Re: [WebIDL] AMD/Require.js

On 08/01/2013, at 5:16 PM, 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.

Great description. Can you add the wording above to the readme on GH? 

> 
> 
>> 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?

Right now, it makes it easy to just get things working. We can dump it later. Important bit is just implementing the spec.

> 
> 
>> 
>> 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 17:35:51 UTC