On 21 May 2013 03:41, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 9, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In your scheme, I honestly cannot tell. Which ones are absolute >> logical module names, which ones are relative logical module names, >> and which ones are relative URLs? > > I realized I left this sub-thread hanging. While I think you've overstated > your argument in several places, I do recognize that combining URL's and > module names that look like paths into one syntactic space is confusing. > > But really, there was no real need for loading directly from a URL in the > first place, since it's better practice to use an abstract name and configure > it to the URL you want anyway. (If people really want the additional > convenience they can configure the loader to accept URL's.) > > So the right resolution for this question is: the browser loader recognizes > logical modules names only. No URI's, no URL's, just logical module name > paths. If a particular module name needs to be loaded from a remote URL, you > can use the ondemand configuration to map the logical name ("jquery") to the > URL ("http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.9.1.min.js";).
Of course, that is not the "right" resolution in my mind, but the wrong one entirely. ;) Moreover, haven't you just pushed the problem to the ondemand API then? Or to "configured" loaders? /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
