Hmm. Devil's advocate here: Do we really need to have a "JS build"?
The main use-cases for "JS builds" seem to be if you want to minimize or obfuscate your JS. Given that this is open source code, obfuscation seems unnecessary. Given that it's a low-traffic management interface, minimizing the JS seems like a premature optimization. The HDFS user interface is based on dust.js, and it just requires JS files to be copied into the correct location. Perhaps there are advantages to ember.js that I am missing. But there's also a big advantage to not having to manage a node.js build system separate from Maven and CMake. What do you think? best, Colin On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Wangda Tan <wheele...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Allen, > > YARN-3368 is using Ember.JS and Ember.JS depends on npm (Node.JS Package > Manager) to manage packages. > > One thing to clarify is: npm dependency is only required by build stage (JS > build is stitching source files and renaming variables). After JS build > completes, there's no dependency of Node.JS any more. Server such as RM > only needs to run a HTTP server to host JS files, and browser will take > care of page rendering, just like HDFS/Spark/Mesos UI. > > There're a couple of other Apache projects are using Ember.JS, such as > Tez/Ambari. Ember.JS can help front-end developers easier manage models, > pages, events and packages. > > Thanks, > Wangda > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Allen Wittenauer <a...@altiscale.com> wrote: > >> >> Hey folks. >> >> Have any of you looked at YARN-3368? Is adding node.js+a bunch of >> other stuff as dependencies just for the UI a good idea? Doesn’t that seem >> significantly heavyweight? How hard is this going to be operationally to >> manage?
