Re: [WebIDL] AMD/Require.js

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
Yeah - I actually I assumed this, that's the only reason I didn't comment
on it in the first place myself.  I am good with pull - in the very least
it gives us a starting point... we can always consider alternative pulls...
0 is the hardest place to start from.

-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com