rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
Subject Re: Require.js in 0.22
Date Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:10:59 GMT
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

How hard will it be to turn on the feature? If it's overly complicated
there might not be much value in even putting it in as an optional feature.
If it's not too bad and we can document it well then optional is fine.
Otherwise I wouldn't be against the breaking change since we are still
pre-1.0 and breaking changes are pretty normal (0.21 was breaking as well).

Chris

>
>
> > 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