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.