What would be required exactly? On Tuesday, June 18, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote:
> If we make it optional, we will basically be conditionally AMD > defining the rave js, and to actually use require it would be on an > implementer to overlay every file that has script tags or inline > "onclick" events. In other words it would be a big pain and not really > worth it unless you really wanted the value of require.js immediately > - at MITRE we would do that though. It would mostly just be giving 1 > release warning that the old method will be deprecated. > > Personally I think the breaking change will be cleaner and more > consistent with the end state of the angular application. But as it > will force some amount of work on current implementations wanting to > go to 0.22, I don't want to go that route unless there is buy-in. > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Chris Geer > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Matt Franklin > > <[email protected]<javascript:;> > >wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Sean Cooper > >> <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > >> > >> > I am ok with a breaking change as long as it is clearly called out in > the > >> > release notes. I am worried that someone will get caught off guard by > >> this > >> > break. > >> > > >> > >> IMO, if it isn't a significant effort we should deprecate the old way in > >> 0.22 and go with the optional support for Require.js. > >> > > > > How hard will it be to turn on the feature? If it's overly complicated > > there might not be much value in even putting it in as an optional > feature. > > If it's not too bad and we can document it well then optional is fine. > > Otherwise I wouldn't be against the breaking change since we are still > > pre-1.0 and breaking changes are pretty normal (0.21 was breaking as > well). > > > > Chris > > > >> > >> > >> > On Jun 16, 2013 11:08 PM, "Erin Noe-Payne" > >> > <[email protected]<javascript:;> > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hey All, > >> > > > >> > > As I mentioned in the rave-angular thread, Require.js will be an > >> > > important part of the angular branch architecture. I am thinking it > >> > > would be reasonable to introduce AMD support into the trunk even > >> > > before we release the angular branch, to offer the performance > >> > > benefits sooner and to introduce the new paradigm. My initial > thought > >> > > is to make AMD support optional and off by default, to avoid > breaking > >> > > changes. That would involve... > >> > > > >> > > - A couple new rave core and rave portal js files introduced to > align > >> > > with require.js modules, jsp tags updated accordingly. > >> > > - Each of those js files checks for the existence of requirejs in > the > >> > > environment and wraps itself in a define() if yes, otherwise acts > the > >> > > same as before. > >> > > > >> > > In this scenario anyone who wanted to take advantage of require.js > >> > > would need to do some amount of overlaying to introduce require, > >> > > update the script jsp tags, and so on. > >> > > > >> > > Alternatively, if there is interest we could introduce require as a > >> > > breaking change for 0.22 and integrate the require.js optimizer into > >> > > the build process. The advantage would be no need to overlay to get > >> > > AMD support, the disadvantage is any implementation updating to 0.22 > >> > > would need to update their container scripts to be compatible with > >> > > AMD. In either case this would have no impact on gadgets. > >> > > > >> > > Thoughts? > >> > > > >> > > >> >
