Events need a different approach

[mneri]

I think events are written the bad way. When a line is received the 'raw' event is emitted. The Client object listens on the 'raw' event, handles messages with a huge switch and then re-emits the event to his listeners.

// from irc.js
switch (message.command) {
case 'PING':
    // stuff
    self.emit('ping', /* params */);
    break;
case 'NOTICE':
    // stuff
    self.emit('notice', /* params */);
    break;
// And many, many others...
}

The user to listen to a NOTICE have to write something like:

client.on('notice', function(from, to, text) {
    // stuff
});

Not all messages are handled this way. The "rare" ones are not handled at all and you should listen to the 'raw' event and write the huge switch again. For example:

client.on('raw', function(message) {
    switch(message.command) {
    case 'RPL_NOWAWAY':
        // stuff
        break;
    case 'RPL_UNAWAY':
        // stuff
        break;
    }
    // and many, many others...
});

Now, my point is that there are two different interfaces for the same thing. The first is client.on('command', ...) the second is client.on('raw', ...) and, in my opinion, the difference is not subtle. It would be great if every type of message was fired with the first interface. JavaScript is very powerful and this change is easy to make:

// from irc.js
self.conn.addListener("data", function (chunk) {
    // [...]
    var message = parseMessage(line, self.opt.stripColors);
    try {
        // This is where the 'raw' event is emitted.
        // self.emit('raw', message);
        var args = [message.command.toLowerCase()]
             .concat([message.nick])
             .concat(message.params);
        self.emit.apply(self, args);
    } catch ( err ) {
        // [...]
    }
});

Now every type of message can be handled the same way. For example:

client.on('rpl_away', function() {
    // stuff
});

client.on('privmsg', function(from, to, text) {
    // stuff
});

The first parameter to the callback is always the sender of the message. The subsequent parameters are the original parameters of the message. With this change the number of lines will be greatly reduced but probably it will break the actual interface of the library. This is why I wrote an issue and not a push request.

Kindly,
Massimo