- From: Diogo Resende <dresende@thinkdigital.pt>
- Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:10:35 +0100
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:03:55 -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Adam van den Hoven > <adam at littlefyr.com> wrote: >>... > >> Further, in CommonJS, the library has to export an object in order >> to make >> it available. If we could define things in such a way that the >> browser >> compiled the library independent of the page that loads it, the >> browser >> could cache the *compiled* code and provide that to the browser >> page. It >> would also be necessary to either enforce that these cached >> libraries be >> immutable or that a copy of the compiled code be made available. I >> couldn't >> implement this so I'm not sure how feasible this is but I suspect >> that >> requiring immutability would be the easier to implement. > > What problem does this solve? How is it better than inserting a > <script> element, when the returned resource has suitable caching > headers? I think Adam's opinion is a bit influenced by CommonJS. Although I like the require() thingy, I think this feature would be much more appreciated for author app objects and extensions (similar to RequireJS) than HTML specific things like crypto et al.
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 15:10:35 UTC