RE: [WebIDL] AMD/Require.js

> From: clint.hill@gmail.com
> To: w3c@marcosc.com
> CC: public-nextweb@w3.org
> Subject: 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 think we do confuse two things here: 

- the "WebIDL translator" which we are building right now (and which can, why not, rely on RequireJS) and 
- the "translated" code that will be used as a startup for the polyfill/prolyfill. 

The generated code should not depend on any library, just on native things. That the transpiler requires a library however doesn't worry me too much, if that make it handy for us.


> 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.

My previous remark in mind, do you still think we should avoid RequireJS for the compiler or make it optional in some way?


>
> 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 17:16:51 UTC