Re: [WebIDL] AMD/Require.js

Ok. Yah ­ that's reducing payload. But the dependency is still there.

We're still forcing an additional lib along side WebIDL. Even if we include
almond in the final build output that's forcing it onto our adopters. What
if their host page already has a loader or similar lib and this has the
potential of conflict?

(I politely disagree with the notion that because it makes our dev cycle
easier that it's acceptable as a downstream dependency)

I would prefer we not force that on our adopters.

From:  Mat Scales <mat@wibbly.org.uk>
Date:  Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:11 AM
To:  "public-nextweb@w3.org" <public-nextweb@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: [WebIDL] AMD/Require.js
Resent-From:  <public-nextweb@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:12:24 +0000

You can use almond (https://github.com/jrburke/almond) in your build script
so that you can develop using RequireJS without adding it as a dependency on
your users.


On 8 January 2013 17:10, Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
>