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 22:24:44 GMT
What would be required exactly?

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote:

> If we make it optional, we will basically be conditionally AMD
> defining the rave js, and to actually use require it would be on an
> implementer to overlay every file that has script tags or inline
> "onclick" events. In other words it would be a big pain and not really
> worth it unless you really wanted the value of require.js immediately
> - at MITRE we would do that though. It would mostly just be giving 1
> release warning that the old method will be deprecated.
>
> Personally I think the breaking change will be cleaner and more
> consistent with the end state of the angular application. But as it
> will force some amount of work on current implementations wanting to
> go to 0.22, I don't want to go that route unless there is buy-in.
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com<javascript:;>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Sean Cooper <secooper@apache.org<javascript:;>>
> 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<javascript:;>
> >
> >> > 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