NODE_PATH deprecation (TC voted negative)

[silverwind]

This came up a few times now, and has been suggested again in #1452 (comment)

What is the recommended alternative to NODE_PATH should we choose to remove it? There is probably a lot of misuse with NODE_PATH around, but is it really so bad that we want to drop it completely? How should we handle warnings?

[domenic]

It wasn't just suggested, it was decided, a few TC meetings ago.

[silverwind]

Ack, I haven't been following that closely on this one. That leaves the question on alternatives open. Do we want users to only use local modules? Any other alternatives?

[domenic]

I think there are approximately 30 npm modules that duplicate this functionality. I see at least three at https://www.npmjs.com/search?q=require

[domenic]

And in general yes, you should be using either local modules or putting things in node_modules if you want to require them by name.

[rvagg]

npm link is the appropriate replacement, although even that's suboptimal - basically just use local modules

[rlidwka]

Suppose we have a bunch of private modules all stored in one CVS repository.

With NODE_PATH the file structure looks like this:

application/
  bin/
    start.js
  node_modules/
    commander/
    express/
    /* other public modules */
  private_modules/
    CVS/
    companyname-mod/
    companyname-stuff/
    companyname-web/
    /* other private modules with prefix */

... and an application is started as NODE_PATH=./private_modules bin/start.js.

Now how is one supposed to run a project this way without using NODE_PATH?

Making symlinks from private_modules/* to node_modules/* isn't a good idea because somebody could add a new module to the repo, and it should be discovered automatically on cvs up.

Funny structures like putting everything to node_modules folder to abuse node.js module lookup system doesn't work well either.

NODE_PATH is the right tool for the job here, and I'm sure it has other uses as well.

[bnoordhuis]

I've changed my mind about NODE_PATH. It's been semi-deprecated for ages but we have been stupid enough to leave it in the documentation without so much as a deprecation notice.

As a result, it's in active use and people do useful things with it. See for example this recent reddit topic about scripting.

Breaking such use cases is not nice. I think NODE_PATH must stay.

[chrisdickinson]

As a result, it's in active use and people do useful things with it. See for example this recent reddit topic about scripting.

I'm loathe to admit it, but yeah, I think it's going to be around for a long time to come, especially given the google search results for the term.

[Fishrock123]

I'd rather just remove the "require('.') with NODE_PATH" hack (#1452) and be done with it for the mean time.

[develar]

Another use case: Docker dev environment.

1. Docker is not native for OS X/Windows, so, if you map your dev machine path to VM, node_modules will contain os-dependent files (Linux). In this case should be a way to store node modules somewhere else.
2. If I want to build my project using gulp, I want to provide simple docker command to build from scratch (without installed node, npm and so on). In this case my docker image can contain pre-installed node_modules and, so, should be a way to specify custom path.
   For example, to install bower deps, I don't have to install bower/node/npm, I can just use docker run --rm -v $PWD/path/to/dir:/data develar/nodejs-bower. I am going to use NODE_PATH to store node_modules inside docker image instead of doing "npm install" runtime.

[Fishrock123]

Maybe we should bring this up again at a tc meeting and reconsider our previous sentiments?

[silverwind]

Yeah, please discuss it so we know how to process come 3.0.

[silverwind]

So it was decided to keep this docs-only. The current NODE_PATH section includes

These are mostly for historic reasons. You are highly encouraged to place your dependencies locally in node_modules folders. They will be loaded faster, and more reliably.

I think the reasons for discouraging NODE_PATH should be laid out. Any suggestions?

[rvagg]

I'd like to see some npm client folk contribute to this discussion; @othiym23, @linclark, @iarna, @smikes, @timoxley, (other?) - summary for you - we want to be clearer about a recommendation against using NODE_PATH in our docs, it's not going to be deprecated (yet) but we want to discourage its use in favour of more idiomatic node_modules / npm use. Can you help at least guide the documentation around this?

[smikes]

I would suggest structuring the docs something like this --

NODE_PATH was originally created to support loading modules from varying paths before the current
module resolution algorithm was frozen.

NODE_PATH is still supported, but is very likely to be deprecated in a future release of node. Our experience shows that deployments that rely on NODE_PATH sometimes show surprising behavior when people are unaware that NODE_PATH must be set, or when a module's dependencies change, causing a different version (or even a different module) to be loaded as the NODE_PATH is searched.

We expect, as node moves forward with ES6 support, to implement a new module loader which can be configured to address the needs that NODE_PATH serves without falling into the same pitfalls. Once the new module loader has stabilized, NODE_PATH will very likely be deprecated.

Possibly related case on npm issue tracker - npm/npm#8222 (comment)

[silverwind]

I like that very much 👍. We should probably still call it io.js until the merger is done, but other than that, would love if you can file a PR that adds this on top of the NODE_PATH section, whil removing the old paragraph.

[othiym23]

I'd strike the third paragraph of @smikes's proposed text. Speaking for npm, it's not at all clear how things are going to shake out with System.loader at the spec level, much less the eventual Node implementation, and I think it's pretty presumptuous to assume that however that shakes out, it's going to be configurable in a way that provides behavior analogous to NODE_PATH. Node moved away from NODE_PATH in the first place for very good reasons.

@rlidwka Your example is interesting, because as stated, that example doesn't need NODE_PATH at all – packages required from companyname-mod and its siblings will find the modules in application/node_modules just by using the stock Node module resolution algorithm.

I do think the proper solution lives somewhere between npm link, local packages, and using third-party tools like @timoxley's linklocal to fix up your directory trees if you want to share packages across multiple applications or develop lots of modules in concert. I don't think there's a single obvious cowpath for npm to pave here, but if one emerges, I think it would make sense for npm to pave it / bring that functionality into the tool.

@rvagg
Based on discussions I've had with npm users, I think that NODE_PATH is used enough that removing it is likely to cause enough pain to not justify it, at least without a formal deprecation cycle. I agree with @bnoordhuis and @chrisdickinson. Its continued existence doesn't impinge on npm much one way or the other, and I discourage people from using it, but it's something that a certain subset of users are very attached to.

[rvagg]

for the record I'm not proposing deprecation of NODE_PATH and never have, I don't use it but it also doesn't get in the way and I recognise some people have novel uses for it, see last TC meeting for details of discussion about this

[othiym23]

@rvagg I'm just responding to your RFC upthread, not making any assumptions about your own position on the change. ;)

[isaacs]

I am -1 on removing NODE_PATH support. It's not hurting anyone, and it's a perfectly reasonable way to get certain things done. Ok, so it's maybe not the most elegant way possible, and it's abused. Who cares? People also do crazy stuff with throw and RegExps and global variables.

The point of Node is not to create the most elegant system possible. The point of Node is to make it easy for people to write software. Any changes that can only make it harder while providing no tangible benefits to people writing software are bad changes.

Compare this to require.paths, which did cause demonstrable harm when used, because it involved a very spooky action at a distance. Also, require.paths was removed several years ago, when we had less than 1/10 the userbase we do now.

This is JavaScript, not Haskell. Either purity serves the goal of creating software, or we throw purity overboard.

[rvagg]

@isaacs, @othiym23, etc. please note this issue is now inappropriately named. The TC explicitly disagreed with deprecation and this is now simply a call to adjust documentation to discourage its usage rather than suggest it's an idiomatic way to use Node.

If you disagree with even changing documentation then please let us know.

[Fishrock123]

I guess it may also be worthwhile discussing how this may eventually play out regarding es6 modules. (if we want differences. More of an NG topic though.)

[othiym23]

@rvagg My comments on the documentation changes suggested by @smikes are enough, I think. I'm good otherwise.

[othiym23]

@Fishrock123

I guess it may also be worthwhile discussing how this may eventually play out regarding es6 modules.

It's premature to do that, in the absence of a viable loader spec or even a candidate implementation of the static syntax in V8. It's also more or less completely unrelated to this issue.

[isaacs]

@rvagg I'm super ok with updating the docs to discourage use of globals and environment variables, sure.

I made a rather forceful case for not deprecating NODE_PATH because I think this is a point of priorities and leadership that is important to make very clear. We should not be afraid to change stuff if it's a demonstrable improvement, but we should also not change stuff just to change stuff.

[smikes]

New version incorporating feedback:

NODE_PATH was originally created to support loading modules from varying paths before the current
module resolution algorithm was frozen.

NODE_PATH is still supported, but is less necessary now that the node ecosystem has settled on a convention for locating dependent modules. Sometimes deployments that rely on NODE_PATH show surprising behavior when people are unaware that NODE_PATH must be set. Sometimes a module's dependencies change, causing a different version (or even a different module) to be loaded as the NODE_PATH is searched.

[othiym23]

@smikes 👍

[iarna]

@smikes That looks great

[isaacs]

@smikes 👍

[Fishrock123]

Closing since we aren't deprecating.