while f2 also disregards the global variable x, and tries to look for a global variable a. This is probably not what you're trying to ask about.
What you probably want is something like this:
var x = 'a';
var f1 = function(){ alert(x) }
var f2 = new Function('alert(x)')
... or this:
var f1 = function(x){ alert(x) }
var f2 = new Function('x', 'alert(x)')
The difference between the two alternatives above is that the first always uses the global variable x, while the second never uses any global variable. The difference between f1 and f2, internally, in both examples, is none at all.
These are two ways of generating the exact same result. The only reason you'd ever want to use the f2 approach would be when generating the code in some dynamic manner that require string input for its definition. In general, try to avoid this practice.

var obj = function() { // function expression, while obj is created before head
// it's only assigned the anonymous function at runtime
var a = 0; // variable local to the scope of this function
this.b = 0; // sets a property on 'this'
}
Now what this is depends on how you're calling the function.
Also note the difference between function statements and expressions.
var x = 'a'; // string a, woah!
var f1 = function(x){ alert(x) } // another anonymous function expression
// Does not work
// 1. it's "Function"
// 2. It gets evaluated in the global scope (since it uses eval)
// 3. It searches for 'a' in the global scope
var f2 = new function('alert('+x+')') // function constructor
In short, never use the Function constructor, it will never inherit local scope and therefore you can't use closures with it etc.

First question:
var obj = function() {
var a = 0;
this.b = 0;
}
instance = new obj();
instance.showA = function() {
alert("this.a = " + this.a);
}
instance.showB = function() {
alert("this.b = " + this.b);
}
instance.showA(); // output undefined - local scope only, not even to methods.
instance.showB(); // output 0 - accessible in method
Paste this in your Firebug console and run to see the output and behavior for yourself.
Second question:
var f2 = new function('alert('+x+')');
This throws a syntax error in Firebug because the f should be capitalized. This is a case where a function is defined inside a string and evaluated. Here is a good example:
var x = 'a=3';
var f2 = new Function('alert('+x+')');
f2(); // outputs 3 because the x passed into the variable is evaluated and becomes nested inside the quotes prior to the alert command being fired.
Here is what the substitution process looks like:
1: x = "a=3";
2: 'alert(' + x + ')');
3: 'alert(' + 'a=3' + ')'); // x replaced with a=3
4: 'alert(a=3)';
5: 'alert(3);'
When function runs, alert(3) is fired. This can be used to execute other JavaScript pulled down from a remote server, although extreme care should be used for security reasons. When evaluating code that is nested in quotes, it helps to start from the inside and work your way up to the top level context. More information on dealing with nested quotes or embedded code can be found here: http://blog.opensourceopportunities.com/2007/10/nested-nested-quotes.html

Question 1: homework on scoping of variables (var b is local to the enclosing {} (local to the function in this case).
Question 2: Instead of using the Function constructor you could use eval? http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/jsref_eval.asp , as in
eval 'alert('+x+')';

Second question is VERY interesting. Only benchmarks can say the truth.
http://jsperf.com/function-vs-function/
http://jsperf.com/function-vs-function/1..8
http://jsperf.com/function-vs-constructor-vs-eval
http://jsperf.com/function-vs-constructor-vs-eval/1..5
It looks they are almost equal? I can see in modern browsers each variant is optimized enough
BUT BE AWARE OF RECREATING THE FUNCTION IN A LOOP!
http://jsperf.com/function-vs-function/2
Any wise comments?

Accessing variables trapped by closure

I was wondering if there is any way to access variables trapped by closure in a function from outside the function; e.g. if I have:
A = function(b) {
var c = function() {//some code using b};
foo: function() {
//do things with c;
}
}
is there any way to get access to c in an instance of A. Something like:
var a_inst = new A(123);
var my_c = somejavascriptmagic(a_inst);

A simple eval inside the closure scope can still access all the variables:
function Auth(username)
{
var password = "trustno1";
this.getUsername = function() { return username }
this.eval = function(name) { return eval(name) }
}
auth = new Auth("Mulder")
auth.eval("username") // will print "Mulder"
auth.eval("password") // will print "trustno1"
But you cannot directly overwrite a method, which is accessing closure scope (like getUsername()), you need a simple eval-trick also:
auth.eval("this.getUsername = " + function() {
return "Hacked " + username;
}.toSource());
auth.getUsername(); // will print "Hacked Mulder"

Variables within a closure aren't directly accessible from the outside by any means. However, closures within that closure that have the variable in scope can access them, and if you make those closures accessible from the outside, it's almost as good.
Here's an example:
var A = function(b) {
var c = b + 100;
this.access_c = function(value) {
// Function sets c if value is provided, but only returns c if no value
// is provided
if(arguments.length > 0)
c = value;
return c;
};
this.twain = function() {
return 2 * c;
};
};
var a_inst = new A(123);
var my_c = a_inst.access_c();
// my_c now contains 223
var my_2c = a_inst.twain();
// my_2c contains 446
a_inst.access_c(5);
// c in closure is now equal to 5
var newer_2c = a_inst.twain();
// newer_2c contains 10
Hopefully that's slightly useful to you...

Answers above are correct, but they also imply that you'll have to modify the function to see those closed variables.
Redefining the function with the getter methods will do the task.
You can do it dynamically.
See the example below
function alertMe() {
var message = "Hello world";
console.log(message);
}
//adding the getter for 'message'
var newFun = newFun.substring(0, newFun.lastIndexOf("}")) + ";" + "this.getMessage = function () {return message;};" + "}";
//redefining alertMe
eval(newFun);
var b = new alertMe();
now you can access message by calling b.getMesage()
Of course you'll have to deal with multiple calls to alertMe, but its just a simple piece of code proving that you can do it.

The whole point to that pattern is to prevent 'c' from being accessed externally. But you can access foo() as a method, so make it that it will see 'c' in its scope:
A = function(b) {
var c = function() {//some code using b};
this.foo = function() {
return c();
}
}

No, not without a getter function on A which returns c

If you only need access to certain variables and you can change the core code there's one easy answer that won't slowdown your code or reasons you made it a closure in any significant way. You just make a reference in the global scope to it basically.
(function($){
let myClosedOffObj = {
"you can't get me":"haha getting me would be useful but you can't cuz someone designed this wrong"
};
window.myClosedOffObj = myClosedOffObj;
})(jQuery);
myClosedOffObj["you can't get me"] = "Got you now sucker";
Proof of concept: https://jsfiddle.net/05dxjugo/
This will work with functions or "methods" too.

If none of the above is possible in your script, a very hacky solution is to store it in a hidden html-object:
// store inside of closure
html.innerHTML+='<div id="hiddenStore" style="display:none"></div>';
o=document.getElementById("hiddenStore")
o.innerHTML="store this in closure"
and outside you can read it with
document.getElementById("hiddenStore").innerHTML

You should be able to use an if statement and do something like:
if(VaraiableBeingPasses === "somethingUniqe") {
return theValueOfC;
}