npm module name / Node.js built-in `worker` module

[addaleax]

Hi there!

I’m currently working on built-in Worker support (as in, threaded workers rather than cluster/child process) in Node.js, and there is only little left to do for that. (It’s basically just porting over changes from a fork of Node, Ayo.)

Now, the most natural way to expose that functionality seems through a built-in worker module. Since you own that name on npm, and your module would thus conflict with this: Would you be willing to rename/move this to another module name (similar to what we did for http2)? I realize it’s a pretty great name to get, but on the other hand I’d like to a natural name for the built-in module.

Let me know if you have any thoughts/questions about this!

[blake-regalia]

Hi Anna, I understand the desire for a nice npm name, but I only recently just acquired this name from another owner. More importantly, my project is still very active. Not only does it target node.js worker child processes via IPC but it also abstracts WebWorker in the browser, which was also a condition that the previous owner considered when surrendering the name over. Sorry, but I would suggest using a scoped package name, finding a library that is dead / not maintained, or getting more creative with the name. Best of luck!

[benjamingr]

To be honest - I realize Anna is asking super nicely here but I don't see why we should take a 50 downloads/week package into account when considering clear naming for millions of users.

I think Node.js should focus on what's best for our users. I think it would be better to focus on how @blake-regalia can contribute (if they want) from their domain knowledge into Node.js workers and help shape them rather than this particular package.

Edit: I've added some motivation here: #1 (comment)

[kyleknighted]

@blake-regalia I hope you don't back down. This is your project. Your NPM name. If they want it, let them pay for it. You owe them nothing and you have something they want. I'm sorry a bunch of "adults", who act like spoiled children, want to come into your world and start harassing and bullying you.

I hope this blows over and doesn't dissuade you from continuing to contribute to the OSS community.

[pubkey]

I prefer a worker-module that works in browsers and node. Why not use require('node/worker') for native modules?

[addaleax]

Everybody relax :) I asked @blake-regalia to provide the name, not to give it up because we’re the larger project. It’s not something anybody forces him to do.

@kyleknighted I have no idea where you get any of that from.

Why not use require('node/worker') for native modules?

There has been a lot of discussion on this topic.

[dy]

@kyleknighted I wonder why do you think npm community should be so much monetary self-profit driven? Isn’t freeing name for a package that is worth a lot for millions already a reward? That is a chance to contribute to node core and good npm infrastructure development.

[kyleknighted]

@addaleax

No idea where I'd get such info...

[benjamingr]

@kyleknighted just to be clear I am absolutely under the impression Node.js should use the better name if at all possible and that Node.js should collaborate with the author of said module if at all possible.

I am not hiding that fact at all. Mainly because:

• If/when we ship a built in module I wouldn't want users to get confused and access a userland one which can be a security vulnerability.
• The module name is not originally this project's, according to the author it was acquired recently.
• The fact the module name changed recently is a good indication that the first point here is a possible issue.
• Node.js has started using this name for workers 3 years before the package in question here ever got the name (from another author).

Note that this is just my opinion and not Node.js's as a project, should we ever use the name it would have to be decided on at a project level - I am expressing my opinion as one person. People are free to disagree.

I am not trying to "strong arm" anyone, I am certainly not trying to dissuade anyone from participating in open source. I would love for the author of this package to participate more especially now when Node.js wants to ship workers because their information is valuable.

I am optimizing for one thing only here - the humans using Node.js, I personally don't see why millions of developers should get a worse name for a 47 downloads / week package that didn't even have that name for very long.

I am entitled to hold that opinion, I would appreciate it if people would respect that.

[benjamingr]

Also @kyleknighted, I think there is a miscommunication where Node.js might appear to be this big scary project. It's a bunch of people who are interested in Node.js and are working on it.

Working on it isn't barred from anyone, feedback is explicitly welcome and you are welcome to volunteer and participate like the rest of us.

In fact, if you're interested (and this goes out to anyone else reading this) - you are welcome to email me personally (my email is listed in https://github.com/nodejs/node) regarding being more involved with Node.js where you can help make these calls and I promise to do my best to help. I like having people who disagree with me (or others) around.

[kapv89]

My 2 cents, If the "threaded workers" that @addaleax is working on provide "shared-memory parallelism" for node.js, which in turn should technically provide the ability to use loaded modules across multiple threads in parallel, and the ability to work on shared data in multiple threads, then I think @blake-regalia should concede the package name. It'd be better for node.js, and for every professional and company that depends on node.js.

[benjamingr]

@kapv89

Where is everyone coming here from 😅? In my experience the more "new" traffic some place gets the more miscommunication and misconceptions there can be.

If at all possible - I would rather find that place is and then make ourselves available to answer their questions. The technical steering committee takes questions every week, everyone is welcome to open an issue and Node.js is trying to be very transparent and open.

If Node.js antagonised or alienated anyone that concerns me and I would prefer to figure it out. You are welcome to reach out to me (or the project) directly if you prefer.

[kapv89]

@benjamingr I saw this on twitter, Javascript daily tweeted it, I posted this discussion on reddit right now, cos I seriously think that shared-memory-parallelism is one of the few things that node.js really needs. Gonna take down the reddit post.
Update: took it down

[blake-regalia]

It seems to me that this approach of seizing a package name for each new internal module that comes along (and I'm sure there will be more in the future) is largely unsustainable. The real solution here should be the preventative and long-term measure of distinguishing between internal modules and public 'packages' in the call to require. If I surrendered the name then it would propagate a morally questionable precedent that I don't agree with.

@benjamingr I must add that I find it ironic that some leaders of a project which prides itself on fostering such an ideology is willing to take such an entitled stance on this matter.

I appreciate the discussion and hope it serves towards improving your project.