> I thought you didn't like that? Yes, I'm doing many small modules. Separating javascript doesn't necessary mean modules, every file contributing into the main context e.g. jQuery https://github.com/jquery/jquery/tree/master/src If there will be server side modules in the future version you can simply replace one file/module e.g. core/console, it is why I don't think there is necessary to use requireJS at all, if it is done correctly you should be able to replace some of the functionality from the client side.
https://github.com/apache/tapestry-5/tree/5.4-js-rewrite/tapestry-core/src/main/coffeescript/META-INF/modules/core It looks like you are creating new javascript framework which would be an abstraction between jquery, prototype or anything else, honestly I don't think it is a way to go. Denis Oct 26, 2012 v 8:34 AM, Ulrich Stärk <[email protected]>: > We don't have to reinvent the wheel for that one. We might simply look around > and see how other > frameworks are solving this. If we don't like what we see we can still do it > differently but what > works for others might also work for us. > > Uli > > On 25.10.2012 23:28, Howard Lewis Ship wrote: >> As much fun as I've been having with the JavaScript abstraction layer >> ... is it really needed? >> >> Could we please 90% (99% ?) of our users by providing jQuery out of >> the box, and coding the Tapestry support directly against it? >> >> How many people will care about the SPI? How many will stay on >> Prototype when jQuery is an option? How many will be desperate top >> use just MooTools. or just YUI, or just Dojo, and can't handle having >> anything else? >> >> Just want to explore all the options. >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > Denis
