Re: [WebIDL] AMD/Require.js

Yes - if we transpile down to code that has no dependency on
RequireJS/Almond - I'm cool.



On 1/8/13 10:16 AM, "François REMY" <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

>> 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 17:18:31 UTC