What is your folder-structure preference for a large-scale Node.js project?

node-folder-structure-options.md

What is your folder-structure preference for a large-scale Node.js project?

0: Starting from Rails

This is the reference point. All the other options are based off this.

|-- app
|   |-- controllers
|   |   |-- admin
|   |   |   |-- postsController.js
|   |   |   `-- usersController.js
|   |   |-- postsController.js
|   |   |-- sessionsController.js
|   |   `-- usersController.js
|   |-- models
|   |   |-- post.js
|   |   `-- user.js
|   |-- views
|   |   |-- admin
|   |   |   `-- posts
|   |   |       |-- edit.jade
|   |   |       |-- index.jade
|   |   |       |-- new.jade
|   |   |-- layouts
|   |   |   `-- application.jade
|   |   `-- posts
|   |       |-- index.jade
|   |       `-- show.jade
|   `-- helpers
|       |-- admin
|       |   |-- postsHelper.js
|       |   `-- tagsHelper.js
|       `-- postsHelper.js
`-- config
|    |-- application.js
|    |-- locale
|        `-- en.js
|    |-- routes.js
`-- lib
`-- spec
|    |-- helper.js
|    |-- models
|    |   |-- postSpec.js
|    |   |-- userSpec.js
|    `-- acceptance
|        |-- loginSpec.js
|        |-- signupSpec.js
|        `-- postsSpec.js
`-- vendor
|    |-- javascripts
|    |   |-- jquery.js
|    |   |-- underscore.js
|    `-- stylesheets
|        `-- prettyPhoto.css

1: Rails-like, with nested /app folders for client, mobile, etc.

|-- app
|   |-- controllers
|   |-- models
|   |-- views
|   `-- browser
|       |-- controllers
|       |-- models
|       |-- views
|   `-- mobile
|       |-- controllers
|       |-- models
|       |-- views
`-- config
`-- lib
`-- spec
`-- vendor

Pros:

• lends itself great to progressive enhancement so-to-speak. You start with just /app, and if your app starts growing, you add sub directories.
• doesn't pollute the top-level directories, which have a pretty uniform convention across apps. However, people do add /themes to the top level, which is just about the same as adding /client to the top-level.

Cons:

• Now you have /app/models and /app/browser, etc., which isn't a totally clear naming convention -- /app/models is for a subset of code for the server, while /app/browser is a totally different app. It's different than a namespace like /app/models/admin though, which makes sense.

My vote: no

2: A /app/client folder, similar to Rails' /app/assets

|-- app
|   |-- controllers
|   |-- models
|   |-- views
|   `-- client
|       `-- browser
|           |-- controllers
|           |-- models
|           |-- views
|       `-- mobile
|           |-- controllers
|           |-- models
|           |-- views
`-- config
`-- lib
`-- spec
`-- vendor

Pros:

• The main reason you need these extra folders is for the different clients for the app. So putting them in /app/client conceptually makes a lot of sense. It's easy to reason about.
• Similar to Rails, which has /app/assets/javascripts instead of /app/client. You don't want to start naming the folder /app/assets because, conceptually, everything is JavaScript, and calling one chunk of JavaScript "assets" and the rest "app" is conceptually jarring.

Cons:

• You have deeply nested folders for core code, which can be annoying. /app/client/browser/controllers/postsController.js is 4 folders down. But with TextMate and CMD+T, it shouldn't be an issue.

You could also have this structure if you only had 1 client (or just a default client):

|-- app
|   |-- controllers
|   |-- models
|   |-- views
|   `-- client
|       |-- controllers
|       |-- models
|       `-- views

That's pretty clear, and it lends itself to agile development really well.

My vote: ✔

3: More top-level folders

|-- app
|   |-- controllers
|   |-- models
|   |-- views
|-- browser
|   |-- controllers
|   |-- models
|   |-- views
|-- mobile
|   |-- controllers
|   |-- models
|   |-- views
`-- config
`-- lib
`-- spec
`-- vendor

Pros:

• Minimum folder nesting
• model/view/controller folders are all at the same level

Cons:

• Having multiple top-level folders, all of which are mvc code, is not conceptually clear. They should be part of one directory (taking us back to #2). Having every folder at the top level be a completely conceptually distinct part of the app (database vs. app vs. config vs. tests) is a clarifying convention.

My vote: second choice, but no

4: Namespaces inside /app

|-- app
|   `-- client
|       |-- controllers
|       |-- models
|       |-- views
|   `-- mobile
|       |-- controllers
|       |-- models
|       |-- views
|   `-- server
|       |-- controllers
|       |-- models
|       |-- views
`-- config
`-- lib
`-- spec
`-- vendor

Pros:

• Clear, normalized separation of concerns. Everything fits into the same folder structure, instead of having the "default" stuff in /app, and then also nesting components in there.

Cons:

• For the simple case, you have to create a nested folder.
  • Counterargument: But, you're setup to easily add other clients for the app
• By not having the default code go in the top level /app, it's not as clear that server code can be used on the client (e.g. using /app/server/models/user.js on the client. it makes sense if it's in /app/models/user.js however.).

My vote: no

5: Top-level /client and /server directories

This breaks convention, but it's an option. Rename /app to /server

|-- client
|   |-- controllers
|   |-- models
|   |-- views
|-- server
|   |-- controllers
|   |-- models
|   |-- views
`-- config
`-- lib
`-- spec
`-- vendor

Pros:

• Clear: there is a client and server app.

Cons:

• If you had multiple client apps (browser, mobile, ipad, etc.), you'd end up doing things like #2 or #3.

My vote: no

Which do you prefer?

I prefer folder structure #2.

@mb-dev and @vjpr: where do you put your server files in that structure?

Here is another option of a single-page application (SPA) directory structure:

https://gist.github.com/koistya/8703038

And here are some common folder structure conventions:

https://github.com/KriaSoft/Folder-Structure-Conventions

don't have big project but here is the structure I use and works really well for me, more or less option 3
https://github.com/vanng822/appskeleton

I prefer something very similar to your first example (the rails inspired). Here is a tutorial about it and below is an example of an app applying it.

|--project
|  |--controllers/
|  |  |--comments.js
|  |  |--index.js
|  |  |--users.js
|  |  helpers/
|  |  |--dates.js
|  |--middlewares/
|  |  |--auth.js
|  |  |--users.js
|  |--models/
|  |  |--comment.js
|  |  |--user.js
|  |--public/
|  |  |--libs/
|  |  |--css/
|  |  |--img/
|  |--views/
|  |  |--comments/
|  |  |--|--comment.jade
|  |  |--users/
|  |  |--index.jade
|  |--tests/
|  |  |--controllers/
|  |  |--models/
|  |  |  |--comment.js
|  |  |--middlewares/
|  |  |--integration/
|  |  |--ui/
|  |--.gitignore
|  |--app.js
|  |--package.json

I've also prepared a small repository on GitHub, which uses the same structure, for any new projects. I will try keep its dependencies up to date.
https://github.com/terlici/base-express

I prefer to group my files by feature, rather than function. So for example group all user related files (controllers, models, tests, and etc.) in a folder. Then that folder can be easily reused in other projects or when making changes it is easier to find the files affected. So for example:

I created a module to allow this type of file structure by dynamically requiring files.
https://github.com/ssmereka/crave

Definitely everyone (even seasoned devs) should first watch Uncle Bob's vid as suggested by mb-dev. Talks about how your top level should not indicate what kind of app it is (Rails, CoffeeScript, etc.). The language shouldn't dominate your project structure at a top level. http://confreaks.tv/videos/rubymidwest2011-keynote-architecture-the-lost-years

I don't like categorizing files based on their framework role (ie Controllers, Views, ....) but I like divide my files based on their functionality.
So, for example, in an ecommerce app, I end up having a folder all the files of the products, another for the basket management, another for the warehouse and so on.
In this way every modules of the application is separated from the others and it's easier maintain them or even rewrite if necessary.

|--app
|  |--orders/
|  |--basket/
|  |--warehouse/
|  |--common/
|  |--tests
|  |  |--basket/
|  |  |--warehouse/
|  |  |--common/
|  |  |--users.js
| --gruntOrGulp.js
| --README.md

As an experienced developer who is new to NodeJS I've been hunting for a reasonable organization structure myself. From my experience working a bit with AngularJS I do prefer grouping by functionality over roll in the framework as others such as @emadb have mentioned. I also have had particular difficulty in parsing which code belongs to the build process, the server side, and the client side parts of the application.

Grouping files by feature become complicated when many reusing happen. What if 2 features required the same model, in which component should I put the model definition?

@rocketspacer at that moment you lift it up and make it a shared/common concern

@autoferrit I see where you put "I vote to have an en[v]ironment variable of some sort for each directory which is an array of paths." but still don't see how it would actually be used. You only separate sites by views, so where would you be able to swap out a models directory? Is it in the server file that a request first hits (the file that includes all the controllers, server config, etc)? Also, do you determine who the client is in that server file? I also don't understand how all the sites would share the same public folder unless each site has their own controller within the app subdirectory of the site. Is that what's happening? I'm fairly new to API architectures and would appreciate any clarification, thanks!!

+1 for @emadb's organization. Feature based structure is the way to go.

@rocketspacer That means, there's a new concept waiting to go into its own package. And then, separate the dependencies via abstractions.

@mareksuscak @inancgumus I can't really make a solid project structure out of a vague emerging concept simply because I don't know how to properly name it. How common is common, what should I call the abstraction of login and transaction?
We decided to adopt Microservices and solve this problem at a different level now.

@lancejpollard ,what we put in 'spec' folder ?

@lancejpollard ,what we put in 'spec' folder ?

Test cases

Feature Folders is the way to go for any size of project!

I don't think there's any optimal answer between grouping by function vs grouping by feature, it seems to just come down to personal preference. It would be nice if there was an IDE setting or global tool that devs could install to make swapping between folder structures as easy as a 1-line change in a config file.

My principal:

• Any folder should match the concept of dimension, so /<feature> and /test should not be placed under same folder.
• Node.js project should not combine both client and server codes, unless you need SSR, so I will not need to concern about the mixed project folders.

And my further consideration is that sometime (I can say more than half) my services code can't always match to the model (database tables) / controller (routes). Because controller sometimes needs to handle webhooks which not match to model, and services may also for third-party integration logics. So I prefer the function rather than feature.

While the architecture will evolve into micro services in future, function layer first will not become more complex.

Something I am confused is when I divide the function, how my main app logic folder should be named? Like src / lib / main / app? Another confusion is should I just place the main logic layer folders under project root? Such as controllers / services / model / test ... etc.

I have read about the guideline of golang project layout, and agreed with their idea about the /src:

Some Go projects do have a src folder, but it usually happens when the devs came from the Java world where it's a common pattern. If you can help yourself try not to adopt this Java pattern. You really don't want your Go code or Go projects to look like Java :-)

So my practice now has been summarized into a repository here: express-bootstrap. Any discussion or idea will be welcome.

Here is my current system.

Feature based structure seems the way to go!

Here is my app

|--src 
|  |--core  
|  |  |--orders
|  |  |--basket
|  |  |--common
|  |--infrastructure
|  |  |--auth/
|  |  |--logger/
|  |--utils
|  |  |--config
|  |  |--crypto
| --package.json
| --index.js
| --README.md

@Vishch - you don't give a clear separation of tests. All the tests go to the tests folder?

@nashid yes the tests should go in their respective feature folders

@nashid yes the tests should go in their respective feature folders

should the routes also go in their respective feature folders?