No. I was trying to use process to check whether it’s running in a Node runtime
(such as Node or Electron). window does not have process.
I’m trying to add a class that lets the client know what environment it’s
running in.
Adding global sounds like a good idea. Between window and global, I think that
would offer a solution everywhere.
> On Jul 5, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Sure, I know it wouldn't work at runtime, but it sounded like Harbs
> couldn't even get the compiler to accept window["process"] which it should.
>
> So, it should be ok to write:
>
> if(typeof window !== "undefined")
> {
> theProcess = window["process"];
> }
> else
>
> theProcess = global.process
>
> But is there really a process property in the browser?
>
> We could create or own single variable if we want. How often do libraries
> need stuff in window/global? Classes that need it should be able to use
> inject_html and run some JS that maps window to global or the other way
> around.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 7/5/17, 6:43 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
