Node.js doesn't have a window variable, so window["process"] won't work.
They have a global variable instead.
I remember reading that there is a proposal for ECMAScript to standardize a
single variable that refers to window in the browser and global in Node.js,
but that doesn't exist yet.
- Josh
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
> What class in Core needs this dependency? I think one drawback is that
> users of that class will need to add node.swc to their project
> dependencies. But I don't think every consumer of Core will need node.swc.
>
> But first, why didn't window["process"] work? In theory Falcon will let
> you access anything off of window. We could also add global if we want.
> Or maybe we should only allow global and have some bootstrap code that
> maps global to window?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 7/4/17, 2:09 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Actually, I see that the Node typedefs has all the process declarations
> >in global.js.
> >
> >Is there an issue with adding a dependency in CoreJS to node.swc?
> >
> >Should a class that has this dependency go somewhere else? (I don’t
> >really see an issue with adding the dependency, but I’m throwing this out
> >in case I’m missing something.)
> >
> >Harbs
> >
> >> On Jul 5, 2017, at 12:00 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Looks like it.
> >>
> >> I see this in missing.js:
> >>
> >> /**
> >> * @export
> >> * This gets mapped to org.apache.flex.utils.Language.trace() by the
> >>compiler
> >> * @param {...} rest
> >> */
> >> function trace(rest) {}
> >>
> >> /**
> >> * @type {!Console}
> >> * @const
> >> */
> >> var console;
> >>
> >>
> >> I guess I can add another one like so:
> >>
> >> /**
> >> * @type {!Process}
> >> * @const
> >> */
> >> var process;
> >>
> >> However, it seems like a drag to have to add a typedef every time a
> >>developer needs to check for the existence of a global that we did not
> >>think of.
> >>
> >>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:13 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. Here’s what I see:
> >>>
> >>> if(typeof window !== "undefined")
> >>> {
> >>> theConsole = window.console;
> >>> }
> >>> else if(typeof console !== "undefined")
> >>> {
> >>> theConsole = console;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Did you define console in a typedef maybe?
> >>>
> >>> I’m thinking that Falcon should really allow undefined variables when
> >>>used with “typeof”.
> >>>
> >>> Truth be told, I really need to do something like one of these:
> >>> if(typeof (process) != 'undefined' && {}.toString.call(process) ==
> >>>'[object process]’)
> >>> or:
> >>> if(typeof process != 'undefined' && process &&
> >>>process.constructor.name == "process”)
> >>>
> >>> Of course every reference to process causes a compiler error. I wonder
> >>>if there’s some way to tell the compiler to accept it without
> >>>complaining…
> >>>
> >>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't remember exactly what I did, but in order to get trace()
> >>>>working in
> >>>> Node.js, I had to figure out how to find the console object on window
> >>>> versus global. I feel like I remember using typeof, but maybe it was
> >>>> something else. Take a look at the implementation of Language.trace()
> >>>>to
> >>>> see what I did.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Josh
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jul 4, 2017 5:26 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I’m trying to figure out how to solve this dilemma:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Browsers attach global variables to window.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Node.js attaches globals to global.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’m trying to check for the existence of a global called process. In
> >>>>>JS,
> >>>>> you’d generally do that by checking typeof process == ‘undefined’.
> >>>>>Falcon
> >>>>> does not allow you to do that and complains that process is an
> >>>>>undefined
> >>>>> property. In the browser you can use window[“process”] == undefined
> >>>>>and in
> >>>>> node you can (theoretically) use global[“process”] == undefined. I
> >>>>>can’t
> >>>>> think of a generic way to do this though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>> Harbs
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
