processing / p5.js

p5.js is a client-side JS platform that empowers artists, designers, students, and anyone to learn to code and express themselves creatively on the web. It is based on the core principles of Processing. http://twitter.com/p5xjs —
http://p5js.org/
GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1
21.1k stars 3.22k forks source link

[p5.js 2.0 RFC Proposal]: New third party library authoring API #7015

Open limzykenneth opened 1 month ago

limzykenneth commented 1 month ago

Increasing access

Addon libraries have always been an important part of the p5.js ecosystem, expanding its capabilities with community contributed features that solve problems that p5.js itself may not necessarily address. Providing a flexible and easy to use interface to author addon libraries will further this effort.

Which types of changes would be made?

Most appropriate sub-area of p5.js?

What's the problem?

Currently to author an addon library to work with p5.js, the library author will often need to attach methods directly to p5.prototype which by itself is not a bad idea but addon libraries often need to do more than that.

While async/await setup() proposed in #6767 provides a potentially new way of handling async functions, current libraries that need to hook into preload() require the use of internal functions.

The lifecycle hooks feature of the current addon library API is also not entire consistent with room for improvement. Finally with a new syntax, there is room for even more customizability, combined with #7014, one can even add or overwrite renderers available to p5.js.

What's the solution?

Existing libraries should have a level of compatibility or require minimal updates to work with p5.js 2.0. This means if existing libraries rely on attaching methods to p5.prototype it will likely still work.

A new method of authoring libraries will be introduced that is more ergonomic. This will be through a factory function that exposes reasonable interfaces for completing the following tasks as necessary:

As reference, Day.js provide plugin interface in the following way:

export default (option, dayjsClass, dayjsFactory) => {
  // extend dayjs()
  // e.g. add dayjs().isSameOrBefore()
  dayjsClass.prototype.isSameOrBefore = function(arguments) {}

  // extend dayjs
  // e.g. add dayjs.utc()
  dayjsFactory.utc = arguments => {}

  // overriding existing API
  // e.g. extend dayjs().format()
  const oldFormat = dayjsClass.prototype.format
  dayjsClass.prototype.format = function(arguments) {
    // original format result
    const result = oldFormat.bind(this)(arguments)
    // return modified result
  }
}

And is used with:

dayjs.extend(myPlugin);

While jQuery provides the following interface:

$.fn.greenify = function() {
  this.css('color', 'green');
};

$('a').greenify();

fn above is just an alias to prototype which in essense makes jQuery's plugin system identical to what p5.js does.

p5.js plugins have some properties that are not present in the Day.js or jQuery use case. With Day.js, plugins are expected to be explicitly provided through dayjs.extend() while p5.js addons should have the expectations of being available immediately upon inclusion/load. jQuery plugin don't need to content with lifecycle hooks or other non-class instance related features. A p5.js addon should also have the flexibility of being imported as a ES module or included through a script tag, ie. there should be a ES module version and a UMD version ideally.

The proposed interface that a p5.js 2.0 plugin can have is as the following:

(function(p5){
  p5.registerAddon((p5, fn, lifecycles) => {
    // `fn` being the prototype
    fn.myMethod = function(){
      // Perform some tasks
    };

    // Instead of requiring register preload,
    // async/await is preferred instead.
    fn.loadMyData = async function(){
      // Load some data asynchronously
    };

    lifecycles.presetup = function(){
      // Run actions before `setup()` runs
    };

    lifecycles.postdraw = function(){
      // Run actions after `draw()` runs
    };
  });
})(p5);

Pros (updated based on community comments)

Cons (updated based on community comments)

Proposal status

Under review

mvicky2592 commented 1 week ago

@limzykenneth I like the idea but it's a bit unclear from your example code how this would achieve the goals of esm support for example. Could you elaborate on that and show an example?

Also I don't understand the purpose of using an anonymous function, the first and last lines in your example.

p5.js users might be loading multiple libraries and the current implementation of p5.prototype.registerMethod already supports multiple libraries hooking into init, preload, setup, pre and post draw quite well with more standard and familiar JavaScript event style syntax. How could lifecycles support this? Also the syntax seems more similar to deprecated onclick functions, the old way of handling events in js.

I'm also confused how library creators could access a p5 instance.