Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Copy old documentation from package.md and fix links #1
Copy old documentation from package.md and fix links #1
Changes from all commits
6881b61
6332fa2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Node.js package shipping patterns
Note
This repository is currently under construction. It's meant to replace the sections in the Node.js package documentation for documenting package shipping patterns, the pros and cons, and guidelines for CJS to ESM migration.
Previous documents from package.md in Node.js API documentation
Note
This is currently copied from the old package.md as-is. A lot of the information has been outdated since Node.js started to support
require(esm)
. We are still working on an update. Do not follow the documentation below for new packages for the time being.Prior to the introduction of support for ES modules in Node.js, it was a common pattern for package authors to include both CommonJS and ES module JavaScript sources in their package, with
package.json
["main"
][] specifying the CommonJS entry point andpackage.json
"module"
specifying the ES module entry point. This enabled Node.js to run the CommonJS entry point while build tools such as bundlers used the ES module entry point, since Node.js ignored (and still ignores) the top-level"module"
field.Node.js can now run ES module entry points, and a package can contain both CommonJS and ES module entry points (either via separate specifiers such as
'pkg'
and'pkg/es-module'
, or both at the same specifier via Conditional exports). Unlike in the scenario where top-level"module"
field is only used by bundlers, or ES module files are transpiled into CommonJS on the fly before evaluation by Node.js, the files referenced by the ES module entry point are evaluated as ES modules.Dual package hazard
When an application is using a package that provides both CommonJS and ES module sources, there is a risk of certain bugs if both versions of the package get loaded. This potential comes from the fact that the
pkgInstance
created byconst pkgInstance = require('pkg')
is not the same as thepkgInstance
created byimport pkgInstance from 'pkg'
(or an alternative main path like'pkg/module'
). This is the “dual package hazard,” where two versions of the same package can be loaded within the same runtime environment. While it is unlikely that an application or package would intentionally load both versions directly, it is common for an application to load one version while a dependency of the application loads the other version. This hazard can happen because Node.js supports intermixing CommonJS and ES modules, and can lead to unexpected behavior.If the package main export is a constructor, an
instanceof
comparison of instances created by the two versions returnsfalse
, and if the export is an object, properties added to one (likepkgInstance.foo = 3
) are not present on the other. This differs from howimport
andrequire
statements work in all-CommonJS or all-ES module environments, respectively, and therefore is surprising to users. It also differs from the behavior users are familiar with when using transpilation via tools like Babel oresm
.Writing dual packages while avoiding or minimizing hazards
First, the hazard described in the previous section occurs when a package contains both CommonJS and ES module sources and both sources are provided for use in Node.js, either via separate main entry points or exported paths. A package might instead be written where any version of Node.js receives only CommonJS sources, and any separate ES module sources the package might contain are intended only for other environments such as browsers. Such a package would be usable by any version of Node.js, since
import
can refer to CommonJS files; but it would not provide any of the advantages of using ES module syntax.A package might also switch from CommonJS to ES module syntax in a breaking change version bump. This has the disadvantage that the newest version of the package would only be usable in ES module-supporting versions of Node.js.
Every pattern has tradeoffs, but there are two broad approaches that satisfy the following conditions:
require
andimport
.'pkg'
can be used by bothrequire
to resolve to a CommonJS file and byimport
to resolve to an ES module file. (And likewise for exported paths, e.g.'pkg/feature'
.)import { name } from 'pkg'
rather thanimport pkg from 'pkg'; pkg.name
.Approach #1: Use an ES module wrapper
Write the package in CommonJS or transpile ES module sources into CommonJS, and create an ES module wrapper file that defines the named exports. Using Conditional exports, the ES module wrapper is used for
import
and the CommonJS entry point forrequire
.The preceding example uses explicit extensions
.mjs
and.cjs
. If your files use the.js
extension,"type": "module"
will cause such files to be treated as ES modules, just as"type": "commonjs"
would cause them to be treated as CommonJS. See Enabling ESM.In this example, the
name
fromimport { name } from 'pkg'
is the same singleton as thename
fromconst { name } = require('pkg')
. Therefore===
returnstrue
when comparing the twoname
s and the divergent specifier hazard is avoided.If the module is not simply a list of named exports, but rather contains a unique function or object export like
module.exports = function () { ... }
, or if support in the wrapper for theimport pkg from 'pkg'
pattern is desired, then the wrapper would instead be written to export the default optionally along with any named exports as well:This approach is appropriate for any of the following use cases:
utilities
package is used directly in an application, and autilities-plus
package adds a few more functions toutilities
. Because the wrapper exports underlying CommonJS files, it doesn't matter ifutilities-plus
is written in CommonJS or ES module syntax; it will work either way.A variant of this approach not requiring conditional exports for consumers could be to add an export, e.g.
"./module"
, to point to an all-ES module-syntax version of the package. This could be used viaimport 'pkg/module'
by users who are certain that the CommonJS version will not be loaded anywhere in the application, such as by dependencies; or if the CommonJS version can be loaded but doesn't affect the ES module version (for example, because the package is stateless):Approach #2: Isolate state
A
package.json
file can define the separate CommonJS and ES module entry points directly:This can be done if both the CommonJS and ES module versions of the package are equivalent, for example because one is the transpiled output of the other; and the package's management of state is carefully isolated (or the package is stateless).
The reason that state is an issue is because both the CommonJS and ES module versions of the package might get used within an application; for example, the user's application code could
import
the ES module version while a dependencyrequire
s the CommonJS version. If that were to occur, two copies of the package would be loaded in memory and therefore two separate states would be present. This would likely cause hard-to-troubleshoot bugs.Aside from writing a stateless package (if JavaScript's
Math
were a package, for example, it would be stateless as all of its methods are static), there are some ways to isolate state so that it's shared between the potentially loaded CommonJS and ES module instances of the package:If possible, contain all state within an instantiated object. JavaScript's
Date
, for example, needs to be instantiated to contain state; if it were a package, it would be used like this:The
new
keyword isn't required; a package's function can return a new object, or modify a passed-in object, to keep the state external to the package.Isolate the state in one or more CommonJS files that are shared between the CommonJS and ES module versions of the package. For example, if the CommonJS and ES module entry points are
index.cjs
andindex.mjs
, respectively:Even if
pkg
is used via bothrequire
andimport
in an application (for example, viaimport
in application code and viarequire
by a dependency) each reference ofpkg
will contain the same state; and modifying that state from either module system will apply to both.Any plugins that attach to the package's singleton would need to separately attach to both the CommonJS and ES module singletons.
This approach is appropriate for any of the following use cases:
Even with isolated state, there is still the cost of possible extra code execution between the CommonJS and ES module versions of a package.
As with the previous approach, a variant of this approach not requiring conditional exports for consumers could be to add an export, e.g.
"./module"
, to point to an all-ES module-syntax version of the package: