On Fri, May 3, 2019, 15:36 Emond Papegaaij <emond.papega...@topicus.nl> wrote:
> Hi, > > We use the frontend-maven-plugin, which automatically downloads and > installs > node as part of your maven build. It works quite ok. > This is what Wicket JS tests uses as well. > Emond > > On vrijdag 3 mei 2019 11:56:14 CEST Andrew Kondratev wrote: > > Thank you. I understand these concerns. > > > > Speaking about performance concern, if node is available on machine and > > modules are installed it takes less than 3 seconds to build on my laptop > > from 2013, incomparable with entire wicket build time. However, with node > > installation and modules installation it, indeed, takes a while and I > also > > don't want everyone who building wicket to rely on these unnecessary > steps. > > > > I can suggest one of these two options, to reduce pain from TS > > transpilation: > > 1. Keep a transpiled JS file with DON'T EDIT disclaimer in the repository > > (it's quite a typical approach for JS libraries, they quite often have > > 'dist' directory right in the repo); > > 2. Create a separate repository/project and publish an artifact into the > > maven; > > > > Testwise I don't see any problem at all, even if source-maps are SUDDENLY > > not available: generally reading transpiled TS is not like reading > > transpiled Kotlin, the resulting JS is almost the same as the original TC > > just without types and some goodies. There's no problem to spot a place > in > > the source code by looking at javascript at all. We all use minified > > javascript in prod and it's not a big deal. > > > > пт, 3 мая 2019 г. в 18:45, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org>: > > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:32 AM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, we could get rid of some crufty code here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But before you put too much effort into this: > > > > > > > > Do we really want to blow up our build with npm/typescript just to > > > > generate ~3000 lines of code? > > > > > > > > I doubt that it's worth it. The code is very stable and well tested > > > > > > anyway. > > > > > > > > > My main concern is whether it will be still easy to debug the JS code. > > > If everything is fine with the sourcemaps then it should be OK, but in > my > > > experience very often something breaks in this area and the browsers > > > cannot > > > properly map the JS to the original TS code and one have to deal with > the > > > auto-generated code. > > > > > > > Sometimes I'm working on machines where I can't even use/install npm. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > > > > On 02.05.2019 at 22:56, <Andrew Kondratev> wrote: > > > > > Hi Sven! Do you mean removing entire wicket-ajax-jquery-debug.js > and > > > > > > > > making Wicket.Log to simply use console instead? пт, 3 мая 2019 г. в > > > > > > 01:16, > > > > > > > Andrea Del Bene : > I'm +1 for all these proposed improvements. > > > > > > > On 5/2/19 11:55 AM, Sven Meier wrote: > > > > > > Indeed > > > > (stupid phones), see my follow up. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> On 02.05.2019 at 11:53, wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> Hi Sven, I have the feeling you pressed the Send > > > > > >> > >> button > > > > > > > > before > finishing your email. On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:42 PM Sven > > > > > > Meier > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > before starting a > larger > > > > effort on our JS > code, we could do some smaller > cleanups. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - remove Ajax > debug mode > Last time when I suggested > this > > > > > > > > someone from the community > expressed concern that the most useful > > > > functionality in it is that it > blinks when there is an error. > > > > > > > >
