Avoid using globals if possible... A logger module like @greelgorke
suggested is probably your best option. For exposing objects to modules in
general, check out this pattern:
// mymodule.js
module.exports = function (myObj) {
// extend myObj
}
-----
// app.js
require("./mymodule")(myObj);
It's used in some Express apps so route modules can extend the app with
additional routes.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:33:38 PM UTC-5, Kevin Ingwersen wrote:
>
> Hello there.
>
> I am currently thinking about implementing npmlog into one of my
> applications. It looks smooth and very nice. However, I would like to do
> that for console.log too. Like:
>
> console__log=console.log;
> console.log=function(msg) {
> require(„npmlog“).info(null, msg);
> }
>
> … or, kinda like that. But - what I really ment is, if I had this
> customized console object, how would I expose it to a node module? The
> current way I would think is:
>
> var m = require(„module_xyz“);
> m.console=console;
> // and from within the module:
> m.console.log(…);
>
> … Is there a cleaner way to do that? Do GLOBALS make something different
> here?
>
> Kind regards, Ingwie
--
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"nodejs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
