Is it “bad” to require a module more than once?
I have a reference to module scripts in my framework but every time I need it I would require it.
for example.
local specModule = require(clientFrameWork.Modules[moduleName])
local newObj = specModule.new()
I would do this multiple times.
If anything, the point of ModuleScripts is to use them more than once.
Should I save a reference to the framework table already required?
So I can do this:
local newObj = clientFrameWork.Modules[moduleName].new()
instead?
There’s no point–Roblox caches module results for you.
I feel like requiring a module more than once is redundant, bc the code written directly in the module script only runs when you require it once.
I mean, I can use the functions repeatedly, but the code that’s not part of the module scripts’ table only run once. I feel weird about this.
What’s to feel weird about? The point of require is to get the return value of a module. If it reran its entire code every time, it would be slower, more memory inefficient, and less useful to developers.
I do this in Studio a fair bit! When I’m testing modules from the command line, I often use my own ‘unique require’ function to make sure Studio doesn’t cache the return value and runs the most up to date version of the code.
Here’s the implementation:
local function urequire(module)
assert(typeof(module) == "Instance" and module:IsA "ModuleScript", "urequire only works with module script instances")
-- create copy of module
local newModule = module:Clone()
-- swap module with cloned version
newModule.Parent = module.Parent
module.Parent = nil
-- run module
local value = require(newModule)
-- put old module back and destroy cloned module
module.Parent = newModule.Parent
newModule:Destroy()
-- done
return value
end
This code will replace the module script with a cloned version, require the newly cloned version, then put the old module back, and return the values from require().
That seems extraneous, I’ve always just done require(module:Clone())?
That works for most cases, but my method ensures that script.Parent works as expected, including references back to the instance from ancestors.
whats wrong with my way
Nothing’s wrong with your method 