Re: [WebIDL] AMD/Require.js

On 08/01/2013, at 5:18 PM, Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com> wrote:

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


That's totally the goal. 


> 
> 
> 
> 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 17:21:40 UTC