couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Caolan McMahon <>
Subject Re: CommonJS module updates
Date Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:43:50 GMT
I've added a ticket in JIRA for the circular require issue:

I've also commented on the module cache ticket Filipe mentioned:

If anyone has time to review the patch attached to the first ticket
I'd really appreciate it!



On 22 February 2011 19:12, Caolan McMahon <> wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer ;)
> I'm starting to think this is the safest option until we've had chance
> to more widely discuss the options regarding a more persistent module
> cache.
> On 22 February 2011 18:14, Paul Davis <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Caolan McMahon
>> <> wrote:
>>> An alternative, which avoids caching modules between requests:
>>> I'd prefer if we did cache modules between requests, but this would
>>> still solve my problems ;)
>>> On 22 February 2011 17:20, Caolan McMahon <> wrote:
>>>> I can see the case for not wanting to store state on modules between
>>>> requests, as this could break caching rules for those resources. Even
>>>> though there is a performance hit. How would you know if the results
>>>> for a show or list function had changed?
>>>> It also sounds like this would be unreliable anyway since there are
>>>> multiple JS processes. However, I think we must have caching between
>>>> require()'s within a single request, as otherwise some modules will
>>>> not work and we can't handle circular dependencies.
>>>> The question is, should CouchDB enforce the fact that applications
>>>> should not store state between requests (except for caching) and take
>>>> the performance hit, or should this be left to commonjs module
>>>> developers?
>>>> I assume freezing modules would cancel out the benefits of increased
>>>> module compatability...
>>>> On 22 February 2011 16:57, Paul Davis <>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Caolan McMahon
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>> As some of you may know, I've been working on a couchapp framework
>>>>>> which makes heavy use of commonjs modules ( While
>>>>>> developing this I've run into a number of issues which prevent the
>>>>>> of some modules, and makes writing my own more difficult:
>>>>>> 1. Modules are not cached - eval'ing a complex application, consisting
>>>>>> of many modules on each request would have an impact on performance.
>>>>>> It also means you can't use modules which use the module object to
>>>>>> store state. This is commonly used by template libraries to store
>>>>>> loaded templates in a cache, or 'memoize' expensive functions.
>>>>>> 2. Circular dependencies blow the stack - Its not possible to require
>>>>>> module A from module B, if module B also requires module A. This
>>>>>> happens more often than you might think, and is handled by other
>>>>>> require() implementations by setting the cached module to an empty
>>>>>> object before eval'ing it. The fix for this requires a module cache
>>>>>> be in place.
>>>>>> Since these are really hindering progress, I've forked on github
>>>>>> committed my proposed patches with associated tests:
>>>>>> Please, if you have time, review the code and provide me with your
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Caolan
>>>>> The circular dependency section looks good.
>>>>> The bit on caching and testing that things are cached is not good on
>>>>> the other hand. The way that JS processes are used you can never be
>>>>> sure if it'll be the same os process handling the request. In the test
>>>>> suite, its more than likely to be the same OS process because of how
>>>>> the server gets restarted often and there's a single serialized
>>>>> client.
>>>>> I'm a bit iffy on whether we should cache modules because that'd be a
>>>>> pretty easy place to break view updates and could lead to other weird
>>>>> bits in the show/list stuff. Though I also understand the concern for
>>>>> avoiding all the recompilation. I wonder, is it possible to freeze the
>>>>> module maybe?
>> Looks good on first pass, though the resetModuleCache() might be
>> better off being put into the handler for the reset command.

View raw message