Re: [WebIDL] AMD/Require.js

Ok - so with that in mind will we also force Require.js as a dependency to
all prollyfills? Right now all of the modules are wrapped in AMD.

Or will we look to break-apart the AMD modules during build (seems wonky
if we were to do that)?

I mention all of this because while I'm a huge fan of AMD/Require.js and
have built a framework based on it - I also know that for a larger
adoption you should probably avoid it due to the dependency it creates.

This is the only niggle I have with merging this pull request. I'd be
happier if the AMD wrapping were done during build and not coded into
source files.



On 1/8/13 10:05 AM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
>
>On 08/01/2013, at 4:15 PM, Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Team: I've got a quick question about the intentions with WebIDL &
>>AMD/Require.js. Do we intend that others would use it in that condition
>>or would we create a "build" script to concat the whole thing into 1
>>source file?
>
>Yep, single file. Multiple files right now is to keep development
>organised/sane.
>
>> My concern would be that it will become a very chatty library and be a
>>non-starter for some prollyfills.
>
>Yes, that would suck.
>
>> 
>> Clint

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 17:10:02 UTC