New possible serveme syntax

syntax.js

//ServeMe - github.com/muit/serveMe
var server = ServeMe();

server.get("/user").do(authenticated).do(function(req, res) {
  return {
    json: {
      message: "Hey!"
    }
  };
});

server.start(3000);

function authenticated(req, res){
  if(req.isAuthenticated) {
    res.next();
  } else {
    return {status: 401};
  }
}

syntax2.js

//ServeMe - github.com/muit/serveMe
var server = ServeMe();

/**
 * Send an optional object with parameters.
 * For example "require" to continue or not depending on the bool return of the module.
 * (modules are similar to middlewares but not the same, becouse they indicate an action or a behaviour before the actual route)
**/

server.get("/user", function(req, res) {
  return {
    json: {
      message: "Hey!"
    }
  };
}).require(authenticated);

function authenticated(req, res){
  return req.isAuthenticated;
}

server.start(3000);

syntax3.js

//The Callback is opcional. The default behaviour will be serving a webpage.

//First option
server.get("/user", {
	do: doSomething, //(optional)
	require: auth,
	fail: failCallback
});

server.get("/user", {
	do: doSomething, //(optional)
	require: auth,
	fail: "redirectTo:/home"
});

//Second option
server.get("/user", doSomething).require(auth, failCallback);

server.get("/user", doSomething).require(auth, "redirectTo:/home");

Overall I like the syntax, but I have some subjective feedback:

• I'd used decorator-like style for authentication
• not sure if it's better to encapsulate the promises syntax in your library and leave the API more simple
  Great work!

mm why should it need a decorator instead of the direct function?

about the promises im waiting for the implemented es6 promises, but even with that im porting serveme to es6... and.. that "then" is not a promise, maybe i need to change "then" to another thing like "do" becouse its just a middleware

I would not recommend using promises for this. Would make the flow difficult to reason about and compose.

mmm ok
thanks :P

What about the second? Sorry if im buggy

Not easy to customize the behaviour in a require

Ok Thanks for the opinions, will implement something, maybe cool

Oh I had an idea right now. What if the routes allow you to modify the behaviour of the application like, denying access to some static direction with a require. Example better:

server.get("/home").require(authenticated);
//or
server.get("/home").require(authenticated, "/redirect");

The route is no longer just a function, it just modifies the default behaviour of that route (that is serving static files)