Providers without controller

[gtoselli]

Currently, each module is a Fastify plugin, so I understand the decision not to allow a module with providers but no controllers.

Ideally, though, if we agree that a module can represent a domain boundary, it might make sense to allow registering providers even without a controller, wdty?

(Quite) related to this, I want to ask: Do you plan to allow specifying different visibility levels for providers? If we intend this library (also) as an enabler for a modular monolithic architecture, it would be useful to have some providers scoped within a module, while others can be used externally (effectively the interface to the outside).

Thanks!

[jean-michelet]

the decision not to allow a module with providers but no controllers.

I’m not sure I understand. You can use bindings to inject providers at the module level.
However, you still need to inject contracts into any component that depends on those providers.

it might make sense to allow registering providers even without a controller, wdty?

That’s already possible:
https://github.com/stratifyjs/core?tab=readme-ov-file#8-architectures-based-on-the-dependency-inversion-principle-dip

Examples are for controllers, but you can bind providers to hooks, installers and other providers as well.

it would be useful to have some providers scoped within a module, while others can be used externally (effectively the interface to the outside).

You mean something similar to NestJS?
In NestJS, I think providers are singleton by default.
Modules use exports to expose specific providers so other modules can import other module and and are allowed to use them.

I am not opposed to create a similar api then Nest.js, but the implementation can be mainly semantic, I don't think we need a real scope a the module (I mean a local container).

Are you willing to work on such a feature?