rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Franklin <m.ben.frank...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Require.js in 0.22
Date Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:32:59 GMT
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Sean Cooper <secooper@apache.org> wrote:

> I am ok with a breaking change as long as it is clearly called out in the
> release notes.  I am worried that someone will get caught off guard by this
> break.
>

IMO, if it isn't a significant effort we should deprecate the old way in
0.22 and go with the optional support for Require.js.


> On Jun 16, 2013 11:08 PM, "Erin Noe-Payne" <erin.noe.payne@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey All,
> >
> > As I mentioned in the rave-angular thread, Require.js will be an
> > important part of the angular branch architecture. I am thinking it
> > would be reasonable to introduce AMD support into the trunk even
> > before we release the angular branch, to offer the performance
> > benefits sooner and to introduce the new paradigm.  My initial thought
> > is to make AMD support optional and off by default, to avoid breaking
> > changes.  That would involve...
> >
> > - A couple new rave core and rave portal js files introduced to align
> > with require.js modules, jsp tags updated accordingly.
> > - Each of those js files checks for the existence of requirejs in the
> > environment and wraps itself in a define() if yes, otherwise acts the
> > same as before.
> >
> > In this scenario anyone who wanted to take advantage of require.js
> > would need to do some amount of overlaying to introduce require,
> > update the script jsp tags, and so on.
> >
> > Alternatively, if there is interest we could introduce require as a
> > breaking change for 0.22 and integrate the require.js optimizer into
> > the build process. The advantage would be no need to overlay to get
> > AMD support, the disadvantage is any implementation updating to 0.22
> > would need to update their container scripts to be compatible with
> > AMD. In either case this would have no impact on gadgets.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message