GeezerVison is showing github.com — Suggestion: multi-file external modules · Issue #17 · microsoft/TypeScript
Suggestion: multi-file external modules #17DescriptionSupport compiling multiple input .ts files into one external module.
Need to determine exactly how the module boundaries are defined when doing this. Activitybasarat commented on Jul 30, 2014 vvakame commented on Jul 30, 2014 reverofevil commented on Aug 12, 2014 I'm highly interested in this issue getting closed. I don't like an idea of concatenating *.ts files in my source directory with a build script.
What do you mean by "module boundaries"? basarat commented on Aug 13, 2014
What do you mean by "module boundaries"?
Given:
a.ts:
b.ts:
What will the .d.ts will be?
This 1:
declare module 'foo'{
class A{};
class B{};
}or 2
declare module 'foo/a'{
class A{};
}
declare module 'foo/b'{
class B{};
}
My vote : 1 Reacted by Ben Collins and 1antares1 reverofevil commented on Aug 13, 2014 Why should it create a module for each class at all, if we're explicitly making one module file?
My vote goes for the first option. basarat commented on Aug 21, 2014
Support compiling multiple input .ts files into one external module.
Ryan Cavanaugh (@RyanCavanaugh) can you append the following as well
Support compiling multiple input .ts files into one external module.
Support generating a definition file .d.ts for such an external module.
If you want I can create a separate issue for that. charlessolar commented on Sep 8, 2014 To add my 2 cents, I agree I would like to see 1, but I know that can be a challenge if for example 2 different files contain the same class or variable name.
I am hoping, that like the CommonJS namespace merging you already do we would simply get a 'multiple declaration' exception.
But either 1 or 2 I would like to see this implemented someway because my application uses requirejs extensively to deliver SPA functionality with durandal. MrJul commented on Oct 14, 2014 I'd like to see 1) too since our current desired use case is to use one file per class/interface/enum and one folder per module.
While I think it shouldn't be too hard too implement inside the compiler, the tooling is harder, notably in VS: how do you determine which files compose a module?
Personally, what I would really like to see to solve this problem is a mix between internal and external module syntax at the language level. Something along the lines of:
// A.ts
external module "library" {
class A { }
}
// B.ts
external module "library" {
class B { }
}
Both files would be compiled into one module file library.js. Each file can only declare at most one external module, and cannot have any other top-level declarations if there's an external module declared.
Another benefit of this approach is that it would no longer be magic that a file becomes an external module (with its contents no longer in global scope) as soon as there's an import or export since there's the possibility of explicitly defining that a module is external. That's what most people I've seen working with TS and external modules are struggling with when introduced with the concept. (Still, the old way would still work, for compatibility reasons and implicit single-file external module). k4b7 commented on Nov 29, 2014 My vote is for option 1 as well.
In terms of determining which files are part of a module, maybe we could use reference paths... something like this:
// library.ts
/// <reference path="A.ts"/>
/// <reference path="B.ts"/>
export = library;
If you compile this with tsc --out library.js library.ts --module commonjs --declaration I would expect there to be line at the end of library.js with module.exports = library which there isn't. Adding this line isn't a huge deal, but it would be nice if it were done automatically. KeithWoods commented on Dec 2, 2014 I say my vote would be for 1 too.
If you're working in a large org or team and want to develop reusable packages as part of a large system (i.e. any large enterprise app) then you'll hit this problem.
You'd be be using external modules as you'll be relying on an external loader (unlike internal modules that assume it's all loaded already). Each module will defer to the module loader to find the correct script not by an assumption it's already loaded (this just referring to it's module object) .
The separate modules need a single .d.ts so it can be consumed by dependencies at compile time. Currently having (potentially hundreds) of single .d.ts for an external module package is useless.
We've got our system running using dts-bundle which scrapes all the single files into a single .d.ts (same approach as outlined in #17), but there are other teams here stumped by the complexity required to get this running, there off building monolithic internal module applications that can't be split out into separate packages.
related issue #1236 tlong-dev commented on Dec 2, 2014 Everyone in this thread is voting for 1, so I imagine it's just me being slow to understand how it would work. With option 1 you're changing how things are actually defined if when using external modules aren't you?
If my definition for class A lives in foo/a.ts I would need to import foo/a to get access to the scope that A is defined in. If the d.ts module rewrites it to foo/A wouldn't it break the imports? Additionally, if I made the example a little more silly but still completely valid:
a.ts:
b.ts:
Would the output be:
declare module 'foo'{
class A{};
class A{};
}Additionally, if 2 was produced:
declare module 'foo/a'{
class A{};
}
declare module 'foo/b'{
class A{};
}How would the compiler know where the base path was? When you import this project into other projects the module names should be from and inclusive of the project root correct? So in another project the modules would really need to be defined as:
declare module 'project/foo/b'{
class A{};
}I imagine this is going to boil down to the addition of a --include or --library option perhaps? I'm not sure what the solution is, but our biggest stumbling block right now is trying to use typescript modules in other code effectively without shipping the entire raw source. Internal modules work for a while, but if you ever want your project to be isomorphic (node & browser) or traceable using something like browserify external modules are a must. k4b7 commented on Dec 2, 2014 @xealot Are you suggesting that the folder structure defines modules? I'd rather module definitions be more explicit, that's why I was suggesting having a main library.ts file that contains references to the things you want in your module. The nice thing about having a separate file is that you could potential have multiple version of the library.ts which have different features. charlessolar commented on Dec 2, 2014 Well currently typescript is using folder structure to import modules, at least for AMD modules it does. @xealot and Julien Lebosquain (@MrJul) makes a good point that merging definitions like 1 would make it hard on tooling (intelisense, etc)
I agree with Julien Lebosquain (@MrJul) 's solution by adding a new 'external module' keyword would make the most sense to me and be nice on tooling. mironx commented on Dec 14, 2015 Mohamed Hegazy (@mhegazy)
Thank your encouragement. I had know this tool and I had afraid bit of configuration - that it could be to complicated.
Thanks your encouragement I the ice has broken up :-) and
I have spend several weeks with webpack and also systemjs.
What I would like to achieve?
But first what I would describe what I need to achieve.
I would like to create my suite of component which would exists in java script file.
E.g.:
- lib1.js, lib.d.ts
- lib2.js, lib.d.ts
- lib3.js, lib.d.ts
this library could be depend on angular, reactjs, kendo and others.
apps
and apps which could consume this libraries and could have own libraries.
- app1.js
libapp1.js
libapp2.js
and dependencies: lib1.js with lib1.d.ts, angular etc....
- app2.js ... silimar like app1
It would be like: software suite, framework or components.
- One library could contain many external modules.
- app it is just main js file
My adventure with webpack
I have tested webpack with grunt. I create GruntFile.js which could be use by each project.
This GruntFile.js use project.json which indicate how to process structure of project (solution line in Visual Studio)
Problems
- a) I could join js files (after compilation of typescript) but I have problem with generated one
type script date type file d.ts for library
As I wrote I would like to have references between libraries - I need also d.ts
- b) I have problem to dynamic loading js to achieve the same as in systemjs.
That mean to have one file in html.
- c) And with references. because I had to use external - I don't wont bundle vendors and library to one file.
Summarization
It this moment the biggest problem for me is point "a".
Main requriment
I could compile whole libraries for each app but I need that my library work as plugin.
Thant means for existing application someone else could provide library as plugin
which extend functionality. This library would implement app interfaces to extend functionality.
New version of typescript compilator
I looked on roadmap of typescript compilator and I noticed interesting issues:
- 2.1 Support for project references
- 2.0 Improve lib.d.ts modularity
- 1.8 Concatenate module output with --outFile (only for amd and commonjs)
Conclusion
- Maybe in this moment it is difficult to achieve this structure which I was described.
- Maybe I am on wrong path because I have habit e.g form .NET or java and I would
like transfer "assembly" to java script world
But maybe no - typescript roadmap looks like small steps in this direction.
Maybe crazy idea for typescript compilator
What do you think to put to to output java script file declaration?
As metadata in comments. It would transparent for java script.
But js could be add as reference to typescript project - similar to assembly or jar file
which has own metadata.
Architecture for enterprise, long term solution
In new year I and my team I will have make some architect decision -
and I ma responsible of consequences.
I really appreciate you for each comments and criticism in this topic.
Typescript architecture for applications and libraries. Thant means how to organize compilation process to achieve these goals.
I think thant others have similar problems with typescript projects - how to organize it
when structure is more complicate, e.g.: #909 , #557
Thank you and sorry that I extended this issue of details
which could be out of scope mhegazy commented on Jan 5, 2016 mhegazy commented on Feb 20, 2016 ES6 modules provide the ability to build modules from smaller ones using export * from "mod" and export { a as b } from "mod". This allows for having the multiple modules for implementation purposes, but then exposing a single "entry point" module that collates all of the smaller ones into a complete unit. This would be the recommended route for this scenario.
A follow up feature for the TS compiler is #4433, to enable publishing a single .d.ts file that has the "shape" of the "entry point" module, and thus completely hide the internal modules from consumers. Clark159 commented on Apr 25, 2016 This is my solution uses TypeScript 1.8, The solution build multi-Class in a module.
BSick7 commented on Jul 18, 2016 Mohamed Hegazy (@mhegazy) can you elaborate on this approach more of using modules for implementation, but smashing into 1 file with 1 entry point? mhegazy commented on Jul 19, 2016
Mohamed Hegazy (@mhegazy) can you elaborate on this approach more of using modules for implementation, but smashing into 1 file with 1 entry point?
there is no "smashing" happening. Each file is emitted as a module, but you have one entry point.
e.g.:
// a.ts
export var a = 0; // b.ts
export var b = 0; // index.ts
export * from "./a";
export * from "./b"; compiling with --module amd and --outFile.:
define("a", ["require", "exports"], function (require, exports) {
"use strict";
exports.a = 0;
});
define("b", ["require", "exports"], function (require, exports) {
"use strict";
exports.b = 0;
});
define("index", ["require", "exports", "a", "b"], function (require, exports, a_1, b_1) {
"use strict";
function __export(m) {
for (var p in m) if (!exports.hasOwnProperty(p)) exports[p] = m[p];
}
__export(a_1);
__export(b_1);
});your users would import index and not a or b. BSick7 commented on Jul 19, 2016 Doesn't this force me to use amd module loading?
Wouldn't UMD be an alternative that allows choice of module loading? mhegazy commented on Jul 19, 2016 if you are using Node, then there is no need to bundle i would say. the issue with UMD is that it needs to work the same way on node and amd. since the way you can require an internal module is different from amd to node, we can not grantee that the transformation would work.
if you want to have a bundle that works in both amd and node, i would recommend looking at browserify or webpack. MortenHoustonLudvigsen commented on Jul 20, 2016 I think rollup.js looks very promising as well. I haven't tried it yet though. BSick7 commented on Jul 20, 2016 Those work well for applications, but I am looking to build a library that works with amd and vanilla js.
Isn't the whole purpose of UMD to be agnostic between commonjs and amd?
I imagine that UMD would work like module: none with the whole thing wrapped with boilerplate umd.
MetadataMetadataDevelopmentNo branches or pull requestsIssue actions
|