Module naming and declarations
dherman at mozilla.com
Sat May 18 00:12:35 PDT 2013
On May 15, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
> (1) Change the set-up of .ondemand calls.
> (2) Change the invocation of your bundling tool.
> As soon as you have to go there, you've lost almost all advantages of
> the ID-based declaration form. Its assumed convenience doesn't scale
> to non-trivial scenarios.
No. You've missed the point. Configuration code is not the problem; there's at most a 1:1 relationship between modules and their configuration.
There is a 1:many relationship between a module and import declarations that refer to it. This is what matters: even if you reconfigure the app to change the way the module is shipped, every client module's import declaration should remain the same. This may include repackaging, file renaming, switching between CDN's, switching between versions, etc.
> I do realise now, however, that it gets uglier when an import triggers
> _multiple_ ondemand scripts at once, because then their execution
> would have to be sequentialized.
That's exactly what I meant. If you have to sequentialize the execution of the transitive *package* dependency graph, then you over-sequentialize the fetching of the transitive *module* dependency graph.
> When is the script body
> executed? And what effect do updates to the loader during execution of
> that script have?
The execution semantics goes roughly like this: once all the module dependencies are computed and fetched, the linking process begins. If there are no module-factories (i.e., the AMD-style modules that require their dependencies to have been executed before they can compute their exports), linking is observably atomic. Then the bodies (script bodies and any as-yet unexecuted module bodies that have any clients importing from them) are executed sequentially. If, however, there are module-factories, the process is more interleaved: the system atomically links all declarative modules transitively required by each module factory, then executes those declarative modules, then executes the module factory, rinse, repeat.
When linking is atomic, loader updates don't matter. When the interleaving happens, loader updates can affect future linkage. It's not a good idea to be mucking the loader in the middle of initializing modules. It's better to place it at the very beginning of an application, before any importing starts happening.
> - intra-package module references should be internal and fixed,
You keep making this claim as if there's some black-and-white distinction. When we pointed out that your intra-package references are not tamper-proof given the translate hook, you said "well but in practice..." So, that argument cuts both ways. In practice, intra-package references will not be messed with externally. They are only hookable at compile-time; once runtime starts they are completely hard-bound. And if there are any collisions, there will be a compile-time error anyway. This is a tempest in a teapot.
>> - implement the package in multiple files via some extension to ECMAScript (e.g., include) that requires a tool to assemble it back together in a single file with only lexical modules.
> Why would that require an extension? Import from URL is just fine for
> that purpose. And when you deploy, you run the tool, see above.
It requires non-standard semantics if you want to allow cyclic module dependencies, and probably also if you want to preserve the same execution semantics as lexical modules.
> Counter question: what other options are available in the current
> design, under your no-tool and no-staging assumption? AFAICS, you can
> do either of the following:
> - Write script files with module declarations...
> - Write module files...
I never said staging is bad, I said the staging in your solution is broken: it over-sequentialize the fetching of resources.
The requirement I'm talking about -- which is absolutely critical for the practicality and adoption of ES6 modules -- is that the system has to work well out of the box without tools. And the current system does. The only thing you have to change if you decide to repackage modules into scripts is a *single* piece of code staged before application loading that configures the locations of the modules. Note that this is how require.js works.
> I don't envision many people would want ever to use the first option...
> And the other option requires tool support.
That's simply not true. Look at require.js:
With even just a reasonably convenient ondemand, you can easily move some or all of your modules into scripts by hand. Even without ondemand, the resolve hook is straightforward. (BTW I hate the name `ondemand`; it'll get renamed to something more declarative-sounding, like AMD's `paths`.)
Your suggestions would result in a system that is unusable without tools. That's not acceptable and it's not going to happen.
More information about the es-discuss