On 22 May 2013 12:31, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 21 May 2013 03:41, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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? > > I recognize that it isn't the solution you want, but it is clearly a > solution, since it means there's no confusion between logical names > and URLs. They appear on different sides in `ondemand`.
I suppose you are right for ondemand, but it doesn't apply to the "configuring the loader to accept URL's" case Dave was alluding to, right? /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
