On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: >> But you are treating them as URLs by default (with a small dose of magic). > > No. This is not what's happening at all. > > Modules are given logical names, such a "backbone" or "jquery/ui". > Module loaders map logical names to URLs and then map the URLs to > JavaScript source. > > The default behavior of the initial module loader for the browser is > to convert a logical name to a URL in a certain way, and then to fetch > that URL with http in the usual way to get JS source.
How is that not treating it as a URL with a dose of magic by default? E.g. import "http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.9.1.min"; will work given the way things are defined now. Similarly if I put jquery in root import "/jquery-1.9.1.min" will always work, regardless of location. This might not be how things are intended to be used, but I'd expect to see this kind of usage. > The way we think that conversion should happen is to use the loader > baseURL, which defaults to the document base URL, as a prefix, and > ".js" as a suffix. Certainly we could choose other prefixes instead, > but it doesn't sound like you think there's a clear better choice. > We could also choose a different suffix, or no suffix, but it would be > odd to force everyone to remove the extensions on their files. I think making them URLs (i.e. requiring import "/js/jquery.js") and allowing people who want them to be something different to override that with hooks is better. (Or with a new URL scheme as Kevin suggests.) -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
